Intimates

Intimate contacts represent the orbit of sociability closest to one’s profile, with whom one shares more time, both online and offline. They usually belong to the same age group and, on numerous occasions, they are even the same age. The main activities they carry out are chatting, posting publications in common, making comments, “liking” and playing. In many observed publications, adolescents present to the group of intimates with whom they share their daily life and, in turn, present themselves as part of that group that defines and identifies them. In this way, they honor their best friends, tell them that they love them and are fundamental in their lives. Such publications tend to have a high degree of acceptance and feedback among their network of contacts.

In many publications, adolescents are observed expressing their intimate friendships that have a lot of affection (“I love them”, “they are everything for me”). They also usually post personal photos with their group of intimates. Although his words do not show a marked affectivity, the closeness of the embraced bodies suggests that they are intimate. Similarly, in another post, a teenager (14 years) presents an image with an intimate and adds “with the most piola I knew in my life I love you, you are the most”. In another, a teenager (15 years old) expresses her affection to her group of intimate males, by publishing that “they are everything, they are my life ..., they are fun, good, friendly, tared more than anything but I love them and I can not be without you”.

In another image, a teenager (16 years old) emphasizes that his group of intimates (present in the photo) are his “ranchada”,⁴ that “loves” them and “they are everything”. This affective expressiveness with “homelike” references gives an account of the centrality that intimates possess for them. In another example there are several personal photos of a teenager with her intimate group. In addition to showing her corporality in a group, she introduces her friends, among whom are listened to, they consult each other through chat and inbox, and on weekends they perform “previous” and go out to dance. As one adolescent interviewed (17 years old) comments, “on weekends we go single with my sister and my friends to look for nice guys that are worthwhile. And then in the week, if we met someone, we followed them on Facebook.”

As it was revealed in hundreds of images, teens often combine a photo with their best friend or with their intimate group, which is sometimes mixed. In popular areas, in the many cases of conflicting family relationships and lack of resources, the intimate often function as brothers. This is evident in the way they are called: “rancho” and “ranchada”.

On the other hand, among intimate can also exist -like tests of trust- the exchange of passwords or the intrusion in the profile of others, as seen in the following example: “Te Usurpé el face Solo Paaraa Deeciirtee q tii amoo muuchoo amiigaa & paaraa agraadeeceertee everything you do x my & xq you’re always when Tee Neeceesitoo” (Woman, 16 years). These interactions work as proof that they are intimate, that they protect one another and take care of the “virtual territory” (their profile and image in the network).

In turn, they represent the degree of mutual surrender, in the sense of trusting fully in the other and having nothing to hide. The exchange of passwords or the intrusion into someone else’s profile implies a specific netiquette⁵: only look at the virtual spaces of the other but not interact, except to make an affective publication. This type of experience deepens the bond and increases the mutual commitment of endurance. Sometimes an excess of confidence and actions on the part of one of those involved in the password exchange triggers a conflict around the privacy of the profile.

In intimate publications are also frequent statements of love and gratitude that, sometimes, allude to “the best” intimate friendship, native category that allows understanding this type of contact. Having a “better” implies a favorite friendship that works as a brother / sister, whose function is that of confidant: “you are all in my life”, “I love you”, “I am jealous”. This link combines elements of relationships between siblings, couples and childhood friends. Although a priori does not imply a blood link, in popular areas it is common for two sisters to be “better”. In addition to obligations and privileges similar to those of other intimates, it also usually requires certain exclusivity and demands a significant amount of time: “the” or “the best” is supposed to always be available to “bank” the other, as well as to support with a like and a complimentary comment. If both are online, it is expected that they defend each other before conflicting publications. Also, this relationship can be changing and mobile according to the sex-affective cues of each and the conflicts that arose. If one of the two “best” couples, it usually happens in conflicts of those between the couple and “the best”. In another publication of Facebook, a teenager (16 years old) thanks her friendship for her “best”. She expresses to him that he loves her, that his friendship is more than being friends, that he always trusts her to tell her secrets, thanks that he always listens to her and accepts her as he is. She reminds him never to hesitate to call her and that he will always be with her for anything, regardless of the others. This communication dynamics feeds on the virtual and copresential daily sociability.

Several examples were observed that account for this frequent social relationship among adolescents from low-income sectors: that of “better” male-female. In many publications, the teenager is grateful to be their “best” to their intimate, or vice versa and also publish some photos in which they are happy.

In a particular case, a teenager (17 years old), to justify his virile condition and his intimate relationship (but not sex-affective) with a woman, says “I love you a lot, even if you are a lesbian”, although he clarifies that it is a joke and that she knows that “he always jokes her with that”. These common publications among these adolescents point to a tension between the traditional heteronormative model and certain socio-affective configurations emerging between this generation of women and men (^{Del Valle, 2002}, ^{Gil & Vall-llovera, 2009}). In turn, the aforementioned comment can be read as a clarification in response to the “hegemonic masculinity” (^{Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005}) of his friends, in the sense that the heterosexual male usually associates intimacy with sexuality. This, in numerous occasions, is reinforced by the group of peers, who comment on the “suspicious” relationship maintained by the “best” mixed ones. In effect, such relationships generate discomfort among various groups of adolescents and adults, who fail to decode them and therefore sometimes question them.

In another observed example, a young woman (17 years old) comments on an idyllic outing with her boyfriend (“we went to Shopping Abasto, ate at McDonald’s and bought clothes”), although in reality she refers to her “best” friend. These status updates are common among the adolescents in the sample, who display an ironic discourse towards the heteronormative model. Although it is initially a link that does not usually include sex-affectivity, several adolescents update their states expressing the desire to have a boyfriend who is also their “best”, or thanking their partner to be their “best”.

In sum, “the best” and “the best” represent a specific phenomenon among these adolescents, closely linked to the “endurance” component in affective terms. In this orbit of contacts, a greater affective expressiveness of males is also visible, particularly in affection publications from “the best” to “the best”, or from a male to his partner. In most cases, intimates have a fundamental copresential dimension, which is strengthened by online interaction.

Everyday group

With “daily group” alludes to the close and copresencial pairs, with whom spaces like the neighborhood, the school, the “corner” and the soccer field are shared. Between these contacts a constant “round trip” of offline and online interactions is displayed. In this orbit the following components are present: shared spaces and history in common.

Whenever we can, we walk on Face with my friends. I’m more with them than with my own family. They are my “ranchada”. At times more than my family. Then when you put yourself in a couple and form your own family you do not look so much anymore (woman, 16 years old, low-income sectors).

In this type of contacts, as in the others, the “I like” is the main interaction. Users usually have three reasons to use it: empathy, sympathy and coincidence or identification: “I like when I like what I see or read, when it identifies me or moves me” (Woman, 17 years old); “I like when I feel like it because it made me laugh, I was happy or I liked what was published” (Woman, 18 years old); “If it happened to me or what someone posts, or if I would like it to happen to me, I like it” (Male, 15 years old). Likewise, the exchange of likes reveals a central feature in the interaction in Facebook: the overlapping of the playful-voyeuristic activity as a supposedly altruistic gift, with the aim of making each intervention in the network a strategic presentation of oneself.

In this line, as developed in another work (Linne, 2015), the intimacy performances that each user performs can be framed within a premeditated strategy of seeking popularity and social success among their different types of contacts, as well as trying to achieve a satisfying sexafectivity through seducing an audience as wide as possible (but controlled) through interactions in the network. In this sense, the concept of “multimity” is proposed to account for the fact that publications between adolescent peers in the social network are part of calculated and rational socio-communicative strategies, which only show certain aspects of personal and peer group intimacy. In contrast, in a well-known essay, ^{Sibilia (2008)} states that young generations live in a contemporary “extimacy”, preoccupied with showing themselves and obtaining the greatest popularity at any cost by exposing their privacy in social networking sites.

Immersed in this “multimity”, whose main fuel is the like, the invisible “I do not like” -spoken in the silence or absence of feedback-, as well as the negative comments between everyday contacts (schoolmates, neighbors), generates forms of implicit aggressiveness. Its consequence is, at times, explicit violence, both digital and copresential: fights, cyberbullying, monitoring, “escraches” and “ruining walls.”

The fragments of interviews also provide evidence to the analysis proposed: the daily group builds its bonds of friendship in a constant offline-online continuum. Likewise, this second orbit of contacts performs voyeurism and displays searches of sex-affective relationships in a joint way. For the maintenance of these daily relationships between peers, chat, private messages, suggesting contacts and being mentioned in the publications of others are key.

In addition, it is observed that adolescents from low-income sectors usually intensify their interactions by means of Facebook. It is possible to affirm that this same circuit is the “social fact” that leads them to participate in it on a daily basis. According to different researches (^{boyd, 2008}, ^{Morduchowicz, 2012}), the main reason for adolescents to use Facebook is to be in contact with their intimate and daily friendships. That is, to extend the time of sociability between peers beyond school time and the copresential meetings in clubs, in the public space, in homes and in other institutions.

Extended group

This orbit, located in an intermediate zone between everyday and unknown people, is made up of known contacts: neighbors, companions and friendships in common. They tend to be known and have a copresential or pre-existing link to that of Facebook, or copresential references of friendships in common. If the basic function of the unknown contacts, as developed in the next point, is to contribute to personal and site statistics; that of the extended group is constantly feeding the flow of sociability. In this orbit the following components are present: shared spaces and history in common.

Extended contacts provide a significant contribution to sex-affective sociability (real, imaginary or potential). As pointed out by different researches (^{boyd & Ellison, 2008}, ^{López & Ciuffoli, 2012}), Friendster was the first social networking site to be based on the principle that among friends-of-friends -i.e., among the extended group of peers- better couples would be formed than among strangers. This was one of the basic principles taken up by Facebook and placed at the center of its architecture. Unlike among strangers, among friends-of-friends there is usually a greater degree of common components to generate links.

See you at school, we play soccer, we go out, we get together to do tournaments with Play [station] and we chat for Face while we look for girls. There we advise on the candidates through chat or inbox or when we see each other (Male, 17 years old, low-income sectors).

The extended group provides each other with likes and voyeurism, as well as expanding the resources to add “popularity” and look for both friendship and sex-affective relationships. To this orbit of contacts are directed the strategies deployed among adolescents of sp to extend sociability. To extend your radio interactions on the site, for example, promise a list of “the 15 most beautiful and partible” of your Facebook or give the phone number in exchange for a “like”.

Unknown contacts

In this orbit, the most extensive of the four proposed here, there tend to be fewer interactions. According to the adolescents surveyed, in order to add a contact to this orbit, the main requirement is to share common contacts. In other words, if you do not know it but have contacts in common, you usually choose to add it, since you trust that it is part of your extended network: “I accept them even if they are unknown, if only to be friends. As long as they have pictures and their friends speak to them; if not, it is false “(Woman, 14 years old, sp).

I accept strangers when I want to add friends. I already have 1 200. Total later, if they bother a lot, I erase them. Sometimes some publish things that are good (Male, 18 years old, low-income sectors).

I do not accept anyone unknown. Only friends and sometimes friends of friends. But I have to know well who are friends. I heard from people those who persecuted or robbed them for accepting strangers (Woman, 14 years old, low-income sectors).

Through this broad orbit, the teenagers of sp exchange entertainment and voyeurism, looking at other people’s publications and profiles about the daily activities and biographical data of other users. It also serves to extend the network, exchange resources and comments to add popularity, as well as to have more possibilities of friendships and sex-affective ties.

This group is the basis of sociability in Facebook and forms the interconnected networks of “invisible prosumers”,⁶ in the sense that they enrich the news column of a profile. It is worth remembering that, according to the architecture of the site, the maximum number of contacts allowed is 5 000. It is common for teenagers to update their states complaining that they have hundreds of online contacts (available to chat) and none of them communicate with it or she.

On the other hand, the sample shows that those who most add strangers are singles, who usually look for potential sex-affective bonds. This need for feedback implies the constant search for new contacts in order to obtain a high number of likes and comments in their publications. At the component level, they only have in common a shared space, that of Facebook.