Negotiating the boundaries between flirting and harassment in nightlife : young men's masculine performances in flirting interactions

(1)

Negotiating the Boundaries between Flirting and

Harassment in Nightlife: Young Men’s Masculine

Performances in Flirting Interactions

Master’s Thesis Nienke Verkooijen

10277323

Master’s Sociology: General Track First Supervisor: Linda van de Kamp Second Supervisor: Marguerite van den Berg

09-07-2018 Amsterdam

(2)

Abstract

This thesis explores young men’s performances of masculinity in flirting interactions, in the context of nightlife environments in Amsterdam. Nightlife establishments are sexualized & gendered spaces where flirting and sexual harassment are normalized to different extends. In these environments, men perform hegemonic masculinities in flirting interactions through competitiveness, camaraderie, humor, assertiveness, emotional detachment and sexual objectification. Male group bonding plays a vital role in flirting interactions; through performing hegemonic masculinities when flirting young men can establish their masculine status within the peer group. However, young men struggle with society’s expectations of appropriate flirt performances; hegemonic masculinities are at times

reproduced, but also resisted and challenged. I argue that the performance of hegemonic masculinities in flirting interactions allows young men to more easily cross the boundary between flirting and sexual harassment. Furthermore, through constructing a binary vision of sexual harassment and flirting, young men validate and protect their own behavior in often ambiguous sexual interactions. This binary construction thus protects the performance and reproduction of hegemonic masculinities in flirting interactions.

(3)

Acknowledgements

First of all I would like to thank the participants of this research for their time, thoughts, ideas and insights; I could not have written this thesis without your help, and I learned a lot from you. I thank my first supervisor Linda van de Kamp for her guidance and feedback during the writing of this thesis. You made this difficult process much easier by giving me the right amount of space and support. I thank my second supervisor Marguerite van den Berg for inspiring me over the course of the year; your courses are the foundation of this thesis.

I thank my friends and family for their unconditional support during the research process. Special thanks to Aimee, Alfonso and Freya for being my library buddies; and to Aron for putting up with the stress and the grumpiness.

(4)

Chapter 1: Introduction

‘A friend of mine was hooking up with a girl. And my other friend had trouble with that guy, so he said, she’s mine, or something like that, a little stupid. But he walks up to her, he hadn’t talked to her all night, he just decided, she’s mine. And without saying anything he grabbed her face and started kissing her.’ - Max

‘You go there with the intention of having fun, happy, good times. But the next morning you wake up and you think well, I was kind of pushy. But not too pushy.’ - Dirk

‘Every time the flirting went much better, was when I was more confident about myself. And if you go along with your friends, and you get justification about how tough you are, this and that, that’s what works.’ - Thomas

‘For instance if you stand a little closer, and you usher a kiss, or something, well she can say like no I don’t want that. Well ok sure. Or sure, first it’s like, why not? We were having such a nice time together and bla, bla, bla. That’s happened to me, physically being stopped.’ - Clement

These quotes are all examples of flirting interactions in a nightlife context. The flirt strategies of these young men sometimes led to successful interactions, while at other times going terribly wrong. Negotiating the boundary between flirting and harassment is an ambiguous process, fraught with obstacles and misunderstandings. In nightlife contexts this negotiation can become extra tricky, as sexual interaction is normalized in these environments, and the frequent consumption of alcohol and drugs can make the boundaries even more blurred. Moreover, these flirting interactions are shaped by gendered performances, and societies expectations on appropriate masculine or feminine behavior in flirting interactions can lead to unwanted sexual attention or even sexual harassment. But which factors influence young men’s behavior in nightlife, and how are their performances of masculinity connected to flirting? How is the boundary between flirting and harassment negotiated by these young men, and how do their views on sexual harassment impact on this process?

Sexual harassment has become a ‘hot topic’ since the international outbreak of the Me too- discussion1_{. Its proliferation into a variety of labour fields, from show business to politics,}

1_{What started out as a local movement in the United States was picked up on twitter by actress Alyssa Milano,} who tweeted: ‘If you have been sexually harassed or assaulted write ‘me too’ as a reply to this tweet’. This tweet was picked up by thousands of women and led to many accusations, some of them causing the downfall of powerful men in show business and other areas. It opened up a wider discussion in western society on the prevalence of sexual harassment, which is in popular discourse often referred to as #Metoo. Throughout this

(7)

educational- and government institutions, has uncovered a public issue of immense magnitude. It shows that our society is saturated with sexual harassment, taking many different forms and faces. But not everyone agrees with the necessity of this debate. Research2_{on the reception of the Me} too-discussion in the Netherlands shows that men have a more negative attitude about the debate then women. 43% of the men in this research think that women who report sexual harassment often exaggerate; they do not always believe the stories women tell about being harassed. The research suggests this might be because of a lack of experience with the phenomenon; many more women reported having experienced sexual harassment then men. Only 38% of men think the discussion is useful for Dutch society, versus 51% of women. These results do not only show a significant gap between the opinions of men and women, they also point to a sense of doubtfulness about whether the discussion will actually change things in society, and whether it is worth being held. Follow up questions about location showed that 25% of the male victims and 33% of the female victims had experienced harassment in nightlife establishments. Most questions in the research where however directed at sexual harassment on the labour market; this illustrates a commonly held idea that sexual harassment mainly happens in the workplace, whereas it is seen as less of an issue in nightlife contexts. The little research that exists on sexual harassment in nightlife establishments suggests otherwise.

Research on public harassment

Sexual harassment in public spaces has been described as ‘the harm that has no name’ (Davis 1993), for it has long been an understudied social phenomenon. Scientific research has tended to focus mainly on sexual harassment in the workplace. During the second feminist wave, men’s violence against women became a central issue in scholarship, and sexual harassment was put on the map as a legal issue (Vera-Grey 2016, Mackinnon 1987). Mackinnon (1987) saw sexual harassment as integral to labour markets and educational fields, and was mainly concerned with women’s lack of power to refuse sexual pressure from superiors. Whereas scientific attention for sexual harassment in the workplace has expanded enormously in the last decades, public harassment has often been normalized and trivialized (Bowman 1993, Larkin 1997, Logan 2015). Vera-Grey (2016) suggests this has to do with the need for legal and policy-based interventions to combat harassment, which cannot be implemented easily for fleeting encounters in public spaces. Another issue concerns the absence of a unified terminology (Vera-Grey 2016). Vera-Grey argues that ‘the lack of agreement on what constitutes the phenomenon, how to name it, and how to conceptualise the harm, presents problems for survey methodologies and complicates comparison between studies’ (2016: 10).

thesis I will refer to the international public debate as the Me too-discussion. For example see:

https://www.metronieuws.nl/nieuws/buitenland/2017/11/metoo-in-europa-een-overzicht

2_{This research was executed by Eenvandaag, a Dutch television and radio program which has an opinion panel} with 50.000 members. 27.995 members participated in the research poll on #Metoo:

(8)

However, research indicates that large numbers of women have experienced some form of public harassment in their lives, ranging from 30 to 100% depending on which behaviors are counted as harassment (Logan 2015, Gardner 1995, MacMillan et al. 2000). Looking specifically at the night time economy, it is suggested that unwanted sexual attention in nightlife establishments is prevalent (Fileborn 2012, 2016, Parks & Miller 1997, Watson 2000). In research on women’s bar victimization, 33% of the participants had experienced rape or attempted rape in licensed venues (Parks & Miller 1997). Fileborn found that 80% of her research participants believed unwanted sexual attention to be a common experience on a night out.

Moreover, Fileborn (2012) looked into the negative consequences of unwanted sexual attention in bars and clubs, and found that it limited young women’s use of licensed venues; it controlled which places they thought where safe to visit, as well as their movements and actions within these spaces. For example, women tended to avoid sitting in a club or bar alone, and kept a close eye on their drinks. Furthermore, she found that unwanted sexual attention in licensed venues impacted on young women’s self-confidence; they engaged in self-blaming attitudes by questioning their own social behavior. Often the perpetrator was a friend of a friend, and social norms required the women to act in a friendly and gentle way. The women thus had to balance between maintaining a level of peace within their friendship group and protecting themselves from harassment (ibid.). Both men and women tended to downplay their experiences with unwanted sexual attention in nightlife, and the possible negative impact it could have on them (Fileborn 2016).

While research shows that men at times become the victims of public harassment as well, it is suggested that the majority of harassers is male, while the targeted population is mostly female (Logan 2015, Comstock 1991). This also counts for unwanted sexual attention in nightlife

establishments, making it a gendered issue (Fileborn 2016). Less research has looked into the reasons why men harass others. Benard and Schlaffer (1984) argue for two main intertwining motives: the first is to establish dominance and control over women; the second is male group bonding, a kind of ‘youthful camaraderie’ (ibid.:71) between men which is perceived by them as harmless fun. Looking at other research these two processes are recurring. Wesselmann & Kelly (2010) argue that men are more likely to harass women when they are in a group. Quinn’s (2002) research on ‘girl watching’ explains how this practice is used by office men to establish their masculine identity by affirming their heterosexual desire to one another. The woman is not a participant in the game, but is turned into a sexual object. Thompson and Cracco (2008) argue that in bar settings, sexual aggression against women is part of a normalized masculinity performance for young college men, whereby men who adhered to the masculine ideals of toughness, assertiveness and taking risks where most likely to be sexually aggressive towards women.

While there is little research available on the identity of harassers, minority groups are often disproportionately targeted as possible perpetrators of public harassment. Prevention measures are directed at young men of color with underlying motivations of controlling and limiting their use of

(9)

public spaces (Logan 2015). Day (2006) found that men of color often experienced being feared in public spaces, while white men did not. She argues that women’s fear in public space is racialized, leading to increased suspicion and criminalization of minority groups. Listerborn (2016) argues that the public safety debate is often framed towards the protection of middle-class white women, while issues of safety and fear of minority groups are pushed to the margins. She shows how veiled women tend to see older middle-class white women as potential harassers. Their movements into the city are constrained; areas dominated by white people are avoided. It becomes clear that minority groups are often placed into the category of harasser, whereas young white men do not have the experience of being feared, or of being seen as harasser. To problematize the conceptualization of perpetrators as men of color, I will focus on the experiences of young (mostly) white heterosexual men, a group that is less often connected to sexual harassment.

Problem formulation

Whereas research on sexual harassment in nightlife establishments has centralized women’s perspectives and experiences, I choose to focus on young men. Because women are most often the victims, their stories are vital in mapping the depth and nature of the problem. However, researching young men’s perspectives on flirting and harassment will shift the angle from which the problem has been analyzed so far, and might add new insights to the existing literature. The connections between sexual harassment and masculinities have been suggested by several authors (Quinn 2002, Lee 2000, Thompson & Cracco 2008, Flood 2008). To further develop these insights, I will look at young men’s masculine performances in flirting interactions, to see how they are connected to their perceptions of sexual harassment. While most research has focused on either flirting or sexual harassment, shifting the focus to the grey areas in between will highlight the ambiguity and slipperiness of sexual interactions, which contributes to the normalization and trivialization of sexual harassment in public spaces. To see the connections between flirting and harassment will allow me to problematize a whole range of behaviors that are seen as normal, especially in the nightlife context. I choose to focus on nightlife for it is an area where sexual interactions often occur, and are seen as a normal part of a night out (Fileborn 2016, Kavanaugh 2013).

In bringing these elements together, I pose the following research question: How do young men’s

performances of masculinity in flirting interactions relate to their perceptions of sexual harassment in nightlife establishments in Amsterdam? To answer this question requires studying both young men’s

masculine performances in flirting interactions, and their perceptions of sexual harassment. To this end, I constructed two sub-questions:

1. How do young men perform masculine identities when flirting in nightlife establishments in Amsterdam?

(10)

Each sub-question will be dealt with in a separate chapter (4 & 5), after which I will formulate an answer to the main question in the conclusion. I argue that the performance of hegemonic

masculinities in flirting interactions allows men to more easily cross boundaries. Furthermore,

through constructing a binary vision of sexual harassment and flirting, young men validate and protect their own behavior in often ambiguous sexual interactions. This binary construction thus protects the performance and reproduction of hegemonic masculinities in flirting interactions. Throughout this thesis, I will persistently argue that the nightlife context plays a significant role in constructing these sexual interactions, and serves to normalize the performance of hegemonic masculinities.

Overview of the thesis

I will now give a short overview of the structure of this thesis. I start by constructing the theoretical framework on which my data analysis rests. This chapter is divided into three sections; I first discuss social interaction theory, and how it is linked with ‘doing gender’. I go on to explain the concept of hegemonic masculinity, followed by a short discussion on the way it is used in this thesis, and its connection to heterosexuality. I then discuss the way male social bonding practices shape the construction of masculinities, focussing on humor as an important tool. The last part of the theory chapter focuses on the connections between flirting and harassment, constructing both as overlapping and ambiguous processes. In chapter 3 I discuss the methodology of this thesis by reflecting on my research sample and data collection method. In addition I raise some ethical and personal issues that came up during the research. Then I operationalise my main research concepts: sexual harassment, masculinities and nightlife establishments. In chapters 4 & 5 I present my analysis of the research results, interweaving my empirical findings with theoretical insights. Chapter 4 provides an answer to the first sub-question. It situates the research in the nightlife context, and focuses on the performance of masculinities in flirting interactions. In Chapter 5, the second sub-question is dealt with, through analysing the perceptions of the respondents on sexual harassment, and how they negotiate boundaries in flirting interactions. In Chapter 6 I will form a concluding answer to my main question by

presenting the two most important findings of this research. Lastly, I will discuss these insights by comparing them to similar research, and propose some prevention strategies and recommendations.

(11)

Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework

2.1 Social interaction & performing masculinities

Symbolic interactionism takes the proposition that the ability of human beings to think is shaped by social interaction (Mead 1934/1962). Through social interaction actors learn the meanings and symbols that allow them to exercise their capacity for thought. The mind and the self are socially constructed; there is no individual being underneath these constructions. In The Presentation of Self in

Everyday Life, Erving Goffman (1959/1969) defines social interaction as ‘the reciprocal influence of

individuals upon one another’s actions when in one another’s immediate physical presence’ (ibid.: 14). He compares everyday interactions between people with actors on a stage; each person gives a dramaturgical performance, with the intent ‘to influence in any way any of the other participants’ (ibid.: 14). The performance has to give off the impression of a unified sense of self, which has to be accepted by others. However, actors are aware of the possibility that their performance can be disturbed by the audience, meaning that the projection of the situation the performer tries to give is somehow doubted. In this case, the interaction has broken down, and the social systems that ensure its smooth operation are questioned. According to Goffman, embarrassment, distrust and loss of face are possible negative consequences when social interaction breaks down. To assure this doesn’t happen, individuals employ several corrective and preventative techniques, which he calls ‘impression management’. Goffman furthermore distinguishes between the front stage, where the performance is held in the presence of others, and the back stage, where impression management is practiced away from the audience. These different stages are related to different conceptualizations of the self. The performed self in the front stage is constrained by social expectations, whereas the self that belongs to the back stage is the spontaneous self or ‘I’. Tensions between these two presentations of the self are inevitable. However, Goffman saw both selves as constructed through social interaction. The

importance of his work lies in that actors have to put in work to maintain a coherent sense of self; not just to convince their audiences, but also to convince themselves.

While Goffman did not centralize the role of gender in his work, West & Zimmerman (1987) further developed his theoretical insights by showing how the construction of gender is central to social interactions. They argue that gender is a routine accomplishment embedded in social interaction:

‘Doing gender involves a complex of socially guided perceptual, interactional, and micropolitical activities that cast particular pursuits as expressions of masculine and feminine ‘‘natures.’’’ (ibid.: 126)

(12)

They propose a distinction between sex, sex category and gender, whereby the first concerns the socially agreed upon biological criteria for classifying a person as either male or female. Sex category refers to the placement in either the category male or female, upon the presumption of belonging to one of the sexes. Lastly, gender is seen as the ongoing activity needed to reconfirm placement in one of these sex categories. Within social interactions, actors assume that sex and sex category are natural giving’s, and they try to solidify their sex category by acting out the appropriate gender performance. However, through making these distinctions and analyzing the relationships between them, West and Zimmerman show that interactional work is needed to construct and maintain a coherent gender identity. The construction of sex categories (placing a person in either the male or female category) is present within all social interactions, thus doing gender is something that is unavoidable. While individuals give off the impression that

masculinity and femininity are natural expressions of their internal states, they are actually context dependent; in order for the gender performance to be accepted by others, gender identity has to be adjusted to specific interactions.

Goffman’s theoretical insights on the presentations of self are well suited to analyze performances of masculinity, for the self is simultaneously socially constructed and a starting point for social action (Brickell 2005). Through separating the self and the capacity for action, a social account of the self becomes possible without marginalizing the subject (ibid.). This makes it possible for researchers to:

‘investigate how masculinities are done and how these performances are received within social interaction; how frames, schedules, and specificities of culture and history condition masculine performances and their reception; how tensions around front- and backstage play out; and how illusions of masculine authenticity are reproduced and congealed’ (Brickell 2005: 32).

This quote makes clear how masculinities are always performative acts, which have the illusion of being natural and authentic. Furthermore, it focusses on masculinities as being inherently relational; the performance is received by an (imagined) audience. While the actor remains a construct

conditioned by external social forces, the agency to act is also acknowledged.

Whereas Goffman’s early work was mainly concerned with the micro politics of face-to-face interaction, he has been criticized for not paying enough attention to macro-structural forces that impact on these everyday interactions (Ritzer 2011). In later work, Goffman moved away from these small-scale situations to focus more on the invisible structures governing interactions, which he called ‘frames’ (1974). These are principles of organization that prevent individuals from freely choosing or interpreting a performance as they please. They do have agency to choose within social interactions, but this agency is always mediated by the frames of that particular context. When we specifically consider the doing of gender as a situated conduct that is linked to the institutional arrangements of

(13)

the sex category, we can see how these interactional and institutional levels are connected. Within social interactions, gender must be done ‘appropriately’ in order to re-establish the dominant

institutional arrangements of the sex category, which is based on a male/female dichotomy. To further develop the institutional level of gender, I will now turn to an explanation of hegemonic masculinity.

2.2 The construction & representation of masculinities in the gender order 2.2.1 Hegemonic masculinity

Raewyn Connell’s work on hegemonic masculinity has been one of the most influential and useful conceptual frameworks to study men and masculinities (1995/2005). Connell located a gap in the existing research on masculinities, arguing there was no coherent framework that placed masculinity in the larger gender structure. Wanting to replace the biological essentialism of sex role theory with a social constructionist framework, she proposed to place masculinities in a relational gender system, which is hierarchically ordered. Hegemonic masculinity is defined as ‘the configuration of gender practice which embodies the currently accepted answer to the problem of the legitimacy of patriarchy, which guarantees (..) the dominant position of men and the subordination of women’ (Connell

1995/2005: 77). Hegemony is defined as the successful claim to authority, a concept borrowed from Antonio Gramsci. Connell critiqued the fixed character of sex role theory and wanted to emphasize the social dynamics in the struggle over authority in the gender system. To do so, she proposed a framework in which women as well as men are subordinated to hegemonic masculinity. In this framework, ‘external hegemony’ refers to the subordination of women, whereas ‘internal hegemony’ points to the subordination of other masculinities to hegemonic masculinity (Demetriou 2001, Connell & Messerschmidt 2005). She names the subordination of homosexual men as an example of

subordinated masculinities; they are subordinated through cultural stigmatization as well as a range of material practices (Connell 1995/2005: 78). Scholars have argued that heterosexuality is a central locus of hegemonic masculinity in western society, a point to which I will later return.

But what is the nature of this relational system? Connell argues that masculinities and femininities are configurations of gender practice. Hegemonic masculinity operates both at the institutional levels such as government, business and military, and as a cultural ideal. For example, Connell argues that signifiers of hegemonic masculinity are embodied by popular film actors, athletes or symbolic male icons such as superheroes. A business man who exerts authority on the institutional level may not embody this ideal form of masculinity, but nevertheless benefits from the hegemony established through these cultural ideals. These two levels are interrelated to a certain degree:

‘hegemony is likely to be established only if there is some correspondence between cultural ideal and institutional power’ (Connell 1995/2005: 77). While the actual practices of most men divert from these cultural ideals, they are in a complicit relationship with hegemonic masculinity. Through performing complicit masculinities men gain from and support the patriarchal project, without the

(14)

risks or tensions of being ‘the frontline troops of patriarchy’ (ibid.:77). Lastly, Connell stresses that gender relations do not operate as a single structure, but intertwine with other hierarchical social structures such as race and class.

Hegemonic masculinity has been criticized by several authors for its conceptual vagueness and supposed essentialism (see Demetriou 2001, Hearn 2012). The first critique centres on the specific meaning of hegemonic masculinity. Questions have been raised about the conceptualisation of hegemonic masculinity as ‘configurations of gender practice’ (Hearn 2012). The second critique concerns the essentializing tendencies of fixing a masculinity that is hegemonic. Connell &

Messerschmidt (2005) reject this critique by saying that the gender system is dynamic, meaning that the hegemonic position can be challenged at any given time. However, Demetriou (2001) shows how Connell’s historical analysis of the development of western hegemonic masculinity is flawed, and tends to essentialize the hegemonic position. Connell argues throughout her historical analysis that subordinated and marginalized masculinities had no effect on the construction of hegemonic

masculinity. Demetriou shows the inconsistency between her theoretical framework and her empirical account of hegemonic masculinity by arguing that hegemonic masculinity has adopted several

elements of gay masculinities as a strategy to maintain dominance over women. Connell &

Messerschmidt refute the idea that gay masculinities have become part of hegemonic masculinity, and argue that hegemonic masculinity still thrives on the exclusion of homosexuality. While I agree with this standpoint, I take from Demetriou’s critique that hegemonic masculinity is not necessarily formed in opposition to subordinated masculinities, but rather as ‘a hybrid bloc that unites various and diverse practices in order to construct the best possible strategy for the reproduction of patriarchy’ (Demetriou 2001: 348). A related point made by Demetriou comes forward in this description, namely that the internal hegemony works as a strategy to reproduce the external hegemony. Thus any kind of masculinity that supports the subordination of women can be incorporated into the hegemony. What Demetriou makes clear is that Connell’s argument fundamentally is about the subordination of women through the gender system, by which the subordination of other masculinities is a tool to achieve the best possible strategy.

While acknowledging the historical dynamics of hegemonic masculinity and its susceptibility to change and contestation, I will now move on to an account of the construction of hegemonic masculinities related to this research, and how they impact on the gender structure. I will show how masculinity practices on a local level become institutionalized, and how these institutionalized practices in turn shape behaviour in everyday social interactions.

2.2.2 Compulsory heterosexuality

Several feminist scholars have noted the pivotal role heterosexuality plays in reproducing and maintaining the current gender order (Connell 1995/2005, Butler 1990, Rich 1980). Adrienne Rich (1980) argued that compulsory heterosexuality is institutionalized in western society, forcing women

(15)

to be sexually available to men. Connell extends this argument by saying that heterosexuality is forced on men as well, arguing that men are socialized from a young age to embody heterosexuality, through foregrounding ‘experiences of the body that define females as other’ (Connell 1995/2005: 123), thus learning to be attracted to women instead of men. This can be exemplified by the

discussion on homophobia that took place during my group interview, in which Nathan said that he learned from a young age onwards not to be attracted to other men. He questions whether he would have been more open to homosexual display if he had a more ‘objective’ upbringing. Connell names this shaping of bodily desire ‘heterosexual sensibility’. The socialized embodiment of heterosexual desire strengthens the idea that heterosexuality is a natural phenomenon. Based on the idea of compulsory heterosexuality, Butler (1990) argues that the current gender hierarchy only exists

through operation of the ‘heterosexual matrix’, which she describes as a ‘grid of cultural intelligibility through which bodies, genders, and desires are naturalized’ (ibid.: 151). She argues that

heterosexuality is a prerequisite for the survival of the current gender order, because it assumes the natural and inevitable existence of two opposite genders which are determined by biological sex, and which are naturally sexually attracted to each other. Furthermore, heterosexuality is institutionalized, meaning that it influences aspects of social life that have little to do with actual sex practice (Berlant & Warner 1998). This process is named heteronormativity; it ensures the naturalization and

stabilization of heterosexuality as a dominant force in society.

Whereas Connell suggests that hegemonic masculinity rests upon the exclusion of gay masculinities through practices of homophobia, Dean (2013) argues that this position is untenable. In his research on the construction of heterosexual masculinities, he found that some men construct their heterosexual identity without the use of homophobia. They were however unwilling to give up their heterosexual status and privilege, supporting the system of heteronormativity. Some heterosexual men in his sample willingly gave up their heterosexual status and privilege in several different contexts (such as gay bars), blurring the boundaries between gay and straight masculinities all together. Thus while heterosexuality is compulsory for men who perform hegemonic masculinities, not all

heterosexual men comply with these standards. This study exemplifies how individuals resist, challenge or renegotiate heterosexual masculinities in different contexts.

2.2.3 Homosociality

A substantial amount of research has looked into the way homosocial bonds between men shape men’s sexual interactions with women (Flood 2008, Bird 1996, Grazian 2007, Quinn 2002). In an effort to further understand how hegemonic masculinity is reproduced, Sharon Bird (1996)

investigated social bonding between men, termed ‘homosociality’. She differentiates between three aspects of hegemonic masculinity that are central in homosocial relations. Firstly there is a

need for emotional detachment; intimacy is seen as feminine and should therefore be avoided.

(16)

objectification of women plays an important role. These masculinities are interwoven; sexual

objectification manifests through competitiveness over women and sexual prowess, whereby it is seen as masculine to get as many women as possible. Women are not seen as individuals to share

emotional bonds with, but rather as sexual objects to conquer.

This process of male bonding through sexual interactions has been empirically researched in specific environments. Grazian (2007) researched how homosocial bonds between men shaped their night out through the practice of ‘girl hunting’, whereby men prepare for and engage in arranging hook-ups in a nightlife context through aggressive flirting techniques. He argues that hunting girls is a social activity, through which hegemonic masculinity is reproduced and maintained. In their

geography of a Portuguese nightclub, Nofre et al. (2017) found that young men preferred to kiss girls outside of the venue, in front of their male friends in an effort to parade their ‘prize’. Quinn (2002) found similar patterns when studying ‘girl watching’ in the workplace as a dramatic performance towards other men, in an effort to display heterosexual desire and confirm masculinity. Men saw this harassing practice as a harmless game, failing to see their behaviours as harassment by ignoring the feelings of the victimized women. Through descriptions of his male interviewees sexually assaulting and degrading women for their personal amusement, Flood (2008) argues that sexual violence and male bonding strengthen each other. Both flirting and sexual harassment are thus connected to practices of male social bonding.

However, it should be noted that not all men engage in such practices. In a discussion of the concept of homosociality, Hammarén & Johansson (2014) note that homosocial relations between men are frequently analysed through hierarchical practices that serve hegemonic masculinity, whereas more positive, horizontal relationships between men, focusing on intimacy and emotional closeness, are left out. They argue that focusing on the more intimate aspects of male social bonding allows more room for the dynamic aspects of hegemonic masculinity, and for possible subversions in the way masculinities are normatively constructed. Bird (1996) argues that some men in her research individually departed from hegemonic conceptions of masculinity, through showing a lack of interest in competitiveness or sexual objectification. However, they tended to prefer heterosocial

relationships, thus non-sexual bonding with women, over homosocial bonding practices. Moreover, when in the presence of other men the focus tended to be on emotional detachment in order to avoid loss of status. It can be argued that these men were performing complicit masculinities rather than challenging the status quo.

2.2.4 Humor and the joking relationship

The use of humor and joking has been connected to practices of male social bonding and the subordination of women (Lyman 1987). In his study on the use and functions of sexist jokes among college fraternity men, Lyman found that through sustaining a joking relationship with each other, these men could negotiate their need for intimacy with other men without damaging their masculine

(17)

status. Lyman (1987) further argues that sexist jokes function as a legitimate way to establish the current gender order; they offer a ritual way of subordinating women by giving an outlet for the anger or dissatisfaction the men feel about their dependence upon women. Through framing this practice as innocent behaviour, responsibility for the sexism behind the jokes is suspended.

The sociology of jokes has tended to analyse humor and joking as male activities (Kotthoff 2006). Kuipers (2015) found that women can put their reputation on the line when telling or even laughing at sexist jokes; some of the respondents in her research said that women laughing at sexist jokes where considered to be slutty or immoral. Kuipers suggests that telling jokes is seen as

masculine because it interrupts the conversational flow in an aggressive way. Furthermore, there is a large risk involved for the person telling the joke; failing to make the audience laugh means a possible loss of face, especially with jokes that require a long attention span. Joking is thus framed as a

competition- and status seeking conversational style; a performance which can enhance masculinity. Drawing on Freud (1960), Lyman argues that ‘joking is a special kind of social relationship that suspends the rules of everyday life in order to preserve them’ (1987: 150). He argues that nearly all jokes have an aggressive content, and the invisible social struggles the joke was supposed to negotiate become visible should it fail. In line with this argument, Kuipers (2015) states that while the exact functions of humor may be multiple and ambiguous, joking is simultaneously a way to

transgress social boundaries and to mark them. It serves to strengthen the bond between members of a certain group while shutting others out. This process can be illustrated through a personal example taken from my group interview: at the beginning of the interview, one of the respondents made a crude sexist joke about rape. This caused the other respondents to laugh and to eye my reaction, after which one of the men told the joke teller to tone it down a bit because a woman (me) was present. It could be argued that the joke was both a way for the joke teller to test my social boundaries, and to establish his masculinity in front of the other male respondents. Furthermore, the reaction of the other respondents made me an outsider, because it was suggested that bonding through sexist jokes was for the men only. Through sexist joking at the beginning of the conversation, the tone of the interview was set, and the rules of communication were established: sexist and crude jokes where incorporated throughout the interview, and I was to accept this if I wanted to continue interviewing. Building on these theoretical and empirical insights, I suggest that the use of sexist humor can be a tool for young men to establish and reproduce their masculine status, and communicate the status quo of the current gender order. This form of communication at the interactional, face-to-face level both contributes to and is fed by hegemonic masculinity.

Joking has been researched in relationship to both flirting and sexual harassment. Kuipers (2015) found that some men refrain from making sexist jokes in the presence of women; language is toned down in order to make a good impression. Walle (1976) studied pick up routines of male costumers in an all-night diner which functioned partly as a ‘sexual marketplace’. The waitresses were the intended targets of jokes, whereby the content of the jokes ranged from more general to sexual.

(18)

Slowly changing the content of the jokes from more general to sexual allowed the men to establish different levels of interaction and intimacy without facing an overt sexual rejection immediately. Acceptance of a sexual joke on the part of the waitresses seemed to indicate sexual interest. Through the use of humor men could thus communicate their intentions without openly showing their feelings or desires (ibid). Research by Alberts (1992) on the communicative aspect of sexual harassment shows that verbal sexual aggression is often conceptualized by the perpetrators as teasing. However, teasing contains a negative element dressed up as humor, and often has the intent to exert power over another person. 42% of the harassed women in his sample indicated that the sexual teasing happened in front of others, strengthening the idea that the joking serves as a performance towards other men.

It should be noted that the relationship between gender and humor is complex and changes contextually and over time, serving to establish as well as subvert gender norms. Different

masculinities and femininities can be expressed or subverted through the use of humor, depending on multiple factors such as age, social milieu and culture (Kotthoff 2006, Kuipers 2015). Kotthoff (2006) also suggests that the sociology of humor has failed to pay attention to the ways in which women use humor, thus strengthening the biased and stereotypical views on joking as a male practice. In her research on Dutch humor, Kuipers notes that younger respondents where less disapproving about women telling jokes, which could point towards subtle shifts in the gender order. Still, women engaged more often in joking when in the presence of other men. As will become clear in the empirical chapters of this thesis, the connections between joking and masculinities are salient and deserve more scholarly attention.

2.3 The relationship between flirting & harassment

2.3.1 Flirting as ritual interaction

Social research has tended to examine flirting interactions in light of Goffman’s work on interaction ritual (1967), whereby flirting is seen as strategic action that serves to shape the outcome of social interactions (Grammer 1989, Moore 1995, 2010). In this type of research flirting is mainly

characterized as courtship initiation, whereby an underlying motive to initiate a sexual relationship with the other person drives the action. In his literary exploration of different motivations for flirting behavior, Henningsen (2004) found multiple other possible explanations besides a sexual motive. He argues that people flirt to strengthen social relationships, retrieve information, build self-esteem, foster external rewards from the other person, or simply just for fun. Most of this research is based on evolutionary psychology theory, which tends to see these interactions as universally applicable.

Nofre et al. (2017) analyze seduction rituals as culturally specific practices, an approach which I adhere to in this thesis. Their research is situated in a Lisbon nightclub, where they specifically focus on dancing as a form of flirting, arguing that it involves strategic interaction

(19)

through which personal space is mediated and renegotiated in an attempt to have direct bodily contact. Next to being culturally specific, these flirting interactions are highly gendered and racialized; it is the afro-Portuguese and afro- Brazilian men who try to seduce European white women on the dancefloor through gendered scripts of interaction. The men strategically position themselves around the

dancefloor, observing the women and orienting their bodies towards them, in order to assess whether they are willing to dance. Whenever afro-Latin music is played, they invite the women to dance through offering them their hand(s). The authors described these strategies as successful, since very little rejection by the women was observed (ibid.). In her research on the expression of

heterosexuality’s in nightclubs in Singapore, Tan (2013) shows how women use strategic dance maneuvers to convey sexual interest or turn down sexual attention from men. They protect their personal space by walking away or switching with a friend when a man dances too close or they seduce a man by dancing in a sexualized way. These flirtatious strategies could be read both as restraining and empowering women in nightlife.

2.3.2 Ambiguous spaces

It is argued that in contemporary western society, normative flirting interactions in nightlife spaces to a large extent still center around men being the initiators of the flirt, whereas women have to act out a level of indifference in order to protect themselves from sexual ‘predators’ (Grazian 2007, Nofre et al. 2017, Tan 2013). Research shows that women are socialized from a young age to move with caution in public spaces, and as a consequence employ a number of protective strategies in order to avoid unwanted sexual attention (Brooks 2011, Snow et al. 1991, Fileborn 2016). Snow et al. (1991) observed women in bars who rejected men’s advances through polite refusal or making up excuses. When these initial ‘cooling out’ strategies didn’t work, the women proceeded to more direct rejections. However, the perceived risk of aggression on the part of the rejected male made them interact with caution. A flirt can thus easily turn into sexual harassment when rejection cues are ignored by men who persist in their advances. Fileborn (2016) looked into specific strategies young adults employ to reproduce feelings of safety on a night out, and found that these practices where highly gendered. Whereas the men argued they had nothing to fear in nightlife spaces, women continuously had to deal with the threat of sexual violence, employing several safety strategies on a night out to avoid it.

Several scholars have looked into the relationship between flirting and sexual harassment (Williams et al. 1999, Giuffre & Williams 1994). These studies suggest that flirting and harassment are interrelated processes with often blurred boundaries as to where consent ends and harassment starts. In certain labor fields, sexual harassment is seen as part of the job, and thus not labeled as such (Williams et al. 1999). Giuffre & Williams (1994) found that restaurant workers engaged in a wide array of flirtatious behaviors, which were only labeled as harassment when the perpetrator was of a different ethnicity or race. Fileborn (2016) argues that whether sexual attention is seen as wanted or

(20)

unwanted also largely depends on the context. The same behavior can be unwanted in one context, and wanted in another. To give an example from her work: if the purpose of a night out is to ‘see and be seen’, then staring might be experienced as less threatening as supposed to other contexts (ibid 2016: 52). Furthermore, the degree of threat assigned to these behaviors differs per person as well. Whereas some of her respondents found physical touching more threatening than verbal comments, others did not agree. In conceptualizing flirting and harassment, Fileborn argues for a high degree of fluidity and variation in people’s perceptions. This points to flirting and harassment as ambiguous and overlapping practices, which are always context dependent.

2.4 Conclusion

In summary, men actively perform and construct masculinities through social interactions, whereby the ‘doing’ of masculinity is shaped and constrained by institutional and ideal representations of masculinity. These micro-interactions are situated within the larger gender structure, in which hegemonic masculinity is conceptualised as the dominant pattern of practices for men, which subordinates women and other masculinities. Hegemonic masculinity is fed by compulsory

heterosexuality, emotional detachment, sexual objectification of women, competitiveness and sexist humor. These are all interrelated processes, which are contested and subverted by individuals within the micro-politics of everyday interactions. Flirting can be conceptualised as strategic interaction which is highly gendered; in flirting interactions, men are expected to be the initiators whereas women are expected to perform a range of protective strategies to ensure safety. Here the connections between flirting and harassment become visible, for one can flow over into the other. I furthermore argue that these practices are ambiguous and overlapping, depending on context and subject. In the next chapter, I will further elaborate on these concepts by operationalising them. But first, I turn to a discussion of my methodology.

(21)

Chapter 3 Methodology & Operationalization

3.1 Methodology

3.1.1 Data sample

To answer my main research question requires me to look at processes of meaning making and interpretations of social interaction; to this end I chose a qualitative research design. My data consists of 11 individual in-depth interviews and 1 group interview with young men living in or near

Amsterdam. The respondents are aged between 18 and 30, perceive of themselves as heterosexual, and visit nightlife establishments on a regular basis; at least once a month. I used snowball sampling as a technique to find research respondents; I started by asking around in my personal circle of friends and acquaintances, after which they suggested possible participants. This proved to be an adequate technique, for I had no trouble finding respondents. Most respondents I had never met before, with some I was more or less acquainted. The interviews took place either at my home, in a café, at the university, or at the respondent’s home or workplace. I set up one group interview with four men who were acquainted with each other. This group interview took place in a bar, and was more informal then the other interviews. The interviews held were semi-structured; I composed an interview guide with the main topics and questions I wanted to discuss3_{. However, the interview style was flexible,} and I gave the respondents room to talk about topics without interrupting them too much. The interviews were all tape-recorded and transcribed fully, after which I coded the data two times. After each round of coding I analysed and compared codes with theory, out of which my main concepts emerged.

I chose to study the practices and perceptions of heterosexual men because this gives me an insight into what role sexual orientation plays in sexual harassment. Research has shown that men who get harassed in public are often perceived to be homosexual (Comstock 1991). This strengthens the thesis that hegemonic masculinities are performed through the sexual harassment of other men, and that in order to avoid harassment, heterosexuality must be emphasized (Lee 2000). The study of men and masculinities is a relatively new field within the social sciences, because male behaviour has hitherto not been problematized; this counts especially for heterosexual men. Whereas their behaviour is often taken as the norm, I problematize this view by looking at it from a feminist perspective. I furthermore chose to study young men firstly because of my research context; nightlife is a space where mostly young people go. Secondly, as will become apparent in this thesis, masculinity is a socialization process, and several respondents argued that growing up it was especially important to prove masculinity to peers. Studying young men will put the focus on the way these values are learned within male peer groups.

3_{See Appendix for the interview guide}

(22)

The lack of representativeness of the sample is arguably the biggest critique of this research. Because I found my respondents through my personal network the sample is not so diverse. The respondents were all well-educated, mostly white men from privileged environments. Furthermore, these men were willing to be interviewed; while I did not disclose the entire topic list beforehand, it could be argued that men harbouring opinions that divert from the norm were unwilling to justify their actions to a female interviewer. Lastly, when discussing nightlife in Amsterdam, many of the same establishments were mentioned. The range of nightlife environments my respondents had experienced was thus rather limited, especially when looking at the diversity of establishments Amsterdam has to offer. Due to the size and nature of the sample, the findings cannot be generalized to all young men in Amsterdam, or to other contexts.

While the findings cannot easily be generalized to other groups or contexts, several researchers have argued that this critique is hard to apply to qualitative research (Ritzer 2011). Whereas criteria of representativeness and generalizability look at measurement, most qualitative research focusses on processes of meaning making, rather than whether the data are easily replicated or measured. Furthermore, Lincoln & Guba (1985) argue that the appliance of these criteria presumes a realist viewpoint whereby the social world is a single reality that can be studied objectively. This research has a social constructionist approach, assuming that social realities are differently

constructed from different viewpoints. The findings of qualitative research are more often used to explore and extend previous theoretical insights, and therefore the value of this research can be measured by its connections to similar research and its extension or refutation of theoretical insights. The strengths of this research thus lie in its evaluation and extension of theory on masculinities and sexual harassment. These links and evaluations will be further discussed in the discussion section of the final chapter.

3.1.2 Ethics

Beforehand I was concerned that the respondents might feel uncomfortable talking about harassment. I especially worried about being uncareful with the framing of my questions, and putting the label of harasser on the research participants. However, this fear turned out to be uncalled for. The

respondents gave a very open and honest impression, and at first hand there did not seem to be a topic they were not willing to discuss. This however does not mean that the respondents provided me with complete and unbiased answers. During the data analysis I started to notice that some questions did not receive full answers; instead the participants stated they did not understand the question or had lost their train of thought. Others quickly changed the subject, whereby it became clear there was a specific happening or thought they did not want to share with me. This is exemplified by the following excerpt:

(23)

Nienke: ‘Ok. In a flirting interaction?’

Roy: ‘But that was more when I was younger, I mean…’

Nienke: ‘Ok. Well you can tell me. It could also be that you changed in that respect.’

Roy: ‘Yeah, no I think I’ve changed in that respect, I mean I’ve had it happen indeed that I really did eh.. (laughs) what’s the question, that I know my personal boundaries in the club?’

I could sense that this respondent was not willing to share a certain story with me. I had this happen in several interviews. I chose not to confront the respondents further so as to respect their boundaries, and to keep the conversation running smoothly.

Furthermore, I found it hard to avoid entering into a discussion with the respondents, especially when they voiced their opinions on sexual harassment. At times I had to force myself to keep an open mind about their perceptions and not let my personal views get in the way. I did this by keeping a focus on the intent of the conversation: to find out their perceptions and views, not to question them immediately. When the respondents specifically asked me for my opinion, I struggled with the response, for I did not want to make them feel uncomfortable but at times completely disagreed with them. I however felt that is was an obligation to supply them with an honest answer, and tried my best to substantiate my opinion with both scientific arguments and personal examples.

3.2 Operationalization 3.2.1 Flirting & harassment

In operationalising sexual harassment, I first established my own perspective on this phenomenon by reviewing the literature. In the social science literature there is no unified meaning on what constitutes sexual harassment in public. A variety of names to describe the phenomenon have popped up in the last decades, along with different conceptualizations of what behaviors are included. Sexual

harassment in nightlife establishments has been even less researched, whereby the most significant research was done by Bianca Fileborn (2012, 2016). She defines the issue as unwanted sexual attention in licensed venues. Notwithstanding these issues surrounding a unified conceptualisation, I briefly elaborate on the two most salient aspects of the issue.

Firstly, the presence of a threat or invasion of personal space is important. In her research on sexual violence against women, Kelly (1988: 41) defines unwanted sexual attention as (emphasis by the author):

‘any physical, visual, verbal or sexual act that is experienced by the woman or girl, at the time or

later, as a threat, invasion or assault, that has the effect of hurting her or degrading her and/or takes away her ability to control intimate contact.’

(24)

In this quote unwanted sexual attention is perceived of as threatening behavior, but during my research it became clear that most respondents did not feel threatened by receiving unwanted sexual attention from women. To highlight the intrusive and threatening character of the phenomenon, I stick with defining it as sexual harassment, unless the respondents specifically mentioned unwanted sexual attention.

Secondly, the idea of a continuum of intrusive behaviors is of importance. Kelly proposed a continuum of sexual violence, which was later picked up by Gardner (1995), who carried out pioneering research on public harassment in Indianapolis. She was the first researcher to centralize public harassment in a study, by empirically investigating the scale of the problem. For the purposes of this research Gardner’s definition of public harassment is well suited:

‘that group of abuses, harryings, and annoyances characteristic of public places and uniquely facilitated by communication in public. Public harassment includes pinching, slapping, hitting, shouted remarks, vulgarity, insults, sly innuendo, ogling, and stalking. [It] is on a continuum of possible events, beginning when customary civility among strangers is abrogated and ending with the transition to violent crime: assault, rape, or murder’ (Gardner 1995: 4).

By focusing on sexual harassment as a continuum, the link between ‘innocent’ but unwanted flirting and sexual violence is established. Since this research will focus in part on the way spatiality’s influence harassment, I use public harassment to refer to all types of sexual harassment in public spaces, and sexual harassment in nightlife establishments when referring to sexual harassment specifically in the nightlife context.

During the interviewing, I tried to stay away from strictly defining sexual harassment, to ensure that respondents could formulate their own conceptualisations of the issue. Fileborn (2012) notes that researchers should avoid defining unwanted sexual attention in a too strict manner, for this might exclude a range of personal experiences which fail to fall under this conceptualisation but are nevertheless harmful to women. I developed a strategy whereby I first discussed sexual interactions in nightlife, which I labelled flirting, after which I asked about the boundaries of flirting. Through extracting the respondents’ ideas on boundaries, I could then more easily move to a discussion on unwanted sexual attention and sexual harassment. When does something become sexual harassment, and what is the difference between sexual harassment and unwanted sexual attention? 4_{Adhering to} this loosely defined structure of first discussing flirting before moving on to talk about sexual harassment gave me some time to bond with the respondents before bringing up difficult topics. By the time sexual harassment was discussed, most of the interviews had been going on for about half an

4_{The interview guide in the appendix will give a more thorough overview of the types of questions asked and} the order of topics discussed.

(25)

hour, and the respondents were noticeably more relaxed and open then at the beginning of the interview.

3.2.2 Masculinities

To operationalize the performance of masculinities in nightlife establishments, I use hegemonic masculinities as a starting point. In the group interview I specifically asked about what it means to be a man, after which a discussion on masculine values unfolded, in which several images where debated. This shows how ambivalent the process of conceptualizing masculinities really is, for they are subjectively constructed and defined, changing contextually and over time. But nevertheless, people have quite set ideas on what masculinity should entail. This means that even though

masculinities are not fixed, they are not empty vessels open to any meaning. In individual interviews I extracted ideas on masculinity from the conversation, as the differences between men and women and male and female behavior where discussed. Most respondents took these differences for granted, while others (social sciences students) talked about learned behavior, group norms or group pressure to comply with masculine ideals. Several concepts returned frequently, such as the importance of humor, toughness, sexual prowess and being a protector and leader.

Several authors have argued that masculinities are established within male peer-groups (Quinn 2002, Grazian 2007). Through asking questions about peer groups and male bonding in the context of nightlife, I could extract how masculinities where performed in this environment. How did the respondents behave in front of their friends when going out, did their friends influence their flirting interactions? Some of the respondents mentioned masculinity was an important factor in approaching women, after which I could ask them to explain where this was coming from or why they acted this way. Furthermore, I asked the respondents questions about their flirting strategies, keeping in mind Grazian’s (2007) concepts of sexual prowess and girl hunting as strategies to act out

hegemonic masculinities. When talking about bonding between groups of men, humor emerged out of my data as a key factor. While this concept was not a part of my initial theoretical framework, I let the respondents explain how humor was used and why it was important in male bonding practices. How is it connected with other masculine values such as toughness and bravery? Humor turned out to be a valuable source to conceptualize how masculinities where both constructed and performed.

3.2.3 Nightlife establishments

The specific context that I am interested in comprises the semi-public spaces of nightlife: clubs, bars, pubs and cafes, which I will refer to as nightlife establishments. Before operationalizing nightlife establishments, I first present my theoretical conceptualization of the term. Building on Doreen Massey’s theoretical insights in her essay The Politics of Space/Time (1992), I conceptualize spaces as constituted through social relations. Williams (2008) argues that night spaces are mediated differently compared to daytime spaces; while night and day are natural phenomena, the social uses and

(26)

meanings attached to them are not. Whereas the daytime is characterized by social order, ‘darkness breaks down social borders, because social codes of conduct (..) can be more easily broken when we are wrapped in the night’ (Williams 2008: 519). Nightlife has been conceptualized by urban studies as an ambiguous space, where it is possible to transgress the norms that prevail in the daytime (van Liempt et al. 2015). Norm transgression in night spaces is stimulated by the normalization of

consumption of alcohol or drugs, and the possibilities to engage in flirtatious or sexual encounters that would not be allowed during the day time.

Research has considered nightlife spaces to be highly sexualized environments which are hostile to women (Thompson & Cracco 2008, Parks & Miller 1997). Thompson & Cracco (2008) argue that college bars are highly sexualized environments where performances of hegemonic masculinity are normalized; in these spaces, women are often considered as ‘sexual prey’ to hunt (Grazian 2007). The promise of sexualized interactions may be part of what attracts customers to these spaces (ibid.). However, as Tan (2013) shows in her research of flirtatious interactions in straight nightclubs in Singapore, club spaces are not necessarily only empowering to men. The women in her research empowered themselves through provocative and sexualized dance moves, with which they could simultaneously seduce and reject men in the nightclub. Nightlife establishments are thus ambiguous spaces, offering both liberation and exclusion, pleasure and danger (Tan 2013, Wilson 1991).

But night spaces are sexualized, gendered, racialized and classed in different ways. In their research on Portuguese nightlife, Nofre et. Al (2017) describe how night clubs in richer areas of Lisbon refuse southeast-Asian immigrants and Afro-Portuguese residents from entering, for they are seen as undesirable costumers. The specific club they researched was however more welcoming to these minority groups. Anderson (2009) proposes a continuum of urban nightlife, with on the one end commercialized venues in the city’s high end streets, and on the other end the more intimate and less well-known underground or alternative scenes. Whereas the former scene is described by her

participants as having ‘highly sexualized interactional styles featuring ‘‘hook-up’’ objectives’ (ibid.: 920), the latter is characterized by respect and diversity; women in her research said they experienced far less harassment in these types of venues.

The night-time economy thus provides ambiguous spaces, where interactions are sexual and gendered, and the boundaries between innocent flirting and harassment can become somewhat unclear. How these boundaries are negotiated depends on the context; differences between nightlife establishments have to be accounted for. To translate these insights to my interviews, I asked my respondents about their experiences with nightlife in Amsterdam. Which places do they like to visit and why? I also asked them about the reasons why they went out; this way I could see whether sexual interactions where a central part of going out for these young men, or if other reasons were important. I furthermore asked questions about the perceived differences between the places they visit in terms of atmosphere, music, people and chances of sexualized encounters. Where do they go if they

(27)

specifically want to hook up with someone, which factors play a role according to them? In what type of nightlife establishment do they feel most comfortable and why? Asking these questions helped me to understand how varying norms operate in different nightlife establishments, and what factors influence sexual interactions in these environments.

3.3 Context: Nightlife in Amsterdam

I will now briefly relate my research to the context of the Netherlands, specifically to Amsterdam and its nightlife establishments. Since the 1960’s gay and lesbian liberation movements have been

relatively successful in obtaining equal rights, and the Netherlands has come to be imagined as a tolerant society in part because of this perceived acceptance of homosexuality (Mepschen et al. 2010). However, several authors have argued that tolerance towards homosexuality actually serves to support the dominant heterosexual norm (Mepschen et al. 2010, Buijs et al. 2011). Through a process of de-politicization of this specific Dutch gay identity by equating it with modernism and freedom, the Netherlands upholds its image of a liberal and tolerant society, while simultaneously enforcing nationalist and heteronormative agendas (Mepschen et al. 2010). This process is especially visible in Amsterdam, which is often celebrated for its tolerance of homosexuals but is also a prevalent site of anti-gay violence (Buijs et al. 2011). Amsterdam has nightlife establishments specifically designed for LGBTQ identities, but most of these spaces are either focussed on gay men, or only marked as ‘gay-friendly’. Fobear (2012) argues that there is an absence of lesbian nightlife spaces in the city, which she relates to the decreased visibility of lesbianism in Dutch society. Research shows that young people in Amsterdam harbor a level of intolerance towards public displays of homosexuality, and there is a wide-spread irrational fear among young men of being seduced by a homosexual (Buijs et al. 2011). These data suggest that Amsterdam is not as tolerant and accepting towards the LGBTQ community as popular discourse has led to believe. Following from this research it can be argued that most nightlife in Amsterdam consists of heteronormative spaces; the rate to which other sexual identities and expressions are accepted will differ depending on the space, time and specific crowd.

In the respondents’ conceptualizations of nightlife in Amsterdam, the tolerance versus

exclusion discourse surfaced regularly. Nightlife in Amsterdam is described by several respondents as a city with many status-oriented nightlife establishments, where it’s all about ‘being seen’. People are worrying about their reputation more than in other student cities such as Groningen and Rotterdam, and some of the respondents described Amsterdammers as being more arrogant. But Amsterdam nightlife is also prized for its diversity; a city that has many options to offer, including less status-oriented cafes, bars and clubs. Amsterdam distinguishes itself through a free and open vibe, where drug- and alcohol use is common and people are allowed to experiment with their sexual orientation. It is described by several respondents as a fun and exciting scene to be proud of. However, some respondents felt that the nightlife in Amsterdam is becoming more and more homogenous; people

Negotiating the boundaries between flirting and harassment in nightlife : young men's masculine performances in flirting interactions