SA21 (G) - Condom Breaching Experiment

Dahon ni Charisse

Mangabat, Bryan Chester

Ofrasio, Angelique

Palacol, Karisse Ellamae

Salud, Trezsa Diane

Singson, Joseph

Yumul, Charisse

1. What norm did you violate?

The group violated the society’s norms in which 1) sex is something considered taboo and 2) engaging in premarital sex (implied by having a condom) is a sin or something generally frowned upon by society. Most prefer to not talk about sex and most still believe and follow the act of abstinence, thus making premarital sex a big issue for the society.

In this light, the group deviated from the norm that condoms are supposed to be kept private or hidden since these are viewed in a negative light by society. This was violated by having a member carrying a condom casually in her bag and/or back pocket in such a way that the condom is not secured in a private way, thus making it easy to “accidentally” take it out. Furthermore, the group deviated from the norm wherein boys are usually the ones thought to carry condoms. There seems to be a societal stigma on sexually active girls as “malandi” while sexually active boys are praised or even called “malakas” or “astig”. The fact that a double standard exists between genders pertaining to sexual activity is an effect of the gender inequality prevalent in society. In our breaching experiment, the one carrying the condom was a girl.

2. Describe the breaching experiment in detail. What was the activity? Where did you do it?

The breaching experiment focused on a female casually having a condom instead of keeping it hidden and private. The condom was “accidentally” dropped by the girl while walking, and passersby in the area got to see it. For one, the condom was placed in Charisse’s back pocket along with her phone. While walking along the footbridge, she got her phone out to answer a call and so the condom “accidentally” fell out without her noticing. Another method used was that Charisse pretended to get something from her bag but the box of condoms accidentally fell out.

The experiment was done along the footbridge near Gate 3.5 of Ateneo, and also inside the Regis Center. The reactions of the people passing by were recorded/taken note of as well as their gender in order to compare reactions. However, since we did not want to become obvious, only some of the reactions were caught on camera.

3. What were the different reactions of the people? List all possible reactions you observed. Why do you think they reacted this way? What caused these reactions? Did the deviant act re-affirm/ reinforce the existing norms based on these reactions?

• Most of the passersby widened their eyes when they saw the condom on the ground. Their facial expressions also showed that they were surprised, judgmental and confused when they realized that the condom was from a girl.  There were a lot of side glances.
• When a group of girls saw the condom, one of them shockingly said: “Oh my god, someone forgot something.”
• A pair of girls who passed by also said in a surprised manner: “Nakita mo ba yun?? Condom?”
• A girl attempted to point the condom out to her friends and she had a judgmental look on her face.
• A group of construction workers, probably in their 50s, passed by and one of them noticed the condom. His eyes widened and he looked confused/surprised but just kept on walking.
• The security guard at the footbridge called Charisse, discreetly saying: “Miss may nalaglag”. However, this could also be because he did not notice that it was a condom.
• A group of high school students paused when they saw the condom and even huddled around it a bit looking surprised.
• When a couple saw the condoms, they just walked by and looked back smiling as though it was amusing. Minutes later, the girl tweeted about what happened (shown below). It is interesting to note that Charisse did not scream when she dropped the condoms from her bag but the tweet indicated the opposite. This somehow reinforces the norm/expectation wherein one is supposed to hide possession of condoms and that if one is revealed to have condoms, the person would be conscious, “guilty” and say profanity.

• A reply to the tweet said “LAKAS SI ATE”, referring to Charisse having condoms. This actually goes against the expected norm in which sexually active females are called “malandi” while sexually active males are deemed to be “malakas” or “astig”. This could imply that the perspectives/perceptions towards different genders with sex are actually beginning to change in this certain location.

In general, the passersby who noticed the condom from Charisse gave surprised/judgmental reactions, both verbally and in their facial expressions; especially when they realized that it was a girl and not a boy that had the condom. Some passersby also did not have much reactions on the matter but it could also be because the experiment’s location was in a footbridge where people were generally busy or walking fast. This reaffirms the existing norms on premarital sex and how the society is not open to it being something casual or normal.

4. Aside from the norms, what sociological themes are at play for people to react in a certain way? Is it a function of gender (gender norms, roles), social class (norms of the rich & the poor), values/beliefs of institutions (religion, family, peer group, etc.)?

A sociological theme at play in the experiment were the values/beliefs kept by the people on premarital sex and how it is something that should be kept private and not talked about. More specifically, a sociological theme would involve religion since our country is a predominantly Catholic society which views sex as something sacred and should only be after marriage. Thus, with religion, there is a negative view against premarital sex and contraceptive use/birth control. This could be why the people reacted in the way they did and why reactions were mostly surprised or judgmental as it was against their beliefs.

Another theme present would be a function of gender wherein there was a difference in reactions. The group observed that the girls had more apparent/shocked reactions compared to boys who were more discreet about it. This could imply that the deviant act is more surprising/shocking for the female gender, leading them to become more expressive or shocked about it.

Based on the reactions, it is also possible that the people were trying to limit their reactions to mere judgmental looks, side eye glances and the like since they were in a public place and they did not know Charisse. This could be considered as their "front stage". This then leads to the tendency of people to express themselves in other channels such as online or when they have left the breaching area, which they would consider the "back stage". For example, the couple who passed by did not show a very strong reaction and yet it turns out that the girl went to her private Twitter to express her true thoughts on it and even exaggerated a bit.

5. How did you feel when you did this experiment? How does it feel to deviate from the norms? Were you hesitant to do the activity?

All of us were very hesitant in doing the experiment, especially because it involved the use of condoms. It had been previously agreed upon that everyone would do the experiments to see the differences in the reactions of the people. But even if this was the case, we still had a difficult time in deciding who would act first. The group, after seeing the people’s reactions as Charisse was doing the experiment, decided to disregard the previous plan for the sake of the experiment’s consistency.

The group also had a hard time in capturing the reactions on video. We decided to record the front view and back view of the experiment to catch the reactions of the people. It was quite hard for us because we had to make sure that we would be able to record the reactions of the people and, at the same time, make sure that these people would not notice us recording it. Though the video did not exactly capture the reactions of the people, it can be seen that most of the passersby noticed the condom and some of them even had this judging look on their faces.

It was very embarrassing for the group, especially for Charisse, because of the mere fact that we were carrying a condom. During the first few tries, all of us hesitated and felt awkward when we had to pick the condom up. There were also instances wherein as the other groupmates picked the condom up, some people would notice it and give us a judging look.

The unease we felt at first, while doing the experiment, somehow dissipated as we did the test over and over again. We got more comfortable as the experiment went on, and the previous hesitation we had was gone. At first, we were afraid to be stigmatized as “malandi” or “walang modo”  as we conducted the experiment, but we soon realized that if the passersby looked at us in “that” way or if the people made negative remarks about us, then our breaching had worked.

6. Other observations and analysis that you may have on the activity and on deviance in general.

In addition, an old woman who saw the condom seemed to be more scandalized compared to the younger ones who reacted. Although the younger ones still looked scandalized, they also laughed about it. This shows a difference in the views between generations wherein older generations disapprove of premarital sex greatly while younger ones, although still disapproving, have become more open to it becoming a “laughing matter”.

The group observed how the reactions were also dependent on if the passersby was able to notice  the condom while walking along the footbridge/Regis building. We also noticed some difference in reaction times wherein some passersby reacted immediately when they saw the condom while others were still bewildered on what it was before realizing.

Upon doing the experiment, the group realized that although it was embarrassing, it was actually fun to deviate from the norms. There is a fun aspect in having an excuse to do something one does not normally do, such as buying a condom, since we would not be able to do this normally. The group also felt a sense of accomplishment every time we saw someone react to the experiment negatively, thus reaffirming the existing norms. We observed how deviant acts would really get reactions from the people around.

SA 21 BREACHING EXPERIMENT

Carmen Ang

Jambo Daco

Gabriel De Los Santos

Rafa Marchadesch

Alessandra Pineda

SA 21 - E

Breaching Experiment

• What norm did you violate?
• We violated the norm of personal space and privacy.
• Describe the breaching experiment in detail. What was the activity? Where did you do it?
• In order to violate these norms, we wanted to create an experiment that would feel like an “invasion” of privacy. We went to McDonald’s in Katipunan, and had someone buy food and sit with a random stranger. There would be no talking from our breacher; he/she would only sit at the table (preferably with one person who was alone) and eat and stare at the stranger in silence. We had one person film the situation, so that we can properly observe the reactions. The person who was filming had to film inconspicuously, though, that did not necessarily happen.
• What were the different reactions of the people? List all possible reactions you observed. Why do you think they reacted this way? What caused these reactions? Did the deviant act re-affirm/reinforce the existing norms based on these reactions?
• As expected, our breaching experiment created a discomfort among those who were “targeted”, as well as from others who saw what we were doing. One of the people we did our breaching experiment on, was a girl who was sitting alone. One of our group members, Jambo, sat down next to her and started eating his burger while watching her. At first, the girl was a bit shocked, and she took out one of her earphones, since she was expecting him to say something. She didn’t do anything else, but was on her phone (probably telling her friends that some random guy sat down next to her). As this was happening, Rafa was filming on the side. To not look too suspicious, he went and sat at a table with our blockmate, and filmed from there. Unfortunately, several people saw Rafa filming, these people alerted the guard and three people told him to actually stop filming since that it wasn’t allowed in McDonald’s. After finding out we weren’t allowed to film, we decided to go ahead with the experiment without filming. Jambo then sat with a guy who was sitting alone as well this time. The person we breached first just stared at me without saying a word. Then 30 second went by he said "can I help you?" Just as the experiment said I did not respond and continued to stare. He brushed it off and continued his work. Roughly after 30 seconds again he said angrily "seriously bro, do you want something?!" Then again I did not respond. But little under 20 seconds he got mad and I had to say that we were filming for a social experiment.
• Aside from the norms, what sociological themes are at play for people to react in a certain way? Is it a function of gender (gender norms, roles), social class (norms of the rich & the poor), values/beliefs of institutions (religion, family, peer group, etc.). 
• Our group believes that Proxemics has a role in this experiment. People reacted the way they did because they believe that their personal space bubble was invaded, this was the main cause of discomfort in the experiment. An aspect of Filipino culture was also violated in this experiment, in other countries it is more acceptable for strangers to speak to each other and even share tables in public places. In the Philippines, there is a shyness when it comes to strangers, although Filipinos are very welcoming and hospitable, this does not translate well when we are taken by surprise as were the test subjects in our breaching experiment. The lack of conversation on our breacher’s end with the subject they were interacting with can be analyzed with the use of the Sapir-Whorf Theory. The theory states that people understand the world of culture with language, and because our breacher did not speak and also invaded the personal space (Proxemics) of the test subject, the subject was uncomfortable because their was no understanding between our breacher and the subject. Based on our experiment, it’s seen that without speech, people’s ability to properly interact and other people gets somewhat handicapped. In our experiment, the difference between the reactions of the male and female subjects also comes to play. The girl subject in the experiment, was very nice about her discomfort. Although it was evident that she was surprised and in discomfort, she was not rude about it. She even extended respect to our breacher by taking her earphones off in anticipation of conversation. On the other hand, our male subject was more hostile and rude as compared to the girl. In the perspective of the Gender Speech Contrast, it’s seen that men and women use language differently. Even though the girl did not say anything, her body language showed a sort of warmness to our breacher. As compared to our male subject, there was more aggression and reluctance when ur breacher sat with him. Overall, our breaching experiment violated the norms of proxemics and personal space and privacy. The reactions can be viewed and analyzed with the use of the Sapir-Whorf Theory and the Gender Speech Contrast which both point back to the norms of acceptable and expected human interaction. The experiment enforced the existence of norms in public places in relation to gender and culture.
• How did you feel when you did this experiment? How does it feel to deviate from the norms? Were you hesitant to do the activity?
• This experiment proved to be very "nerve racking" for Jambo and Rafa. There was a lot of hesitation involved from the both of them to do the breaching experiment. Jambo felt very anxious in doing this because he, too was aware of the social norm and the fact that we were breaking it made him more anxious. When Rafa got reprimanded by the Security guard, he felt very nervous since he caught attention from other people. The experiment made us feel reassured that society still has borders that still keep strangers apart while still showing the attempt to bond them together. It also allowed me realize that people have borders that shouldn't be broken since all people are different. It was observed that as Jambo approached the girl, the girl looked at Jambo. When Jambo took a seat beside the girl, the girl took of one of her earphones in anticipation that Jambo will strike-up a conversation with the girl, she decided to take her earphones off in anticipation of conversation and it is a norm to give someone your undivided attention when conversing hence the removal of the earphones. As Jambo was staring at the girl while eating his burger, the girl was observed to be texting on her phone. We believe that the girl was texting her friends that some guy sat beside her and was staring at her. Then Jambo revealed that we were doing a social experiment on the girl. It was observed that the girl put on both of her earphones and continued with whatever she was doing. It was observed that the guy was more responsive and direct compared to the girl, the guy even asked if Jambo needed anything from him. Without any response from Jambo, the guy became a bit more aggressive. At the perspective of our Cameraman, a lot of people noticed that he was filming. Some people decided to alert one of the waiters about the incident. The waiter then informed the security guard about the incident, then the security guard reprimanded our cameraman. It was observed that videoing was heavily looked down upon since, many of the people in the establishment reacted negatively towards the incident. We didn’t want to risk getting kicked out, so we stopped filming. It was observed that the security guard and some of the waiters were still looking at our group.

"If I Were A Boy"

Aquino, Chan, Garcia, Lim, Te

SA 21 - G

1. Introduction to the Norm

The norm we intended to violate is the notion that women(cis females) must only shop, try on, and wear women’s clothes. Clothing, more often than not, possesses a gendered dimension. Specific kinds of apparel are designed “for men” and “for women”, and the two sections are usually found in separate, segregated spaces in shops and department stores. The social expectation is that women should gravitate towards the women’s section. As an all-girl group, we instead headed for the menswear area and noted down the reactions of the salespeople to the violation of the norm.

2. Details of the Breaching Experiment

The breaching experiment was performed in ten middle- to upper-middle-priced stores that sell both women’s and men’s clothing, mostly found in UP Town Center with the exception of Topman in Rockwell. Each trial was only done once per store in order to minimize the possibility of salespeople discovering the true nature of the activity. The procedures of the experiment are as follows: one girl from the group entered the store by herself and started shopping at the men’s section. She was accompanied by another member from the group, who inconspicuously documented the exchange. After selecting an item of clothing that is made for men (e.g. cargo shorts, baggy joggers, etc.), the girl approached a salesperson and asked a series of questions, including:

1. Do you think this shirt suits me? (Bagay ba sa akin ‘to?)
2. What size do you think I should get? (Anong size kasya sakin?)
3. What can I pair with this? (Anong pwede iterno rito?)
4. Will I be prettier if I wear this? (Gaganda ba ako pag suot-suot ko ‘to?)
5. Do you think I can wear this to my date later? (Pwede ko ba ‘to isuot sa date ko mamaya?)

The girl then tried on the selected article of clothing in the dressing room and then returned the item back to the salesperson. Upon the completion of the activity, the experimenters debriefed the involved parties, and asked the salespeople for their thoughts and reactions.

3. Reactions and Findings

• TOPSHOP
• Female salesperson
• When asked if there was a smaller size for a particular shirt, she said that it was the smallest size for men’s but there was a similar shirt in the women’s section.
• She tried to lead the performer there, insisting the performer could find more options in the women’s section, but the performer insisted on the men’s shirt.
• PENSHOPPE
• Female salesperson
• When asked if there was size that would fit the performer, she immediately looked for the smallest size available.
• When asked by the performer if the shirt was for men, she nonchalantly said yes. She was unfazed by the fact that a woman was trying out a shirt made for men.
• During the post-experiment interview, she said that it wasn’t really a big deal that a woman wanted to wear men’s clothing because she’s had many experiences of women buying men’s clothing for themselves. She also noted that she thinks it’s completely normal because even she does it.
• COTTON ON
• Male salesperson
• When asked by the performer for a size of a long sleeved polo from the men’s section that would fit her, he said “Ah wait lang po ah, check ko lang Ma’am”, and then handed her the smallest size they had.
• When the performer asked if she could fit the polo, the salesperson guided her to the fitting room.
• During the post-experiment interview, when asked about his initial thoughts and reaction, he smiled and said he thought it was weird. He also said he was supposed to tell the performer that the shirt was for guys in case the performer thought it was for girls, but opted against it.
• AEROPOSTALE
• Female salesperson
• When asked by the performer for the smallest size of a polo, she answered with “Ma’am small na po ‘yung pinakamaliit na size.”
• The performer then asked for the shirt in small and asked if it was okay to fit it. The salesperson immediately answered yes and guided the performer to the dressing room.
• During the post-experiment interview, she said she initially thought the performer was buying the shirt for a friend, but found it weird when the performer asked to try on the shirt for herself and was looking for a size that would fit her.
• TERRANOVA
• Female salesperson
• When asked by the performer if the store had a smaller size for cargo shorts in the men’s section, she said “Sorry po ma’am pero sa pangbabae wala po kaming ganito eh.”
• When asked if the performer could try on the shorts, she brought the performer to the fitting room.
• During the post-experiment interview, she said she initially thought that the performer was looking at the shorts for someone else. When she realized the performer was buying it for herself, she just accepted it because she thought that was really the performer's style.
• UNDER ARMOUR
• Female salesperson
• When asked by the performer if she could use a particular pair of men’s basketball shorts to work out, she said “Pwede naman kaso panglalake po ito. Kung gusto po ninyo, nandoon po yung pambabae.”
• After the performer insisted on trying out the basketball shorts, she pointed out that the shorts might be too big, but told the performer she could try it out in the fitting room.
• On the way to the fitting room, she pointed out the women’s shorts, once again asking if the performer would want to check them out.
• During the post-experiment interview, she said that she wanted to make sure that what the performer really wanted was the basketball shorts because they were made for men. Since the performer insisted on it, she figured that maybe the performer liked those shorts because of the color or the length of the shorts. She said, “Depende naman sa kung ano ang gusto mo.”
• AMERICAN EAGLE OUTFITTERS
• Male salesperson
• Item picked out: patterned men’s shorts
• When asked by the performer for a size that would fit the performer, he said it was already the smallest size for men and said she could probably find shorts that would fit her in the women’s section. He was accommodating, but kept clarifying if she really wanted to try the shorts on before showing her the way to the dressing room.
• METRO DEPARTMENT STORE
• Male salesperson
• Item picked out: joggers
• When asked by the performer if a pair of joggers would look good or match her outfit, the salesperson initially looked a little confused but said, “Okay lang naman, pero medyo malaki po ata.” He looked through the racks and handed the performer a smaller size, and then directed her away from the men’s section towards the women’s dressing rooms.
• BENCH
• Male salesperson
• Item picked out: shorts
• When asked if there was a size for a particular pair of shorts that would fit the performing member, he said “Size 2 lang smallest namin sa women’s, ay men’s.” He then told the member he would see if there were any possible fits in storage.
• When the performer asked if there were any shorts at all in the men’s section that would fit her, he directed her to a section and asked “Anong kulay gusto niyo ma’am?” as he shuffled through the rack of shorts.
• GIORDANO
• Female salesperson
• Item picked out: shorts with a monkey pattern
• Greeted the experimenter
• When asked if there was a size for a particular pair of shorts that would fit the performing member, she said “Smallest size lang namin kasi ma’am, 29. Pero meron pa kami doon ma’am (pointing to the women’s section). Ayaw mo ng pambabaeng shorts?”
• When shorts were given back, the performer saying that they didn’t fit, salesperson smiled and took the shorts.
• Before leaving the store, as the performer and documenter were passing the women’s shorts display, salesperson pointed the shorts out to the performer saying that the performer could choose from those (Ito ma’am, mga pambabaeng shorts.)

SYNTHESIS OF FINDINGS

Most of the reactions that the experimenters received involved mild confusion and hesitant body language. There were also numerous attempts to redirect the experimenters to the women’s section of the store. In the end, however, the salespeople still accommodated the experimenters. A possible reason for the milder-than-expected reaction to the norm-breaking is the fact that they are still salespeople. They have to grapple with societal norms that have been ingrained into them (“women don’t wear menswear”) versus the need to stay professional and uphold customer relations. Furthermore, it is not completely unheard of to have women dress up in men’s clothing, with some circles experimenting with androgyny; it would be an interesting experiment for other groups to try the converse of our activity, or men shopping in the women’s section. In the post-experiment interview, many mentioned that they initially thought the experimenters were buying the clothes for a male friend. This is possibly a sign of the salespeople trying to rationalize behavior that goes against the grain. Once it became clear that the experimenters were buying clothes for themselves, the salespeople said they were surprised but it would ultimately depend on what the customer wanted to buy. Some said that they were not surprised because other women don’t like short-shorts or tight shorts, usually “nanays”. Even with this set of responses, it is clear that there is still a perceived division between men’s and women’s clothing.

4. Sociological Themes
   The group saw two sociological themes underpinning the breaching experiment. The first is gender and gender roles. Coupled with gender roles is how an individual dresses; a manifestation of this is gender-specific clothing sections, which was called to question in the breaching experiment. Growing up, we have been socialized into distinguishing what “women’s wear” and what “men’s wear” should be. Looking around in a clothing shop, one may find that there are evident distinctions between the kind of clothes in the men’s and women’s sections— perhaps the most obvious of them is the presence of skirts in the women’s section and the absence of them in the men’s section. Yet another is floral patterns that come about frequently in women’s sections but quite rarely in the men’s sections. In this experiment, shorts were the go-to item to pick; women’s shorts always tend to be shorter than men’s shorts(keeping all other things, such as leg length, equal).
   The second theme is dramaturgy. It must be noted that impression management is central in the salespeople’s line of work. Their roles include being welcoming, calling customers Ma’am or Sir, taking kindly to customer requests without dropping any negative comments (e.g. salespeople are not expected to say things like “Hindi yan bagay sa iyo.”), and perhaps most importantly, trying to make the sale. This behavior seen by customers—the same behavior the group observed—is the salesperson’s front stage. His/her back stage could come out when the customer leaves; perhaps the salesperson talks to a coworker about the customer, and it is only then that whatever opinions he/she has about the customer comes out.
   It must have been this impression management that was cause for what the group would call the salesperson’s light expressions of trying to make sense of the breaching activity. Responses or reactions such as ”...nandoon po yung pambabae.” from the Under Armour store are hints that he may have thought the performer ended up in the men’s section by mistake. And in order to further try to make sense of it , he reinforced the norm by directing the performer to the “appropriate” section-- a good example of conformity.
   

4. Personal Reflections

At first, we were hesitant to do the experiment since shopping at the men’s department wasn’t a norm for us. It was strange to walk into a store and browse through men’s wear because it was not something we would usually do. It took us some time to pick out a piece of clothing we’d inquire about. We wanted something that was distinctly men’s wear as picking out a regular shirt might not be able to produce a reaction in the salesperson.

Before conducting the experiment, we inferred that the salesperson would be very transparent with their reactions. We expected that the salesperson would immediately redirect us to the women’s section. However, during the actual experiment, we were pleasantly surprised by the reactions of the salespeople. Generally, they had good composure and did not show any judgement. Aside from this, most of the store attendants reasoned that the choice to try out men’s wear was just the preference of the performer and shouldn’t be held against them.

Deviating from the norm definitely created an inner struggle as we were afraid of how people might react. Even if it’s just an experiment, there was still a fear of judgment from others. We realized how it really takes guts to be different, that’s why people tend to just stick to the norm.