Abstract
This qualitative study examines how Latina girls’ understanding of infidelity influences how they approach and interact with romantic partners. In-depth interviews with 24 Mexican American girls, ages 14 to 18, growing up in inner-city neighborhoods, formed the basis of this study. Although cheating was a major concern, most of the girls were more concerned with the emotional ramifications of being cheated on than any physical consequences. Fueled by a belief that most boys are “players,” they became adept at identifying “red flags” that might indicate infidelity. The most frequently mentioned red flags were “Putting in the Time,” “Adopting a Public Versus Private Persona,” “Partner Seems Less Interested,” “Being Secretive,” and “Flirting with Other Girls.” They also relied on electronic surveillance and peer warnings. Although the girls attempted to protect themselves, their reactions and behaviors were often constrained by a larger patriarchal structure outside their immediate control. Implications for gender-specific programs are discussed.
Many young women will enter into heterosexual romantic relationships during adolescence. Although most will approach these relationships with excitement and verve, many will soon realize that relationships can be fraught with conflict, distrust, and emotional distress as a result of actual or suspected infidelity (Williams & Hickle, 2011). Research is needed that examines how young women’s understanding of infidelity influences how they approach relationships with potential partners as well as interactions with actual partners. This article focuses on one group of young women, Latinas. Considering Latina girls’ viewpoints is critical for several reasons. First, sexual infidelity has been associated with increased risk of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) among Latino youth (Brady, Tschann, Ellen, & Flores, 2009). Second, both sexual and emotional infidelity can result in significant emotional distress for Latina girls (Williams & Hickle, 2011). Third, understanding how Latina girls understand infidelity can provide insights into the development of STI prevention programs.
Infidelity and Adolescent Relationships
Adolescent relationships vary in terms of length, intensity, and frequency (Bauman & Berman, 2005). While some adolescents are in monogamous longer term relationships, others engage in multiple, frequent relationships of a shorter duration. Infidelity is a salient feature of many of these relationships; however, variation exists with regard to types of infidelity (Eyre, Auerswald, Hoffman, & Millstein, 1998; Feldman & Cauffman, 1999a). Despite this variation, most public health research focuses on sexual infidelity because of its association with an increased risk of STIs among youth (Kelley, Borawski, Flocke, & Keen, 2003). This research suggests that young people trust their partners and refrain from condom use in what they assume to be monogamous relationships (Brady et al., 2009; Manning, Giordano, Longmore, & Flanigan, 2012). Consequently, some young women, who believe their partners are faithful, do not use condoms. This puts them at risk of STIs (Kelley et al., 2003; Norris & Ford, 1999; Rosenberg, Gurvey, Adler, Dunlop, & Ellen, 1999).
One study suggests that adolescents express a low tolerance for sexual infidelity (Feldman & Cauffman, 1999a); however, other studies indicate that sexual infidelity is quite prevalent in adolescent and young adult relationships (Feldman & Cauffman, 1999b; Flanigan, 2007; Rosenberg et al., 1999; Williams & Hickle, 2011). Feldman and Cauffman (1999b), for example, found that approximately 66% of 216 young adults (ages 18-24) in monogamous relationships had experienced sexual infidelity as either the perpetrator or the aggrieved with 40% reporting that they had been the perpetrator and more than half reporting that they were the aggrieved.
Although sexual infidelity is the most commonly studied type of betrayal, other types of infidelity exist (Eyre et al.,1998; Feldman & Cauffman, 1999b). Several qualitative studies suggest that adolescents variously define “cheating” or infidelity as flirting, going out with someone of the opposite sex, and emotional intimacy (Eyre et al., 1998; Williams & Hickle, 2011). Examining a broad array of different types of infidelity is critical given that adolescents report significant emotional distress when their partners flirt, talk to, or go out with other people, and this is especially true for young women (Williams & Hickle, 2011).
Cheating and Gender Differences
Qualitative studies that rely on youth definitions of infidelity, which usually include both emotional and sexual infidelity, indicate that adolescent boys are more likely to cheat than girls (Miller & White, 2003; Towner, Dolcini, & Harper, 2012). Miller and White (2003), for example, found that 72% of African American girls have been cheated on compared with only 16% of boys. The institution of compulsory heterosexuality with its emphasis on unwritten gender scripts for how men and women should act in social relationships influences how teens perform gender in dating contexts (Hird & Jackson, 2001; Miller & White, 2003; Tolman, Spencer, Rosen-Reynoso & Porche, 2003). In brief, the institution of compulsory heterosexuality assumes that heterosexuality is the natural inclination for both women and men (Rich, 1983). Gender scripts that dictate how men and women should act across different social contexts serve to reinforce the institution of heterosexuality by promoting ideas—such as men’s sexual drive as a right, the idealization of heterosexual romance, traditional notions of femininity and masculinity, and the denial of female sexual pleasure or agency—that elevate men’s status and power over women (Hird & Jackson, 2001; Tolman et al., 2003). Teens may be particularly susceptible to these ubiquitous messages about how men and women should think, feel, and act within romantic relationships. For boys, this may translate into using girls as sexual objects as a central means for demonstrating their masculinity among peers (Hird & Jackson, 2001; Miller & White, 2003; Tolman et al., 2003). Such pressures might explain why young men in general express less disapproval for cheating than young women (Sheppard, Nelson, & Andreoli-Mathie, 1995).
Cheating and Latino Youth
Comparatively little research has been conducted on Latino youth and infidelity. The research that has been conducted with this population is usually framed within the context of traditional gender role scripts associated with machismo and marianismo. Machismo is a term that has been used in the United States to describe Latino men as “controlling, possessive, sexist, and domineering and often is associated with violence against women,” whereas marianismo holds that Latinas should be virtuous, nurturing, self-sacrificing, and virgins until they marry (Arreola, 2010, p. 48). Research on Mexican American youth suggests that traditional gender role expectations influence their beliefs about and behaviors in romantic relationships (Milbrath, Ohlson, & Eyre, 2009; Villarruel, 1998); however, adherence to traditional gender role expectations varies by acculturation and generation status (Deardorff, Tschann, & Flores, 2008; Gonzalez-Lopez, 2010). Despite this emerging research, stereotypes about Latinas as submissive women who accept their heterosexual partners’ infidelities continue to persist in the popular media and social science research (Toro-Morn, 2008).
Study Purpose and Conceptual Framework
Qualitative research on infidelity that takes into account the perspective of Latina teens is virtually non-existent. Thus, the purpose of this study was to adopt a more critical, nuanced view of how Latina teens approach relationships with potential partners and interact with actual partners. Script theory guided the interpretation of the study’s findings (Simon & Gagnon, 1986, 1987). According to this theory, gender scripts are socioculturally defined playbooks that outline how men and women should think, act, and feel, particularly in relation to one another (Ortiz-Torres, Williams, & Ehrhardt, 2003). Traditional gender scripts, which are often rooted in the institution of compulsory heterosexuality, typically reinforce gendered power dynamics that subordinate young women to men. This study gives voice to young Latina women who are often forced to navigate their relationships against a patriarchal landscape that privileges boys’ sexuality over girls’. Study findings can add to our knowledge of how gender scripts and power dynamics influence adolescent relationships as well as potentially inform the development of STI prevention programs targeting young Latina women.
Method
Sample
Between November 2010 and May 2011, I conducted 24 in-depth interviews with Mexican American girls growing up in three predominantly low-income, Mexican American neighborhoods in Houston, Texas (City of Houston, Department of Health and Human Services, 2003; Rodriguez, 1993). To be eligible to participate in the study, all girls had to be Mexican American, between the ages of 14 and 18, English-speaking, and have a history of being in at least one boy–girlfriend relationship. Consistent with Bauman and Berman (2005), I defined a boy–girlfriend relationship as a romantic relationship that was publicly acknowledged, had the expectation of exclusivity/monogamy, and was characterized by some degree of affection. The average age of the respondents was 16.5 (SD = 1.18). Twenty-two (92%) of the girls were born in the United States. Eleven (46%) had at least one parent who was born in Mexico.
Recruitment and Interviews
To effectively recruit young women from the targeted neighborhoods, I used a variety of sampling strategies. I met with groups of Latina girls at two neighborhood schools to present the study and approached girls at the neighborhood recreation center and park with fliers that explained the study purpose. Interested girls completed teen assent forms, and if they were 17 or younger, returned signed parental consent forms. A limited snowball sampling strategy was also used. Snowball sampling, or chain referral sampling, involves study participants nominating other potentially eligible people to participate in the study (Petersen & Valdez, 2005). Each girl received US$20 for participating in the interview. They received an additional US$10 for each peer they nominated. To reduce selection bias, girls were only allowed to nominate three additional peers. Fifteen girls were either students at one of the schools or attended functions at the neighborhood recreation center and park. Nine girls neither attended school nor functions at the neighborhood recreation center, but were recruited via word-of-mouth from other girls in the study.
A university institutional review board approved this study. To protect girls’ identities, pseudonyms were used for girls’ names as well as the names of partners and other individuals mentioned in the interviews. Interviews were conducted in private rooms in the schools, in the girls’ homes, or at the neighborhood recreation center. Interviews were conducted in English and lasted from 1.5 to 2 hours. All interviews were auditotaped and transcribed.
Data Collection
Data collection consisted of two parts. The first part consisted of a standard questionnaire with demographic and sexual and relationship questions. Demographic items included questions on age, highest grade completed, number of years in the United States, parents’ country of origin, parents’ highest education levels, parents’ marital status, and number of people living in the household. Sexual history included questions about number of consensual lifetime vaginal sex partners, age at the time of first consensual vaginal sex experience, use of protection, and pregnancy history. Relationship history included questions on number of lifetime boyfriends, length of boy–girlfriend relationships, and age at the time of the first boy–girlfriend relationship.
The second part consisted of the semi-structured interview. I started each interview with the following: “Let’s talk about relationships. How would you define the ideal romantic relationship between a boy and a girl? What would this look like?” I then asked the participants to describe either their current or most recent romantic relationship (up to a maximum of three relationships), including how they met, how long they had been with this person, what they liked best and least about their partners, and (if applicable) why and how the relationship ended. As cheating was frequently mentioned, I added more questions about infidelity in subsequent interviews, such as “How would you define cheating?” Why do you think boys cheat on their partners? Why do you think girls cheat on their partners? What do you think about boys who cheat on partners? What do you think about girls who cheat on partners? Has anyone ever cheated on you? Have you ever cheated on anyone? Probes were used to elicit additional information when necessary.
Analysis
Grounded Theory Coding Methodology (GTM)—which involves open, axial, and selective coding—was used to guide data collection and analysis (LaRossa, 2005; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Open coding involved breaking down the interviews into indicators defined as a few words, phrases, or statements that conveyed a specific meaning. Similar indicators were extracted from the data and placed together to represent specific concepts. Related concepts were then grouped together to create categories. Axial coding involved temporarily placing each category at the “hub of the analysis” (LaRossa, 2005), whereas selective coding entailed choosing the core category that appeared to be the most saturated and centrally relevant. The core category for this study was “Strategies for Minimizing the Risk of Getting Played and Hurt.” No new patterns of data emerged for the core category. Relative to the other categories, this category appeared to be the most saturated (O’Reilly & Parker, 2013).
Findings
Relationship lengths varied greatly, ranging from 2 weeks to 4 years. Eighteen (75%) girls had consensual vaginal sex in the past: Ten had consensual vaginal sex with one partner, five with two partners, and three with three or more partners. The average age of sexual onset was 14.8 (SD = 1.01). One participant was pregnant and a mother of two young children.
Twenty (83%) girls expressed concern about getting hurt by unfaithful boyfriends. Cheating was a major concern. Nineteen (72%) said they either knew or suspected that at least one of their boyfriends had cheated. Cheating was variously defined as flirting (n = 4; 17%), intimate non-physical interactions with romantic and/or sexual intent (n = 22; 92%), and any type of intimate physical contact (holding hands, kissing, sexual intercourse) with someone outside the main relationship (n = 24; 100%). Three (12.5%) girls reported cheating on a partner.
Girls discussed nine strategies for minimizing the risk of “getting played” and hurt (see Table 1). Two strategies—operating on the assumption that “boys from the hood can’t be trusted” and “looking for non-thuggish guys” were avoidance strategies. The next seven strategies were used once girls were already in a committed relationship. Five of these strategies involved being on the lookout for red flags that might indicate a partner was unfaithful. The final two strategies—electronic surveillance and relying on peer information—involved actively gathering information about a partner’s suspected infidelity.
Concepts and Indicators Related to the Core Category: Strategies for Minimizing the Risk of Getting Played and Hurt.
Boys From the Hood Can’t Be Trusted
Twelve (50%) girls cautioned against trusting “boys from the hood.” They believed that “guys with thug mentalities” were out to “prove their manhood” by having sex or going out with multiple girls even within the context of a boy–girlfriend relationship. Like the African American inner-city youth in Miller and White’s (2003) study, they referred to these young men as “players.” Eighteen-year-old Sally, for example, described neighborhood boys as “thugs who sell drugs,” “don’t like school,” and see “getting girls” as a way “to succeed.” The majority of girls (n = 14; 58%) also said boys’ attempts to demonstrate masculinity were played out primarily for an audience of male peers, or as 18-year-old Sharon said, “I think boys cheat because they’re trying to compete with their friends and how many girls they can go out with . . . It’s all just a game to them.” Lydia, an 18-year-old girl who had been repeatedly cheated on further elaborated, Most guys from [neighborhood] cheat on their girlfriends because dealing with the guys from here . . . they really don’t do nothing. They just sit around, and you rarely hear about any guy that goes to college or that has a real good job. They’re always hanging with their homeboys; they always smoking weed; and they just chill.
Lydia’s critique suggests that neighborhood boys eschew conventional routes to achieving social status (i.e., going to college, obtaining a “real job”) in favor of having sex with as many girls as possible to enhance their status in the eyes of male peers. She believed that most neighborhood boys aspire to be players. Although she was aware of the potential emotional pitfalls of being involved with players, she did not spontaneously mention any sexual risks. She was not unique in this aspect. This is troublesome given that boys with a player identity are more likely to cheat on their partner than those who do not have this identity (41% vs. 12%; Giordano, Longmore, Manning, & Northcutt, 2009).
Looking for Non-Thuggish Guys
On two (8%) occasions, girls chose “non-thuggish guys” to minimize the likelihood of being “played” or cheated on. Instead of going for the stereotypical good-looking bad boy, they intentionally chose “ugly” or religious boys. Lydia’s quote illustrates the following strategy: My friends were like “He’s so ugly. You can do better . . . ” but to me it’s not about how you look. It’s about personality because more than likely if the guy is like the best looking, he’s also more cocky ’cause he knows he looks good. He knows that he can get all these girls and trick all of them, but if they’re not that good-looking, and they find a girl that looks good, they’ll be like “I’m going to treat her good, so I don’t lose her because I finally have a girlfriend.” That’s why I was okay with my boyfriend.
Although only two girls reported this strategy, it is worth noting because both intentionally chose a “non-thuggish” boyfriend as a way to minimize their chances of “getting played” or cheated on. Interestingly, Lydia and Toni had very different sexual and romantic relationship experiences. Lydia had multiple past sexual partners and had “been cheated on by every guy” she had “ever been with,” whereas 16-year-old Toni had only been involved in one boy–girlfriend relationship (see Table 1 for Toni’s narrative). Research is needed to further understand how past sexual and relationship experiences directly influence this strategy choice.
Being on the Lookout for Red Flags
Despite operating on the premise that “boys from the hood” are “players,” many girls engaged in romantic relationships with these boys. Consequently, they became adept at identifying “red flags” that might indicate a boy was a cheater or “player.” The most frequently mentioned red flags were “Putting in the Time,” “Adopting a Public Versus Private Persona,” “Partner Seems Less Interested,” “Being Secretive,” and “Flirting with Other Girls.”
Putting in the Time: “I’ve Never Had a Girlfriend Like You.”
Eight (33%) girls said some boys pretend to be interested in girls by “Putting in the Time” to reel them into a relationship, only to have sex with them, and then either cheat or break up with them. They noted that boys who use a lot of flattery early on should be treated with suspicion, as indicated by Lydia below: I’ve been cheated on a lot, so every single time, they all tell me the same thing: “I’ve never had a girlfriend like you”; “You’re so pretty” . . . and I’m always like rolling my eyes, like “whatever” . . . but usually their habit is to stay around. They keep in touch; they show you attention to make you think they’re interested; and they basically take it slow, and later on when they know they got you, because you think “Oh, they’ve spent all this time with me,” then that’s when they do something. They cheat on you or they’re like “I’m done” and they leave.
Three young women shared stories about being “played” by boys when they were younger. They attributed being “played” to their relatively young age and inexperience and believed that younger, less experienced girls were most at risk of being victimized by older males interested primarily in sex, as indicated by 18-year-old Bre below: They [boys] act differently because they think the younger girls are immature and they’ll fall for their act. They act differently with the older girls because they think they know a lot.
These narratives reveal that some girls view boys as sexual predators who are out to trick girls into having sex with them even if this involves being in a pseudo-exclusive relationship with them. This was particularly true of the older, more sexually experienced girls who had been “played” in the past by boys they thought were their boyfriends. Although these girls presented themselves as savvy to boys’ attempts to play them, they acknowledged that younger, more naïve girls might be more likely to fall for boys’ antics. This might have to do with the fact that many of the older teens in this study were sexually experienced and had been cheated on; therefore, they adopted a less judgmental view of younger girls.
Public Versus Private Persona
Six (25%) girls also identified acting differently in public versus private as an indicator that boys might be cheating or playing them. At one end of the continuum were boys who opted not to acknowledge their romantic relationships in public. Raquel, age 16, said that she and her boyfriend had mutually agreed not to go public with their relationship because they wanted to avoid “drama” and “gossip.” Yet, as we continued talking, it became clear that this was her boyfriend’s idea. She also acknowledged that she had heard rumors about her boyfriend “flirting” with other girls.
At the other end of the continuum were boys who acknowledged their girlfriends in public, but acted very differently in front of their peers versus when they were alone with their girlfriends as indicated by 15-year-old Lisa: Yes. Like when they’re together, they’ll be like, “Oh, you’re so pretty,” and then like whenever they’re with their friends, especially the guys, I see that a lot, they’ll talk mean things about their girlfriends. They’ll say their girlfriends are ugly and that they just want to mess around on them. I think they’re jerks. They just look for fun, and they’re always messing around with different girls. And the poor girls don’t even know.
Although most girls viewed acting differently in public versus private as a red flag, one young woman in a long-term relationship said she understood why her boyfriend treated her differently in front of his “homeboys” versus when they were alone. She said going along with this charade was better than “fighting all the time.”
Partner Seems Less Interested
Eighteen (75%) girls noted that “acting differently” could possibly be indicative of cheating. Acting differently most often took the form of a boy suddenly seeming less interested in his girlfriend, as illustrated by Rebecca, age 16, who eventually found out her boyfriend had “developed feelings” for another girl: Well, he started acting differently, and I asked him, “Do you still want to be with me?” and he said, “I don’t know” and I was like, “What kind of answer is that?” and he told me that he had something on his mind, so it had been bothering him. So he showed some kind of respect that it bothered him. And he finally told me.
Elsa, age 16, shared a similar experience: If the guys start pushing away from the girl, you know, they start acting differently . . . they start being aggressive. Like they don’t let themselves be the way they were . . . so eventually the girl will break up with him. I’ve seen it happen. One of my friends was crying, and she started telling me that she later found out he was cheating on her. The guy had met someone else, and he wanted to get rid of my friend, but he didn’t want to dump her. I think he might have been afraid of hurting her. I’m not sure.
In both instances, girls recognized that boys sometimes feel conflicted and aren’t sure how to confess to infidelity especially when they don’t want to hurt their girlfriends. These narratives suggest a more nuanced view of boys’ motives that goes beyond solely attributing their behaviors to well-entrenched gender scripts that reify males’ sexual dominance over females.
Being Secretive
Fourteen (58%) girls also indicated that “Being Secretive” was strongly indicative of cheating. They were deeply suspicious when their boyfriends texted frequently or seemed hesitant to disclose who they were texting. For example, 16-year-old Jessica said, I think you should be worried if your boyfriend starts texting all the time if he’s with you, like who would he be texting all the time if he’s with you, you know. Being on Facebook. Adding all these girls you don’t know. You’d think you’d know the same girls, but you don’t. Stuff like that, I guess, should make you worried.
Similarly, 15-year-old Lisa shared a personal experience that involved her ex-boyfriend texting with another girl: I should have realized sooner that he was cheating on me. I mean, he was always texting on his phone. Constantly. I never thought anything of it until one day I accidentally saw one of the texts from some girl named Mandy. He denied it at first, but eventually he confessed. I should have realized it sooner. Next time I’m going to be more suspicious.
As these narratives reveal, many young women were often on the lookout for potential indicators that boyfriends were hiding something. Such views were most likely heightened by their often shared beliefs that boys were primarily concerned with using girls as a status symbol as well as their own personal experiences with unfaithful boyfriends.
Flirting With Other Girls
Seven (29%) girls also noted that flirting with other girls was an indicator that boyfriends were either likely to cheat or were cheating. They shared stories of how their boyfriends blatantly flirted with other girls right in front of them as illustrated by 16-year-old Jessica: Well, I used to have a best friend, and he would always flirt with her, and of course, I was always with my best friend a lot of the time, so I would always see it, and I would always just brush it off, and I guess be sort of passive-aggressive towards him. I never told him, “Oh, why are you doing this? It bothers me.” And I remember him flirting with my best friend. He would like walk her from class to class or play with her hair. He flirts with everybody, all the girls, and you can’t really tell if it’s real.
Raiven also described how her boyfriend would flirt with other young women even after she told him that this behavior made her uncomfortable: He’d do it (flirting) right in front of me. He’d say: “That’s not flirting. That’s just being friends.” I’m like, “No.” Like long hugs . . . Other girls would just come touch him and stuff. He would do it to other girls. I would say, “I’m not comfortable with that.” But, yeah, he would do it right in front of me. He would say, “That’s not anything. You’re just being crazy. That’s not like anything. I don’t know why you’re getting mad. You shouldn’t be getting mad.”
Although four (17%) girls defined flirting as cheating, most did not. However, they did see flirting as a possible precursor to cheating. Furthermore, as illustrated by the above accounts, they definitely did not like it when their boyfriends flirted with other girls in front of them. Unlike the other red flags mentioned, this one seemed to cause girls the most distress perhaps because of the public nature of flirting as well as their often shared belief that flirting might lead to emotional or sexual infidelity.
Electronic Surveillance
Twelve (50%) girls also discussed ways in which they attempted to obtain information about boyfriends they suspected of cheating. This usually involved monitoring electronic devices and accounts such as phone histories, text messages, and social media accounts. Asking who their boyfriends were texting or attempting to covertly view boyfriends’ electronic devices and accounts were common surveillance strategies as indicated by 18-year-old Gina below: Sometimes he wouldn’t let me look at his cell phone if he got a message. I would ask him, “Who’s that? Is it your sister?” And he would just say, “Yes,” but he wouldn’t let me look at what she wrote.
Social media played a big role in girls’ perceptions that their boyfriends were potentially cheating. Many girls were suspicious when their boyfriends refused to give them their passwords to social media accounts such as MySpace and Facebook as illustrated by 18-year-old Sally below: It’s like what happened with my boyfriend . . . if they don’t want to give you a password to like MySpace or something they’re probably hiding something.
This strategy involved girls either actively demanding access or covertly obtaining access to boyfriends’ electronic devices and accounts as a means of investigating suspected infidelity.
Relying on Peer Information
Peers played a significant role in shaping girls’ views and decisions when it came to choosing and/or staying with partners. Twelve (50%) girls relied on tips from peers to solidify their suspicions about boyfriends, as Raiven shared below: Well, the first time it was like a flirtatious thing. When they go to soccer games away, the girls don’t go, so I wouldn’t go, and he got some girl’s number or something like that. One of the teammates gave him a girl’s number and they were texting, and someone told me, “Oh, my friend told me about that. My friend is like, ‘I just want you to know. I don’t want you to think that I am part of this, but don’t tell him I told you. I’m pretty sure he’s going to tell you on his own.”
When it came to cheating partners, girls almost unanimously said they would tell peers if their partners were cheating on them, and they expected their peers to do the same in return. For example, Gina said: I wouldn’t want anybody to hide that from me if I was the one being cheated on. I mean . . . I’d rather cry for a certain amount of time for that person cheating on me, but I wouldn’t want somebody to look at me and think that they can get away with it, you know.
Yet, girls were highly skeptical of what their peers told them, but this seemed to apply more to their female than male peers. Lydia argued that trusting girls was especially difficult: Yeah I would want them to, but nowadays people tend to say what they want, so they’ll say “Oh, I seen him out at the club with this girl,” and I’m like “He was with me” so nowadays they like to lie, so I really don’t believe off of words you know . . . she said, he said . . . If I see and hear you with my own eyes, you’re in trouble, and if a friend were to come up to me saying “Oh I’ve seen him” I still wouldn’t believe them because nowadays everybody lies.
When asked why they wouldn’t believe peers, several girls noted that people—especially other girls—either just like to “start drama” or they are jealous. Despite the potential pitfalls of trusting peers, girls typically said they would let their friends know if they found out their partner was being unfaithful. Yet, they acknowledged that doing so could backfire, as indicated by 17-year-old Sarah below: Your friend is kind of like your partner. You have to put your trust in them and if you tell them things, they have to tell you things, too. I would want to know so I would tell them, but sometimes it backfires on you. Your friend doesn’t believe you, but she’ll end up finding out later.
Peers played an important role in girls’ romantic partnerships. However, this role could either be positive or negative depending on whether the peer was a close friend. Although girls reported wanting their close friends to tell them about straying boyfriends, they were generally suspicious of female peers who “just liked to cause drama.”
Discussion
Although research indicates that new gender scripts are emerging for young women (Ortiz-Torres et al., 2003), the same cannot be said for Latinas who continue to be described in the social science literature and popular media as either passive, subservient women who live in accordance with marianismo or as hypersexual (Toro-Morn, 2008; Vargas, 2010). As indicated in the current study, young Latina women are more complicated than these simplistic characterizations. Like other young women, they seek to minimize the risk of being emotionally hurt as they navigate the complicated terrain of adolescent relationships against a backdrop that privileges young men. They do this by relying on assumptions about boys and men as well as actively being on the lookout for red flags that might indicate infidelity. At times, they also rely on peer warnings. They do not conform to society’s depiction of Latinas as docile, subservient women who cater to the whims of their male partners. Yet, their behaviors can be constrained by these overarching representations of how they should think, act, and feel.
By virtue of being young and female, girls are already relegated to an inferior social status relative to males (Asencio, 1999). This is especially true for young women of color growing up in inner-city neighborhoods (Jones, 2009). As was found in the current study, young Latina women growing up in such environments often believe that most boys are “players.” Entrenched in a social milieu that values hegemonic masculinity, they rarely question these assumptions about boys. Although they acknowledge that some boys—such as those who go to church and “ugly” boys—are different, most operate under the assumption that boys from their neighborhood will hurt, use, and discard them.
Unfortunately, girls’ assumptions about boys are not unfounded as teen boys often adhere to traditional gender scripts. Qualitative studies reveal that inner-city boys often view being a “player” as a primary means of achieving status and prestige among male peers (Milbrath et al., 2009; Miller & White, 2003). Miller and White (2003), for example, found that African American boys often perform masculinity by acting tough and having—or at least giving the appearance of—sex with a lot of girls. Many believe they are actually tricking naïve and unsuspecting girls (Miller & White, 2003). They talk about girls as sexual objects who are not smart enough to realize they are being “played.” The current study’s findings directly challenge this assertion by suggesting that girls are aware of boys’ motives. In fact, the majority of the young women in this study operated on the premise that boys from the hood are “players.” Boys who did not fit this mode were the exception, not the rule.
To minimize the possibility of “getting played,” many of the young women—particularly those who were the most sexually experienced—were frequently on the lookout for “red flags” that might indicate a straying partner. They talked at length about how some boys simply “put in the time” to have sex with “girlfriends” even though they have no intention of being faithful or staying with them long-term. They also understood that young men “in the hood” are often pressured to demonstrate masculinity by having sex with multiple girls. Although they understood these dynamics, they still resented being used and objectified. Yet, many admitted that they were attracted to “thugs” and “bad boys” even though they knew the risks. This was not unexpected given previous research, which suggests that although young women value “nice” (i.e., passive, respectful, nonthreatening) forms of masculinity in social and work contexts, they value more hegemonic or traditional forms of masculinity (i.e., dominant, proctor, provider) in romantic and family contexts (Talbot & Quayle, 2010).
Despite girls’ resentment, it is possible they accrued some social “benefits” from being in relationships with boyfriends. The most obvious social benefit might be the status that comes with having a boyfriend (Van Roosmalen, 2000). A second possible social “benefit”—at least for the sexually experienced girls—is that they were able to maintain some semblance of a good girl reputation by having sex within the context of a committed boy–girlfriend relationship. They were “girlfriends” as opposed to “hos” and “sluts.” Being a “good girl” and only having sex within a committed relationship allows them to live in accordance with traditional gender scripts rooted in marianismo and reinforced by the institution of compulsory heterosexuality.
Unfortunately, the consequences of being involved with a cheating partner outweigh any possible social benefits. Young women often feel hurt and emotionally distressed when they find out their partner is cheating (Williams & Hickle, 2011). Faced with the possibility of getting hurt, many young women—as demonstrated in this study—resort to monitoring their boyfriends’ behaviors. They check texts and social media accounts to make sure their boyfriends are not talking to other girls; they watch their boyfriends to make sure they don’t flirt with other girls; and they often rely on peer reports of straying boyfriends. They are very invested in not being “played,” hurt, and discarded.
Although many young women confront their boyfriend when they suspect transgressions, they often do so from a subordinated position. Instead of being proactive, they are reactive. That is, they watch, wait, and then react when their suspicions are confirmed. Adopting such a reactive approach puts a lot of pressure on young women to manage their relationships in the face of possible threats to their emotional well-being. Furthermore, although most of the young women in this study did not spontaneously voice concerns about sexual health, the threat remains. If girls are sexually involved in what they believe to be monogamous relationships, then their risk of obtaining an STI is increased. What makes this particularly troubling is that these young women may not even know the extent of their risk until it is too late.
The current study explored Latina girls’ strategies for minimizing the risk of “getting played and hurt.” Although the study provided important insights, a number of limitations deserve mention. First, the data were obtained from a small convenience sample whose members were recruited via school outreach efforts and snowball sampling. Generalizations to other Latina girls cannot be made. The inclusion of only English-speaking girls in the study is a second limitation. Language usage, a powerful indicator of acculturation, has been associated with more traditional gender expectations and sexual values among Latino youth (Deardorff et al., 2008). The inclusion of non-English proficient Latinas could have potentially yielded different findings. A third limitation concerns the open-ended nature of the interview. Although the semi-structured format of the interview provided girls a space to discuss what was important to them, a more structured approach would allow for a more comprehensive survey of girls’ actual experiences and perceptions that go beyond those shared in this study.
Despite these limitations, this study makes an important contribution to the literature because few studies have explored how Latina girls negotiate the threat of infidelity in their romantic and sexual relationships. In addition, this study has the potential to inform future research in several ways. Using a standardized interview protocol with questions about specific strategies, for example, would result in more generalizable information if used in conjunction with a larger, random sample of Latina girls. Taking into account how strategies vary by age, acculturation status, traditional gender role beliefs, and sexual experience represents other potential avenues for future research.
Such information can inform the development of gender-specific STI prevention programs. Programs that account for Latina girls’ feelings and behaviors as shaped by dominant constructions of femininity and masculinity could potentially empower them to develop proactive interaction patterns and boundary setting within the context of their romantic relationships. Such programs might focus on helping young women understand how heteronormative expectations grounded in traditional gender scripts shape their thoughts, feelings, and behaviors within the context of dating relationships with boys. A major goal of such efforts should be the development of a critical consciousness of how differences in power and privilege result in gender inequities. Armed with such knowledge, Latina girls would then be in a better position to negotiate boundaries within their own relationships as well as advocate for larger social justice change on behalf of other young women.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Dr. Nancy Jurik, the anonymous reviewers, and the editor of Youth and Society for their invaluable feedback on earlier drafts of this article. The author would also like to acknowledge the 24 young women who participated in this study.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was partially supported by Arizona State University’s (ASU’s) Center for Population Dynamics (CePoD) Seed Grant Program Award for “Gender, Relationship Power, and Attachment Among Sexually Active Mexican American Adolescent Girls.” This was an internal ASU grant. The author is also grateful for the support of the University of Houston’s Center for Mexican American Studies Visiting Scholar Program.
Author Biography
Vera Lopez received her PhD in school psychology from the University of Texas at Austin and completed a postdoctoral training program at Arizona State University’s Prevention Research Center. She is currently an associate professor in the School of Social Transformation at ASU. Her research areas include sexual risk taking, substance abuse, and prevention research with a major focus on adolescent girls and Latino/a youth.