Social media construction of sexual deviance in Hong Kong: a case study of a Facebook discussion

The paper investigates how non-consensual non-monogamy (cheating/infidelity) and promiscuity are constructed as deviant on social media in Hong Kong and how these constructions contribute to violence against women. The authors analyze a Facebook discussion that followed a high-profile celebrity cheating scandal (the On–Sum affair) to examine perceptions of cheating/promiscuity, the gendered nature of stigmatization, and how individuals engaging in these practices are marginalized. The study addresses a gap in understanding how social media sustains compulsory monogamy by shaping norms around gender and sexuality and mobilizing informal social control.

Drawing on feminist critiques of compulsory monogamy (CM) inspired by Rich’s concept of compulsory heterosexuality, the authors review how legal, religious, and cultural norms mark cheating and promiscuity as immoral and deviant. They discuss definitions of sexual and emotional promiscuity and how societies label promiscuity as bad sex, associate it with other deviance, and disproportionately stigmatize women. Prior media research links representations of cheating/promiscuity to negative judgments and risk discourses. Social media literature shows reinforcement of gender norms, heteronormativity, and pressure to conform online. The review identifies a gap: while the Internet can facilitate cheating, little is known about how social media constructs these practices as deviant and induces gendered harassment. The concept of informal social control (protective vs punitive) frames how online discourse polices sexual morality. The authors also highlight “feminized” surveillance where women are more harshly judged, slut-shamed, and policed in both offline and online contexts.

Design: Qualitative content analysis with inductive thematic analysis. Case: A Facebook post by a prominent Hong Kong scholar titled “I Support Jacqueline Wong” (posted June 2, 2019) responding to a celebrity quadrilateral cheating scandal (the On–Sum affair). The post was public until early July 2020. The author of the post authorized use of comments in August 2019. Ethics: Approved by Human Research Ethics Committee of the University of Hong Kong (EA210132). Data: All 194 comments (92 main comments; 102 sub-comments) created before September 12, 2019, comprising substantive text in the discussion thread. Approximately 10% of items (irrelevant emojis, random names, duplicates) were removed from analysis. Timeframe: Review and analysis from late September 2019 to late August 2020. Analysis: Two coders (first and second authors) conducted inductive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Open coding produced 54 initial codes across three categories (commenting style, latent theme, general attitude). Comments could receive multiple latent themes. Coders iteratively refined and reduced codes, resolved discrepancies, and abstracted them into seven meta-themes presented in the results. Contextual reading considered prior comments by the same user to interpret meaning. The study emphasizes trustworthiness, reflexivity, systematicity, and transparency.

- Overall stance: Commentators overwhelmingly condemned cheating and promiscuity and were largely unsupportive of the involved celebrities and the writer. There were 50 unsupportive comments toward On/Sum and 47 unsupportive comments toward the writer; 56 instances of pure antagonism were recorded. - Meanings constructed around cheating/promiscuity clustered into seven areas: (1) ethicality of cheating, (2) ethicality of promiscuity, (3) impact on “true love,” (4) negative consequences to individuals, (5) effects on family structure and children, (6) attribution of accountability, and (7) notions of erotic and general freedom. - Claims-making and informal social control (ISC): Punitive ISC dominated. Users justified condemnation via legalistic claims (e.g., reference to adultery as grounds for divorce), emotional appeals (protecting family/children), and an ethics of care (respect, honesty, consent). Cheating was framed as disrespectful and uncaring due to the absence of consent. - Gendered stigmatization: Dehumanizing and sexist language disproportionately targeted women (e.g., “gaai”/whore analogies), with wife-blaming present and husband-blaming largely absent. Sum and the female writer received frequent personal attacks; derogatory terms included “bitch,” “retard,” “witch,” “lowbred,” etc. - Boundary-setting and alliances: Anti-cheating/anti-promiscuity commentators formed stronger alliances, often outnumbering supporters in multi-user threads (e.g., thread 17). Mutual reinforcement in one-on-one exchanges further entrenched boundaries between chastity vs promiscuity and loyalty vs cheating. Attempts at impartiality or nuanced defense (e.g., considering broader responsibility) gained little traction. - Civility decline: Discussions shifted from initial civility to hostility and personal attacks around the 40th comment; in thread 17, rational exchange gave way to insults by mid-thread. - Power asymmetry and participation imparity: Dominant conventional values gained visibility and support (e.g., via Likes and Facebook’s comment ranking), leading some supportive voices to self-censor (e.g., a user noting their friend dared not speak). This re-marginalized taboo practices and those engaging in them. - Facebook affordances: Spontaneous, high-volume interactions, potential pseudo-identities, and algorithmic ranking favored dominant discourses, increased hostility, and fostered echo chambers and affective polarization. - Protective vs punitive ISC: Protective ISC (reasoned, sincere persuasion) was rare and hard to sustain; punitive ISC (insults, judgment, sarcasm) was easier, faster, and more visible, thus reinforcing moral boundaries and suppressing alternative perspectives.

The discussion situates findings within compulsory monogamy (CM) and Confucian-influenced values emphasizing harmony, hierarchy, and family stability. Facebook interactions reinforced CM by drawing moral boundaries grounded in respect, honesty, and consent as indicators of authentic love and ethical relationships. Short-term or extradyadic intimacies were framed as mere lust, lacking “true love,” consistent with the dominance of heterosexual marriage as the authentic site of lifelong intimacy in Hong Kong. The authors note potential implications for mixed-orientation marriages, where compulsory heterosexuality coupled with CM may make cheating inevitable for closeted individuals, compounding harms—but this issue was not addressed by commenters and merits future study. Gendered consequences were stark: women (mistress, wife, and female writer) bore the brunt of stigmatization and cyber hostility, reflecting retraditionalized online gender hierarchies. Facebook’s interactional dynamics—algorithmic comment ranking, spontaneity, incivility, echo chambers—amplified dominant conservative views, intensified punitive ISC, and suppressed marginalized voices. Because punitive ISC is easier to perform and platform features privilege quick, emotive reactions, protective ISC (reasoned, sincere dialogue) struggled to take hold, entrenching polarization and sustaining the deviance construction of cheating and promiscuity.

Social media—particularly Facebook—proved unfavorable for nuanced discussion of taboo sexual topics, instead sustaining compulsory monogamy and constructing cheating and promiscuity as deviant in ways that exacerbate gendered power asymmetries and cyber violence. Although the analyzed post aimed to provoke thoughtful, destigmatizing dialogue, discussion devolved into hostility and alliance-driven punitive control, with women disproportionately targeted. The authors advocate platform-level measures to foster civilized discourse on sensitive topics: optional post-level rule enforcement akin to group “house rules,” clearer ground rules, moderation tools, and an appeal system to minimize canceling marginalized voices while preserving free expression. Further deliberation is needed to operationalize such features to nurture constructive dialogue rather than censor opinions. Future research should examine how online incivility affects taboo sexual practices across platforms and how social media intersects with broader social institutions in stigmatizing sexual deviance and oppressing marginalized genders and sexualities.

- Data scope: Only comments within the focal Facebook post/thread were analyzed; comments on shared posts and users’ profiles were largely inaccessible due to privacy settings, potentially omitting divergent perspectives. - Participation bias: Some supportive voices self-censored due to fear of backlash, so the dataset may underrepresent marginalized positions. - Context specificity: Findings derive from a single high-profile case study; while offering deep insight, they do not claim statistical generalizability. - Unaddressed dimensions: The discussion did not cover certain contexts (e.g., inevitability of cheating in mixed-orientation marriages); future research should explore whether netizens respond differently in such cases.