Contrasting Experiences: Two Case Studies on Teenage Boys’ Perceptions of Unsolicited Dick Pics and Gender Dynamics at Two Schools

Abstract

The present article examines teenage boys’ perceptions of the practice of sending unsolicited dick pics and gender dynamics among peers at two lower secondary schools in Sweden. Drawing on focus group interviews as well as individual and pair interviews with ninth-grade students (14–15 years) from a rural working-class area and an urban middle-class area. The study indicates that class habitus has a significant influence on the boys’ perceptions and practices. In the rural working-class school, the boys had a humorous attitude towards the practice of sending unsolicited dick pics and were not aware that unsolicited sexting could be experienced as sexual harassment. In the urban middle-class school, one the other hand, the boys clearly distanced themselves from and expressed their strong disapproval of unsolicited dick pics, mainly due to their fear of girls’ power to portray boys as sexual harassers.

Introduction

Today, social interaction via social media is of great importance in young people’s daily lives. For youth, online interaction both complements and partially replaces offline interaction (Décieux et al., 2019). Consequently, young people also use social media for sexual interaction. For young people, the practice of taking and sharing sexual images can be a pleasant experience. But sexting can also entail a potential risk for image-based sexual abuse and online sexual victimization—which refers to a broad range of diverse practices (e.g., Lunde & Joleby, 2021). Unsolicited sexting takes place when a person sends sexually suggestive or explicit material to someone else without asking for permission (Marcotte et al., 2021). Unsolicited ‛dick pics’, that is, the unsolicited display of male genitalia, is viewed as a cultural phenomenon and has therefore attracted considerable media attention, most commonly as a form of heterosexual harassment (Paasonen et al., 2019; Waling & Pym, 2019). Because unsolicited dick pics constitute a form of non-consensual interaction of a sexual nature, they can be categorized as image-based sexual harassment (e.g., Oswald et al., 2020; Ringrose et al., 2021b).

In recent research, the societal phenomenon of dick pics—the practice of sending both solicited and unsolicited images of the male genitalia—has increasingly been investigated (e.g., Marcotte et al., 2021; Oswald et al., 2020; Passonen et al., 2019; Ravn et al., 2021; Ricciardelli & Adorjan, 2019; Ringrose et al., 2021b; Waling & Pym, 2019). However, there is a lack of research examining boys’ perspectives on unsolicited dick pics (Hunehäll-Berndtsson, 2022; Ricciardelli & Adorjan, 2019; Ringrose et al., 2021b). Hence, it is important to examine teenage boys’ views on unsolicited dick pics by looking at the phenomenon in relation to everyday school life. Of particular interest in the present study is how male students (14–15 years) talk about and perceive the sending of unsolicited dick pics among peers, and how sending such pictures affects daily life at one working-class and one middle-class school in Sweden. The aim is to shed light on the complexity of this phenomenon among teens by providing a class and gender perspective (Bourdieu, 1977, 1990; Butler, 1993, 2002). Two research questions have guided the present exploration:

How do male students in two different Swedish schools talk about and perceive the practice of sending unsolicited dick pics to female peers?

What similarities and differences can be interpreted between the two schools regarding how boys talk about and perceive the practice of sending unsolicited dick pics in their local school cultures?

The Phenomenon of ‘Dick Pics’

The phenomenon of unsolicited dick pics among young people is a topic that has aroused interest in the research field of youth sexting, though primarily as a gendered phenomenon that girls are exposed to (e.g., Barker-Clarke, 2023; Hunehäll-Berndtsson & Odenbring, 2021a, 2021b; Mishna et al., 2023; Ricciardelli & Adorjan, 2019; Ringrose et al., 2021a, 2021b; Ringrose et al., 2022; Ringrose & Regehr, 2023). In addition, researchers have argued that unsolicited dick pics should be perceived as image-based sexual harassment rather than just ‘sexting’, thus enabling people to recognize this phenomenon as a new form of sexual violence (e.g., Ringrose et al., 2022; Ringrose & Regehr, 2023).

A study by Ricciardelli and Adorjan (2019) highlighted teens’ (13–19 years) experiences of sexting. The study showed that it was common for girls to receive unsolicited dick pics from male teens. One act of resistance the girls used was to show other girls the explicit pictures and then to laugh at them. Of the 62 participants (47 girls, 15 boys) aged 12–19 years, almost all girls had either personally received unsolicited dick pics or knew someone who had. The images were described as coming from strangers, but also friends from social media or individuals from their peer group. Most girls in the present study reacted negatively to these images and reported that their wellbeing was impacted. Nevertheless, most often, they did not tell their parents of these experiences (Mishna et al., 2023). A qualitative study by Ringrose et al. (2021a) explored digital sexual image sharing practices among students in secondary school (11–18 years). The study indicated that cis-heteronormative homosocial masculinity practices shaped digital sexual image exchange. The results also showed, among other things, that boys asked girls for nudes. However, this request was often initiated by the boy sending an unsolicited dick pic, a practice the authors categorized as image-based sexual harassment and cyber flashing. In a qualitative study drawing on focus group interviews and art-based drawing methods, Ringrose et al. (2021b) explored image sharing practices among 144 teens (11–18 years) in seven secondary schools in England. In their study, they found that girls were bombarded with unsolicited dick pics from both male peers and unknown men. The result showed that it was more difficult for girls to navigate or report unsolicited dick pics sent from boys at school. Some of the dick pics were sent with the purpose of pressuring girls to send nudes in return. Girls were also at risk of being shamed for receiving dick pics due to sexual double standards. Similar results were found in a study by Hunehäll-Berndtsson and Odenbring (2021a) based on interviews with students aged 14–15 years in a lower secondary school in Sweden. The study indicated that sexting was a common practice among students. However, the local sexting culture had created a hegemonic and homosocial peer culture among boys, and some boys subjected girls to digital sexual harassment. Girls reported being exposed to threats as well as slutshaming because of sexting, and the gendered power relations at the school had an impact on the girls’ wellbeing.

In a study by Barker-Clarke (2023), based on discussions from friendships groups with 13 girls aged 13–15 in New Zealand, unsolicited dick pics from peers and strangers were described as a routine form of image-based sexual harassment and cyberflashing that could happen at any time on any day. The girls endured this violence without adult support and reported that they could only talk to friends about these experiences. The study stressed that there is a void of parental and educational knowledge and support regarding unsolicited dick pics. Based on 37 focus groups with 206 youth aged 11–19, in Canada and England, Ringrose et al. (2022) found that it was a common experience for teen girls to receive unsolicited dick pics. The majority were sent by adult strangers on Snapchat. The girls referred to these men as ‘perverts’ or ‘pedos’, and although responses to dick pics varied, most girls had a negative reaction and found the practice ‘disgusting’ and ‘inappropriate’. Girls also reported receiving unsolicited dick pics from boys they knew, friends, peers, as well as partners. Drawing from qualitative focus groups and an art-based study with 150 youth aged 12–21 years, Ringrose and Regehr (2023) explored image sharing practices. Among the youth, unsolicited dick pics were often sent with a request to send a nude photo back—a form of exchange referred to as ‘transitional dick pics’. The authors argues that these transitional dick pics are a double form of image-based sexual harassment, as the picture is sent without consent and puts pressure on girls to send nudes in return.

A case study by Hunehäll-Berndtsson and Odenbring (2021b) based on interviews with students aged 14–15 years investigated the phenomenon of dick pics in a semi-private school located in an upper-middle-class area in Sweden. The girls interviewed described the phenomenon of unsolicited dick pics as a common problem they perceived as ‘disgusting’. The girls typically blocked the senders, a strategy they found difficult to employ when the sender was a classmate. However, when a girl in class received a dick pic from a male classmate, the girls, who often belonged to different social groupings, collectively handled this by distancing themselves from the perpetrator, silently excluding him and ignoring him at school. The study showed that the upper-middle-class girls had to follow codes of conduct to maintain social acceptance and cultural capital; the girls seemed to be governed by a respectability discourse. The girls’ silent and collective resistance could be understood in the light of what acts of resistance are possible within a discursive upper-middle-class femininity. In this regard, respectable upper-middle-class femininity could be seen as a burden, because it made it difficult for female students to handle unsolicited dick pics in their school environment.

Unsolicited dick pics are often highlighted as a problem that affects girls. However, teenage boys get unsolicited dick pics too. A study focusing on male students, aged 14–15 and attending a lower secondary school in Sweden, found that traditional gendered perceptions of ‘male perpetrators’ and ‘female victims’ are so embedded in society that the boys interviewed did not understand that boys could be victims of digital sexual harassment just like girls, despite being exposed to both unsolicited dick pics and unsolicited female nudes; images they perceived as unpleasant. The study highlighted male vulnerability in youth sexting culture (Hunehäll-Berndtsson, 2022).

A study by Marcotte et al. (2021) found that a great majority of adult men and women had received an unsolicited dick pic regardless of factors such as sexual identity or age. Women were more likely to respond negatively than were gay or bisexual men. Women reported, for example, that they felt ‘disrespected’ and ‘violated’. Men, on the other hand, included feeling ‘aroused’ and ‘flattered’. Overall, the study showed that men tended to view sending and receiving dick pics more positively than did women. A qualitative content analysis of digital news articles, social media, comics and blogs discussing the phenomenon of dick pics, conducted by Waling and Pym (2019), revealed that dick pics are a popular topic of discussion. Highlighted was the fact that women do not understand why men send dick pics in the first place. Women’s sexual agency was associated with vulnerability, and sending dick pics was positioned as a practice men should be ashamed of engaging in.

The dick pic, as an online communicative form, was investigated in a study by Passonen et al. (2019). According to the study, the function of the dick pic varied depending on the context. Dick pics were often associated with heterosexual harassment and male power, even when the men involved framed their actions as a way to show sexual interest. In the context of dating and hook-up apps for same-sex attracted men, sending unsolicited dick pics was generally accepted and part of the sexual culture. On the other hand, straight women who received unsolicited dick pics engaged in online public shaming and ridiculing of sexual harassers. The study showed that shaming dick pics has become acceptable behaviour and a way for women to exercise social power. The risks of men’s sexting were highlighted in a study by Ravn et al. (2021). Based on focus groups with young men, the study found that participants saw men’s sexting as entailing the risk of being seen as a ‛creep’ by the women. Being perceived as a ‛creep’ was associated with an aggressive or predatory form of male sexuality, such as sending ‛dick pics’ either ‛too soon’ or unsolicited. The social stigma of being perceived as ‛that creepy guy’ seemed to serve as a mechanism for young men to regulate their own sexting behaviours to avoid going ‛too far’ and ‛too fast’ when sexting.

To summarize, previous research on the cultural and societal phenomenon of ‛dick pics’ that focuses specifically on teens has been limited. Hence, there is a lack of research examining the perspectives of teenagers, especially those of teenage boys. For that reason, there is a need for further research that explores teenage boys’ perspectives on the practice of sending unsolicited dick pics among peers and the contextual differences that may exist in different school settings.

Class Habitus, Gender and Violence

In the present article, Butler’s (1993, 2002, 2014, 2020) theoretical perspectives on gender, vulnerability and violence were applied in the analysis, as well as Bourdieu’s (1977, 1990) theoretical perspective on the relation between habitus and practice. Bourdieu’s (1977, 1990) concept of class habitus refers to the notion that members of the same class (or group) are united by internalized structures, common schemes of perception and thought, objective co-ordination of practices, conceptions, and actions common to all members of the same class. In other words, habitus is an embodied structure and results in the sharing of a worldview. Agents carry with them both past and present positions in the social structure. Importantly, however, the habitus changes over time and through influences from other habitus in society.

The habitus organizes agents. The homogeneity of habitus is what causes practices to be taken for granted. According to Bourdieu, one of the fundamental effects of the orchestration of habitus is the production of a commonsense world. The schemes of thought and expression are internalized in the class or group habitus from the earliest upbringing of agents. How agents act is dependent on how they expect others to respond, and it all rests on their mastery of a common code (Bourdieu, 1977). Personal style and manner are products of the habitus. A social class is defined by similar or identical conditions of existence. According to Bourdieu, this influences how people make choices and act in their social environment (Bourdieu, 1990).

The present study also follows Butler’s (2002) theory stating that gender is performative. Gender is understood to be produced in performative verbal daily practices in which different discourses of masculinity, femininity and heterosexuality are embodied, reproduced and renegotiated. In different social contexts, masculinities and femininities are seen as being constantly under production and intersecting with categories such as sexuality, age and social class. According to Butler, discursive perceptions of gender and sexuality are intertwined, and the construction of masculinity and femininity takes place within the framework of the heterosexual matrix. Within this framework, the binary categories ‘women’ and ‘men’ are seen as two opposite and complementary groups in society that are united by a heterosexual desire for each other. According to Butler, how we perform or ‘do sexuality’ is related to how we perform or ‘do gender’ and vice versa. Heteronormativity means, in this regard, that an obligatory and presumed heterosexuality governs the ways in which masculinity and femininity can be expressed. This binary division of gender is so deeply rooted in society that it is seen as natural. Our culture consists of discursive expectations and notions of how masculinity and femininity should be performed in the ‘right’ way. In this view of a gendered world, ‘normative’ forms of gender are based on a presumed heterosexuality (Butler, 2002).

According to Butler (2020), violence is part of broader structures, and it can be, for example, physical, sexual, gender-related, and racial, as well as linguistic, emotional, economic and institutional. Violence, in Butler’s view, is an attack on the very structure of being. Despite this phenomenological viewpoint, Butler has also pointed out that this does not mean violence is a matter of subjective opinion, instead emphasizing that nonviolence must be linked to radical equality. Theoretically, Butler (2020) emphasized the importance of reevaluating the concept of vulnerability and of not portraying people who are subject to violence in systematics ways as ‘the vulnerable’, who need protection from ‘the invulnerable’, as this categorization neither does people justice nor respects their own power of resistance. Vulnerability is embedded in social relations and actions. The present article shares Butler’s (2014, 2016) alternative perspective on female vulnerability, which is that women are both vulnerable and capable of resistance. In fact, all vulnerable people are capable of resistance and agency. But humans are relational and dependent on social relations and support networks.

Method and Methodology

The present study is part of a national Swedish research project funded by the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare (grant number 2017-00071). The Regional Ethical Review Board approved the project’s ethics application during the spring of 2018 (application number 244-18).

The aim of this research project is to examine students’ perspectives on violence, threats, and harassment among peers in lower secondary school. A specific theme investigated is sexting and digital sexual harassment. The research project is based on a qualitative case study design. A strategic selection of schools has been made with the aim of including lower secondary schools located in completely different demographic and socioeconomic areas, from northern to southern Sweden. Each school has been analysed as an individual case study. One criterion for selection was to include schools from both urban and rural areas. Another criterion was that each school’s catchment area should differ in relation to social class, so that students from different places and with different backgrounds could give voice to everyday life at their local school (Statistics Sweden, 2021). It is important to study students’ everyday school life in different school settings, especially considering the lack of contextual school studies in Swedish research (Öhrn & Beach, 2019). Case studies look at both persons and places, thus giving researchers an opportunity to examine both structure and agency (Zussman, 2004). The present article is based on a theory-driven case study approach. Socio-demographic differences were hence important when selecting schools, as they enabled an analysis of the significance of class habitus and local school culture in relation to the research questions (see Bourdieu, 1977, 1990).

The present article is based on data from two of these case studies, conducted in two lower secondary schools (see Meyer, 2001; Yin, 2014). At the two schools, students in year 9 (14–15 years) were first interviewed in focus groups. The focus group interviews were then followed up by semi-structured individual interviews and, if requested by the students, pair interviews. Some students wanted to be interviewed together with a close friend because this made them feel more comfortable talking about sensitive topics (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009).

The present article aims to critically investigate rural working-class boys’ and urban middle-class boys’ perspectives by analysing each school separately, and then to compare the analyses of the two schools. All the boys interviewed knew about the phenomenon of sexting and dick pics and mostly talked freely about the topic in the interviews. In the article, the first lower secondary school presented is Amber School, which is located in a rural working-class area in central Sweden. The school enrols approximately 400 students from 7th to 9th grade (13–16 years). The second school presented is Amethyst School, a lower secondary school in a mid-sized city, located in a predominantly middle-class area in northern Sweden. This school also enrols approximately 400 students from 6th to 9th grade (12–16 years). The socioeconomic status of the catchment areas has been determined using Statistics Sweden’s website (Statistics Sweden, 2021). In the interviews, to obtain additional information, the students were also asked to describe the school’s catchment area and their family background.

Before the interviews, written information about the research project was provided to all students and their parents, together with a written consent form. The students were also provided oral information and given an opportunity to discuss the aim of the study and ethical considerations. To further strengthen the ethical requirements of the study, the names of the two schools and their catchment areas as well as the names of all participants have been anonymized using pseudonyms (The Swedish Research Council, 2017).

The same interview guide was used in all interviews. However, interview questions discussed in the focus groups were also followed up in the individual interviews, the goal being to deepen the discussions by allowing the students to talk about their personal experiences. The interview guide covered broad themes related to students’ experiences of violence, threats and harassment among peers, both in person and via social media. The guide also included semi-structured questions about what kind of help and support the students found beneficial. One theme in the interview guide specifically covered sexting and digital sexual harassment between peers and victimization at school. Methodologically, the questions were open in nature to give students the opportunity to talk about their own and others’ experiences as well as to reflect on the situations discussed. Allowing students to retell narratives is a way to gain detailed information about students’ experiences, thoughts and actions in everyday school life. One way to establish rapport and trust was to listen fully when the participants shared their stories and to allow the interviews to take time. The focus group interviews lasted up to two hours, and the individual interviews as well as pair interviews lasted up to one hour (Brinkmann & Kvale, 2018; Czarniawska, 2004; Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009).

In total, 12 focus group interviews, 30 individual interviews and three interviews in pairs were conducted at the two schools during 2019. A total of 59 students (14–15 years) were interviewed. Each focus group included three to six students. Some, but not all, focus groups were gender mixed. The division into groups was organized by the students’ teachers based on their knowledge of the students’ peer relationships. Given the sensitive nature of the interviews, the composition of the focus groups was intended to provide a safe conversational climate (Brinkmann & Kvale, 2018; Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009). However, this goal was not always achieved in the gender-mixed groups. The group composition was determined by school staff because they had knowledge of the students’ social relations. However, as it turned out, the school staff were not aware of the digital sexual harassment that occurred among the students in some of the gender-mixed focus groups at Amber School. For that reason, quotes from Amber School have been taken from individual interviews only, as the topic of sexual harassment was too sensitive to discuss in the focus groups at that school.

In the present study, how boys talk about and perceive unsolicited dick pics at the two schools have been analysed in relation to the theoretical perspectives of gender, masculinity, social class, and vulnerability (Bourdieu, 1977; 1990; Butler, 1993, 2002, 2014, 2016, 2020).

Amber School and Amethyst School

In this section, the results of the analysis are presented in two parts, where each school is analysed as a separate case. The results are then discussed in the conclusion, and a comparison is made between the cases to provide a contextual perspective on how young male students talk about and perceive unsolicited dick pics among peers.

Amber School: Traditional Masculinity and Masculine Power

Sexting is a fairly common practice at Amber School, and the school’s sexting culture is dominated by male power and female subordination, which has been shown in a previous study of the same school (Hunehäll-Berndtsson & Odenbring, 2021a). However, the present study focuses on male students sending of unsolicited dick pics to female peers. Anders explains it by saying that sending unsolicited dick pics: ‘is something that is a bit ridiculous to do. Maybe not the best thing you should do’. Even so, he also states that: ‘It’s not like “hush, hush,” people can still talk about it quite openly’. Anders continues: ‘It’s something you can talk to most people about’. ‘But maybe it’s more that guys talk to guys and girls talk to girls about it, but still’. In other words, unsolicited dick pics are a heteronormative practice boys can discuss quite openly, with other boys (Butler, 2002). In the following quote, Anders describes boys’ views on an unsolicited dick pic being shared at school by saying:

Anders: I don’t think anyone would take it seriously! It’s more somewhere between funny and negative. Maybe like funny in a negative way. It’s a bit like watching a video of someone slipping on a patch of ice or something. It’s funny to watch, although it’s not the best thing that happens to that person.

Interviewer: You all understand that it’s not that good, but at the same time you don’t take it seriously?

Anders: Exactly, no one takes it so seriously. (Individual interview, Amber School)

In this narrative, Anders illustrates the phenomenon of unsolicited dick pics by saying that if an unsolicited dick pic is shared between students at school, the boys perceive this in the same way as if they were watching a funny video of someone slipping on a patch of ice. The metaphor shows that if an unsolicited dick pic is displayed publicly at school, the boys’ response is humour. Humour has the power to reduce the seriousness of the situation. In this case, it can be understood as humour helping to ensure that boys’ social position is not significantly affected. Using humour, boys resist being put in a vulnerable position when exposed in this explicit way (cf. Kehily & Nayak, 1997). Humour can be said to help legitimize the practice of sending unsolicited dick pics within the group of boys. Moreover, Ringrose’s (2021a) study showed that boys’ use of humour and banter tends to minimize and excuse the social stigmatization of leaked dick pics. In the present study, boys’ humorous attitudes contribute to confirming and reinforcing the collective male perception that it is unproblematic for boys to send explicit images without consent. Thus, the phenomenon of unsolicited dick pics can be seen as a hetero-masculine practice in a heteronormative school environment (Butler, 2002).

However, the reason why some boys send unsolicited dick pics to girls turned out to be the hope of getting a nude picture in return. This result is consistent with previous studies by Ringrose et al. (2021a, 2021b), which have also shown that the reason why male students send unsolicited dick pics is that they hope to receive a nude photo of the girl in return. Although unsolicited dick pics are considered unproblematic and humorous by the boys at Amber School, it is possible to discern a clear sexual double standard in how female sexting activities are valued by male students at the investigated school:

Hans: A guy doesn’t get as much shit for it, it’s considered more normal. Of course, guys send some pictures (dick pics). With a girl, it becomes … that you look down on her. /…/

Interviewer: Does it affect the girls’ reputation and status at school?

Hans: YES! Yes, it does!

Interviewer: But why do you think girls send pictures in return then? When they risk putting themselves in that situation.

Hans: Well, that’s a bit contradictory. But … for the attention, I think. They want attention! And confirmation! Because it’s often that … well that guys give girls praise. Because it’s often the guy who wants to have the…

Interviewer: Pictures do you mean?

Hans: Yes. That’s how I experience it anyway! I think it’s the confirmation that someone wants you!

Interviewer: Could it be for guys too, that they want confirmation?

Hans: Yes, I think so! I think that’s just as important, but guys get confirmation in a different way. What gives confirmation is that a girl sends a picture in return.

Interviewer: So, what gives the guy confirmation is the girl sending a picture in return?

Hans: Yes! (Individual interview, Amber School)

The fact that male students ‘send some’ unsolicited dick pics is perceived as a normal and expected male activity in the heteronormative school culture at Amber School (Butler, 1993, 2002). The quote also indicates that boys receive confirmation of their heterosexual masculinity when a girl responds to an unsolicited dick pic by sending a nude image of herself in return. At the same time, however, there is a sexual double standard, in that boys are said to ‘look down on’ the girls they send these explicit pictures to. The boys are aware that this slut-shaming will negatively affect the girls’ reputation and social status at school. The boys’ attitude—that if they send a sexy picture they might get one in return—is based on a short-term turn on and lack of interest in the well-being of female peers. Within the framework of presumed heteronormativity and traditional masculinity (Butler, 1993, 2002), this behaviour can be understood as the boys trying to push the boundaries of sexuality to see what they can get away with, especially because they seem aware that girls do not appreciate receiving unsolicited dick pics:

Interviewer: Have you ever heard girls say they want an end to this?

Mikael: YES!

Interviewer: That they don’t want pictures like this [unsolicited dick pics]. You’ve heard that?

Mikael: Yeah (Individual interview, Amber School)

The fact that female peers are said not to want unsolicited dick pics, as well as the fact that this phenomenon can be understood as image-based sexual harassment and cyber flashing (Ringrose et al. 2021), also in Swedish legislation (SFS 2008:567), is an aspect of this practice that needs to be explored:

Interviewer: But if you send a nude to someone who doesn’t want that picture, it can be considered sexually harassment and is something that you can be reported to the police for.

Hans: Well, we’ve actually talked a bit about that, me and some friends. But some guys don’t understand! That’s my experience. They send pictures to girls who don’t want it. I don’t understand why you would send dick pics to someone when you notice that the person doesn’t want it! No, I think it should be classified as sexual harassment. Because I mean if it was the other way around, it doesn’t happen as often, but I wouldn’t want to be sitting and eating with my family and get that kind of picture all of a sudden! Either! /…/ I also think that girls who are already under pressure to send nudes, they are the ones you look down on! And for them, it only gets worse, because guys think those girls are easy! Guys take it for granted that they will send pictures in return!

Interviewer: I see, and that’s why they get more pictures (dick pics)?

Hans: Yes! (Individual interview, Amber School)

In this quote, it is stressed that some of the boys at Amber School have discussed the inappropriateness of sending dick pics to girls without consent. However, it is also mentioned that not all boys understand the connection between this behaviour and female vulnerability and sexual violence (Butler, 2014, 2016, 2020, SFS, 2008:567). The boy in the quote thinks unsolicited sexting should be classified as sexual harassment. However, he is not fully aware of the fact that this is already the case. The quote also shows that boys do not have respect for the girls they send unsolicited dick pics to, and that the boys expect the ‘easy girls’ to send them nudes in return. In the boy’s narrative, traditional discourses about gender dynamics emerge when he talks about the culture of masculinity at school (Butler, 1993, 2002).

At Amber School, the discourse of heterosexual masculine sexuality can be said to take place at the expense of feminine sexuality. In this light, the gender dynamics at the investigated school can be understood as highly traditional. The fact that several of the boys seem to have an unreflective attitude indicates a normalized and internalized view of females that can be understood as conditioned by social structures within their rural working-class habitus (Bourdieu, 1977, 1990). As Butler (2020) pointed out, violence is part of broader structures and embedded in discursive notions such as social class, gender and sexuality. At Amber School, the boys’ actions clearly make the girls victims of digital sexual harassment. But the boys are victims too; they are victims of patriarchal gender discourses that act upon them and govern their actions, because they lack knowledge and do not understand that sending unsolicited dick pics without consent is sexually harassment. Moreover, they do not realize that their way of looking down on female sexuality stems from an unequal view of gender.

Amethyst School: Gender-equal Masculinity and Feminine Power

At Amethyst School, sexting was also a well-known practice. But when the topic of ‘unsolicited dick pics’ was discussed, the boys clearly distanced themselves from the practice and expressed strong disapproval of this behaviour.

Marcus: If I were a girl, and a guy had sent me dick pics without asking. Then I would have thought: WHAT THE HELL IS THIS!

Hjalmar: What the hell happened in his head!

Marcus: That’s not nice!

Sebastian: And girls never send any (refers to nudes) in return!

Marcus: It’s different if someone asks for a picture! Then it’s okay! /…/ No one can actually believe that a girl will like it if you just send a picture—completely fucking unprepared—of your dick! /…/ I think it’s disrespectful. If you haven’t asked first, then it’s disrespectful to send such a picture to someone who doesn’t want a picture. (Focus group interview, Amethyst School)

In all interviews with the boys at Amethyst School, they expressed strong opinions about the inappropriateness of unsolicited dick pics. They unanimously found this practice disrespectful and claimed that they only sent dick pics to girls if there was mutual consent. This can be understood in light of the public debate. In the mainstream media, unsolicited dick pics are commonly associated with heterosexual harassment, and are often seen as problematic, risky and dangerous (Paasonen et al., 2019). The results of this case study indicate that there is a strong gender-equal discourse among the urban middle-class boys (Bourdieu, 1977, 1990). Through their speech, they can be said to perform gender-equal masculinity (Butler, 1993, 2002). But the boys also expressed fear of the actions of female peers. Because if a girl were to get an unsolicited dick pic, she would, according to Hjalmar, think that: ‘I can share this picture with whoever I want!’ (Focus group interview). It is unclear whether girls actually think this way, but it does reveal boys’ fear of girls’ power in these situations. The following is an example given by the boys about how one girl in class, Fatima, openly told everyone that she had received unsolicited dick pics from a boy in the parallel class:

Interviewer: Has she (Fatima) told everyone about this, or is it only you all who know about it?

All the boys: She’s told everyone!

Marcus: Yes, she’s told everyone!

Hjalmar: She’s been pretty open about it!

Interviewer: Okay, did she share the (unsolicited dick pics) pictures?

All the boys: No.

Edvin: No, she didn’t take any screenshots.

Hjalmar: No, I don’t think she took any screenshots.

Marcus: No, she didn’t.

Interviewer: But she told you about this?

All the boys: Yes.

Hjalmar: Yes, she did.

Edvin: On the other hand, theoretically, Fatima could’ve lied. But I don’t think so.

All the boys: No! (Focus group interview, Amethyst School)

This example illustrates the boys’ perceptions of the power girls have to point out boys as perpetrators of digital sexual harassment—even without the image as evidence. Furthermore, the boys do not seem to perceive the girl’s actions as unfair and do not think the girl would lie about sexual harassment. Rather they portray it as a female act of resistance to female vulnerability (Butler, 2014, 2016, 2020). Similarly, Paasonen et al. (2019) emphasized that shaming dick pics has become an acceptable act and a way for women to exercise social power when they receive unsolicited dick pics. At Amethyst School, boys’ perceptions of girls’ power to point out perpetrators of sexual harassment can be understood to create fear among the boys interviewed. The results also reveal that the male students’ speech acts are characterized by feminist societal values (Butler, 1993, 2002). This can be understood as indicating that collective schemes of thought, perception, behaviour and action have been internalized during the boys’ upbringing. As a result, the boys are well aware of the norms and values prevalent in the urban middle-class habitus (Bourdieu, 1977, 1990). Surprisingly, and in light of this, the interviews also reveal that what the boys perceive as ‘consent’ when sexting is often a matter of interpretation of the interaction they have with a girl:

Interviewer: Do you first ask if the girl wants to share (explicit) pictures? Or do you just send pictures?

Edvin: It depends.

Hjalmar: Yes, it depends!

Edvin: But look—you notice if the girl is ‘in the mood’, if you know what I mean.

Hjalmar: Mm.

Edvin: I don’t know how to explain it, but listen.… It is clear if the girl sends pictures depicting ‘a wall’, or if she sends some half-teasing pictures—if you understand what I’m saying. You notice immediately if it’s like… (Focus group interview, Amethyst School)

According to these boys, they consider themselves able to determine whether a girl is receptive to a sexual image in the form of a dick pic. Apparently, her behaviour shows them whether or not she is ‘in the mood’ to receive a sext. But the following quote indicates how easily heterosexual interaction between young people can be misinterpreted. The following narrative is about Paul and Nicki, a boy and girl in the class:

Edvin: Nicki accidentally sent a picture of her breasts [to Paul].

Hjalmar: Yes.

Edvin: And then Paul responded by sending her a dick pic. And that was not the best thing that could have happened /…/ because they wrote to each other and so on.

Interviewer: They had something going on?

Edvin: Yes, they thought so. And that may have been the reason why the relationship didn’t turn out so well—afterwards. I think.

Interviewer: Because they shared pictures?

Edvin: But Nicki sent the picture by mistake!

Interviewer: Did she send the picture by mistake?

Edvin: Yes! (Focus group interview, Amethyst School)

For the students, this narrative illustrates a scenario in which a boy in class sent an unsolicited dick pic to a girl in class. These students make it clear that they believe Paul is the one who did something wrong in this situation, even though, according to the boys, it was actually the girl, Nicki, who initially sent an unsolicited nude image to Paul and then claimed that she had sent the explicit image by mistake. The fact that the boys choose this narrative to illustrate a scenario that includes an unsolicited dick pic reveals several things. First, it can be understood as the boys perceiving the girl as the vulnerable party, and for that reason believing that her female vulnerability gives her the right to use her agency and spread this story to classmates as a form of resistance to sexual violence. Alternatively, it is also possible to regard this narrative as the boy being socially punished for a misunderstanding, and that he therefore is vulnerable to being labelled a ‘perpetrator’ in school (Butler, 2014, 2016, 2020). The fact that the boys see Paul as culpable in this situation can be considered in light of Ravn et al.’s (2021) study, which highlighted young men’s fear of facing the social stigma of being a ‘creepy guy’ when sexting ‘too fast’ or ‘too soon’ with women, owing to the societal view of male sexuality as predatory and aggressive.

In fact, what this narrative really illustrates is how difficult it is for young teenagers to understand each other’s heterosexual acts and where the line should be drawn between a misunderstanding and an act of sexual harassment in a heteronormative school environment (Butler, 1993, 2002). That this can be understood as the definition of what constitutes an ‘unsolicited dick pic’ in society is not clear to these students, because they have no defining framework for when a dick pic is ‘unsolicited’—neither in a legal nor in a moral sense. Based on the interviews, it is unclear whether these boys know that, according to the law, unsolicited dick pics can be a form of sexual harassment or whether they only consider this sexual behaviour inappropriate for boys to engage in.

Conclusion and Discussion

In the present article, analysis of the two case studies shows that male students talk about and perceive the phenomenon of unsolicited dick pics in quite different ways within the rural working-class school as compared to the urban middle-class school. This can be seen from a certain perspective, which is that gender, class, and heteronormativity construct various forms of power relations of dominance and subordination within different school cultures (e.g., Mac an Ghaill, 1994). Each case study contributes contextual perspectives and highlights social processes unique to each individual school (Yin, 2014; Zussman, 2004).

At Amber School, a lower secondary school in a rural working-class area, boys did not seem to see any problem with sending unsolicited dick pics to girls in an attempt to get them to send nudes photos in return. Not all boys understood that such behaviour could be classified as sexual harassment if the recipient found the images unpleasant (SFS, 2008, p. 567). Sending dick pics was described as an expected hetero-masculine behaviour. If an unsolicited dick pic was then shared at school, the boys collectively responded to this with an unknowing and humorous attitude. Humour can be said to downplay the seriousness of unsolicited dick pics and help legitimize the practice of sending them. Humour can also be seen as a form of resistance. If sending unsolicited dick pics were to be considered reprehensible behaviour, boys would run the risk of facing a vulnerable position. In the interviews, it became clear that the boys embody and reproduce a traditional, taken-for-granted heterosexual masculinity. At Amber School, masculine power and female subordination can be seen as presumed heteronormative discourses, and students are governed by the traditional gender norms that act upon them (Butler, 1993, 2002, 2016). In this light, the present study highlights how the rural working-class boys at Amber School are governed by traditional patriarchal discourses, and how this makes some of them perpetrators of digital sexual harassment without reflection.

At Amethyst School, on the other hand, the boys’ attitude towards unsolicited dick pics was the complete opposite of that at Amber School. Amethyst School, an urban middle-class school, proved to be governed by completely different gender norms. For instance, all boys interviewed clearly distanced themselves from and expressed strong disapproval of the practice of sending unsolicited dick pics, although they also described situations when dick pics were sent within the school. In society, sending unsolicited dick pics is commonly associated with heterosexual harassment, and a discourse has emerged of adult women resisting unsolicited dick pics by shaming the sender (e.g., Paasonen et al., 2019). At Amethyst School, girls had embraced similar resistance and, for this reason, had the social power to point out boys as sexual perpetrators at school—even without photo evidence. This result indicates that the boys were afraid of the girls’ power to portray boys as sexual perpetrators at school. Consequently, a different gender dynamic became visible among the students at this school, compared to the patriarchal structures of Amber School. Instead, a discursive gender-equal masculinity dominated the boys’ speech acts in the urban middle-class school (Bourdieu, 1977, 1990; Butler, 1993, 2002). The boys made clear their disapproval of the practice of sending unsolicited dick pics.

At Amethyst School, the boys had internalized and subordinated themselves to society’s heteronormative view of male sexuality as aggressive and predatory and of women as vulnerable (see Bourdieu, 1977, 1990; Butler, 2014, 2016; Ravn et al., 2021). In fact, they had internalized this view to such an extent that they could not distinguish between male sexual violence and heterosexual misunderstandings between students. The result indicates that the boys lacked a defining framework for when a dick pic can be classified as unsolicited. Thus, they also lacked knowledge of how the law defines digital sexual harassment.

One conclusion that can be drawn from the study is that the practice of sending unsolicited dick pics takes on different expressions in different local school cultures. The boys’ co-ordination of practices, thoughts, perceptions, behaviours and actions can be understood as internalized and as deriving from the surrounding urban and rural social environment and class culture (Bourdieu, 1977, 1990). The present study indicates that social structures govern how boys ‘do’ hetero-masculinity and how they position themselves in relation to females, heteronormative expectations and the societal practice of sending unsolicited dick pics (Bourdieu, 1977, 1990; Butler, 2002). However, it is important to emphasize that these two case studies do not aim to generalize how boys perceive the phenomenon of unsolicited dick pics within the rural working class and the urban middle class in general. Rather, the study only aims to exemplify the major differences that exist in different school cultures and to shed light on the fact that boys’ speech acts and perceptions are governed by local class and gender norms (Bourdieu, 1977, 1990; Butler, 1993, 2002). This is because class and gender norms are produced and reproduced among youth within school cultures and because these power relations govern how students construct and perform masculinities and sexualities (e.g., Connell & Pears, 2015; Mac an Ghaill, 1994; Willis, 1993). Nevertheless, our social world is complex, and there are several other factors besides class and gender norms that influence young people’s sexting practices. For instance, factors such as the schools’ sexting education and prevention were not examined in the present study.

A theory-driven case study approach has its benefits, but also some limitations. Consequently, more studies are needed to examine further perspectives on the dick pic phenomenon at schools. For example, an ethnographic case study approach could contribute additional data and thus offer a more complex understanding of the local school culture’s impact on male students’ perceptions.

Overall, students need to be educated about digital sexual harassment. To help and guide students in dealing with the many faces of unsolicited sexting, it is valuable for school staff to gain knowledge about how ‘unsolicited dick pics’ can be used and reacted to by students in everyday school life. The present study seeks to contribute such a perspective.