For whose eyes only? The gatekeeping of sexual images in the field of teen sexuality

Abstract

This article examines the ways in which gatekeepers shape the field of teen sexuality by controlling access to sexual images. I question who decides whether an image is ‘appropriate’ for young adults and how such judgements shape the wider cultural field. The ways in which gatekeepers have attempted to shield teens from certain sexual images offers some explanation as to failings in sex education to educate and empower teens with the tools to engage with sexual images for themselves. These teens may turn into adults with ‘unhealthy’ attitudes towards sexuality, which perpetuates roles for ‘sexual gatekeepers’. Using Bourdieu's field theory as a framework, I take the particular example of the controversy around clothing company Abercrombie & Fitch's advertising to make visible the roles of different players in gatekeeping sexual images. Awareness of these micro-processes and positions highlights the various boundaries and capital at play in the field of teen sexuality.

Notes

^1. See www.abercrombie.com

^2. Examples of the images from the Christmas Field Guide (2003) that stimulated the most controversy can be viewed on the following web sites: http://www.othercrap.com/abercrombie.htm (accessed October 20, 2008) and http://www.canoeroom.com/2008/05/christmas-2003.html (accessed October 20, 2008).

^3. The www.snopes.com web site is operated by Barbara and David Mikkelson. ‘Snopes’ is taken from the name of a family of characters in the literature of William Faulkner. The web site is a place where anyone can post ‘urban legends’. The site's operators claim to employ a ‘more expansive’ definition of ‘urban legend’ to include common fallacies, misinformation, old wives' tales, strange news stories and rumours. Although none of these seem to explain why the Abercrombie & Fitch entry was on the site, the descriptions of images posted are particularly useful for this article. See www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/Abercrombie.asp

^4. Oasis advert withdrawn. http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Business/Oasis-Ads-Banned-Cactus-Kid-Fruit-Drink-Advertisments-Ruled-To-Be-Offensive/Article/200810115115448.