Parental sense-making of adolescent ‘sexting’ in online forums: Competing repertoires and gendered negotiations

Abstract

Adolescent ‘sexting’ has led to widespread concern framed by two competing discourses – the first argues that adolescent sexting is normative and possible to practice safely, the second argues that sexting is a risky practice that requires intervention. Limited attention has been paid to how parents make sense of adolescent ‘sexting’. The current study employs critical discursive psychology to analyse parents’ posts from two online forums. Three interpretative repertoires were evidenced: the normality of sexting which positions adolescents as driven by hormones and infantilised; the engagement of sexting as a shock positions adolescents as innocent, naïve and stupid; sexting equates to the non-consensual sharing of images constructs the constructs sexting as an ‘ever-present danger. Analysis highlighted an ideological dilemma about the gendered nature of ‘sexting’; parents contested the positioning of all girls as victims and all boys as predators.

Introduction

‘Sexting’ is a term used to describe the electronically communicated exchange of sexually explicit texts or images (Ringrose et al., 2012). ‘Sexting’ definitions vary and may distinguish between ‘active sexting’ (sending or third-party forwarding) and ‘passive sexting’ (receiving a message directly from the creator or via another person) (Ojeda and Del Roy, 2022). Of note, ‘sexting’ is not typically a term employed by adolescents, rather they refer to the practice as sending ‘nudes’, or boob/dick pics (Barrense-Dias et al., 2019; Lee and Croft, 2015; Philip, 2021). While ‘sexting’ is part of the development of adolescent sexuality today, concerns have been raised about potential negative impacts in relation to adolescent well-being and pressure to engage in sexting (Ringrose et al., 2012). As such, ‘sexting’ has led to widespread concern framed by two competing discourses – the first argues that adolescent ‘sexting’ is normative and could be possible to practice safely, the second argues that ‘sexting’ is a risky practice that requires prevention and intervention (Ojeda and Del Roy, 2022; Philip, 2021).

Discourse is central to our understanding of the world and language plays a constructive role in creating the world (Potter and Wetherell, 1987). In this paper, critical discursive psychology (Edley, 2001; Locke and Budds, 2020; Seymour-Smith, 2017; Wetherell, 1998; Wetherell and Edley, 2014) is utilised to explore parental understanding of adolescent ‘sexting’. Critical discursive psychology brings together ideas from ethnomethodology/conversation analysis and post-structuralist/Foucauldian approaches (Wetherell, 1998). In this way it explores the macro societal-level patterns that parents draw upon in their interactions about adolescent ‘sexting’, with a consideration at the micro level of how parents actively deploy these to accomplish and negotiate particular actions or versions of reality (Locke and Budds, 2020).

Research with adolescents

Despite being a relatively recent phenomena, there is a growing body of research about adolescents’ understanding of ‘sexting’. First, Ringrose et al. (2012) argued that ‘sexting’ is not a gender-neutral practice; for example, girls receive insults such as ‘slut’ for sending sexual digital images. In contrast, boys seek images of girls to gain respect through possession and non-consensual sharing of girls’ images which raises their status amongst peers (Berndtsson and Odenbring, 2021; Lippman and Campbell, 2014; Ringrose et al., 2012, 2013; Setty, 2019). Second, a major discourse is that girls are the victims of adolescent ‘sexting’ and are at risk of having their images shared, whereas boys are the coercers who obtain and distribute girls’ images for peer approval and social gain and are thus at lower risk than girls (Dobson and Ringrose, 2015; Setty, 2019). If images of boys are shared then these tend to be treated as humorous by their peers and boys are not subject to the same shaming and humiliation as girls are (Salter, 2015; Setty, 2020). This has meant that less attention has been paid to boy’s ‘sexting’ practices. However, this power dynamic may have some exceptions and is subject to some qualification; for example, Ringrose et al. (2012) found that boys who resisted sharing photos of girls risked being labelled as ‘gay’, or may be bullied (Setty, 2020). Setty (2020) asked groups of young people (including two groups of young boys, two groups of young girls, and a group of both boys and girls) about their personal beliefs and experiences of ‘sexting’. Setty argued that some boys in her study were critical of other boys who sent non-consensual images of themselves and considered it as ‘weird’ and ‘creepy’. For example, Ringrose et al. (2012) found that boys who resisted sharing photos of girls risked being labelled as ‘gay’, or they may be bullied (Setty, 2020). Setty (2020) asked two groups of young girls, and a group of both boys and girls about their personal beliefs and experiences of ‘sexting’. Setty argued that some boys in her study were critical of other boys who sent non-consensual images of themselves and considered it as ‘weird’ and ‘creepy’ (see also Burén et al., 2021). Third, girls are typically placed in a position where they are held responsible for boys’ actions and have to manage their own risk (Dobson and Ringrose, 2015; Salter, 2015). Girls are criticised by both boys, and other girls, for sending images, yet were often subject to emotional and coercive pressure to do so (Berndtsson and Odenbring, 2021; Ringrose et al., 2012). In Berndtsson and Odenbring’s (2021) study, adolescent girls often blamed themselves for receiving misogynistic feedback; yet adolescent boys who coerced them were not discussed as predators and did not think about how girls might feel. The majority of research has focused on heterosexual adolescent practices, although some studies have focused on LGBTQ adolescent ‘sexting’ (e.g. Needham, 2021; Van Ouytsel et al., 2018). Parents in the current study centred their talk around heteronormative constructions of adolescents.

Current knowledge of parental understanding of adolescent sexting

Research about adolescent’s understanding and experience of ‘sexting’ is crucial as they are immersed in this practice. However, adolescents’ understanding of ‘sexting’ may differ from how their parents make sense of it. To date there has been limited attention to how parents of adolescents make sense of adolescent ‘sexting’. The majority of research from a parental perspective has focused on parental mediation and the regulation of their children’s media use (Confalonieri et al., 2020).

Two studies focus on parental understanding of adolescent ‘sexting’. Charteris et al. (2018) interviewed two mothers to explore constructions of their adolescents’ (two sons and three daughters) use of ‘disappearing’ media. Their findings outlined how children were constructed as innocent and ignorant or as shocked by the images that they had seen. Both parents stated that their daughters had received explicit images from boys and that this practice was normalised. However, there was a gendered double standard with girls viewed as ‘slutty’ and boys as ‘confident’. Boys may achieve peer approval by disseminating images and initiating ‘nude for nude’ exchanges which could result in pressure to share nude images.

Fix et al. (2021) conducted ten focus groups with parents and caregivers in the U.S. and found that many were aware that ‘sexting’ was common among adolescents. Whilst some felt ‘sexting’ enabled adolescents to experiment sexually without the associated risks of intercourse, some also highlighted the permanence of images and the potential for a wider (non-consensual) distribution of images and the associated psychological consequences of this. Two-thirds of participants suggested that girls were likely to ‘sext’, with just under a third of participants indicating a more equal distribution across gender. A few caregivers indicated that girls were the initiators of ‘sexts’ and that they were doing so aggressively, yet one participant argued that it was boys who passed on the ‘sexts’. A further gendered distinction was made in relation to why adolescents ‘sext’ suggesting that girls want to increase intimacy whereas boys’ engagement is more about their sexuality and status. Fix et al. (2021) argued that whilst girls may be sending more ‘sexts’ than boys, they may be doing so owing to pressure from boys.

Sexual communication

Adolescence is a key developmental and transitional period and a point where identity, autonomy, intimacy and sexuality are explored (Valkebburg and Peter, 2011). Adolescents may start to discuss sexual topics with their friends and parents which can inform both their emerging sexuality and their decisions about sexual desire. Traditionally, such exploration would be face to face but research suggests that one in three adolescents now prefer to discuss sexuality online with their peers (Schouten et al., 2007). For example, in a recent study about sexual communication, it was noted that only 20% of adolescents reported talking to their parents about ‘sexting’ and 40 % talked to their friends (Wildman et al., 2021). Wildman et al. (2021) suggested that conflicting norms and the potential legal ramifications of ‘sexting’ may explain why this percentage is so low. Legal consequences only come into play should a parent or friend subsequently report the incident to the police; thus young people may feel that parents could overreact (Sleglova and Cerna, 2011).

Adolescents reported feeling uncomfortable and awkward seeking support from parents and teachers for ‘sexting’ related issues (Jørgensen et al., 2019). Trust was also an issue, with participants worried that they would be chastised or over-monitored if they reported incidents to parents or teachers Jørgensen et al. (2019) argued that parents may also be reluctant to discuss sexting with their adolescents owing to feeling unprepared and a lack of experiential knowledge. Consequently, participants argued that parents would benefit from educational support around sexting.

Despite these barriers, which may reduce the ability of parents to discuss ‘sexting’ with adolescents, the potential risks of not doing so may outweigh the desire to respect their adolescents’ growing autonomy in such matters (Baudat et al., 2020). A recent study interviewed thirteen Belgian parents about their practices in relation to adolescent ‘sexting’ (Lamprianidou et al., 2025). Lamprianidou et al. (2025) found that parents tended to trust their offspring to cope with any potential risks, in part due to their perception that adolescents were the experts in online communication. Moreover, parents’ trust was also linked to a respect for their offsprings’ right to privacy. However, parents in the study did stress the importance of providing adolescents with the tools to evaluate the dangers related to ‘sexting’. Parents viewed their role as advisors who should guide, inform and provide support in relation to adolescent ‘sexting’, particularly in terms of the associated risks. While these parents noted the disparity in terms of the double standard of boys’ and girls’ sexuality, they still advocated for a gender-neutral approach to giving advice. Lamprianidou et al. (2025) suggested this reluctance to address the gendered consequences of ‘sexting’ may be either due to them wanting to deconstruct gendered stereotypes, or that they may not want to admit to treating their sons and daughters differently.

Rationale for the current study

In contrast to the previous research, a choice was made to explore parental constructions of adolescent in situ in online interactions across two online forums. The advantage of this approach is to switch the focus to issues made relevant by parents rather than pre-determined researcher led questions in interviews and focus groups (Potter and Hepburn, 2005).

Method

Design

The study used naturally occurring data (Potter and Hepburn, 2005) from two online forums to explore the parental sense-making practices of adolescent ‘sexting’. Data were analysed using critical discursive psychology (Edley, 2001; Wetherell, 1998).

Data

The data were sourced from two major online forums, Reddit and Mumsnet, for any interactions focused on adolescent sexting. These sites were chosen for two reasons. First, they had sections, amongst other general topics, which covered discussions about adolescent ‘sexting’; and second, they were sites that both gave permission for the study to be conducted. Both sites were searched for posts relating to adolescent sexting from 2 December 2013 until 25 January 2020. The search criteria for selected posts included the search terms of ‘parent’, ‘child’, ‘adolescent’ and ‘sexting’. It was not possible to determine how representative these posts were in relation to other online forums but all sexting posts across the site within the timeframe were included. Posters in the data discuss adolescent ‘sexting’ in a number of ways: through referencing their own children, through anecdotes about other adolescents; and by referencing adolescent ‘sexting’ in general. The data totalled 29 threads (109 pages of written posts) which is sufficient to conduct a discursive analysis (Wiggins, 2017). The analyses do not include posts that were deleted before data collection was completed.

Ethical approval

Ethical approval was gained from (omitted for review) (No. 2020/193) and followed BPS ethical guidelines for internet mediated research and complied with the international standards for authors (Wager and Kleinert, 2011). The data was publicly available (there was no infiltration of forums which needed signing up for) and permission was granted via moderators of both online groups with the condition that posters names would be anonymised as well as any other identifying features.

It was not possible to verify the gender of posters on the site except from the handles that posters used which were typically gender specific. However, based on names/handles used, the majority of posts appeared to come from mothers, and, of course, Mumsnet may lend itself to mothers using the forum.

Analytic approach and procedure

Critical discursive psychology (Edley, 2001; Wetherell, 1998) was employed to analyse the data. Discursive approaches treat language as action meaning that language ‘does’ things, it performs particular functions; this focus on action has social, psychological and political implications (Potter and Wetherell, 1987). Here, a primary focus is how phenomenon such as ‘sexting’ are constructed, oriented to and displayed in social interactions. Critical discursive psychology has three key analytic concepts: interpretative repertoires, subject positions and ideological dilemmas which are briefly summarised below.

Interpretative repertoires (Gilbert and Mulkay, 1984; Potter and Wetherell, 1987), are the explanatory resources that people draw upon to make sense of the world. They are recognisable sets of arguments, descriptions and evaluations found in people’s talk often distinguished by familiar clichés, anecdotes and tropes, and are often marked by vivid metaphors. Interpretative repertoires are ‘what everybody knows’; these are the building blocks through which people develop accounts, versions of significant events, and through which they perform social life (Billig, 2001). Here interpretative repertoires represent relatively coherent ways of talking about ‘sexting’ and are part of shared social understanding. Interpretative repertoires tend to be highly variable and inconsistent since different repertoires construct different versions and evaluations of participants and events.

In social interaction, individuals draw upon the terms that are culturally, historically and ideologically available (Billig, 2001). Billig et al. (1988) argued that much everyday discourse is organised around ideological dilemmas and involves arguing and puzzling over these. Ideology, they argued, is comprised of contrary themes, and without these ‘individuals could neither puzzle over their social worlds nor experience dilemmas’ (Billig et al., 1988: 2). Billig (2001) claimed that in discussions one can hear individuals ‘jostling’ with the contrary themes of common sense.

Typically, interpretative repertoires also set up ‘subject positions’ (Davies and Harré, 1990). Davies and Harré argued that identity is always an open question with a shifting answer depending on the positions made available through social interaction. The storylines of everyday conversations provide us with a position to speak from; and they allow the positioning of others as characters with roles and rights.

To illustrate these concepts, Rousaki et al. (2024) interviewed teachers about adolescent ‘sexting’. One interpretative repertoire identified in the data included ‘Sexting’ as a threat which worked up ‘sexting’ as a problematic activity for adolescents. Within this repertoire, boys were positioned as oppressors and girls as victims of ‘sexting’. However, girls were also positioned as the validation-seeking other, whereby they sexted to gain the approval, or potential romantic interest, of boys. These two subject positions of girls thus carried ideological tensions – girls as victims affords no agency to girls; yet while the contrary position of girls as validating seeking others did afford agency, that agency was problematised as not being truly agentic.

Analysis followed the procedures used in critical discursive psychology (Locke and Budds, 2020; Potter and Wetherell, 1987; Seymour-Smith, 2017). The first step involved becoming familiar with the data. After immersion of the data, line by line coding was conducted. Next, the interpretative repertoires were mapped. This involved considering the relatively coherent ways participants talked about ‘sexting’ across the data (Edley, 2001) with the goal of identifying features shared in accounts (Potter and Wetherell, 1987). Next, as Edley (2001) argued, it was necessary to consider how interpretative repertoires position individuals; thus, the analysis also noted the varying ways that adolescents were positioned across repertoires. For example, the interpretative repertoire the normality of sexting, positioned adolescents as engaging in sexual activity that was in line with their development, however, adolescents were also infantilised. Finally, the data were scrutinised for any ideological dilemmas that were present. In the following analysis, data extracts are presented in the format they were written across the forum posts with no correction of spelling. The posters used the following abbreviations: DS (dear son), DD (dear daughter) and OP (original poster).

Analysis

In this first part of the analysis, three interpretative repertoires are outlined: the normality of sexting, sexting as a shock and sexting equates to the non-consensual sharing of images. These interpretative repertoires were the primary repertoires in evidence across the data. The data extracts presented are illustrative examples. These repertoires also position adolescents in contradictory ways.

The normality of sexting

When discussing adolescent ‘sexting’, some parents constructed ‘sexting’ as a normative practice. This repertoire focuses on adolescents.

Extract 1

1 I had exactly the same situation with my DS a few years ago OP. Try and stay calm,

2 although it’s not right, sexting is very common amongst teens and they consider it to be

3 normal behaviour.

In the extract above, the parent is responding to a previous message where another poster had found out that their son had been ‘sexting’ a friend’s daughter and constructed themselves as ‘mortified’. The responder in Extract 1 aligns themself with the original poster by constructing having ‘exactly the same’ situation with their own son. However, the poster’s advice is to ‘try and stay calm’ and ‘sexting’ is worked up as common practice. The ‘try’ attends to this activity of ‘staying calm’ and works this up as something that is difficult to do in light of ‘sexting’. The contrast between ‘it’s not right’ and ‘they consider it normal behaviour’ marks out a constructed difference between the way that ‘teens’ and parents understand ‘sexting’. In doing so, the poster validates the parent’s concern while providing a different version of reality for them to consider. Adolescence is a time when sexuality is typically explored (Valkebburg and Peter, 2011) yet, for parents, ‘sexting’ may represent a sexual practice that is outside their realm of knowledge (Lamprianidou et al., 2025). Parents on the forums are engaged in making sense of this new phenomenon, and the boundaries of what is appropriate and what is not appropriate.

Extract 2

1 I know a yr 7 girl who’s mum found messages saying she loves a boy so much she “wanted

2 to suck his balls dry” She spoke to a teacher friend who said it was fairly standard these

3 days but most of it was just ‘talk’.

The second extract follows a post, about somebody’s 11-year-old daughter’s ‘sexting’ messages and photos. In this extract there is a graphic reported speech about a message found by a girl (year 7 in the UK refers to ages 11–12) which might typically be constructed as an inappropriate level of knowledge about sexual activity. However, the normality of ‘sexting’ is downgraded with the teacher’s construction that ‘most of it was just “talk”’. ‘Sexting’ thus appears to be marked out as something that is not followed through face-to-face. This response may function to reassure the parent that although this kind of talk is concerning and age inappropriate, it is unlikely to be transferred to a real-life setting.

This repertoire attends to parental concerns about their child’s involvement in ‘sexting’ – attempts are made to normalise the practice and thus potentially bridge any gaps in the sense-making of adolescents and parents. Within this repertoire, adolescents are positioned as sexual beings, driven by hormones and infantilised by the reference to sexual activities they may be engaged in.

Extract 3

1 Also yea, sounds like your normal horny teens. . .. . ..Sounds like they were out for a bit grab 2 ass

Extract 4

1 Teenies wanting to fiddle with each other

Extract 5

1 They are discovering hormones and attraction and sexting/sexy online chatting is a safe

2 way to explore it. Given that they are both the same age and in secondary, I’m not sure what

3 role the school has in this tbh. 13yos do snog and grope and fumble and talk about how far

4 etc.

In Extract 3, adolescents are positioned as ‘normal horny teens’ and their sexual activity as ‘a bit of grab ass’. This echoes a discourse of teen sexuality as hormonally fuelled (Elliott, 2010). ‘Grab ass’, in the context of adolescents, is typically understood as fooling around, possibly with sexual connotations. This appears to downplay the seriousness of any sexual activity that adolescents are engaged in. Extract 4 constructs young people as ‘wanting to fiddle with each other’, which similarly positions any face-to-face sexual activity as unskilled or experimental, which appears to infantilise adolescents. Extract 5 positions adolescents as hormonal and developmentally natural and ‘sexting’ as a safe way to explore that attraction. Implicitly then, this construction works up the notion that ‘sexting’ might be preferable to ‘unsafe’ face-to-face sexual exploration. However, the sexual terms ‘grope’ and ‘fumble’ appear to downplay the sexual activity that adolescents are engaged in face-to-face and thus similarly infantilises young people. Moreover, in Extract 5, (lines 3–4) the sexual activity is constructed as normal for 13-year-olds.

The interpretative repertoire of the normality of sexting appears to both normalise and downplay the consequences of ‘sexting’. Adolescent sexuality is a difficult topic for parents – they may not perceive adolescents as ready for sexual activity, or that adolescents could be involved in relationships that are sexual (Malacane et al., 2016). Parents are influenced both by their own sexuality at that age and the normative beliefs of others (Malacane et al., 2016). Thus, online forums provide a resource to check how other parents perceive sexting. Parents on the forums appear to be acknowledging that ‘sexting’ is a common activity for adolescents and downplaying the role it plays in transferring into face-to-face sexual encounters. This repertoire thus fits with prior research about the normality of sexting (Ojeda and Del Roy, 2022; Philip, 2021,) yet a competing interpretative repertoire draws upon a very different discourse.

The engagement in sexting as a shock

Across the data a second interpretative repertoire constructs the engagement in sexting as a shock. The focus of this repertoire is on parents.

Extract 6

1 Just found out my 14 year old DD has been sending photos of herself in various stages of

2 undress to a boy - what on earth do I do?? I can’t quite believe it - just didn’t see it

3 happening

Extract 6 is a first post in a thread. The parent makes the age of their daughter relevant before describing the incident of sending photos to a boy ‘in various stages of undress’. Whilst not specifying exactly how explicit the photos are, there is an implication with the construction of ‘various stages’ that the degree of nudity on view was progressive. The post is designed as advice seeking, ‘what on earth do I do?’ and constructs their disbelief with ‘I can’t believe it’ and that this disclosure was unprecedented. Other research has indicated that parents tend to view their own children as asexual, instead describing them in terms of not being sexually agentic (Elliott, 2010). In Extracts 6, this pattern is evident – the parent constructs themselves as incredulous that their daughter has engaged in sending sexualised images. It is also evident in the following extract.

Extract 7

1 To my utter horror he has been messaging an older girl (15) at school pretty graphic

2 messages . . . She has been messaging back and there have also been photos . . . I’m beyond

3 upset - we check his phone and iPad regularly and have had all the big talks, I couldn’t be

4 more upset, but so pleased I found out . . . So thanks for sharing . . . Can’t believe it, I’m in

5 shock, disappointed, angry . . .

Extract 7 comes from a mother who investigated her own son’s messages after reading posts on the forum. With, ‘to my utter horror’ they construct finding out that their son had exchanged graphic messages and photos with an older girl as frightening. They construct themself as ‘beyond upset’ and work up their own, and their partner’s, parenting as one that monitors social media and has ‘all the big talks’ thus positioning them as ‘responsible’ parents. The surveillance by both parents noted here is different to the more hands-off approach found in Lamprianidou et al.’s (2025) research, yet parents in the data still construct themselves as providing the appropriate guidance. Through listing ‘I’m in shock, disappointed, angry’ they convey a sense of dismay. As in the extract above, the son in question appears to break their conception of an asexual being and, in this case, one who has received guidance and who has been monitored. There is also an implication, rightly or wrongly, that teen sexuality is a bad thing (Elliott, 2010). However, in this extract, the age of the girl in question appears to be relevant too, she is constructed as ‘an older girl’. The age of the son in is not mentioned but there could be an implication here that the parent is also concerned about potential grooming (Dorasamy et al., 2021).

The function of both posts work up how a ‘responsible parent’ should attend to ‘sexting’ disclosures, or to illustrate their own values; ‘sexting’ is constructed as more problematic than in the previous repertoire. In Extract 6, the post is designed as advice seeking which could be understood as an appropriate parental course of action. In Extract 7, since reading posts on the site the poster indicates that they have initiated their own surveillance of their son and explicitly thanks others for raising ‘sexting’ as a possible activity their own son might be involved in. Both posts distance ‘sexting’ as an activity that is acceptable for their adolescents through the employment of their negative emotional responses (Edwards, 1997) to this disclosure.

The interpretative repertoire of the engagement of sexting as a shock, positions adolescents as innocent, naive, or stupid.

Extract 8

1 I’m assuming she’s in the teenage bubble of “that happens to other people” and “he’s

2 different, he wouldn’t do that”.

In Extract 8 the daughter in question is constructed as being in a ‘teenage bubble’ which works up the notion that teenagers are cocooned in their own environment with little attention being paid to the wider world. The reported speech is used rhetorically to position the poster as naive in thinking that they are immune to possible negative outcomes with the boy involved. Evident here is the idea that adolescents, or specifically girls in this case, are innocent and vulnerable in terms of sexuality and that they need protecting (Thorne and Luria, 1986). The extract below also falls within this remit.

Extract 9

1 He knows what’s what, he had had all the warnings and we had had all the chats but

2 teenagers have a habit of getting caught in the moment and doing something despite having

3 been educated, in their minds it’s different because they are ‘in love’ or ‘the girl asked’ and

4 he wanted to appear grown up/the big man and he was desperate to be liked, his friends

5 were all doing it and he wanted to be ‘in’

In Extract 9, a responsible parenting identity is worked up with the construction that ‘he has had all the warnings and we have had all the chats’. However, teenagers are constructed as ‘caught in the moment despite having being educated’, which appears to position them as impulsive yet mitigates parental responsibility. Furthermore, adolescents are positioned as naïve in believing they are in love. The normality of the practice is also oriented with ‘sexting’ being part and parcel of a gown up, ‘the big man’, and in order to be liked amongst his peers.

This repertoire works up more of a concern than the previous repertoire. Adolescents are positioned as having a distorted view as a consequence of their immaturity, and that they manage their own identity to fit with those of their peers. This repertoire appears to also work up parental values about ‘sexting’ and parental responsibility.

Sexting equates to the non-consensual sharing of images

The third interpretative repertoire, sexting equates to the non-consensual sharing of images, constructs the danger of ‘sexting’ as omnipresent. This repertoire concerns the practice of ‘sexting’ in general but specifically as engaged in by adolescents.

Extract 10

1 I don’t think people are as concerned with his daughter being sexually active as they are

2 about her sending almost naked photos to a boy who can then turn around and share them

3 with virtually anyone in the world. The danger is the photograph, not necessarily the

4 teenage hanky-panky stuff

In Extract 10 the claim that ‘almost naked photos’ could be shared widely is constructed as more relevant than the sexually activity the poster’s daughter may be engaged in. This is framed as a danger that outweighs the ‘teenage hanky-panky stuff’ (note here the trivialised way that adolescent sexual activity is again constructed).

Extract 11

1 Her sister found out and told us. She has deleted them all and messaged the boy who said

2 he hasn’t got them but I’m sure they will have been passed round by now

Similarly, in Extract 11, the parent outlines the steps their daughter has taken to remove images but also works up the inevitability that the images will have been shared already.

The potential for photos to be shared without consent is constructed as a key concern for parents. There may be some linkage here to older/ current, fear related to online grooming and resultant online sexual offences committed by adults impersonating teenagers (Patchin and Hinduja, 2010). However, here the imagined predator is another adolescent rather than an adult. Once images are non-consensually shared parents may also be concerned about the legal and reputational damage. For example, in the UK, it is an offence to make, distribute, possess or show any images of anyone under the age of 18, even with the consent of the young person (Section 1 Protection of Children Act, 1978). Similarly, in many US states, sexting between adolescents is considered illegal and could be subject to child pornography statutes (Strasburger et al., 2019). Reputational damage is also a consideration as this could make the adolescent feel ashamed or guilty (Gennari et al., 2025).

In summary, ‘sexting’ in this repertoire is constructed as dangerous and something to be avoided in contrast to the first interpretative repertoire about adolescent ‘sexting’ which normalises the activity.

Ideological dilemma: The contested positioning of all girls as victims and all boys as predators

In the data, girls were typically positioned as the victims of images shared without their consent. However, this notion of girls as victims did become an issue that was strongly contested, especially as boys were often constructed as coercive and positioned as predators. Occasionally, this became a contested issue. This section focuses on this ideological dilemma illustrated with examples from one thread.

Extract 12 (thread initiator)

1 Presently, there is an increasing trend in young girls (as young as 12) sending inappropriate

2 pictures of themselves to (equally as young) boys using mobile phones. In certain cases

3 girls are succumbing to pressure from a boy that they like without really thinking about the

4 consequences of sending the pictures. The pictures can be passed on and uploaded publicly

5 in an instant. In certain cases, young boys who are asking for such pictures and applying

6 emotional pressure to the young girls. In many cases boys are doing so in order to appear

7 ‘cool’ but are not actually realising how predatory there actions can seem to an outsider. My

8 concern is that popular public figures are having sex tapes leaked and only seeing there

9 popularity increase, and that tv shows aimed at teenagers are glamorising ‘sexy texting’

10 making it seem like a ‘normal’ or ‘gown up’ thing to do.

lines omitted

11 Thank you for indulging me, I hope I do not get flamed

Extract 12 is the first post in a thread. The post’s action is to warn other parents about ‘sexting’. The post starts with constructing ‘an increasing trend’ in girls sending ‘inappropriate’ pictures of themselves to boys. Here then, girls’ ‘sexting’ is constructed as problematic. Part of this is linked to the young age, 12, of such girls and the ‘equally as young’ age of boys. Girls are positioned, ‘in certain cases’ as succumbing to pressure from a ‘boy that they like’. Girls are positioned as naïve, not thinking about potential consequences of this practice, specifically constructed here as the potential for images to be publicly circulated. Boys are positioned as potential predators with the construction that they are applying emotional pressure to girls ‘in certain cases’. However, this positioning of boys as predators is downplayed in terms of the construction that they are pressuring girls to ‘appear cool’ without realisation of how predatory this practice can appear to ‘outsiders’ in ‘many cases’. One could argue that this is a form of what Connell (1987) refers to as hegemonic masculinity, a cultural ideal of what dominant forms of masculinity should entail. Here it is heterosexual male adolescent performance of ‘being cool’. The poster then links the practice of sex tape leakage from popular public people, constructed as increasing their popularity, to television shows which glamorise and normalise ‘sexy texting’ as something to highlight being ‘grown up’, cool or desirable. This construction possibly works to build up the notion that adolescents are simply emulating adult practices. The poster also highlights how media leaks about ‘popular public figures’ results in increased popularity, thus further influencing adolescents. At the end of the extract, the poster notes, ‘I hope I do not get flamed’. Arguably, the poster is attending to the possibility that their post may receive abusive responses. This post did initiate some strong responses from others on the site as is evidenced below.

Extract 13 (response to the initiating post)

1 Some double standards on the go here I think.

2 Boy sends pornographic shot of himself to girl = boy is predatory

3 Girl send pornographic shot of herself to boy=boy is predatory.

In Extract 13, an ideological dilemma (Billig et al., 1988) highlighted is that, irrespective of who sends the ‘pornographic shot’, the boy is positioned as ‘predatory’.

Extract 14 (another response to Extracts 12 and 13)

1 Yes, I agree, but unfortunately it is very difficult to stop.

2 I have had ridiculous conversations with otherwise sensible dd about this, and her answer

3 “everyone does it” is baffling.

4. And you may think you talk to your children, and they would be too sensible to do this, but 5 no parent really has a clue what goes on these days .

6 And what xxxxx said - I have seen texts from girls “encouraging” boys to do this, as well as

7 the other way around.

8 I have come to the conclusion that when it comes to this sort of thing all teenagers are

9 idiots, and none of them think past the end of next week.

In Extract 14, the poster constructs ‘sexting’ as very difficult to stop. This construction is reinforced with a narrated story about ‘ridiculous’ talks with their ‘otherwise sensible dd’ and the reported speech attributed to the daughter that ‘everybody does it’ is constructed as ‘baffling’. The poster constructs themselves as a ‘responsible parent’ who has attempted to talk to their daughter but works up their own powerlessness to convey the perceived danger. A warning is issued to other parents (lines 4–5) which effectively positions parents as unaware of ‘what goes on these days’ – working up a gap between parents’ and adolescents’ sense-making practices. Of most relevance, in response to the poster in Extract 13, there is a reporting of witnessing texts ‘from girls “encouraging” boys to do this’. This final construction in lines 8 and 9 appears to counter the initial post by positioning ‘all teenagers’ as idiots. Thus, gender here appears to be neutralised, and adolescents positioned as not able to predict or assess future implications.

Extract 15 (thread initiator)

1 xxxxx, I am not saying that the boy is predatory. I said in my op that a boy doesn’t realise

2 that putting pressure on a girl to send a picture SEEMS predatory. The boys are far too

3 young to realise what the consequences of their actions are. But, there is a peer pressure

4 amongst SOME young boys to be ‘one of the lads’ and seemingly getting a picture of a

5 naked girl is one of the criteria. In many cases, the boys involved have encouraged a girl to

6 send a picture because a friend has told them too. They have no idea how their actions are

7 being perceived, they are just as much at risk of being emotionally damaged as a young girl

8 would be. In most cases, the photos are of girls, not boys. But, the boys who are canvassing

9 for these photos are developing a skewered perception of what having a girlfriend should be

10 like. My point is that both young boys and girls are at risk.

In Extract 15, the thread initiator responds to criticism about the construction of boys as predatory. They dispute this construction, initially indicating that ‘in my op’ (original post), that ‘a boy’ does not understand how pressuring a girl ‘SEEMS predatory’. They then construct ‘SOME young boys’ as subject to peer pressure and to be part of fulfilling one criterion for being ‘one of the lads’. The capitalised words appear to stress the tentative and non-generalising framing of the messages. Boys’ involvement in ‘encouraging’ a girl to send a photo is constructed as peer pressure (lines 5–6). Boys are positioned as naïve, equally subject to being emotionally damaged and as at risk as girls (lines 6–10). Both boys and girls are positioned as at risk but for different reasons and different gendered behaviours – the photos are ‘in most cases’ of girls yet boys are positioned as subject to peer pressure and as having a misconstrued understanding of intimate heterosexual relationship behaviour.

The thread continues in this fashion with more posters constructing concern, for example suggesting ‘Girls may also send pics to boys to pressure them. . .. . ..Don’t like the insinuation its all about boys’; and girls being positioned as ‘silly giggly girls doing this for a “laugh”’. One could argue that the posters in this thread are ‘doing’ being good parents by representing challenges to the dominant construction of boys as predators. Through presenting alternative assessments, they are able to deflate the focus away from boys and incriminate girls.

The final response from the thread initiator responds

Extract 16

1 I am most definitely NOT insinuating that it is all about boys. Boys are at risk here. The

2 conversation about relationships and emotions should be between parent and child;

3 meaning mum and dad, son and daughter.

This final post attends to the critique that ‘it is all about boys’, again reiterating the construction that boys are at risk. Relationship and discussions about emotions are constructed as happening between parent and child adding ‘meaning mum and dad, son and daughter’. This potentially places the blame on parents rather than adolescents. This heteronormative construction is prevalent across the data. There were only two oblique references to LGBTQ+ parents/adolescents within the data sets, rendering them invisible.

In summary, the ideological dilemma centres around the notion that boys are predators. The thread illustrates how posters refute or justify the behaviour of boys as predators. This is achieved by incriminating girls, or by constructing boys as victims of hegemonic masculinity norms. One could argue that this practice is part of being a good parent – by asserting that boys are not the predators they are defending boys.

Discussion

The current study is the first to analyse how parents’ make sense of adolescent ‘sexting’ in situ and is thus able to map out different ways that parents construct their understanding of ‘sexting’ and gender in their own terms. Furthermore, the advantage of studying online forums is the ability to track live concerns about gender as they play out.

In the first section, parents draw upon competing discourses of adolescent sexting (Ojeda and Del Roy, 2022; Philip, 2021). The first interpretative repertoire, the normality of sexting, constructs ‘sexting’ as a normative practice for adolescents to engage in. This is not a novel finding and echoes the limited research on parental understanding (Charteris et al., 2018; Fix et al., 2021) and also research with adolescents themselves (Dὅring, 2014; Ringrose et al., 2012). However, the critical discursive psychology approach employed adds something new – adolescents were positioned as exploring their sexuality, yet they were also positioned as driven by hormones and infantilised through the terms associated with sexual activities attributed to them. Parents appear to construct adolescent ‘sexting’ as an inevitable mode of sexual exploration that is perhaps not viewed as harmful; adolescents are positioned in benign, yet somewhat patronising, ways. The online forums provide a site where parents occupy the moral high ground and power in their constructions of adolescents. However, while they are the adults, ‘sexting’ is a sexual practice that is outside their realm of knowledge (Lamprianidou et al., 2025). In outlining the interpretative repertoires, we explore how parents on the forums are engaged in understanding this relatively recent phenomenon and how they negotiate the boundaries of what is appropriate and what is not appropriate. The contradictory nature of the interpretative repertoires is also useful as it demonstrates the range of ways that the phenomenon is constructed.

The second interpretative repertoire, the engagement of sexting as a shock, highlights how some parents constructed incredulity on finding out about their child’s engagement in ‘sexting’. This highlights that, despite being a common practice, some parents construct this revelation as difficult and emotional. The parent in extract 7 positions themselves as a responsible parent who has had ‘all the big talks’, thus warding off others on the online forum from judging their parenting (see also Extract 8, ‘he had all the warnings’). The onus of responsibility appears to switch from the adult to the adolescent. However, parents positioned adolescents as innocent, naïve or stupid and immune to any potential negative consequences. The positioning of adolescents in this repertoire contradicts the positioning outlined in the previous repertoire: from benign exploration of their sexuality to a more cautionary framing of adolescent sexuality in which they are innocent and vulnerable and in need of parental protection (Thorne and Luria, 1986).

The third interpretative repertoire, sexting equates to the non-consensual sharing of images, constructs the inevitability of photos being shared non-consensually. Fix et al. (2021) also noted that some caregivers were concerned about the potential for wider, non-consensual, sharing of images but in the current study this concern was omnipresent and thus may impact upon the way that parents communicate and educate their adolescents about ‘sexting’. Many adolescents perceive positive aspects of ‘sexting’ yet media moral panics about ‘sexting’ continue to highlight harmful aspects (Cooper et al., 2016). The circulation of this discourse through the media may partly explain why this repertoire was so prevalent across the data set. Of course, it is also unsurprising that parents construct concern for their offspring.

A major contribution of the current study utilising critical discursive psychology is the analysis of the ideological dilemma about the gendered nature of victimhood. Parents on the online forums in this study occasionally contested the positioning of all girls as victims and all boys as predators. Through the analysis of one such thread, it was possible to follow how this ideological dilemma was oriented to (Billig et al., 1988). The notion that all girls are innocent was disputed with the construction of girl as also ‘encouraging’ and ‘pressuring’ ‘sexts’ from boys. This allows posters to challenge the dominant construction of all boys as predators. Ultimately though, boys were also positioned as victims to hegemonic masculine (Connell, 1987, 1995) ideals of peer pressure to perform ‘appropriate’ culturally sexualised masculinities and were positioned as equally at risk as girls. In this scenario, boys are interpellated into ‘masculine-appropriate’ behaviours, meaning that adolescent males are called into a way of being masculine that appears as natural (Althusser, 1971). It is important to acknowledge that adolescent boys can and do become victims of ‘sexting’ and that the parents on this site have an investment in the presentation of adolescent boys, yet there is an element here of #NotAllMen rhetoric (Jones et al., 2022; McKinney, 2014; Morikawa, 2019). #NotAllMen was used as a catchphrase among men’s rights activists in response to online discussions of misogyny or sexual abuse which they saw as blaming all men as perpetrators. Focusing on the defence of men (here boys) this detracts from paying attention to broader cultural instances of the sexual exploitation of women (here girls). For example, in Extract 15 the line, ‘But, there is a peer pressure amongst SOME young boys to be “one of the lads” and seemingly getting a picture of a naked girl is one of the criteria’ marks out SOME young boys rather than ALL young boys.

The findings of this study highlight the competing ways that adolescent ‘sexting’ is communicated in situ. One implication is that those who seek to educate parents about adolescent ‘sexting’ need to be aware of the range of ways parents make sense of the phenomenon in order to negotiate meaningful advice that attends to parental concerns yet provides advice which conveys a good balance between the normality and risk discourses. The way that parents make sense of ‘sexting’ may also have an impact on the way they communicate with adolescents. It has been argued that adolescents desire education that acknowledges their concerns and legitimises their sexual identity (Jørgensen et al., 2019; Setty, 2021). However, the way that parents position adolescent sexuality could be a barrier to productive communication.

A further implication is that online forums provide a space for parents to navigate the gendered consequences of adolescent sexting. However, the current study highlights the tensions that such discussions might produce. The discourse of ‘sexting’ has focused on ‘sexting’ as a problem whereby young girls are critiqued for lacking vigilance in their social media usage and implying that the responsibility for sexualised photos rests with the person who produced and sent the image (Ringrose et al., 2013). We need to switch to a focus of ‘sexting’ that addresses aspects of power across gender. For example, Agnew (2021) argued that we should discuss a range of gendered pressures, attend to the diversity of sexual practices that adolescents are engaged in, and challenge harmful gendered social norms. The critical discursive psychology approach utilised in the current research is useful in considering the way that gender is problematised by posters on the forums, other critical discursive psychology research has usefully considered gender and ‘sexting’ (see Rousaki et al., 2024; Wetherell and Edley, 2014).

In the current study, posts were heteronormative and thus afforded little space to acknowledge or attend to how parents of LGBTQ+ adolescents construct ‘sexting’ which is something that future research could explore.

Conclusion

In summary, the current study provides better insight into how parents actively constitute their knowledge of adolescent ‘sexting’ in their own terms across two online forums. The study illustrates how these parents bridge the discourses of ‘sexting’ as a normative adolescent practice as well as a risky practice. Parents on these sites often work up their identity as ‘responsible parents’ who discuss and monitor their adolescents’ ‘sexting’. Yet, in many places there appears to be a tension constructed in the way that adolescents and parents make sense of ‘sexting’. This is important as effective parenting needs to bridge the version of reality from both perspectives.