Adolescent Dilemmas About Viewing Pornography and Their Efforts to Resolve Them

Abstract

Concerns have been raised about how viewing Sexually Explicit Internet Material (SEIM) shapes adolescents’ understanding of sexual relationships and has potentially negative impacts. However, research frequently takes a narrow view of adolescent SEIM use and excludes their understandings. The present study explored how 13 participants, aged 14 to 15 years, made sense of their experiences with SEIM. In-depth individual interviews were conducted, and five dominant dilemmas faced by participants were abstracted using interpretive analysis. We discuss how these dilemmas were negotiated by adolescents using various strategies. The analysis provides new understandings of how adolescents interpret their SEIM experiences and highlights the limitations of understanding SEIM use solely through risk models. On a practical level, these findings can inform youth, parents and caregivers, and professionals as to how they might understand and help young people navigate the complex area of SEIM.

Introduction

Viewing sexual material is not new to adolescents, who experience normal curiosity about sexuality as they go through puberty. However, the moral alarm and debate over the effects of Sexually Explicit Internet Material (SEIM), commonly referenced as pornography, on young people has been reignited with the introduction of the Internet and mobile devices. It has been proposed that the accessibility, affordability, and anonymity of SEIM, referred to as the Triple-A engine, accelerates SEIM viewing and intensifies its impacts (Cooper & Griffin-Shelly, 2002). However, debate is ongoing over the harmful effects of SEIM exposure (e.g., Peter & Valkenburg, 2016) and, for some, whether concerns based on inconsistent findings are overstated (e.g., Attwood et al., 2018; Kohut et al. 2019). Concerns have included adolescents experiencing emotional difficulties and developing sexually permissive attitudes and risky behaviors, such as sexual coercion or victimization, unprotected sex, early sexual activity, compulsive pornography use, promiscuity, and increased interest in sex (Baams et al., 2015; Doornwaard et al., 2016; Hald et al., 2013; Ma, 2019; Owens et al., 2012; Peter & Valkenburg, 2006, 2008a, 2008b; Rostad et al., 2019; Stanley et al., 2018; Subrahmanyam & Šmahel, 2011; Tsitsika et al., 2009). Despite regular public debates about SEIM, Behun & Owens (2019, p. 5) highlight “the dearth of literature that examines the impact of pornography and SEIM on minors.”

Research documents that adolescents, predominantly males, watch pornography (e.g., Alexandraki et al., 2018), but how they make sense of these experiences usually remains unclear or is conceptualized as risky. Anxiety around risk is enhanced through conflating unlawful or abusive pornography with legal pornography (e.g., see Dworkin,1989). Exploration of negative impacts has been heavily weighted toward surveys using predetermined questions aimed at verifying risks (Döring, 2009; Tolman & McClelland, 2011). While looking for risk is important to help reduce harm, this research has been criticized for its narrow focus (Arrington-Sanders et al., 2015; McVey et al., 2021), and for missing nuances from adolescent perspectives (Attwood et al., 2018; Hare et al., 2015; Rothman et al., 2015). This has led authors to call for broader approaches that prioritize young peoples’ perspectives and move away from sexuality being conceptualized as problematic without also considering its positive aspects (Attwood & Smith, 2011; Lofgren-Mårtenson & Månsson, 2010; Tolman & McClelland, 2011).

SEIM is thought to be harmful because adolescents believe it is a realistic depiction of sexual behavior (Baams et al., 2015; Peter & Valkenburg, 2006) and thus want to enact the negative sexual scripts shown (Braun-Courville & Rojas, 2009; Doornwaard et al., 2015; Owens et al., 2012; Vandenbosch & van Oosten, 2018; Vandenbosch et al., 2018). Additionally, arousal models propose that SEIM will be rewarding and consequently will be repeatedly viewed. It has been proposed that sexualized media becomes integrated into adolescents’ lives and becomes their reality, which then raises questions about their ability to show insight into how SEIM can permeate their lives and to critically reflect on its content (Cameron et al., 2005; Kammeyer, 2008). Indeed, studies have shown SEIM has become integrated into adolescents’ daily lives and accepted amongst peers; however, the same participants have also been critical of the negative sexual scripts portrayed in SEIM (Doornwaard et al., 2017; Lofgren-Mårtenson & Månsson, 2010). Consequently, there is considerable ambiguity about how adolescents understand SEIM and whether it is passively accepted as offering realistic depictions of sexual relationships.

Furthermore, how adolescent perspectives are assessed needs careful consideration. Adolescent opinions can either be considered legitimate representations of reality that incorporate both negotiation of risks and positive aspects of sexuality (Tolman & McClelland, 2011) or they can be distrusted due to adolescent immaturity and inexperience. Underpinning the latter consideration are ideas of harm based on notions of adolescents as impressionable and naïve, differentiating them from adults and raising concerns for their wellbeing (Behun & Owens, 2019; Cameron et al., 2005; Peter & Valkenburg, 2008a, 2008b). Understandings of their immaturities in cognitive abilities and their dependency on adults motivates a need to regulate adolescent behavior. However, important cognitive, emotional, and social growth also occurs during puberty, which is linked to adolescents developing critical reflective skills, the ability to consider complexities during decision-making, and increased self-control (e.g., Bonnie & Scott, 2013; Holt et al., 2021). This is supported by findings that adolescents actively determine what SEIM they view and can critically reflect on SEIM content through age-appropriate lenses (e.g., Arrington-Sanders et al., 2015; Vandenbosch & van Oosten, 2018).

The perception of adolescents as vulnerable has often resulted in researchers eschewing direct discussions with adolescents about SEIM, resulting in research offering one-sided, essentially adult, perspectives (Hare et al., 2015; Henry & Talbot, 2019). Yet, the few studies that have used interviews or focus groups have found that adolescents are willing and able to share their thoughts about SEIM, with some participants questioning why researchers are not looking into this (Braun-Courville & Rojas, 2009; Office of Film and Literature Classification [OFLC], 2018). Furthermore, youth who have completed qualitative interviews about SEIM have described enjoying the process and being able to speak openly about the topic (Fuzzell et al., 2016; Lofgren-Mårtenson & Månsson, 2010), thus justifying their inclusion in the debates around SEIM.

When adolescents are included in the dialog, they tend to view SEIM from angles distinct from adult notions of risk. Preliminary research indicates that young people perceive and engage with SEIM in varied ways that include both positive and negative aspects (Doornwaard et al., 2017). This resembles Tolman and McClelland’s (2011) proposal of conceptualizing sexuality from a normative development framework, whereby sexual behaviors are an expected part of adolescent development. Normative does not refer to conforming to normative standards within one’s culture, but rather, sexuality is considered a development task as part of being human. Tolman and McClelland’s (2011) extracted three key developmental domains from their review. These include sexual behaviors and what counts as sexual behavior, sexual selfhood, and sexual socialization, with each domain overlapping and working in tandem. Sexual socialization highlights the context that shapes adolescent sexuality, such as peer networks, religion, media, and the role of culture, which SEIM is embedded. Tolman and McClelland (2011, p. 251) propose incorporating “both positive aspects and risk management and how they develop in tandem or dialectically at the individual, relational, and cultural levels into the overarching concept of sexuality development in adolescence.” This developmental framework was utilized in the present study, allowing open exploration of adolescent perceptions of SEIM through a broader approach.

The Present Study

This study explored how New Zealand adolescents made sense of their experiences of SEIM. We drew on Braun and Clarke’s (2021) reflexive thematic analysis through a critical realist framework. Critical Realism, as used here, draws on the work of Bhaskar and Lawson (1998) and Danermark et al. (2019). The design allowed space for exploring participants’ verbal understandings of SEIM and the underlying individual and social-cultural influences that participants may not be aware of, but which nevertheless can shape their explanations of their experiences. We recruited adolescents from 14-to-16 years of age due to the likelihood that they had reached puberty and held an interest in sexuality. Puberty has a long-established relationship with increased sexual interest (e.g., Rutter, 1971), irrespective of SEIM exposure, and is consistent with the finding that SEIM use significantly increases in middle to late adolescence (Doornwaard et al., 2015). In addition, in New Zealand most 14- to 15-year-old students have completed sexuality education within schools that would provide them with a language to discuss their experiences. The New Zealand health education curriculum promotes positive sexuality and includes a wide range of content including a focus on potential harms from exposure to pornography (NZHEA, 2020).

Procedure

Ethical approval for the project was obtained from the University Human Ethics committee. Initial recruitment was attempted through Facebook and Instagram but was largely unsuccessful, leading to only two participants. Recruitment then targeted schools and adolescents were recruited through a school-based sexual education program. The lead researcher or school guidance counselor provided participants with information through a group presentation. Consent was obtained from both participants and their parents, and where necessary, through the school Board of Trustees and principal. Further recruitment was not required as the themes became repetitive after the initial analysis, consistent with Malterud et al.’ (2016) idea of information power whereby fewer participants are required when richer information is obtained. To maximize participation, we encouraged all genders and sexual orientations to participate, with no exclusion criteria applied other than age. However, no females volunteered to participate.

The lead author conducted interviews in a private room, either at the school or the university, according to participants’ preference. Interviews were carefully planned based on recommended guidelines for interviewing young people (Lobe et al., 2008). The lead researcher held the position during interviews that there were many diverse opinions and that anything they said was unlikely to surprise. The ethos of no right or wrong opinions was held throughout the interviews. Interviews were audio recorded, an interview guide was employed, and a conversational interview style adopted. Interviews were open and flexible, with participants’ ideas shared with subsequent participants to clarify commonalities and differences in perspectives. These procedures allowed for a detailed exploration of experiences and elicited a rich dialog from participants. Given the long history of pornography being associated with indecency and the need to be non-judgmental when talking with adolescents, we elected to refer to this material as ‘sexually explicit internet material’ (SEIM), as others have done when exploring SEIM use among adolescents (e.g., Peter & Valkenburg, 2016). The lead author provided a definition of SEIM at the beginning of the interview to open the topic as an acceptable area to discuss without placing this burden on the young person. This definition was taken from Braun-Courville and Rojas (2009), who conducted a focus group with adolescents to identify the terminology that reflected their peer group’s understanding and language. SEIM was defined as “X-rated or pornographic Web sites that either: describe people having sex, show clear pictures of nudity or people having sex, or show a movie or audio that describes people having sex” (Braun-Courville & Rojas, 2009; p. 157). Participants were also invited to modify or add to the idea about how SEIM was defined.

We interviewed all participants twice, 1 to 2 weeks apart, with total interview times ranging from 82 to 120 minutes. The lead author summarized the key ideas from the first interview and presented a synopsis to the participant prior to starting the second interview. Participants were asked if their key ideas had been adequately captured and if any information needed altering or extending. After each interview, we provided each participant with a $25 voucher to compensate for their time and travel.

Participants

Thirteen adolescents were interviewed between January and August 2018. Twelve participants were 15 years old, and one was 14 years old. Twelve participants self-identified as male, and one identified as queer. Nine identified their sexual orientation as heterosexual and four participants identified as bisexual, gay, or undecided. All participants were enrolled in State-owned schools, with ten from a same-sex school and three from co-ed schools. All participants were from middle-income families, actively engaged in school activities from sports to theater, and reported doing average to above average academically. Participants described having good peer relationships and communication with parents, although not necessarily around sexual issues. Their interest in participating included having their opinions heard, having adults understand their perspective, being curious, helping others and, for one participant, because their friend was participating. One participant identified as Christian, and the others identified no religion. Participants identified as New Zealand European, Māori, East Asian, and South Asian. Several identified as being multi-cultural. No participants reported having had sexual intercourse, but some had initial physical experiences, such as kissing.

Data Analysis

Audio-recordings were transcribed verbatim after each interview and identifiable personal data was removed. Points of interest, overall impressions, field notes, observations, and reflections were recorded in a journal while collecting and analyzing data. Drawing on the critical realist framework, we drew inferences about participants’ interpretations of their experiences, looking for both what was experienced and potential underlying processes that could be identified by their avoidance of topics, body language, observed tensions, and the like.

To ensure methodological integrity and the trustworthiness of interpretations (see Levitt et al., 2017), we reviewed all interview content to confirm that key topics had been covered, interview protocols around matters such as not assuming meanings were followed, and an in-depth picture of how adolescents made sense of SEIM had been obtained. The lead author used her experience of working as a clinical psychologist with adolescents to inform her approach. For example, this meant being familiar with adolescent sexuality issues and their language while also being able to naively inquire about their experiences from an outsider perspective. The lead author’s position regarding pornography and adolescents was complex given her prior work with trauma and pornography addiction. The lead author reflected on, and discussed with the co-authors, her positionality in relation to pornography, to the participants, and within the research process, to ensure that themes were not value-laden with the lead author’s perspectives (see Holmes, 2020). Hence, as a team we reflexively considered positionalities and the process of thematic abstraction.

We abstracted themes using Braun and Clarke’s (2013, 2021) principles of flexible and open coding. We used thematic maps to highlight interactions and relations between themes and to aid meaningful inferences. We considered how themes related to adolescent development, decision making, and context, looking for both latent and explicit meanings. We identified dominant themes within the data based on repetition within and across transcripts, and relations between thematic concepts. The lead author organized themes, and regularly discussed these with the co-authors to reflect on the trustworthiness of themes, as recommended by Levitt et al. (2017) and Braun and Clarke (2021). This iterative process led to identifying that all participants experienced dilemmas about viewing SEIM and used various approaches to manage their dilemmas. This led us to identify five dominant dilemmas encompassing the competing tensions that these adolescents experienced about viewing SEIM. Our findings are presented in two sections below: (1) the dilemmas faced by adolescents and (2) how they managed these dilemmas.

Findings

All participants had watched SEIM and were able to describe how their experiences changed over time and how they made sense of the material viewed as they matured. Overall, the participants described a diverse range and patterns of viewing that fluctuated across time. Some described higher levels of viewing prior to learning about the pornography industry from various sources that explicitly outlined risks, which led to their reduced viewing. Others described levels of viewing that were reduced due to their decision to take control of the amount they viewed prior to learning about risks from adults. Yet others described a gradual increase in viewing or infrequent viewing that remained constant, while a couple described experiencing SEIM as disturbing and off-putting at the outset and subsequently having stopped viewing after initial experimentation. Frequency of viewing ranged from daily to no further viewing. All participants, except one, reported attending school-based presentations to learn about the effects of pornography and/or engaging in discussions about its role in society. Hence, participants were well placed to be able to share their perspectives on SEIM.

Dilemmas Faced by Adolescents

SEIM presented all participants with many dilemmas and complex decisions. Dilemmas were created through participants being presented with different messages from different sources. For example, the adult pornography industry conveys the message that sex is carefree and viewing as only entertainment or harmless fun meant for pleasure and fantasy. In contrast, participants had been informed that the pornography industry exploited performers and conveyed negative messages about sex, given its potential themes of male dominance and aggression. These conflicting ideas were grouped into five key dilemmas about viewing SEIM, discussed in turn below.

I should be interested in sex but not pornography

First, participants described how their sexual interest was a natural part of puberty and growing up and that they should be interested in sex. Adults confirmed these messages through puberty and sexuality talks or discussions about when the adolescent might have a relationship in the future. Their peers were interested in sex and participants stated a desire to learn about sex as a natural developmental progression of maturing. For example, Ivan explained how his levels of interest would naturally change as he matured:

Yeah, relevance is important there are kind of stages it’s hard to explain but, ‘is that relevant to what I am learning or what I want to learn at this age?’ and then it will slowly change as I grow older.

SEIM then provided sexual material that allowed them to learn about sex and to satisfy their innate curiosity about sex. However, participants wondered if they should view SEIM given adult messages that pornography is not natural and as such should not be viewed or used as guidance for learning about sex. Consequently, participants were left in the bind that they should be interested in sex but not SEIM. For example, when Bruce was asked how he made sense of his experiences of viewing SEIM, this conversation followed:

R:

Okay so when you come across it do you switch out or continue to view it

Bruce:

It depends like once a month I will use it and then I stop . . . I think it is just kind of we realize it is kind of normal (mhm) so that takes off the guilt

R:

And what helped you reach the conclusion that it is normal?

Bruce:

Well cause a lot of people do it (right) a lot of people do it and as teenagers we have a lot of hormones, yeah it’s natural in a way, you kind of don’t feel as guilty, you still feel a bit guilty but not as much.

R:

So, lots of people use it, is this the biggest reason for viewing?

Bruce:

I think the biggest one is because it is natural, and I think sex is like a lot of people do it so you’re not alone, so you don’t feel as ashamed as much because there are so many people

R:

. . . then you say on the other side there is some guilt can you expand on that one as well?

Bruce:

Just because you know if your mother found out about it you would feel embarrassed so you kind of feel guilty kind of and you don’t talk with your parents about that so it’s kind of, you know . . . I think most adults would say you shouldn’t view. I just think I don’t want to do it, I just think I should be wholesome and stuff

In this example, Bruce struggles between his desire to know about sex that he perceives as a biological drive but possibly not through SEIM. He believes his interest in it is expected given sex is natural and SEIM viewing is normalized. However, the use of SEIM to explore sexuality was not carefree and increased his feelings of guilt compared with masturbation without SEIM. Bruce, like others, also considered increased sexual interest to be encouraged by others, such as parents and doctors, but that adults would disapprove of SEIM. This perceived disapproval appears to be superimposed on his own beliefs that SEIM is not the best way to satisfy his sexual interest. Typical of most participants, engagement with sexual material was thought to be innate and justifiable as part of maturing but was complicated by the idea that using SEIM contradicts a moral representation of oneself as decent.

Is it fake or real?

The second dilemma emerged from tensions between understanding sex as being something real but the production of SEIM making it “fake.” SEIM provided participants with access to material that showed sex and looked enjoyable but created uncertainty about how real it was, given it was a performance. This created uncertainty about what they should or should not follow as scripts. All participants described how SEIM did not represent healthy sexual relationships given its themes of dominance and a carefree approach to sex. Participants questioned how SEIM could represent real sex given it was a “performance” or “show” but thought it was still “as close as it gets” to sex. Although the sexual acts looked real, participants would refer to SEIM sex as fake and exaggerated whereas real sex was something special, emotional, and meaningful. They described not wanting to follow fake SEIM scripts as they did not want their own sexual experiences to lack intimacy and emotional connection. However, sometimes the line between real and fake was difficult to differentiate. For example, while discussing how Zac made sense of SEIM, Zac described it as being both fake and real: The following dialog explored the idea of SEIM as fake and then raised the question about it being real based on an earlier dialog when Zac said SEIM held real aspects.

Zac:

Cause it’s obviously fake and things like that, umm so, like I always hear adults talk about it like it’s not what actually happens and that it’s just the way people act (mhm) it’s really fake and it’s not genuine in anyway

R:

Okay so on one hand you can see it is fake and on the other hand

Zac:

Umm well I guess it is real in a way ‘cause it is sort of what people do, ahh, I think the way people act is the fake part but I know it is real otherwise. . . Yeah, it is kind of a bit confusing but umm sort of the way people act and then how it’s no consent thing then that’s fake but then what to do is kind of real.

Zac described watching the “soft end” of the spectrum and found it difficult to draw the line between real and fake sexual material. Although, in principle, he understood the production of SEIM rendered it fake from the outset.

Participants also pondered whether their presumed reality and the fantasy portrayed within SEIM could overlap. For example, Sam explained:

I know they are actors, I know it is not real, that’s why I see it all as fantasy so I don’t see any porn as reality because you don’t have that sense of communication, like you know, are you okay with this, do you want to do this, like what type of boundaries, there is not like that talk you have in a relationship, in porn they just get straight into it and there is no communication, yeah.

Sam could clearly reflect on how SEIM did not represent relationships but then questioned if fantasy can also be part of reality:

Ahh sometimes they say oh that’s interesting but I would never do that so I think it can be in their mind, but they aren’t going to necessarily try it. If it can be tried in reality, then maybe it’s that kind of reality but also fantasy sort of thing because sometimes in fantasy there is also reality and if there is that then they might try it but if it is completely fantasy then they won’t.

The blurring of fantasy and reality was not surprising given participants actively restricted content to material they considered more closely represented how they would like their own sex to look like. Like other participants, Sam did not think viewing would automatically equate to re-enacting scripts, which may explain the challenges to establishing evidence that supports theories based on socialization principles. For example, sexual scripting and social learning theories postulate that adolescents adopt stereotypical attitudes and expected behaviors represented in SEIM (Braun-Courville & Rojas, 2009; Doornwaard et al., 2015; Peter & Valkenburg, 2016), but the current participants presented a more complex dilemmatic understanding.

Everyone views SEIM but is it my new normal?

The third dilemma was constructed through the perceived idea that it was normal to view SEIM but questioned if they should make it their normal. Participants understood normal as meaning that everyone viewed SEIM as noted through various observations of their peers and media content. Many participants mentioned their peer groups would make sexual references during social interactions or online posts, drawing their attention toward sex. Participants described enticements through “pop-up ads” and online links. They perceived no online barriers to accessing SEIM and used this easy access and the opinion that most people view SEIM to validate their perception of its normality. Participants reflected that SEIM was everywhere and could be easier to view than not view. For example, Adam talked about SEIM being normal due to its accessibility but not normal due to its content:

Umm I’m not sure about pornography being normal, but it’s hard for people to stop watching porn, it’s so easy to get. . .it kind of feels like, it’s weird like how people like watching people get hurt umm during sex (mhm), yeah, I don’t feel like it is right, yeah I don’t find it normal.

While participants believed that most adults thought teenagers should not view SEIM at all, some reflected on how statistics provided evidence for their conclusion that it was normal to watch. For example, when asked about viewing, Clint said:

Aww no I don’t feel like too uncomfortable about watching it `cause statistics do say 90% of people or 90 something percent of people have seen it, and just a little bit less watch it weekly or monthly so like most people are good people and then most people have watched it as well so put two and two together.

Inflated perceptions of how much others use SEIM is taken from Clint’s idea that most people watch it regularly. Clint equated any use to mean frequent use. This corresponds with how educational websites report the highest prevalence rates found in research, such as It’s Time We Talked (Crabbe, 2022) https://itstimewetalked.com/young-people/ which states more than 60% of girls and 90% of boys have been exposed to pornography. Although these websites may be emphasizing how widespread viewing is, this data was reinterpreted by some participants as everyone views SEIM regularly. This raises the question of how media education intercepts or influences adolescent perceptions of how common it is to view SEIM. Research has found adolescents overestimate levels of pornography use within their peer groups, especially for boys (Flood & Hamilton, 2003; Henry & Talbot, 2019). Therefore, participants appeared to shape their behaviors based on what they thought was normal amongst their peers and media messages were used to reinforce ideas of normality, such as statistics that are commonly used to emphasize how widely viewed SEIM is.

Nevertheless, despite the widespread perception that SEIM was commonly viewed by teenagers, participants wrestled with the idea about continuing to view SEIM and what this meant for them individually. They wondered if too much viewing of SEIM could turn something pleasurable “into a job” without satisfaction or turn sex into something that was “meaningless.” Hence, the perception of SEIM being commonly used was complicated by their own judgments and uncertainty about what viewing meant for them personally and if it would become lackluster.

Harmful or harmless?

The fourth dilemma was that viewing SEIM was potentially harmful, but participants were unsure how it affected them personally. They interpreted ideas of harm into two categories, risks to self and harm to others. They understood the concerns provided by trusted adults, such as parents and teachers, that SEIM was harmful. Harm from exposure to SEIM meant it could spoil future intimate relationships, change their expectations of sex, lead to them objectifying people as sexual “objects,” make them “dirty minded” or tainted, turn sex “into a chore,” increase their anxiety, and become a “habit.” While participants could describe potential harms, when delving into what harm meant for themselves as opposed to what they had learned about it, they did not believe they had experienced harm themselves. Although some participants questioned whether they would really know if they had experienced harm as they had no true way of knowing if it had changed them. For example, when Clint was asked about negative effects, this conversation followed:

Clint:

I think it can be bad just ‘cause it messes with your dopamine reward system and that sometimes it is just used as an escape if you are feeling down and you just do that and it can make you so you can’t control it sometimes but I haven’t experienced the negative effects I have just heard about them so yeah. . . I might be just saying it doesn’t affect me `cause I might be using it too much and I don’t even know, I still try to watch it less and not all the time just because of the possibilities of what it could make you know.

R:

It sounds like you are trying to rein it in because you could experience negative effects but you haven’t had any of these, but you know what they are.

Clint:

Yeah and if I noticed I had them then yeah, I haven’t really noticed them, but I could have had them without noticing it, yeah, I am just saying like maybe I could have had them (negative effects) so I would be like maybe addicted but I don’t know I’m addicted. It’s hard since there is no second opinion on it, it’s not really talked about so it’s hard to know if it has changed me or anything (mhm) ‘cause you don’t know, Yeah I don’t know, I don’t have the second opinion telling me if I’ve changed or anything so it’s sort of hard to notice it myself, yeah.

Clint understood the possibility of negative impacts through educational talks but did not believe he experienced these impacts, although uncertainty remained about this as he questioned if he had enough insight to know what was true. Like others, he used his knowledge of negative impacts as motivation to avoid perceived risks through limiting the content and exposure as discussed below. The lack of experienced harm contradicted what most participants had learned about possible harm from viewing SEIM, which meant the reasons for not viewing were not observed by participants. This lack of observable harm created ambiguity about viewing SEIM. In addition, within some peer groups SEIM was positioned as harmless fun. Peers partly legitimized the idea of harmless fun through referencing porn within, albeit brief conversations, wrapping it in humor and positioning SEIM, at least at a superficial level, as nothing too serious.

In contrast, all participants expressed concern for others. They wondered if more naïve consumers, especially children, may think the nasty side of SEIM was a true representation of sex and might want to try it out. For example, Sam talked about concerns of sexual violence being normalized, which had been discussed in their classroom debate. Sam said:

People need to know the difference between sexual violence and rape and that is not really shown in porn it is just seen as another option or category in porn, it puts ideas into people’s head that that’s normal and it’s not. . . and the other side of argument was that people would know that it is part of a fantasy and not real and it went back and forth. People knew it was not real but there was a lot of concern that younger people don’t know it’s not real and will think that it is normal.

Similarly, a distinction was drawn between their current and younger self, whereby the latter was regarded as more naïve or vulnerable compared to their current self, who knew it was false and unrealistic. This distinction of a younger self was related to the ideas of possible harm to others who were younger, especially children. Participants also identified potential harm toward the performers, highlighting the dark side of the industry which exploited people or led to suicides. This was in direct contrast to the perspective of the pornography industry, which tries to construct a different reality of sex being merely harmless entertainment. Thus, participants were left contemplating if SEIM was harmless or harmful given its potential negative impacts.

Good or bad?

The fifth dilemma emerges from the positioning of SEIM, in varying ways, as good or bad. SEIM was often described contradictorily as being good in terms of sexual pleasure, aiding the release of sexual tensions and satisfying curiosity, but also as “wrong,” “bad,” going against trusted adult judgments, and “tainting” oneself. The idea of SEIM being bad was linked to it being forbidden and promoting messages about casual, easy, or rough sex. Participants described hiding SEIM from adults because it was considered forbidden. Furthermore, SEIM content was described as comprising both wanted and unwanted sexual material that could be both good and bad, creating conflicted viewing.

All participants grounded what was good in their values, whereby their sense of what was bad arose from breaking their rules or going against their values. For example, Bruce described the tension between being a “wholesome” person and viewing SEIM:

I just try to see myself like as a wholesome kind of person and I wouldn’t need to watch porn to satisfy my needs in a way . . . (but) you just sometimes give in, sometimes you just do. . . Yeah porn portrays like a different kind of view, it often portrays one person as being dominant and the other not experiencing as much and if you want to be a good person you should respect other people as well so it’s two conflicting ideas you know what I mean.

Bruce then went on to describe how he was a good person and sometimes he viewed SEIM but this did not make him a bad person, so viewing SEIM and being bad did not necessarily go together.

The idea of SEIM being “bad” or “not good” conflicted with how participants viewed themselves, leading to emotional and cognitive incongruence when trying to understand SEIM in relation to their own sexual interests. For example, Dan said:

It doesn’t feel right but it feels good to watch it at the time but afterwards, you question yourself why you’re watching and stuff, like when you go to watch it, you kind of not really thinking about what other people are thinking you’re just focused on what you’re doing, it seems okay but after you have watched it you kind of feel guilty about what you’ve watched but you think if someone was watching you do it and you think what they would think and that makes you feel bad.

Dan then went onto talking about not wanting his parents to know as he worried about changing their perception of him being good:

. . . just `cause you don’t want them thinking differently of you or you want to keep the same image they have of you, like you don’t want them to think less of you if you watch that stuff.

This impression of not wanting adults to think of them differently or to judge them was shared by all participants, irrespective of the amount they viewed. It was also connected to believing adults viewed all SEIM as “bad” which overshadowed their own ideas of SEIM being both good and bad. How they constructed the idea of good or bad waxed and waned depending on their experiences and acquired knowledge from websites, peers, teachers, parents, and the like. Most participants described greater skepticism as they matured.

All five dilemmas gave rise to emotional tensions, which were especially apparent when participants discussed ideas of harm and conflicted feelings that ranged from excitement and pleasure to disgust, sadness, and guilt. Guilt often followed from breaking their rules about what they thought they should view or from going against adult advice. Going against adult advice left participants with concerns about disappointing trusted adults who promoted ideas of risk or harm from SEIM. And while adults encouraged autonomous decision making, participants believed they were expected to make the right decision that aligned with adult ideas that SEIM was harmful and should not be viewed. Ideas of exploiting performers clearly fueled their cognitive and emotional conflict but there was also the possibility that “porn star” could be a credible line of work. Participants who had viewed abusive porn also felt confused about why something pleasurable like sex would be paired with hurting people. They questioned why the industry would make this material that felt intimidating and cruel. Therefore, the right to pleasure was not free from cognitive and emotional predicaments of SEIM being associated with unwanted aggressive images, possible negative effects, and emotional uncertainty. It was also interesting to note that negative emotional reactions, such as guilt or disgust, were often interpreted as positives as they helped participants make decisions about the sort of content they viewed.

Negotiating the Dilemmas

Participants accepted they were in the position of needing to choose whether to view SEIM or not. This choice was intercepted by societal expectations that they should not view SEIM and by industry proclamations that such viewing was merely harmless entertainment. Participants considered themselves to be in control of their choices while simultaneously needing to make the right choices. Hence, they favored self-governing perspectives when discussing SEIM viewing, which left them negotiating what were acceptable opinions and practices regarding SEIM and sexuality. When making decisions, participants described three key strategies they used to clarify their dilemmas about viewing SEIM: they restricted their viewing to what was deemed “acceptable content”; they controlled their frequency of viewing; and they used their reactions to tell them whether they had crossed their ethical line of what they perceived as acceptable. Each of these is discussed in turn below.

Restricting the content

Restricting the content relied on judging what constituted acceptable content, followed by strategies to restrict content. The type of SEIM content viewed was considered important to all participants. The participants identified SEIM content as being either “soft porn” or “hard porn.” The judgment between hard and soft was important in determining where to draw the line of acceptability. Hard porn was judged as “weird”, “aggressive,” or “abusive” and unacceptable. Participants described aggressive SEIM as “intimidating” and not something they wanted to view or re-enact. Abusive material was considered potentially harmful to others and themselves and was shunned by all participants. For example, Nick described his reactions to abusive material and how he avoided coming across it:

Yeah I feel sad and turned off, not just disgusted. . . there’s not really much stuff that I would accidentally see because there is like previews, titles and then the general key words you type in so if I type in certain keywords then you can get the bad stuff.

The dichotomy between hard and soft was used to help identify “bad” SEIM, and this was connected to a lack of pleasure; as Beau stated, “Yeah you feel bad about it, and you can’t really enjoy it when you are feeling bad about it.” Interestingly, no participants reported experiencing harm from aggressive SEIM as they framed their reactions of being “turned off” and feeling bad as helpful in restricting content, and thus achieving positive outcomes.

In contrast, soft porn was typically described as material that was judged as “normal sex.” Participants described looking for content that was more closely aligned to relational type sex whereby both performers were seen to be “enjoying themselves” with reciprocal participation. Soft porn was often called “normal porn,” with these two terms being used interchangeably. Normal porn was considered more agreeable given it portrayed qualities of mutuality and was seen to be closer to how participants envisaged actual sexual relationships. For example, Phil described how if he went straight to soft porn then he could avoid unwanted sexual material:

Yeah like there are heaps of different ones (right), you can go like soft core or something and it’s like not as, like it’s right on the bottom bit. If I watch anything then it’s going to be that so I just go I might as well go onto that so I don’t accidentally go onto anything else.

Like other participants, Phil then went on-to describe how he wanted to separate SEIM from “a thing” he had with someone and how thinking about this helped put the brakes on viewing SEIM:

I have a real close friend and we have a thing going on and that’s helping me stop because then I feel bad cause, its’ hard to explain (mhm), I wouldn’t want anything like that, because I don’t want to be like, I want it like this, like what I’ve seen, I want it more like agreeable, it’s hard to explain, more emotion I guess. . .

If participants could differentiate soft porn from hard porn and only view the former, then this brought their viewing behavior closer to what was socially expected. They also described less guilt if the content aligned more closely to relational style SEIM as they thought this meant they were less likely to be going against adult wishes. A similar method for restricting the content was trying to draw a line between fake and real. Participants attempted to uncover what made SEIM different from real world relationships by relabeling performances as “exaggerated,” “bad comedy,” “meaningless,” “fake,” and “theatrical.” They argued that if they could see why SEIM was fake then they would not re-enact the fake scripts. They used this distinction to select SEIM that more closely represented real sex and avoided the exaggerated performances.

Finally, participants described restricting the content by being able to determine the type of content before entering online websites, which meant they could avoid unpleasant material. They could tell what they would see before opening it through “thumbnails,” “titles,” “peoples’ comments” left at the bottom of online video clips, and the types of words used in their search. No participants suggested that they wandered around aimlessly or passively viewed whatever SEIM came their way.

Controlling the amount

Limiting the amount of SEIM viewed was important to all participants as they claimed it helped them to feel in control and to manage any negative effects. They thought controlling the amount reduced their likelihood of developing a “habit,” becoming “addicted,” or being “out of control.” Although participants knew they wanted to avoid losing control, most were unsure how they would know if this was happening. Taking account of how often they personally viewed SEIM, and sometimes how often they perceived their peers to view SEIM, helped participants anchor the appropriate amount of SEIM to view. For example, Jack, a participant who viewed SEIM daily, believed that was acceptable because it did not interfere with his relationships, schoolwork, or other activities, and the content was restricted to material that he could imagine himself doing. Jack considered himself in control and he had potential markers for knowing when this changed:

As soon as I started to prioritize it over other things then that would become a problem and if it stopped me from doing things, so if I was doing that rather than doing other things then I would probably think that it was a problem.

In contrast, another participant was disappointed whenever he viewed, which was every couple of months, as his ideal was to never view. If participants overstepped what they considered to be appropriate levels of viewing, then they expressed disappointment, anger, and/or doubt about their viewing behaviors. They described using this disappointment to change their behavior to align with their self-imposed rules. Participants described fluctuations in their ability to control their use of SEIM which was also dependent on reminders during the day, such as peers talking about SEIM, and if they actively thought about the negative impacts before viewing.

Emotions and the moral line

Participants described using their emotional reactions to the material they viewed to help determine if they were making the right choice. Negative emotional reactions included feelings such as “sad,” “guilty,” “disgust,” “scared,” and “intimidated,” wrapped into thought processes that were embedded in social, cultural, and familial norms and discourses. Strong negative emotions such as disgust and sadness were easy to identify and more difficult to ignore. These strong reactions appeared incompatible with pleasure, which in turn defeated the purpose of viewing SEIM. Instead, participants described using their strong negative emotions as a way of knowing they had crossed the line of what was considered acceptable or the right thing to do. These strong emotions were associated with setting limits, such as avoiding unpleasant or intimidating material or, for a couple of participants, not viewing at all. The avoidance of “hard porn” helped them to lower their emotional discord.

For most participants, strong emotional responses were simply acknowledged and followed, without much reflective thought; if it felt wrong or they were disgusted by something, then it should be avoided. However, some participants engaged in more complex thought processes about navigating these emotional responses. Some participants put themselves in the performer’s role to judge if they would be happy to do the same sexual acts in their own life. If they could see themselves doing the same sexual acts, then they considered the content to be acceptable. Jack used this strategy to determine if he would do the same thing:

I think, how do I like to see myself in that position, and I think that I would not want myself to be in that position then I would stay away from it. . . If I understand that it’s unrealistic I’d try to keep it disconnected from what I see as my values and my personal goals but for the most part I feel comfortable as long as I would feel happy in that situation then I would feel happy if that situation, you know, that was what my relationship was like.

A few participants showed empathetic engagement through personalizing the SEIM performers. If they imagined someone whom they cared about being in the performance, such as a family member or potential future partner, then this heightened their negative emotional reaction, and they could no longer enjoy what they viewed. This empathetic engagement with the performers led to the performer being re-humanized and could lead to participants restricting or avoiding the use of SEIM.

In comparison to strong emotional responses, feelings of guilt were more complex and were accompanied by internal debates that did not necessarily resolve. Guilt was primarily driven by concern that they were going against adult advice or compromising their values. They managed their guilt through either justifying their viewing or restricting the content and amount. Guilt fluctuated alongside pleasure and their reasons to view SEIM. Guilt was reduced if they followed their self-imposed limits and increased if they broke their expected rules about viewing. As Dan explains:

Yeah, but I don’t think the guilt is completely bad because the guilt means that you know that it’s not, like you know what you have heard of people saying to you that it’s not good to watch and stuff and guilt kind of makes you keep that in the back of your mind like what they have said.

All participants believed they were responsible for regulating what they viewed on the Internet. They believed blanket external controls, such as blocking their Virtual Private Network (VPN) or parental controls, would be “ineffective” or “impossible” given they could use a different VPN, mobile data, incognito apps, or something similar. Hence, they perceived the responsibility for making choices was their own. While strong negative emotional responses connected to unwanted SEIM resulted in all participants backtracking from unwanted material and setting limits, many remained in a quandary about viewing SEIM. Most participants saw these dilemmas as evolving as they matured, alongside their changing patterns of use, although two participants had made clear resolutions about never viewing SEIM in the future.

Discussion

The consumption of pornography has predominantly been coupled with negative impacts and pathology for adolescents, although there are difficulties in establishing consistent findings on these issues (Castro-Calvo et al., 2018; Landripet et al., 2019; Milas et al., 2020; Wright & Štulhofer, 2019). The present study explored how adolescents made sense of SEIM and how they managed their viewing using a broad developmental framework that allowed space for both positive and negative aspects. The findings show that viewing SEIM presented participants with several complex dilemmas, which positioned SEIM as both natural and unnatural, fake and real, harmful and harmless, and good and bad. Although these dilemmas were given binary labels, most participants explained how SEIM fitted both ideas rather than being either/or concepts. They described viewing SEIM to satisfy their curiosity, while seeking to resolve the tensions that these dilemmas produced through managing potential risks, such as restricting content and self-control. However, the use of these strategies by adolescents is typically overlooked in most research into pornography.

Drawing on Tolman and McClelland’s (2011) framework, the dilemmas reflected tensions between social ideals constructed from adult perspectives and adolescent’s perspectives of self-discovery and normal curiosity. Adolescent perspectives included tensions between differing messages that came from their self-values (e.g., I’m a good person), biological expectations (e.g., puberty is natural), peers (e.g., just a bit of fun), media (e.g., commodifying pleasure), parents (e.g., sex is healthy but not porn), and school educators whose messages focus on potential risks. The adolescents were interested in understanding sexual behaviors and what counts as sexual behavior, alongside their right to sex-positive notions of pleasure, while negotiating what they thought were adult expectations of not viewing SEIM.

Participant dilemmas reflected the tensions between sex-positive ideals and adult socialization toward risk. While New Zealand education encourages positive approaches toward sexuality and supports diversity, it typically uses a top-down approach that focuses on educating youth about risks and preventing unhealthy lifestyles (Fitzpatrick, 2014). Health education is often embedded within precautionary ideals that emphasize protecting society and individuals from potential harm, even if the harm may not come to realization (Byron et al., 2021). This risk perspective permeates society, and school values replicate these societal values (Fitzpatrick, 2014). For example, the sexuality education model advanced by Crabbe and Flood aligns with this approach, offering a curriculum they describe as an “education to address pornography” (Crabbe & Flood, 2021, p. 1).

At an individual level, participants engaged in self-control strategies and reflected on their own values when making decisions. Sexuality was considered an extension of themselves as good, and participants tried to select material that represented good sex. All participants considered themselves responsible for their choices in viewing, despite external social and marketing cues. They believed control played an important part in negotiating their dilemmas and managing potential risks. This is consistent with findings that show adolescents with good self-control are less likely to engage in risky sexual behaviors (e.g., Holt et al., 2021). Consequently, self-control practices and perceived agency were important processes that developed in tandem with their dilemmas.

The participants’ ability to critically reflect on their decisions is consistent with other findings (e.g., Arrington-Sanders et al., 2015; Doornwaard et al., 2017; Tsaliki, 2011) and challenges the perspective that adolescent immaturity and unlimited access to the Internet is harmful (e.g., Behun & Owens, 2020; Brown & Wisco, 2019). More importantly, the findings show caution is needed when interpreting adolescents’ critical reflections. The current participants described SEIM as a source of information that showed them what sex looked like and was used for gratification. They also criticized SEIM and did not consider it to represent real-life sex in terms of intimacy and emotional connectedness. Furthermore, nuanced findings showed participants interpreted experiences that contradict current explanations. For example, viewing aggressive SEIM was considered a positive experience due to the learning opportunity. This positive spin could easily be interpreted as being harmful, given others have equated learning something from SEIM or perceiving it as useful as representing negative impact (e.g., Baams et al., 2015; Peter & Valkenburg, 2010). In addition, ambivalence and discomfort were not considered problematic, as framed in other research (e.g., Peter & Valkenburg, 2008a, 2008b), but rather as offering useful learning processes they could engage with. The dilemmatic complexities exposed in this research may well account for the inconsistencies found in attempting to link SEIM to harm through widely used cause and effect models.

Most participants expressed fluctuating ambivalence and did not hold an all-or-nothing stance about SEIM being good or bad. Their changeable viewpoints wavered depending on how much they questioned SEIM and how they saw its relevance to their sexual exploration, akin to Tolman and McClelland’s (2011) idea that the different domains of sexuality development are both overlapping and fluid. SEIM was considered less realistic and approached with increased skepticism as participants matured. Other research has also shown adolescents do not consider SEIM to represent realistic sex, with perceived realism declining with age (Wright & Štulhofer, 2019). The idea of learning about sex through experience as a normal part of maturing rather than being problematized is consistent with developmental perspectives (Boislard et al., 2016; Subrahmanyam & Šmahel, 2011; Tolman & McClelland, 2011). Research has found that failure to negotiate one’s sexual identity or learn about intimate relationships during adolescence can hinder adult intimate relationships (Rossi et al., 2021). If exposure to SEIM is reconceptualized as a learning experience, then it allows more open discussions that move away from judging which sexual acts are morally indecent to trusting adolescents to make good decisions grounded in prior learning experiences and social values.

The present study has both strengths and limitations. The study placed importance on capturing an in-depth picture of SEIM viewing from an adolescent perspective rather than pursuing statistically-identified cause and effect relationships, as prior research has primarily done. The use of in-depth interviews allowed participants’ experiences to be interpreted within their social and interpersonal interactions and to explore both what was experienced and potential underlying sense-making processes. This allowed consideration of what was important for the adolescents to share and to further our understanding of what is happening for them when they try to make sense of SEIM. However, we need to keep in mind that individuals who volunteer in research on sexual issues have been found to be more confident and broad-minded around sexuality (Peter & Valkenburg, 2016). The participants in the present study openly shared their ideas and wanted to help others through sharing. They presented with robust attributes, such as achieving average to above average academically, having good relationships with others, and being engaged in extra-curricular activities. They all attributed responsibility to themselves for their actions and were accepting of peoples’ sexual differences and allowing others the freedom to make their own choices. Furthermore, both their sexuality education and the interview process have acted as a reflective exercise that promoted reflections that other adolescents may not be mindful of normally. We are cognizant that no young women volunteered to participate in this study, and further research is needed to explore their perspectives.

Conclusion

The present study explored adolescent sense-making processes about SEIM use through a developmental framework that allowed space for both positive and negative viewpoints. The adolescents discussed various tensions about viewing SEIM, and our analysis abstracted dominant dilemmas that they continue to navigate in the context of social influences and maturing understanding of sexuality. Our analysis highlights strategies used by adolescents for managing risks they associated with SEIM use. We recommend future research should take the focus beyond the harms associated with SEIM use and include both negative and positive aspects of SEIM viewing. Future research should also consider SEIM viewing within a broader framework of adolescent sexuality to include the changes of puberty and maturing sexual development. This approach requires trusting adolescents’ ability to engage in reflections and hold mature conversations about their SEIM use.