Affective Dynamics and Young Women’s Sexual Subjectivity: The Case Study of the Israeli Practice of “Attacking”

Abstract

Although young women’s sexual body is often objectified by cultural practices, analysis of their affective responses highlights various possibilities of sexual subjectification. This paper uses the case study of “attacking”—a common Israeli heterosexual practice—to address the emergence of young women’s sexual subjectivity, using affect theory to reveal the gap between affective responses, self-perceptions, and the perceived normativity of the practice. We address vulnerability as an affective pattern of the encounter of bodies with power formations, which also enables transformation. Drawing on interviews with 39 young Israeli women, we demonstrate how “attacking” evokes affective dissonance that illuminates their need to negotiate social meanings and self-perceptions, revealing new forms of collectivity and action that enable sexual expression even when facing vulnerability. This approach challenges the objectification–subjectification dichotomy and expands theorization beyond the focus on autonomy and control of sexual pleasure.

Keywords

“Attacking,” sexual subjectivity affective responses affective dissonance vulnerability young women sexuality

Introduction

Social expectations and judgments regarding young women’s sexual behavior are informed by a social evaluation of their control of sexual relations and pleasure (Bay-Cheng, 2015, 2019; Bay-Cheng & Elisero-Arros, 2008; Gill, 2008; Tolman et al., 2015). Young women navigate between conflictual discourses that encourage them to freely express their sexuality but do so according to social expectations that render them vulnerable (Bay-Cheng, 2015, 2019; Gill, 2008, 2012; Hamilton & Armstrong, 2009). This navigation illuminates the dynamic and transformative power of young women’s sexual body, which generates different sexual subjectivities (Bryant & Schofield, 2007). Therefore, although their sexual body is very often objectified by cultural practices, analysis of young women’s sexual experiences highlights various possibilities of becoming sexual subjects (Allen, 2005; Bay-Cheng, 2019; Bryant & Schofield, 2007; Maxwell & Aggleton, 2010, 2012). These subjectivities, in turn, enable sexual pleasure, but also compliance with cultural norms, as well as the ability to cope with intensified vulnerability.

This paper uses the Israeli case study of “attacking”¹ to analyze affective elements through which young women’s sexual subjectivities emerge. “Attacking” is a common heterosexual practice performed in nightclubs for adolescents and young people according to clearly defined social rules, for the purpose of initiating casual sexual interaction. During the party, young men approach young women and touch their bodies, often from behind, in order to initiate kissing, close dancing and/or making out. Usually, young women respond either by continuing the sexual interaction or by rejecting the attempt.

“Attacking” is different from “hitting on” someone in general, because it takes place only in the specific spaces of nightclubs, usually between strangers, and through immediate physical contact. It occurs in large parties in which anonymity is maintained and the space is dark and shrouded with smoke. It has some characteristics in common with hook-up culture, particularly the lack of prior acquaintance, the gender roles, and some situational elements, such as high accessibility to potential sexual partners and intensive alcohol consumption (Allison & Risman, 2014; Bogle, 2008; Paul & Hayes, 2002; Reid et al., 2011).

Consistently with other research that demonstrates how the participation of Israeli adolescents and young people in casual sexual interactions depends on religiosity, ethnicity, and immigration status (Shtarkshall et al., 2009), “attacking” is common among the secular Jewish middle class. Moreover, it involves a strict gendered division of roles that matches the different cultural expectations from young men and women with regard to casual sex (Shtarkshall et al., 2009; Shulman et al., 2009).

Unlike the different meanings of “assault” and “attack” in English, the word “attack” in Hebrew is used in the context of both military and sexual violence. That is, the slang term “attacking” has specific negative and violent connotations echoing the Israeli cultural association of the military, sexuality, and gender (Levin, 2011). Despite these connotations and some characteristics of the practice, young people perceive “attacking” as normative. Moreover, as their narratives reflect, young women find in “attacking” spaces possibilities for sexual expression and pleasure. This makes “attacking” an important case study for studying the emergence of young women’s sexual subjectivity in spaces that essentially construct and are constructed by objectifying practices that render them vulnerable.

Our analysis uses affect theory to illuminate the sexual subjectivities of young women that experience different affective dynamics in “attacking” spaces. Probyn (1993) states that the gap between our sense of being and the social expectations regarding our decisions and actions shapes feminist reflexivity and negotiation of the dissonance between our self-perception and lived conditions. Based on Probyn, Hemmings (2012, p. 154) identifies the feminist perspective on affective dissonance as “the dissonance between my sense of self and the possibilities for its expression and validation,” and states that affective dissonance is critical in feminist theory because it illuminates our relations with others and transformative possibilities that are not rooted in our identity but result from experiencing the gap “between self-narration and social reality.” Hemmings focuses on affective solidarity and on a political feminist subjectivity that allow us to reveal “modes of engagements that start from the affective dissonance experience” (p. 148).

We apply this approach not only as our standpoint as researchers but also in the search for such a dissonance in the experience of young women who participate in “attacking.” We argue that analysis of young women’s experience of affective dissonance reveals different options of sexual subjectification that transcend the focus on individual control of sexual relations and pleasure. Specifically, we suggest that in “attacking” spaces, some affects deconstruct young women’s subjectivities, whereas others serve as a resource of transformation and realignment of the subject.

Starting from the premise of gender inequality and power relations in “attacking” spaces, this paper analyzes how social practices, relations and norms give rise to a range of affective responses that enable different sexual expressions. While we do not overlook the fact that “attacking” echoes stereotypical sexual roles, we aim to challenge the dichotomy between objectification and subjectification and demonstrate how young women express sexual subjectivity at these spaces, which is a relational process rather than an individual feature. Our assumption is that theoretical awareness of the relational aspects of sexual subjectivity may reveal that moments of intensified vulnerability, and even trauma, provide young women with transformative knowledge about their sexual selves. We do so out of the assumption that young women’s sexual subjectivity is not necessarily contingent on personal choice and lack of precarity but can emerge even under certain conditions of objectification and vulnerability.

Sexual Subjectivity

The sexualities of adolescent and young women are discussed in a variety of political, medical, and social discourses that usually reproduce a dichotomous approach toward their sexual subjectivity and agency (Bay-Cheng, 2015; Cheng et al., 2014; Gill & Scharff, 2011). Research that focuses on risks associated with young women’s sexual activity (e.g., Armour & Haynie, 2007; Cuffee et al., 2007) often ignores the positive aspects of sexuality that contribute to their healthy development (Fine, 1988; Martin, 1996; Schalet, 2010; Thompson, 1995; Tolman, 2002). Conversely, feminist research aspires to reveal power relations and inequalities on the one hand and to focus on sexual pleasure, empowerment, and agency on the other (Bay-Cheng, 2003, 2019; Horne & Zimmer-Gembeck, 2005; Lamb, 2010; Martin, 1996; Schalet, 2010; Tolman, 2002, 2012).

Sexual subjectivity and agency refer to the ability to enjoy sexual desire and pleasure and to the capacity of becoming a sexually autonomous subject (Lamb, 2010; Schalet, 2010). While sexual agency refers to individual subjective expressions and actions, sexual subjectivity focuses on physical presence related to sexual pleasure (Bay-Cheng, 2003; Tolman, 2002), and to one’s perceptions of sexuality and sexual pleasure (Horne & Zimmer-Gembeck, 2005, 2006; Schalet, 2010). Horne and Zimmer-Gembeck (2005, 2006) refer to sexual subjectivity as a means to avoid harm and empirically establish the relationship between higher levels of sexual subjectivity and positive self-esteem. Tolman (2002) refers to the sexual subject as a self-motivated sexual actress who expresses her desires. From that perspective, sexual desire and agency reflect the possibilities of promoting subjective interests in the sexual arena (Bay-Cheng, 2003), and are connected with autonomy, choice and control (Horne & Zimmer-Gembeck, 2005, 2006; Lamb, 2010; Martin, 1996; Schalet, 2010; Tolman, 2002, 2012).

In the 1980s and 90s, feminist literature emphasized how female adolescents and young women internalize social expectations of becoming objects of male sexual desires and even aggression (Fine, 1988; Martin, 1996; Thompson, 1995; Tolman, 2002). This literature highlights different social contexts that construct different meanings of sexual experience on the one hand, and subjective body knowledge on the other (Martin, 1996; Tolman, 2002). In the last 15 years, feminist scholars established the need to dispute the dichotomous understanding of subjectification and objectification (Lamb, 2010, Schalet, 2010). Lamb (2010, p. 294) argues that the emphasis on sexual subjectivity needs to address three ‘historical problematic areas’ in young women’s lives: objectification, victimization, and stereotyped feminine passivity, and claims that feminist theorization needs to seek a deeper understanding of young women’s sexual pleasure and its relational manifestations.

Research informed by this approach shows how young women need to navigate within multiple demands and conflictual discourses. This navigation leads to an expression of subjective desires that are a result of interpersonal dynamics and social norms that construct individual feelings (Cense et al., 2018). Bryant and Schofield (2007) describe young women’s embodied sexual subject as self-reflexive and relational. They argue that a wide range of sexual experiences shape young women’s sexual subjectivity, which emerges through the dynamic relationship between the symbolic and the material. Therefore, the positive or negative sensations and responses of young women’s bodies are socially transformative and reflect agentic possibilities (Maxwell & Aggleton, 2012).

Specifically, “attacking” culture cultivates elements of objectification, vulnerability, and responsiveness. Analysis of this practice from the perspective of empowerment which associates subjectivity with choice and personal fulfillment might exclude relational and social effects that shape young women’s sexual subjectivity in these spaces (Bay-Cheng, 2003, 2015, 2019; Lamb, 2010; Lamb & Peterson, 2012; Schalet, 2010). Therefore, our analysis aims to demonstrate the relational and intersubjective manifestations of young women’s sexual subjectivity, as it emerges through the navigation within normative demands and affective responses.

Affect Theory

Theorization of affect focuses on the materiality of the body with its constant movement that constitutes the process of becoming (Massumi, 2002). Deleuze (1997) distinguishes affect from feelings and emotions and argues that as presubjective forces, affects can disrupt social meanings, confuse social logics, and confound expectations. Following Deleuze, Massumi (2002) stresses that while affects appear as primary and immediate experiences, they are not detached from social meanings. As such, affects may illuminate transformative processes of negotiating the social world. Thus, we address affects as relational dynamics inseparable from the effects of social meanings and power formations that shape young women’s bodies and practices.

Kolehmainen and Tuula (2018) stress that affect is not a personal property or individual reaction but that it emerges through relations and encounters of bodies and subjects. This relational approach allows an analysis of the corporeal and intersubjective relations that shape the subject. The relational concept of affect meets the empirical challenge of identifying power relations, affective inequalities, and their interpretation and judgment in the context of intimate relationships. The focus on interdependencies and relationality disrupts the neoliberal focus on individuality and choice and enables other ways of knowing, which challenge both individualistic characteristics of subjectivity and a deterministic conception of social forces (Hemmings 2005, 2012; Kolehmainen et al., 2021). Therefore, focusing on bodies’ affective responses allows an alternative understanding of sexual expression beyond the dichotomies represented by sexual scripts and identity categories (Paasonen, 2018).

The relational concept of affect also offers a perspective of the body, not only as presubjective materiality, but also as a process of relatedness (Blackman & Venn, 2010). As a form of relatedness, the body is capable of shaping feelings, senses of self, attachments, and individual identifications (Sehlikoglu & Zengin, 2015). Thus, attention to different bodily responses and to the unconscious corporeal systems allows us to rethink the social and refrain from assuming a-prior negative or positive affective domains (Lynch et al., 2016).

The affective responses that arise in relation to touch are particularly relevant to “attacking.” Zengin (2016) defines ‘touch’ as a product of heteronormative assumptions of sex and gender that has the potential to mark values and meanings, to establish boundaries, and to indicate individual borders. Kinnunen and Kolehmainen (2019) demonstrate how social and cultural perceptions of touch highlight the body’s relationality and affectivity that undermine the boundaries between body and mind. Touch leads to affective responses that are experienced and processed within cultural contexts, in relation to which affectivity becomes transformative. As a corporeal situation that is charged with emotional, social, and cultural processes, it illuminates the asymmetrical relations regarding the social possibility of touching and being touched. In turn, these asymmetrical relations evoke certain vulnerabilities (Zengin, 2016).

Rozmarin (2021) offers an account of vulnerability as an affective pattern of the encounter of bodies with power formations, which also enables creativity and transformation. Vulnerability as an affective relation depends on sociocultural formation, but at the same time enables subjective transformation. Therefore, addressing vulnerability as affective relations helps locate the transformative aspects of practices performed by vulnerable subjects. Because young women face intensified vulnerability when expressing their sexuality, tracing their vulnerability as an affective pattern may reveal other possibilities of becoming a sexual subject.

This paper addresses the affective relations that shape young women’s sexual subjectivity. We assume that the practice of “attacking” constructs and is constructed within gendered conditions of inequalities that shape both young women’s vulnerability and their sexual expression. The objective of this paper is to analyze young women’s affective responses and to reveal the processes, interactions, and relations through which their sexual subjectivity emerges.

Method

Participants and Procedure

We conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 39 heterosexual secular Jewish women aged 18–23 from different locations in Israel. The interviews were held between July 2018 and February 2020. Emerging adulthood (18–25 years old) is a period of self-development and self-focus (Arnett, 2004), characterized by a combination of maturation and maturity and in particular, a tendency to take sexual risks (Levin, 2011). This age range allows time for reflecting on and processing unspoken experiences from the years of maturation.

We related to the interviews as an open conversation (Janesick, 1998), so that the interviewees were viewed as experts on their experiences (Reinharz, 1992). To facilitate this further, the interviews were conducted in informal settings (private living room, café), and the researcher introduced herself openly, while inviting an open conversation. We approached the interviews using the framework of “critical respect” that involves both hermeneutics of trust with respect to the interviewees’ narratives that describe their active coping in the world, and a critical standpoint in relation to power structures and gender inequalities in particular (Gill, 2007).

The interviews took 90-120 minutes to complete; they were audiotaped and transcribed. Selected quotes were translated from Hebrew into English with an effort to preserve the meaning of cultural subtexts. All interviewees were given a pseudonym used in all data analyses. The research topic presented to the interviewees was: “Hooking up and flirting at nightclubs and parties.” All interviews started with the question, “What can you tell me about your experiences at nightclubs?” This question invited the interviewee to tell her own story that reflected her experience during adolescence and early adulthood. Other questions addressed bodily responses, sexual expressions, relations and interactions, self-perception, and the practice of “attacking.”

Data Analysis

We analyzed the findings using a feminist theory of affect, considering the complexity in identifying affective elements in reflexive interviews. Based on Hemmings (2012), Åhäll (2018) refers to “affective dissonance” as a methodological tool that raises feminist curiosity focused on interpersonal relations that construct the subject. This methodological tool evokes questions about gender, agency, subjectivity, and violence that reveal “how the world works” (p. 38). Using this analytic framework allows us to maintain a standpoint of “feeling differently” for the purpose of illuminating young women’s possibilities to think, act, and know differently.

During our thematic analysis, we phrased one of the central themes as affective dissonance, a gap between the embodied experience of “attacking” and the perception of the norm and of oneself. Our feminist reflexivity emerged from the dynamic nature of the affective dissonance as expressed in the interviewees’ narratives. This dissonance emphasized the discrepancies between their sense of being, self-perception, and the perceived normativity of cultural norms. In turn, this reflexivity allowed negotiation with life conditions (Probyn, 1993), that reflected on relational manifestations of young women’s sexual subjectivity.

Using textual interviews as a tool to analyze affect is challenging because language may be perceived as limited to discourse. Therefore, our analysis also tries to illuminate unspoken emotions and sensations. The things the participants do not say during the interviews (gestures, sensations, tone of voice, physical demonstration, silence, gaps, absences) emphasize the texts’ affectivity and emotionality (Ahmed, 2004; Blackman, 2010; Chmilewski & Hajek, 2018). To address this challenge, we refer to affect as relational, dynamic, and transformative, focusing on relations that weaken or strengthen the subject and on affective capacities that construct possibilities of subjectification (Åhäll, 2018; Hemmings, 2012; Kolehmainen & Tuula, 2018).

Findings

Affective Dynamics: Pleasure and Disgust

As described in the Introduction, “attacking” includes both symbolic and actual violent manifestations. Nevertheless, some of the participants describe the practice as “kissing,” “dancing,” or “making out” at the party, “out of a feeling of horniness” (Michal, 18). The interviewees find in “attacking” the opportunity to explore their sexual expression:

To do more than kissing and with more than five men …. We also had our lists of whom we wanted to kiss, with whom we kissed …, like kissing someone a year below in school, kissing someone a year above, flirting with the bouncer …. It was a time we were more aroused that way. (Nicole, 21)

During the interview, Nicole explained how she and her friends have acted to fulfill their sexual desires and wishes during adolescence and early adulthood. She describes various moments of sexual arousal and pleasure as part of her experiences in “attacking.” Like Nicole, many interviewees describe how they come to the party with the explicit purpose of gaining sexual experience.

While many interviewees share that there are more young men than young women at the party and emphasize gender imbalance and inequalities, they describe themselves as agentic while “attacking”:

So, I took a chewing gum, and I was dancing in the middle of the dancefloor, and four boys were around me, looking at me and wanting to be with me. … and the four of them were good looking. But there was the one I wanted, the one I noticed in the beginning of the night. So, I relayed to him that I want him. And then we kissed and danced tight. (Mia, 18)

This quote illustrates the affectivity in the spatial choreography of “attacking,” in which young women dance provocatively to attract young men and encourage them to initiate the sexual interaction. During her interview, Mia used her body to demonstrate how she took different actions to convey her desire to the young man she wanted. While her description meets the gender roles and social expectations from young women not to act directly to initiate the interaction, her quote also illustrates how “attacking” evokes affective sexual responses such as sexual arousal, passion, and attraction.

The interviewees describe how they enjoy the atmosphere of freedom and blurred boundaries at the party that allow them to experience sexual interactions inappropriate in other, “non-attacking” spaces:

We loved getting drunk, a lot of alcohol, to go out all the time, meet boys, f*** them. Sorry for saying ‘f***’, I hate this word …, it’s so sleazy that I allow myself to use it. (Na’ama, 23)

Na’ama is embarrassed by her own use of blunt sexual language but speaks about these past experiences with emphasis on the possibility of satisfying her sexual curiosity. Na’ama’s use of the word “sleazy” to describe these sexual experiences reflects not only her self-perception but also the social expectation for decent sexual behavior when it comes to young women (Bay-Cheng, 2015, 2019; Gill, 2008).

Despite this expectation, many interviewees experience spaces of “attacking” as allowing greater freedom to explore their body and sexuality:

As I said, I dance to release my body and feel beautiful. … if I want to, I manage to be in that situation, to focus myself in my zone and feel my body. (Yamit, 23)

Yamit’s quote illuminates how “attacking” spaces enable her to experience a vital connection with her body. Yamit further describes the affective elements at the party as “energies” that open up possibilities to dance freely and to feel “attractive and sexy.” These “energies” reflect on how the trans-subjective affective relations in these spaces produce a dynamic atmosphere that allows greater flexibility in relation to social boundaries (Kolehmainen & Mäkinen, 2021).

Because of the gender roles that shape and are shaped in “attacking” spaces, according to which young women attract young men to initiate the sexual interaction, many of the interviewees go to great lengths to stand out as desirable targets for “attacking.” When Sharon (18) admits that frequently “we come to the party for the purpose of being hot,” she explains how important it is for her to feel attractive to young men. The interviewees also describe how they choose clothes, makeup, and hairstyle, in order to highlight their sexual parts and feel “hot”:

Ass, tits, or cleavage. … There’s also something sexual in clothes. You want to feel sexy, beautiful, attractive and all that …. It’s important for me to feel beautiful with the clothes I wear, it’s important for me to feel a little bit sexual and attractive, I won’t lie. (Mor, 21)

Mor’s description reflects how young women try to empower their femininity by establishing their attractiveness according to the stereotypical male perception (Vickery, 2009). Mor perceives herself as sexually agentic, but she is also embarrassed to admit her sexual endeavors because of the expectation of young women not to behave too sexually (Bay-Cheng, 2015). The mix of social expectations, gender roles, and intense affective responses is also evident in Michal’s (18) description of how she experiences “attacking”:

You come to dance beautifully, and to look good, and you’re sexy, there’s nothing to do about that. You’re not trying too hard, you’re just hot and sexy. And you dance and then things like that [“attacking”] just happen to you, and they just come and cling to you.

Michal realizes that she does not need to act directly to initiate the interaction if she wants to be part of “attacking.” Despite the passive language she uses (“things just happen to you”), she repeatedly describes herself as sexual, agentic, and self-confident. During the interview, she constantly moved her body and demonstrated her affective responses while participating in “attacking” and feeling attractive and sexy. Thus, the objectifying practice leaves young women in a responsive position, which nevertheless allows for self-expression and agency.

But the interviewees also describe some concrete elements in the party, such as density, darkness, sweat, and smoke, as restrictive and unpleasant. These conditions give rise to a sense of vulnerability, intensified by the possibility of being “attacked”:

First of all, discomfort. I feel like someone is closing on me and I can’t move too much. Because if I move, I might touch someone. It’s like you don’t have space. (Sahar, 21)

Sahar describes affective responses that arise when she realizes that touching someone might be misconstrued as an expression of interest in “attacking.” This description illuminates on how affective responses are culturally processed and attests to asymmetrical relations regarding “touch” in “attacking” spaces (Kinnunen & Kolehmainen, 2019; Zengin, 2016). Other restrictions result from unsolicited physical touching that young women constantly experience while “attacking”:

You feel shut down. You need to work your way, and every time, a hand tries to grab you, and you try to understand who’s doing it. It’s a kind of a shrinkage, a desire to shut down. To shrink in space. (Sigal, 21)

The affective response of “shutting down” emphasizes how very often being touched inappropriately is experienced as incapacity to act (Kinnunen & Kolehmainen, 2019). Sigal’s confusion in not understanding who touches her makes it difficult for her to negotiate the subtleties of the situation and to respond to “attacking” attempts. This position reflects on her intensified vulnerability and uncertainty.

Despite their collaboration with the practice, many interviewees describe different affective responses that arise when they experience “attacking” attempts: Cringing, shutting down, shivers, disgust, and stagnation. These affective responses are often evoked when young women experience the initial touch by a young man:

The minute someone touches you [as part of “attacking”], someone you don’t know, and you can’t see who does it, your body freezes. … Your body stops, but you continue. (Nira, 21)

This quote illuminates two key characteristics of “attacking”—lack of previous acquaintance and approaching from behind—that cause a sense of uncertainty at the moment of the initial touch. Nira describes how her affective response to “attacking” signals that she needs to stop. At the same time, she emphasizes a dissonance between the embodied awareness of her discomfort and her persistent performance. This affective dissonance demonstrates the gap between different affective responses and the wish to meet the norm.

Indeed, Nira, like many other interviewees, continues relating to “attacking” as normative and accepted, even when the unsolicited touch triggers memories of other bad experiences:

I feel his genitals. It’s horrible. It makes me want to cry. It’s a trigger to things in the past. … You don’t know what to do. It’s not good. It makes me distressed. (Shira, 23)

Shira’s affective responses and the triggering of traumatic experiences are affective markers of violated individual boundaries (Kinnunen & Kolehmainen, 2019). However, while the triggering memories make her vulnerable and insecure while “attacking,” she also describes other affective responses of sexual arousal (“you come to the party to enjoy and have sex”). Shira emphasizes the dissonance between affective responses that include recoil and threat, and sexual pleasure. Many other interviewees also describe conflicting affective responses:

When someone spanks my ass, there’s a momentary shrinkage. It’s a reflex. But then the feeling of euphoria takes over. (Yamit, 23)

Yamit explains that the euphoria is the result of feeling both sexual and worthy. She adds that participating in “attacking” serves as a “desirability index” and emphasizes young women’s wish to establish their social value as sexually attractive. The interviewees share experiences of affective dissonance when feeling vulnerable, but simultaneously relate to “attacking” as a way of reassuring themselves of their social value and self-esteem:

There are two feelings that come together. On the one hand, to be honest, it’s fun. It gives you a confirmation that you’re worth it. On the other hand, specifically me, as I said, it kind of puts me off. It’s a good confirmation but I’m not sure how much I want it. (Miriam, 21)

Many interviewees admit that because “attacking” confirms their social and sexual value, they feel that something is wrong with them if no one attempts to “attack” them. The interviewees’ acceptance of the practice as normative affirms their social and sexual value in relation to the stereotyped feminine role of “being attractive” (Vickery, 2009). However, when Miriam shares how she feels that the practice “puts her off,” she reveals how some of her affective responses conflict with her self-image. Her body experiences immediate unpleasant affective responses that reflect on the affective dissonance that arises when Miriam knows what her subjective sexual preferences are even if she cannot realize them. Similarly, when Shira (23) says, “I want to flip his hand, but I also want to be noticed,” she emphasizes the affective dissonance that arises from relating to “attacking” as normative and acceptable.

The findings show that young women experience a wide range of conflicting affective responses such as pleasure, sexual arousal and being “hot,” as well as freezing, shrinking, and disgust. These affective dynamics respond to the physical surrounding, relational interactions and social normative practices. The affective dynamics highlight how young women’s sexual expression is shaped by the affective dissonance that reflects different embodied responses, the perceived normativity of the practice, and intensified vulnerability.

Affective Knowledge, Collectivity, and the Emergence of Sexual Subjectivity

The interviewees’ different affective responses suggest that young women face latent or manifest intensified vulnerability as a result of frequent unsolicited touching and social restrictions on their sexual behavior. Many interviewees share how they face a dissonance between enjoyment and distress, describing how they often feel “in a blur” (Orly, 18). Nevertheless, the findings also show that this dissonance evokes affective knowledge and possibilities of transformation (Hemmings, 2012; Kinnunen & Kolehmainen, 2019; Rozmarin, 2021; Zengin, 2016). Processing these contradictory responses is necessary for establishing the possibility to act:

There’s one moment of “OMG” {accentuated} and then I look and understand who the man behind me is, so I have more tools to analyze the situation and understand what’s going on. (Yael, 23)

This quote demonstrates how Yael overcomes the affective sense of being unable to respond and takes action to better understand the situation. She expresses how affective responses of surprise, alert, and sexual curiosity inform her actions and drive her to acquire more knowledge on the situation. The interviewees’ awareness of different nuances in their affective responses shape subjective boundaries and agentic acts. The processed affective responses facilitate a transformation in their perception of the social meaning and normativity of “attacking.” In some cases, the affective knowledge can lead to physical resistance:

I think it’s important for me not to be touched in a way I don’t want to, mainly all that clinging …. This thing of coming from behind, the surprise, it’s even worse. … It puts me off, makes me stressed. I have an instinct to hit back. I have an instinct to pull a punch on someone. (Zohar, 18)

Zohar does not give up her wish not to experience what she considers inappropriate touch, even if she realizes it is difficult to fulfill it in “attacking” spaces. Her affective responses of recoil and stress are processed into affective knowledge that enables the transformation in her relatedness to the normativity of the practice and to her self-perception as a subject. Zohar’s description reveals an affective dynamic (stress, recoil, instinct to act) that gives rise to her resistance. Her experience demonstrates sexual subjectivity that arises out of the affective dissonance and reflects both her wish to be part of “attacking” and her wish to avoid unsolicited touch. As this example suggests, young women experience dissonant affective feelings, process them, and then establish their responses and actions as sexual subjects.

Moreover, facing dissonance between unpleasant experiences and an empowered self-image establishes new forms of contextualization and new ways of situating oneself in relation to what is happening:

Slowly, slowly you get proportions. You see that boys make their moves on everyone. You understand how it’s pleasant for you and how it’s not. (Nicole, 21)

Nicole emphasizes a process of acquiring a new perspective which allows her to interpret the practice and situation in a new way. Her sexual subjectivity emerges through a transformation in her relatedness to the practice when she internalizes gradually her affective responses. In another instance, Miriam (21) describes how when she realizes that young men choose young women “like chunks of meat,” she makes explicit the objectifying manifestations of “attacking,” and stops feeling “loved and wanted.” Reformulating the experience of objectification allows her to change her perspective on the meaning of her affective responses. As a result, new spaces of freedom to act and express her sexual subjectivity open up.

As these examples show, young women process the affective dissonance, acquire affective knowledge, and establish an orientation that gives meaning to “attacking,” to their affective responses, and to their sexual practices and preferences. This position allows them greater freedom to rearrange their subjective sexual expression. An important aspect of this transformative process is the relational affective resources that support the emergence of young women’s sexual subjectivity in “attacking” spaces. Young women’s affective dissonance and vulnerability are organized into collectivity, attachment, and relatedness when they interact with their female friends to keep the party safer and to allow subjective sexual expression. In this way, they relationally support each one’s sexual subjectivity:

I come to these parties with the purpose of “attacking,” so my ass is touched voluntarily. I have this [woman] partner, we stand out among them all. And we dance with each other provocatively and sexily. And boys are looking, and then each of us interacts with someone else, and while we kiss, we smile at each other. (Moran, 18)

Moran describes affective responses that are demonstrated in the interaction with her friend (dancing tight, smiling, and keeping eye contact). During her interview, she used her body to demonstrate this interaction and conveyed the affectivity between them. These affective relations allow them to feel confident enough to interact sexually with young men. Then Moran describes how her friend and she process each other’s affective responses to evaluate their interest in continuing the heterosexual interaction.

These affective relations between young women often result in acts designed to keep their friends safe:

… especially Debby constantly came to pull my shorts down. I was wearing shocking ‘f*** me’ shorts, and every time they rode up, she came to pull them down. And I was kissing and kissing … and I even brought my leg up {demonstrating} and Debby came and took my leg down saying, What the hell do you think you’re doing? (Mia, 18)

During the interview, Mia repeatedly uses her body (raises her leg, protrudes her breasts) to demonstrate the situation in which her friend is alert to her affective responses which reflect her sexual arousal. But Debby also negotiates with Mia for the purpose of striking a balance between Mia’s desires, social expectations, and possible harm. Mia shares how, when she feels aroused, her friend feels “disgusted,” because “it’s like [someone] touching her sister, and it’s gross.” She clarifies that Debby is not disgusted with her, but just feels very sad that things are like that. These affective relations allow Mia and Debby to establish a safer subjective position to express sexual urges even in “attacking” spaces that intensify their vulnerability. Affective knowledge and relational collectivity support the ability to balance recoil and sexual expectations and allow for the emergence of sexual subjectivity. This support enables young women to shift from uncertainty to a position of knowing and acting. The interviewees describe their friends’ role in supporting their self-interpretation of social meanings and of their affective experience. Hence, their process of subjectification shifts them not only to a position of self-realization but also to a collectivity that supports new spaces of freedom, action, and sexual expression.

Discussion

This paper demonstrates how young women’s sexual subjectivity emerges out of sexual curiosity, desire for social value, and need to cope with intensified vulnerability. The findings show how young women relate to the practice of “attacking” as normative and as assuring their social value, but also experience various contradictory affective responses. Young women’s participation in “attacking” often evokes dissonance between different affective responses that mark both possible harm and sexual arousal. Thus, affective responses such as recoil, disgust, and freezing, but also curiosity and enjoyment, may facilitate a transformative dynamic that shapes young women’s sexual subjectivities.

Analyzing these affective responses reveals how young women’s accumulated affective knowledge enables learning of one’s subjective desires (Massumi, 2002, Sehlikoglu & Zengin, 2015). Their affective responses are processed and construct different meanings of social norms and of oneself (Åhäll, 2018; Hemmings, 2005, 2012; Kinnunen & Kolehmainen, 2019; Kolehmainen & Tuula, 2018; Rozmarin, 2021; Zengin, 2016). When young women interpret the affective dissonance, uncertainty decreases, and they experience more sense of freedom and possibilities to act. This affective knowledge constructs a collectivity in which one’s female friends support the epistemic role of understanding what is happening and the transformation into a subjective position of knowing and acting. Thus, focusing on the affective responses in young women’s experience illuminates how their sexual subjectivity emerges in an ongoing relational process.

Analysis of the emergence of young women’s sexual subjectivity through the examination of their affective responses challenges dichotomous approaches that distinguish between compliance with objectifying practices and the expression of subjectivity. Following Kolehmainen and Mäkinen’s (2021) account of collective and trans-subjective affective atmosphere and the relational aspects of agency, we show how the affective aspects in young women’s experience illuminate the relational manifestations of subjectification and agency.

This analysis meets Bay-Cheng’s (2019) challenge of rethinking young women’s sexual agency beyond the focus on sexual autonomy, assertiveness, and empowerment. Indeed, our findings stress the importance of the relational network formed between young women as a network of care and support that allows them to express and explore their sexuality, as well as their vulnerabilities. Moreover, following Bay-Cheng’s (2019, p. 463) call to theorize young women’s sexual agency as “individual efforts to influence their immediate experiences and/or the longer courses of their lives through sexuality,” this paper emphasizes how young women’s navigation within the normative formations that govern their surrounding is informed by their affective responses and creates a continual process of subjectification that shapes their long-term strategies of acting as sexual subjects.

This paper also responds to Schalet’s (2010) and Lamb’s (2010) emphasis on analyzing relational manifestations in young women’s sexual subjectivity. We expand the concept of this relationality to the examination of the subject that establishes relationships with other young women, relationships that nurture one’s subjective expression. As our findings indicate, sexual subjectivity emerges not only as an individualist achievement but as a continual relational processing of the affective dissonance. The support that young women receive from their female friends enables them to establish a subjective position that allows transformation in their relatedness to social structures. By relating to young women’s vulnerability as both an affective pattern and an affective becoming that enables creativity and collectivity (Rozmarin, 2021), our analysis expands the conceptualization of sexual subjectivity beyond the neoliberal focus on individuality, autonomy, and control of sexual pleasure and sexual relations (Bay-Cheng, 2019; Lamb, 2012; Schalet, 2010).

Recognizing affective dissonance as both a central empirical theme and a methodological tool for illuminating intersubjective and transformative elements in young women’s body experience (Åhäll, 2018, Hemmings, 2012) allows us to present a critical approach toward young women’s sexual subjectivity without diminishing it while analyzing an objectifying practice. Moreover, analysis of the processing of relational affective responses illuminates how young women experience and negotiate overlapping and contradictory discourses (Åhäll, 2018). This critical approach aims to reveal new forms of collectivity and action that enable young women’s sexual expression even when they face intensified vulnerability. This paper emphasizes how the affectivity in young women’s vulnerability marks a response to power relations, but also attention to one’s affective responses and to a subjective transformation (Rozmarin, 2021). In turn, this approach allows rethinking subjectivity while emphasizing relationality and intersubjectivity, and exploring opportunities of changing the status quo (Åhäll, 2018).

In future research, it will be interesting to address sexual subjectivity as it emerges regarding other social practices, spaces, and norms that render young women vulnerable. Understanding the diversity in the affective responses that young women experience in different spaces may illuminate other processes of sexual subjectification. Moreover, in future research it is important to keep developing the methodology of affective dissonance regarding young women’s body experience and sexual subjectivity, as it promises to promote our understanding of different forms of relationality that support young women’s their sexual expression.

Understanding the dynamics of different affective responses and the relational processes of transformation in young women’s relatedness to oppressive norms has important implications in planning and implementing educational processes. Illuminating young women’s possibilities of becoming sexual subjects and new spaces of agency may result in more accurate ways to empower young women who feel compelled to express their sexuality while facing objectifying practices and intensified vulnerability.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Note

References

Åhäll

(2018). Affect as methodology: Feminism and the politics of emotion. International Political Sociology, 12(1), 36–52.

Ahmed

(2004). Affective economies. Social Text, 22(2), 117–139.

Allison

, & Risman

B. J.

(2014). “It goes hand in hand with the parties”: Race, class, and residence in college student negotiations of hooking up. Sociological Perspectives, 57(1), 102–123.

Allen

(2005). Sexual subjects: Young people, sexuality, and education. Palgrave Macmillan.

Armour

, & Haynie

D. L.

(2007). Adolescent sexual debut and later delinquency. Journal of Youth Adolescence, 36, 141–152.

Arnett

(2004). Emerging adulthood: The winding road from the late teens through the twenties. Oxford University Press.

Bay-Cheng

L. Y.

(2003). The trouble of teen sex: The construction of adolescent sexuality through school-based sexuality education. Sex Education, 3(1), 61–74.

Bay-Cheng

L. Y.

(2015). The agency line: A neoliberal metric for appraising young women’s sexuality. Sex Roles, 73, 279–291.

Bay-Cheng

L. Y.

(2019). Agency is everywhere, but agency is not enough: A conceptual analysis of young women’s sexual agency. The Journal of Sex Research, 56(4–5), 462–474.

10.

Bay-Cheng

L. Y.

, & Eliseo-Arras

R. K.

(2008). The making of unwanted sex: Gendered and neoliberal norms in college women’s unwanted sexual experiences. Journal of Sex Research, 45, 386–397.

11.

Blackman

, & Venn

(2010). Affect. Body & Society, 16(1), 7–28.

12.

Bogle

K. A.

(2008). Hooking up: Sex, dating, and relationships on campus. NYU Press.

13.

Bryant

, & Schofield

(2007). Feminine sexual subjectivities: Bodies, agency, and life history. Sexualities, 10, 321–340.

14.

Cense

, Bay-Cheng

, & van Dijk

(2018). ‘Do I score points if I say “no”?’: Negotiating sexual boundaries in a changing normative landscape. Journal of Gender Based Violence, 2(2), 277–291.

15.

Cheng

, Hamilton

, Missari

, & Ma

(2014). Sexual subjectivity among adolescent girls: Social disadvantage and young adult outcomes. Social Forces, 93(2), 515–544.

16.

Chmilewski

, & Hajek

(2018). Mobilizing affects about intimate relationships. In Kolehmainen

& Tuula

(Eds.), Affective inequalities in intimate relationships. Routledge.

17.

Cuffee

J. J.

, Hallfors

D. D.

, & Waller

M. W.

(2007). Racial and gender differences in adolescent sexual attitudes and longitudinal associations with coital debut. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41(1), 19–26.

18.

Deleuze

(1997). Essays critical and clinical ( Smith

D. W.

& Greco

M. A.

, Trans.). University of Minnesota Press (Original work published 1993).

19.

Fine

(1988). Sexuality, schooling, and adolescent females: The missing discourse of desire. Harvard Educational Review, 58, 29–53.

20.

Gill

(2007). Critical respect: The difficulties and dilemmas of agency and ‘choice’ for feminism: A reply to Duits and van Zoonen. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 14, 65–76.

21.

Gill

(2008). Empowerment/sexism: Figuring female sexual agency in contemporary advertising. Feminism and Psychology, 18(1), 35–60.

22.

Gill

(2012). Media, empowerment and the ‘sexualization of culture’ debates. Sex Roles, 66, 736–745.

23.

Gill

, & Scharff

(2011). New femininities: Postfeminism, neoliberalism, and subjectivity. Palgrave Macmillan.

24.

Hamilton

, & Armstrong

E. A.

(2009). Gendered sexuality in young adulthood: Double binds and flawed options. Gender & Society, 23, 589–616.

25.

Hemmings

(2005). Invoking affect: Cultural theory and the ontological turn. Cultural Studies, 19(5), 548–567.

26.

Hemmings

(2012). Affective solidarity: Feminist reflexivity and political transformation. Feminist Theory, 13(2), 147–161.

27.

Horne

, & Zimmer-Gembeck

M. J.

(2005). Female sexual subjectivity and wellbeing: Comparing late adolescents with different sexual experiences. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 2, 25–40.

28.

Horne

, & Zimmer-Gembeck

M. J.

(2006). The female sexual subjectivity inventory: Development and validation of a multidimensional inventory for late adolescents and emerging adults. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30(2), 125–138.

29.

Janesick

V. J.

(1998). “Stretching” exercises for qualitative researchers. Sage.

30.

Kinnunen

, & Kolehmainen

(2019). Touch and affect: Analysing the archive of touch biographies. Body & Society, 25(1), 29–56.

31.

Kolehmainen

, Lahti

, & Lahad

(2021). Introduction: Affective intimacies. NORA: Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research, 29(3), 147–151.

32.

Kolehmainen

, & Mäkinen

(2021). Affective labour of creating atmospheres. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 24(2), 448–463.

33.

Kolehmainen

, & Tuula

(2018). Affective inequalities in intimate relationships. Routledge.

34.

Lamb

(2010). Feminist ideals for a healthy female adolescent sexuality: A critique. Sex Roles, 62, 294–306.

35.

Lamb

, & Peterson

(2012). Adolescent girls’ sexual empowerment: Two feminists explore the concept. Sex Roles, 66(11–12), 703–712.

36.

Levin

D. S.

(2011). You’re always first a girl: Emerging adult women, gender, and sexuality in the Israeli Army. Journal of Adolescent Research, 26(1), 3–29.

37.

Lynch

, Baker

, & Lyons

(2016). Affective equality: Love, care, and injustice. Palgrave Macmillan.

38.

Martin

K. A.

(1996). Puberty, sexuality, and the self: Girls and boys at adolescence. Routledge.

39.

Massumi

(2002). Parables for the virtual: Movement, affect, sensation. Duke University Press.

40.

Maxwell

, & Aggleton

(2010). Agency in action – Young women and their sexual relationships in a private school. Gender and Education, 22(3), 327–343.

41.

Maxwell

, & Aggleton

(2012). Bodies and agentic practice in young women’s sexual and intimate relationships. Sociology, 46(2), 306–321.

42.

Paasonen

(2018). Many splendored things: Thinking sex and play. Goldsmiths Press.

43.

Paul

E. L.

, & Hayes

K. A.

(2002). The casualties of ‘casual’ sex: A qualitative exploration of the phenomenology of college students’ hookups. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 9(5), 639–661.

44.

Probyn

(1993). Sexing the self: Gendered positions in cultural studies. Routledge.

45.

Reid

J. A.

, Elliott

, & Webber

G. R.

(2011). Casual hookups to formal dates: Refining the boundaries of the sexual double standard. Gender & Society, 25, 545–568.

46.

Reinharz

(1992). Feminist methods in social research. Oxford University Press.

47.

Rozmarin

(2021). Navigating the intimate unknown: Vulnerability as an affective relation. NORA: Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research, 29(3), 190–202.

48.

Schalet

(2010). Sexual subjectivity revisited: The significance of relationships in Dutch and American girls’ experiences of sexuality. Gender and Society, 24(3), 304–329.

49.

Sehlikoglu

, & Zengin

(2015). Introduction: Why revisit intimacy? The Cambridge Journal of Anthropology, 33(2), 20–25.

50.

Shtarkshall

R. A.

, Carmel

, Jaffe-Hirschfield

, & Woloski-Wruble

(2009). Sexual milestones and factors associated with coitus initiation among Israeli high school students. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38(4), 591–604.

51.

Shulman

, Walsh

S. D.

, Weisman

, & Schelyer

(2009). Romantic contexts, sexual behavior, and depressive symptoms among adolescent males and females. Sex Roles, 61(11), 850–863.

52.

Thompson

J. B.

(1995). The media and modernity: A social theory and the media. Stanford University Press.

53.

Tolman

D. L.

(2002). Dilemmas of desire: Teenage girls talk about sexuality. Harvard University Press.

54.

Tolman

D. L.

(2012). Female adolescents, sexual empowerment and desire: A missing discourse on gender inequity. Sex Roles, 66, 746–757.

55.

Tolman

D. L.

, Anderson

S. M.

, & Belmonte

(2015). Mobilizing metaphor: Considering complexities, contradictions, and contexts in adolescent girls’ and young women’s sexual agency. Sex Roles, 73, 298–310.

56.

Vickery

J. R.

(2009). “I HATE HATE HATE being single” and “why is getting a bf so hard for me?”: Reproducing heteronormative femininity on gURL.com. Girlhood Studies, 2(1), 40–53.

57.

Zengin

(2016). Violent intimacies: Tactile state power, sex/gender transgression, and the politics of touch in contemporary Turkey. Journal of Middle East Women’s Studies, 12(2), 225–245.