Snapchat memory and youth digital sexual cultures: mediated temporality, duration and affect
Open accessAbstract
This paper explores how the photo and video-sharing app Snapchat mediates memory and intimacy, using focus group data with 18-year-olds. We use Bergson’s ideas about duration and Deleuze and Guattari’s theories of affect and assemblages to think about how the digital affordances of ‘disappearing’ Snapchat technology reshape memory and intimacy in youth sexual and relationship cultures. Our findings illustrate that Snapchat offers a temporal fastness and ephemerality – but also forms of fixity through the screenshotting of ‘disappearing’ snaps. Because judgement from peers cannot take place publicly within the app, offline discussion of Snapchat activity gains significant traction, making interview accounts of Snapchat use highly relevant. Our analysis of discussions of ‘Snapchat memory’ explores the gendered aspects of performative ‘showing off’ and sexual scrutiny, considering what happens when snaps do not disappear and how Snap exchanges can be used as relationship currency; for instance exploring how some participant’s challenged Snapchat related slut shaming through their uses of humour. Overall we show how Snapchat is mediating youth intimacy, highlighting the reconditioning that occurs between and across the digital world of Snapchat and the physical world of its youth users – evidence of the blurring of online and offline experiences that disrupts digital dualisms.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Snapping is non-consensual from the outset and ephemerality limits reporting.
“Snapping is a practice of taking a quick snap and sending it and is non-consensual from the outset, and the ephemerality of disappearing media limits capacities for reporting (Charteris et al., 2018; Handyside & Ringrose, 2017).”
From Teen Girls’ Experiences Negotiating the Ubiquitous Dick Pic: Sexual Double Standards and the Normalization of Image Based Sexual Harassment (2021) · cites this paper as Handyside & Ringrose, 2017
Cites
Social network sites: definition, history, and scholarship
boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007) · Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x · Cited by 16,251 · see citing works
Teen girls, sexual double standards and ‘sexting’: Gendered value in digital image exchange
Ringrose, J., Harvey, L., Gill, R., & Livingstone, S. (2013) · Feminist Theory · doi:10.1177/1464700113499853 · Cited by 618 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Only sluts love sexting: youth, sexual norms and non-consensual sharing of digital sexual images
Naezer, M., & van Oosterhout, L. (2021) · Journal of Gender Studies · doi:10.1080/09589236.2020.1799767 · Cited by 140 · see citing works
Ringrose, J., Regehr, K., & Whitehead, S. (2021) · Sex Roles · doi:10.1007/s11199-021-01236-3 · Cited by 108 · see citing works
“Snapping is a practice of taking a quick snap and sending it and is non-consensual from the outset, and the ephemerality of disappearing media limits capacities for reporting (Charteris et al., 2018; Handyside & Ringrose, 2017).”
BackgroundSelf-citation‘A male dominance kind of vibe’: Approaching unsolicited dick pics as sexism
Amundsen, R. (2021) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/1461444820907025 · Cited by 55 · see citing works
Charmaraman, L., Lynch, A. D., Richer, A. M., & Grossman, J. M. (2022) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2021.107053 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
Trading nudes like hockey cards: Exploring the diversity of 'Revenge Porn' cases responded to in law
Dodge, A. (2021) · Social & Legal Studies · doi:10.1177/0964663920935155 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
Rasmussen, P. K. B., & Søndergaard, D. M. (2022) · MedieKultur. Journal of Media and Communication Research · doi:10.7146/mediekultur.v37i71.125300 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
“Handyside and Ringrose (2017), for instance, emphasize how the ephemerality off ered by the social media app Snapchat invites users to share more explicit imagery than they would otherwise.”
Background
- Authors
- Handyside, S., & Ringrose, J.
- Affiliations
- University of Warwick (GB)
- University College London (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Ringrose, Jessica
- ORCID
- Ringrose, Jessica
- Venue
- Journal of Gender Studies
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2017-02-02
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 347-360
- ISSN
- 0958-9236 (ISSN-L)
- 1465-3869
- OpenAlex
- W2585460871
- Cited by
- 129
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2
- FWCI
- 29.82
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- discovery.ucl.ac.uk
- Locations
- Journal of Gender Studies (publishedVersion)
- UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender, Feminism, and Media
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Impact of Technology on Adolescents
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Sexuality, Behavior, and Technology
- Keywords
- Snapchat, intimacy, memory, duration, affect, assemblage, Henri Bergson, Deleuze and Guattari, transience, slut-shaming, online-offline boundaries, digital affordances, gendered performance, humour
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review