Existing research largely confines consent analysis to power differentials; this study uses gendered identities as an outcome of gendered socialisation processes to examine the complexity of consent in nude sharing. Through online focus groups with 29 Australian emerging adults aged 18 to 24, the research identifies gendered patterns of consent-giving shaped through socialisation. Women, often characterised by more permeable ego boundaries, tended to perceive sexting as relationally obligatory and frequently reported experiences of subtle coercion and shame. Men, whose ego boundaries are generally more rigid, tended to frame sexting as entertaining and socially normative and often downplayed potential harms. Based on these findings, this study proposes communication strategies that encourage individuals, parents, and society to engage in mutual change rather than placing the burden solely on individuals.
AddisMECohaneGH (2005) Social scientific paradigms of masculinity and their implications for research and practice in men's mental health. Journal of Clinical Psychology61(6): 633–647.
4.
BarishKJ (1980) The relationship of ego boundary permeability- impermeability to empathy, physiognomic perception, and values. PhD Thesis, The New School for Social Research, USA.
5.
BierbrauerG (1994) Toward an understanding of legal culture: Variations in individualism and collectivism between Kurds, Lebanese, and Germans. Law & Society Review28(2): 243–264.
6.
BraunVClarkeV (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology3(2): 77–101.
7.
Braunack-MayerAFabrianesiBStreetJ, et al. (2021) Sharing government health data with the private sector: community attitudes survey. Journal of Medical Internet Research23(10): e24200.
8.
BurkettM (2015) Sex (t) talk: a qualitative analysis of young adults’ negotiations of the pleasures and perils of sexting. Sexuality & Culture19(4): 835–863.
9.
CarrCLJohnsonL (2019) Law, Cultural Diversity, and Criminal Defense. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
10.
ChernataT (2024) Personal boundaries: definition, role, and impact on mental health. Personality and Environmental Issues3(1): 24–30.
11.
CitronDKFranksMA (2014) Criminalizing revenge porn. Wake Forest Law Review49: 345–392.
12.
ConleyJMO'BarrWM (1990) Rules versus relationships: The ethnography of legal discourse. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
DeleviRWeisskirchRS (2013) Personality factors as predictors of sexting. Computers in Human Behavior29(6): 2589–2594.
15.
DernéS (1992) Beyond institutional and impulsive conceptions of self: family structure and the socially anchored real self. Ethos20(3): 259–288.
16.
FahsB (2014) 'Freedom to’ and ‘freedom from’: a new vision for sex-positive politics. Sexualities17(3): 267–290.
17.
FedernP (1953) Ego psychology and the psychoses. London: Imago Publishing Co. Ltd.
18.
FlynnACamaEPowellA, et al. (2023) Victim-blaming and image-based sexual abuse. Journal of Criminology56(1): 7–25.
19.
GalanisPKatsiroumpaZKatsiroumpaA, et al. (2023) Relationship between sexting and self-esteem, depression, anxiety, and stress among young people. International Journal of Caring Sciences16(1): 62–71.
20.
GeistRA (2008) Connectedness, permeable boundaries, and the development of the self: therapeutic implications. International Journal of Psychoanalytic Self Psychology3(2): 129–152.
21.
GeistRA (2010) Empathizing with Oedipus: a connectedness perspective. International Journal of Psychoanalytic Self Psychology5(4): 4670482.
22.
GoldfarbELiebermanLKwiatkowskiS, et al. (2018) Silence and censure: a qualitative analysis of young adults’ reflections on communication with parents prior to first sex. Journal of Family Issues39(1): 28–54.
23.
GuestGNameyEMcKennaK (2017) How many focus groups are enough? Building an evidence base for nonprobability sample sizes. Field Methods29(1): 3–22.
24.
HallJA (2006) Women's and men's nonverbal communication. In: ManusovVPattersonML (Eds) The SAGE Handbook of Nonverbal Communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 201–218.
25.
HallMHearnJ (2019) Revenge pornography and manhood acts: a discourse analysis of perpetrators’ accounts. Journal of Gender Studies28(2): 158–170.
26.
HartmannE (1991) Boundaries in the mind: A new psychology of personality. New York: Basic Books.
27.
HasinoffAA (2015) Sexting panic: Rethinking criminalization, privacy, and consent. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
28.
HenryNBeardG (2024) Image-based sexual abuse perpetration: a scoping review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse25(5): 3981–3998.
29.
HenryNFlynnA (2019) Image-based sexual abuse: online distribution channels and illicit communities of support. Violence Against Women25(16): 1932–1955.
30.
HenryNPowellA (2016) Technology-facilitated sexual violence: a literature review of empirical research. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse19(2): 195–208.
31.
HolmesM (2015) Men’s emotions: heteromasculinity, emotional reflexivity, and intimate relationships. Men and Masculinities18(2): 176–192.
32.
JohnstonbaughM (2021) Men find trophies where women find insults: sharing nude images of others as collective rituals of sexual pursuit and rejection. Gender & Society35(5): 665–690.
33.
JonesSMilnesKTurner-MooreR (2024) 'Doing things you don't wanna do’: young people's understandings of power inequalities and the implications for sexual consent. Journal of Youth Studies27(4): 503–523.
34.
JordanJV (1991) The relational self: A new perspective for understanding women’s development. In: StraussJGoethalsGR (eds) The Self: Interdisciplinary Approaches. New York: Springer, 136–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-8264-5_8.
35.
JozkowskiKN (2015) "Yes means yes”? sexual consent policy and college students. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning47(2): 16–23.
36.
KaplanER (2020) American rape culture: The circulation of affect, victim blaming, and cyborg vaginas. In: BeckerGCDionneAT (eds) Rape Culture 101: Programming Change. Bradford, ON: Demeter Press, 169–190.
37.
KellyBBoylandETatlow-GoldenM, et al. (2023) Testing a conceptual hierarchy of effects model of food marketing exposure and associations with children and adolescents’ diet-related outcomes. Public Health Nutrition27(1): e10.
38.
KesslerAMKennairLEOGrøntvedtTV, et al. (2020) The effect of prototypical #MeToo features on the perception of social-sexual behavior as sexual harassment. Sexuality & Culture24(5): 1271–1291.
39.
KitzingerJ (1994) The methodology of focus groups: the importance of interaction between research participants. Sociology of Health & Illness16(1): 103–121.
40.
KolisettyA (2021) Gaps in the law on image-based sexual abuse and its implementation: Taking an intersectional approach. In: PowellAFlynnASugiuraL (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Gendered Violence and Technology. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan, 385–404. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83734-1_25.
41.
KuzmaEKAmmermanBALeeV, et al. (2024) Re-envisioning youth sexual health care: supporting sex positivity in a digital world. Journal of Pediatric Health Care38(3): 310–322.
42.
LayneLL. (2020) Selfishness and Seflessness: New Approaches to Understanding Morality (Vol. 10). New York: Berghahn Books.
43.
LebedíkováMOlveira-AraujoRMýlekV, et al. (2024) The reciprocal relationship between consensual sexting and peer support among adolescents: a three-wave longitudinal study. Computers in Human Behavior152: 108048.
44.
LeeMCroftsT (2015) Gender, pressure, coercion and pleasure: untangling motivations for sexting between young people. British Journal of Criminology55(3): 454–473.
45.
LesterEP (1993) Boundaries and gender: their interplay in the analytic situation. Psychoanalytic Inquiry13(2): 153–172.
46.
LundgrenSWieslanderM (2025) Holding the harasser responsible: implications of identifying sexual harassment that includes abuse of power and quid pro quo elements as sexual corruption. Gender, Work & Organization32(1): 181–201.
47.
MainwaringCScottAJGabbertF (2023) Behavioral intentions of bystanders to image-based sexual abuse: a preliminary focus group study with a university student sample. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse32(3): 318–339.
48.
McDonaldBKanskeP (2023) Gender differences in empathy, compassion, and prosocial donations, but not theory of mind in a naturalistic social task. Scientific Reports13(1): 20748.
49.
McGlynnCRackleyEHoughtonR (2017) Beyond ‘revenge porn’: the continuum of image-based sexual abuse. Feminist Legal Studies25(1): 25–46.
50.
McGovernWM (1969) Contract in medieval England: the necessity for quid pro quo and a sum certain. American Journal of Legal History13(3): 173–201.
51.
McKenzieSKCollingsSJenkinG, et al. (2018) Masculinity, social connectedness, and mental health: men’s diverse patterns of practice. American Journal of Men's Health12(5): 1247–1261.
52.
MckinlayTLavisT (2020) Why did she send it in the first place? Victim blame in the context of ‘revenge porn’. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law27(3): 386–396.
53.
MendelsohnS (2024) Dialectics of we-ness and I-ness: discussion of geist and nocek, goldin, and stern on boundaries, empathy and selfobjects. Psychoanalysis, Self and Context19(4): 445–456.
54.
MerkinRS (2017) Individualism-collectivism applied to direct versus indirect facework. In: In Saving Face in Business: Managing Cross-Cultural Interactions. New York: Palgrave Macmillan US, 119–136.
55.
MillumJ (2014) Consent under pressure: the puzzle of third party coercion. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice17(1): 113–127.
56.
NeffK (2020) Sex positive: Redefining our attitudes to love & sex. New York: Watkins Publishing.
57.
O’HalloranOCookN (2024) Breaking the silence: exploring women’s experiences of participating in the #MeToo movement. Feminist Media Studies24(6): 1371–1385.
58.
ÓlafsdottirKKjaranJI (2019) "Boys in power”: consent and gendered power dynamics in sex. Boyhood Studies12(1): 38–56.
59.
Page JefferyCMcKeeALumbyC (2025) Young people and sexually explicit content online: exploring Australian parents’ concerns. New Media & Society27(5): 2620–2637.
60.
ParisJ (1985) Boundary and intimacy. Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis13(4): 505–510.
61.
ParkHSLevineTRWeberR, et al. (2012) Individual and cultural variations in direct communication style. International Journal of Intercultural Relations36(2): 179–187.
62.
PascoeJ (2022) Respect women": Thinking beyond consent after #MeToo. In: BooninD (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Sexual Ethics. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan, 343–360. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87786-6_19.
63.
PolsterS (1983) Ego boundary as process: a systemic-contextual approach. Psychiatry46(3): 247–258.
64.
RandallM (2010) Sexual assault law, credibility, and “ideal victims”: consent, resistance, and victim blaming. Canadian Journal of Women and the Law22(2): 397–433.
ReisnerSLRandazzoRKHughtoJMW, et al. (2018) Sensitive health topics with underserved patient populations: methodological considerations for online focus group discussions. Qualitative Health Research28(10): 1658–1673.
67.
RingroseJRegehrKMilneB (2021) Understanding and combatting youth experiences of image-based sexual harassment and abuse. Report, Department of Education, Practice and Society, UCL Institute of Education, UK, December. https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10139669.
68.
RossJ (2010) Blaming the victim: 'consent' within the Fourth Amendment and rape law. Harvard Journal of Racial & Ethnic Justice26: 1–68.
69.
SangYLeeJYMcCallumK, et al. (2025) "It’s so normalised. Like, yeah, I got another nude today”: image-based online sexual interactions among emerging adults. Communication Research and Practice11(2): 283–297.
70.
SchmidtFVareseFLarkinA, et al. (2024) The mental health and social implications of nonconsensual sharing of intimate image on youth: a systematic review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse25(3): 2158–2172.
71.
SchowengerdtILambSBrownC (2021) Problematizing consent campaigns in the# METOO era. Gender and Women’s Studies4(1): 4.
72.
SchreursLSumterSRVandenboschL (2020) A prototype willingness approach to the relation between geo-social dating apps and willingness to sext with dating app matches. Archives of Sexual Behavior49(4): 1133–1145.
73.
SetoMCRocheKStroebelM, et al. (2023) Sending, receiving, and nonconsensually sharing nude or near-nude images by youth. Journal of Adolescence95(4): 672–685.
74.
SingelisTMBrownWJ (1995) Culture, self, and collectivist communication: linking culture to individual behavior. Human Communication Research21(3): 354–389.
State v. France. 379 S.E.2d 701 (N.C. Ct. App. 1989).
77.
ThorburnBGaveyNSingleG, et al. (2021) To send or not to send nudes: New Zealand girls critically discuss the contradictory gendered pressures of teenage sexting. Women’s Studies International Forum85: 102448.
78.
UmbachRHenryNBeardG (2025) Prevalence and impacts of image-based sexual abuse victimization: A multinational study. In: Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ‘25) (pp. 1–20). Association for Computing Machinery, https://doi.org/10.1145/3706598.3713545.
79.
Van den EyndeSPleysierSWalraveM (2025) Non-consensual dissemination of sexts: a scoping review of associated factors with perpetration and victimization. Adolescent Research Review. Epub ahead of print 26 July 2025. DOI: 10.1007/s40894-025-00269-z.
80.
VongasJGAl HajjR (2015) The evolution of empathy and women’s precarious leadership appointments. Frontiers in Psychology6: 1751.
81.
WilliamsCL (1993) Psychoanalytic theory and the sociology of gender. In: EnglandP (ed) Theory on Gender: Feminism on Theory. New York: De Gruyter, 131–149.
82.
WoodleyGNGreenLJacquesC (2024) 'Send nudes?': teens’ perspectives of education around sexting, an argument for a balanced approach. Sexualities28(5-6): 1891–1909.
83.
ZenMHendriksJBurnsS (2025) Sexually explicit media literacy education: a scoping review of parental perspectives and relevant resources. Sex Education: Sexuality, Society and Learning25(3): 359–375.
