Advertisement

Sexuality Research and Social Policy

, Volume 7, Issue 1, pp 30–36 | Cite as

Queer Closets and Rainbow Hyperlinks: The Construction and Constraint of Queer Subjectivities Online

  • Vikki Fraser
Article

Abstract

Queer youth’s dominant perceptions of the Internet construct it as a safe space devoid of homophobia in which to explore sexuality, find information, and make friends. Websites designed by or for queer youth have been regarded as important social networks because they provide a vocal space for queer young people to be queer. Such sites also have been viewed as a practice arena for coming out, where the anonymity of the individual works to support the disclosure of traditionally anonymous sexual subjectivities. However, the Internet also acts as a closet in the formation of queer subjectivities. Online, young people are confronted with, and work through, closets that foreclose particular heterosexual and queer vocalizations in favor of specific, recognizable, set queer subjectivities that are both enabling and disabling. Using a queer website, the author shows how online queer spaces can become closets, as well as offer negotiation potential for their users.

Keywords

Youth Internet Space Pink Sofa Homonormative 

References

  1. Alexander, J. (2004). In their own words: LGBT youth writing the World Wide Web. New York: GLAAD Center for the Study of Media and Society.Google Scholar
  2. Brown, M. P. (2000). Closet space: Geographies of metaphor from the body to the globe. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Butler, J. (1997). Excitable speech: A politics of the performative. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Dyson, S., Mitchell, A., Smith, A. M., Dowsett, G., Pitts, M., & Hillier, L. (2003). Don’t ask, don’t tell, hidden in the crowd: The need for documenting links between sexuality and suicidal behaviours among young people. Melbourne: La Trobe University.Google Scholar
  5. Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Fairclough, N. (2007). Discourse and social change. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  7. Fraser, V. (2007a). Performative potential, safety and problematic recognition: Lesbigay youth experiences online. Metro, 2007(155), 124–127.Google Scholar
  8. Fraser, V. (2007b). Gay ghettos for the new millennium: Oxford Street meets Mogenic.com and the question of queer space. Paper presented at the Queer Space: Centres and Peripheries conference, University of Technology Sydney, Australia.Google Scholar
  9. Fraser, V. (2009). Rainbow panopticons, cyber closets: The Internet and queer subjectivity. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Western Sydney, Bankstown, New South Wales, Australia.Google Scholar
  10. Green, J. (1997). Language: Polari. Critical Quarterly, 39(1), 127–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Grosz, E. (1998). Bodies-cities. In H. J. Nast & S. Pile (Eds.), Places through the body (pp. 42–51). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Grosz, E. (2001). Architecture from the outside: Essays on virtual and real space. London: MIT Press Cambridge.Google Scholar
  13. Hegna, K. (2007). Coming out, coming into what? Identification and risks in the “coming out” story of a Norwegian late adolescent gay man. Sexualities, 10, 582–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hickey-Moody, A., Rasmussen, M. L., & Harwood, V. (2008). How to be a real lesbian: The Pink Sofa and some fictions of identity. In S. Driver (Ed.), Queer youth cultures (pp. 123–138). New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  15. Hillier, L., Horsley, P., & Kurdas, C. (2001a). “It made me feel braver, I was no longer alone”: The Internet and same sex attracted young people. In J. Nieto (Ed.), Sexuality in the Pacific (pp. 79–100). Madrid: Spanish Association of Studies in the Pacific.Google Scholar
  16. Hillier, L., Horsley, P., & Kurdas, C. (2001b). “It’s just easier”: The Internet as safety-net for same sex attracted young people (Monograph no. 29). Melbourne: Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society.Google Scholar
  17. Ings, W. (2007). Lost in space: Changes in physical, legal and linguistic frameworks relating to the New Zealand public toilet. Paper presented at the Queer Space: Centres and Peripheries conference, University of Technology Sydney, Australia.Google Scholar
  18. Munt, S., Bassett, E., & O’Riordon, K. (2002). Virtually belonging: Risk, connectivity and coming out online. International Journal of Sexuality and Gender Studies, 7, 125–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. O’Riordan, K. (2005). From Usenet to Gaydar: A comment on queer online community. ACM SIGGROUP Bulletin, 25(2), 28–32.Google Scholar
  20. Owens, R. E. (1998). Queer kids: The challenges and promise for lesbian, gay and bisexual youth. New York: Haworth Press.Google Scholar
  21. Philips, F., & Morrissey, G. (2004). Cyberstalking and cyberpredators: A threat to safe sexuality on the Internet. Convergence, 10(1), 66–79.Google Scholar
  22. Rasmussen, M. L. (2004). The problem of coming out. Theory Into Practice, 43, 144–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sedgwick, E. K. (1990). Epistemology of the closet. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  24. Seidman, S. (2004). Are we all in the closet? Notes toward a sociological and cultural turn in queer theory. In R. Friedland & J. Mohr (Eds.), Matters of culture: Cultural sociology in practice (pp. 255–270). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Silberman, S. (2001). We’re teen, we’re queer, and we’ve got e-mail. In D. Trend (Ed.), Reading digital culture (pp. 221–225). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  26. Turkle, S. (1996). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the Internet. London: Wiedenfeld & Nicolson.Google Scholar
  27. Tynes, B. M. (2007). Internet safety gone wild?: Sacrificing the educational and psychosocial benefits of online social environments. Journal of Adolescent Research, 22, 575–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Valentine, G., & Holloway, S. (2001). On-line dangers?: Geographies of parents’ fears for children’s safety in cyberspace. The Professional Geographer, 53, 71–83.Google Scholar
  29. Valentine, G., & Skelton, T. (2003). Finding oneself, losing oneself: The lesbian and gay “scene” as a paradoxical space. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 27, 849–866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wallace, P. (1999). The psychology of the Internet. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Australian Family and Disability Studies Research Centre, Faculty of Health Science, Building AUniversity of SydneyLidcombeAustralia

Personalised recommendations