Abstract
The term sexting has come to be associated with media, political and public concern over young people’s involvement in the sending and/or receiving of nude or semi-nude images and/or videos of one another. Public discourses around sexting have framed the practice as problematic, reflecting long-held – and often very real – anxieties over young people and their sexuality. Of particular focus in relation to sexting have been the risks and harms associated with the practice and current or potential legal responses. Missing from much of this public discourse, however, have been the voices of young people themselves. In order to bring young people’s voices into the discourse, this article draws on research conducted with young people, as well as extensive legal and media analysis of sexting by young people. It contrasts these popular and legal discourses around sexting with the discourses of young people themselves, exploring the ways in which they understand and perceive sexting and how these perceptions converge with and diverge from dominant discourses. In this way, the article demonstrates the fundamental discord between such discourses, indicating the need to rethink legal responses to sexting between young people.
Keywords
Introduction
In recent years, the practice of sexting has become a hot topic in media, legal and popular discourse. Sexting generally involves using new media technologies to digitally upload, send and/or distribute sexually suggestive or explicit images to friends and/or others (Crofts et al., 2015; Rosenberg, 2011). The practice has become widespread with the development of instantaneous uploading apps on mobile phones in particular (Poltash, 2013). With increasing media and anecdotal reports of sexting experiences gone wrong, the fear and concern directed towards young people and their wellbeing in relation to sexting grows (Crofts et al., 2015; Hasinoff, 2015; Vanderbosch et al., 2013). As an activity that has seemingly been incorporated into a broader spectrum of concerns or risks around young people and technology – such as cyberbullying, cyberporn and other technologically facilitated harms – sexting has divided opinions about the most appropriate moral, educational and legal responses to young people’s practices. 1 While adults in a range of institutional and private contexts debate the options and responses to sexting, young people themselves are often left out of the conversation. This simplifies and even misrepresents the issues as they are experienced and understood by young people. This article considers how the risks and harms of sexting are conceptualised in legal and media discourse as they relate to young people’s sexting, contrasting these ‘authoritative’ views with those expressed by young people.
There is now a growing body of scholarly research and policy literature about sexting by young people. While there is some debate about the prevalence of sexting (cf. Lenhart, 2009; National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, 2008; Strassberg et al., 2013), most large anonymous surveys suggest it is widespread. Our own research suggests that while around 50% of young people between the ages of 13 and 18 have sent a nude or semi-nude image or video to someone else, few do it with great regularity or with multiple partners (Crofts et al., 2015). The dangers for young people, particularly young women, have also been delineated in the literature, along with the frequently gendered nature of the practice (Albury, 2015; Karaian, 2012; Lee and Crofts, 2015; Ringrose et al., 2013). Subsequently, there are also debates around the extent to which sexting by young people is harmful (Crofts et al., 2015; Drake et al., 2013). Moreover, there is still a gap in our knowledge when it comes to young people’s understandings of sexting and how these understandings might be positioned in relation to dominant discourses of the practice.
Method
The data in this article are drawn from a research project funded by a Criminology Research Grant through the Australian Institute of Criminology to explore the perceptions, practices and policies related to sexting by young people in Australia. 2 The project consisted of four methods of data collection, as detailed below. The research had three specific aims:
To document young people’s perceptions and practices of sexting;
To analyse public and media discourses around sexting;
To examine existing legal frameworks and sanctions around sexting and develop recommendations for legal and policy reform.
Media analysis
The media component of the project aimed to gain an understanding of the role of the media in framing knowledge about sexting and the implications of this media framing. Using the Proquest Australia and New Zealand Newsstand database, media reports on sexting between 2002 and 2015 3 were collated in order to explore the ways in which sexting has been articulated in the media in Australia and New Zealand and what definitions and explanations of sexting were being employed. Particular attention was paid to the key stakeholders, ‘actors’ or spokespeople on sexting cited in the media, as well as recurrent themes that appeared to define or position sexting as an issue of concern, importance or newsworthiness. The data were thematically interpreted and analysed to identify information consistent with the interests of the broader research project.
Focus group study
Eight focus groups were held with young people aged between 18 and 20 from the University of Sydney, University of Western Sydney and TAFE NSW (Technical and Further Education, New South Wales). Participants were asked to comment on several key themes, including their use of information technologies and the negotiation of their online identity, as well as how they conceptualised sexting and what underpinned their knowledge on the topic. In addition, they were asked to reflect on the prevalence of sexting practices among their peers. Participants also commented on second-hand (hearsay) and personal sexting experiences and intersections of age, gender and sexting (in terms of pressures for sexting, sexting experiences and views on victims and offenders).
Focus groups also sought to capture young people’s opinions on criminal justice responses to sexting cases in Australia through the use of two case studies representing common sexting scenarios. Participants were asked to comment on the circumstances surrounding the case studies, including the social and moral culpability of those involved, legal responses (charges laid) and the (administered and desired) punishment. Focus group data were transcribed and anonymised before being imported into the qualitative analysis program, NVivo, for coding purposes and thematic analysis.
Online survey
A self-selection style survey was made available online for participation and completion between July 2013 and October 2013. The survey was administered through the University of Sydney Law School Survey Monkey platform and was promoted via the Triple J Hack program, Facebook, Twitter, the Universities of Sydney, Western Sydney and NSW, as well as a large range of youth service providers. The survey collated data on young people between the ages of 13 and 18 4 and their motivations for and perceptions of sexting, as well as their understanding of the law in relation to sexting. The data were statistically analysed using the SPSS program.
While the respondents to the survey were not a representative population sample, the significantly large number who participated made the results compelling. Moreover, given the pros and cons of existing survey styles for this type of research (see Lee and Crofts, 2015 for a discussion on this), the online survey methodology constituted a very useful methodology for this particular sample cohort.
Legal analysis
The legal analysis consisted of an examination of the legal approaches to sexting focusing on child pornography offences. First, current laws were reviewed to reveal the ways in which Australian and overseas laws have been framed and exactly what sort of behaviour such laws could capture. Employing legal databases and other sources, such as the Victorian Law Committee Report and submissions, and parliamentary debates and reports, we explored the extent to which young people could be, or had been, prosecuted for child pornography offences. Analysis of various inquiries, reports, policy documents and parliamentary debates allowed us to understand the background to child pornography laws and whether any changes to such laws had been made, or planned, in light of sexting practices.
The data in this article report on a selection of the themes that emerged from this fieldwork, paying particular attention to the ways in which the risks and harms of sexting have been framed, how the legal system and other regulatory bodies have responded to these risks and how young people themselves understand the risks and consequences associated with sexting.
The origins of a media panic
‘Sexting’ is thought to have first come to the attention of the broader Australian public around 2007 (Crofts et al., 2015) through a number of news reports relating to celebrity sex scandals and workplace harassment cases (Cann, 2008: 32; Sunday Territorian, 2007: 2). 5 By 2008, media and public interest in sexting had shifted in focus, with growing concerns about young people allegedly engaging in sexting. Much of this concern stemmed from the findings of a 2008 West Australian survey, which suggested that sexting was part of a wider cyberbullying problem facing young people (Pritchard, 2008). This launched the issue into mainstream consciousness and sparked an ongoing dialogue about the potential risks and responses to young people’s sexting activities that continue well into the current day (Pritchard, 2008).
An analysis of the media discourses has shown that a number of key themes characterise the way in which young people’s sexting has been framed by the media.
Sexting as a problem: Discourses of risk and harm
In early media reports, sexting was defined as a problem worthy of, at the very least, parental, if not wider, attention. As the narrative of young people’s sexting behaviours took hold in the media, the number of articles identifying the problem multiplied in what might be described as an ‘inter-media agenda setting’ effect; that is, the coverage of sexting and young people in news media outlets could be associated with subsequent coverage of these same stories in other news outlets (see Golan, 2006; Vanderbosch et al., 2013). For example, articles such as ‘Sex life of teens an eye opener’ (The Mercury, 2007) and ‘10 per cent of kids cyber-bullied: WA survey’ (AAP General News Wire, 2008) exemplified the media’s coverage of the now ‘common exploits’ of teens that began to proliferate in the press (AAP General News Wire, 2008: n.p.; see also The Chronicle, 2009). Setting the tone for articles that ensued, these early reports framed young people’s sexting as a cause for alarm, shedding ‘new light’ on the ‘sexual experiences and attitudes’ of young people (The Mercury, 2007: 3), experiences and attitudes that readers were left in no doubt they should be concerned about. Subsequently, stories of the problem expanded to include concerns over the ‘pornification of society’ (Tankard Reist, 2009: 4; see also Jones and Cuneo, 2009) as well as the problem of technology and the Internet (ABC Regional News, 2009), among others.
Once the ‘problem’ had been well established in media discourse, stories expanded to include the purported ‘solutions’ – such as education, better parental oversight, technological Band-Aids and even possible legal responses – proffered by moral, legal and educational stakeholders: adults. It was not uncommon in this media coverage for adults to be the primary targets of these suggestions. Parents in particular were encouraged ‘to take a proactive role in helping their children understand the consequences of sexting’ (Portside Messenger, 2009: 9) and experts were regularly called upon to discuss the educative responses that teachers and schools should engage with in order to protect ‘students from making digital mistakes that could affect their futures’ (Fineran, 2010: 5).
With sexting established as a problematic activity for young people and, by extension, the adults in their lives, media discourses evolved to consider the potential harms of sexting for young people. Common harms cited included to young people’s reputations, future career and relationship prospects, as well as nebulous warnings about the permanency of sexts and the lack of control over where such images may end up once online (see Crofts et al., 2015). As one news article mused, ‘[t]he practice [of sexting] is fairly commonplace among young people, despite sometimes grim consequences for those who do it’ (Quaid, 2009: 40). Concerns quickly escalated, however, when media attention turned to the possible legal consequences of sexting. A common theme in these warnings was that young people ‘could face decades in jail if convicted of sending pornographic movies and images via their mobile phones’ (Portside Messenger, 2009: 9).
Sexting as newsworthy
As is well documented in the literature, as victims and/or offenders young people are inherently more newsworthy and thus more likely to feature in news stories and generate public interest (Jewkes, 2015). Such media attention to the risks facing young people is not a necessarily new phenomenon, however; throughout history there are myriad examples of media-driven concern about young people (Cohen, 1973; Taylor, 1999). As Jewkes (2015) argues, though, in today’s more risk-oriented times, news stories increasingly focus on victims, fear of victimisation and concerns over the vulnerability of particular groups and individuals in society. When it comes to young people then, concerns pertinent to risk and victimisation, in particular sexual victimisation, are especially newsworthy.
With the emergence of new technologies and digital communications platforms, these concerns have been exaggerated in modern times (Burke, 2008). According to Vanderbosch et al. (2013), ‘the news media pay considerable attention to stories on internet-related risks and children, especially those involving sex and aggression’ (p. 99). This assessment by Vanderbosch et al. mirrors our findings when it comes to the attention paid to sexting by the media (see Crofts et al., 2015: chapter 3), which is that of a risky activity potentially endangering young people, both as ‘victims’ and as ‘perpetrators’. As Mascheroni et al. (2014) argue, and in line with Draper’s (2012) ‘media panic’ model, the evolution of media discourses on sexting demonstrates the media’s tendency to frame issues negatively when they relate to young people and the Internet. This was clearly seen in news reporting in 2007 and 2008, which promoted the ‘notion that “good kids” are seduced by the accessibility of digital technologies into deviant activities’ (Draper, 2012: 225). As one Australia media report at the time stated,
A peek into the lives of Australian teenagers has confirmed parents’ worst fears about pornography, flirting with strangers in cyberspace and pressures to have sex. (The Mercury, 2007: 3)
Importantly, sexting practice has been framed as harmful for both ‘victims’ (in terms of psychological harms such as loss of reputation, being forced to leave school, exposure to potential online sexual predators or even suicide) and ‘perpetrators’ (possible risk of prosecution and criminal sanctions). By 2009 the newsworthiness of sexting was confirmed, with concerns about young people’s sexting arguably reaching a new peak in the Australian press; 179 news articles were published on the topic of sexting, up from just 11 the previous year. One article, titled ‘Little girls the new sex objects’, for example, claimed that ‘[b]y late primary school and early high school girls are “sexting” boys compromising photographs of themselves’ (Jones and Cuneo, 2009: 2). At this point, it was clear that sexting discourse in the media had become increasingly gendered, identifying young women as particularly at risk of sexting’s harmful consequences (see Crofts et al., 2015).
Young people’s – and their parents – gullibility and naivety when it comes to online communication and digital technologies have also been frequently reported on in the media, coupled with sensational and exaggerated claims about the possibility of criminal sanctions young sexters face (Crofts et al., 2015). Media reports have also often suggested that parents should be more involved in their children’s lives, ‘preferring authoritarian solutions to less restrictive or conformational solutions and involving draconian legal consequences as justification for implementing harsh parental restrictions’ (Lynn, 2010: 1). Moreover, as we have noted elsewhere, a call for abstinence aimed at young people has commonly been repeated in the media, with pundits frequently postulating that ‘there is no such thing as safe sexting’ (Crofts et al., 2015: 36).
As a result of this media panic, fears expressed by experts, law enforcement, teachers, politicians and parents that young people might indeed be involved in sexting and subjected to (sexual and otherwise) exploitation, together with concerns around legal and other consequences of sexting, have dominated media debates. It is with this context in mind that we explore the key discourses of risk and harm that have emerged in legal realms in regards to sexting.
Defining risk and harm: Legal discourses of young people’s sexting
While media representations of sexting might paint sexting in narrow terms, in reality the term sexting refers to a broad and evolving range of practices that encompass a young person taking and sharing an intimate image with a friend or partner through to the friend or partner sharing that image with others without the consent of the subject. More extreme scenarios may include a consensually created image being distributed as a form of bullying/revenge or where an adult uses or requests images in the act of ‘grooming’ a young person (Parliament of Victoria Law Reform Committee, 2013). In legal discourse, debate continues about how the law ought best respond to the spectrum of sexting behaviours young people engage in. While there are a range of criminal and civil laws that can apply to sexting, the criminal offence that features most prominently in legal discourse is child pornography (see Crofts et al., 2015). This is a result of sexting potentially falling under laws that were amended to respond to the impact that new technologies have had on the creation and distribution of child pornography (Australian Government, Attorney-General’s Department, Criminal Justice Division, 2009; Crofts et al., 2015). Such legislation has created concern within the community and among legal scholars over whether child pornography laws are the most effective way of responding to sexting involving young people.
Concerns over the legal responses to sexting have been furthered by media reports about the number of young people charged under child pornography offences. It seems, however, that in most jurisdictions young people are not routinely charged with child pornography offences unless there are aggravating factors involved, such as the commission of other offences; rather, either no action is taken at all or young people are diverted from formal proceedings (see Australian Federal Police, 2012; Crofts et al., 2015; Crofts and Lee, 2013; Paterson, 2012; Wolak et al., 2012). However, there are cases, particularly in the United States, where young people have been prosecuted. An example is AH v State (Florida) 949 So 2d 234 (Fla. 1st Dist. 2007), where a 16-year-old girl and her 17-year-old boyfriend consensually took digital images of themselves naked and engaging in consensual sexual intercourse. The images were emailed by the young woman to her boyfriend but were not distributed to anyone else. They were both found guilty of producing, directing or promoting a photograph or representation that they knew to include the sexual conduct of a child (§ 827.071(2), Florida Statutes (2005)). This finding was upheld on appeal on the basis that the State had a compelling interest in protecting young people from sexual exploitation and prosecution was the least intrusive means of furthering this interest. It was found that even where the participants had engaged in the behaviour consensually, it could result in psychological trauma to the participants. Furthermore, the court felt that there could be no reasonable expectation that the images would not be disseminated to others because there could be no reasonable expectation that the relationship would last given the immaturity of young people’s relationships.
The above case demonstrates that even where sexting is consensual, legislators, practitioners and policy-makers feel the need to intervene to avert potential harms. These potential harms are similar to those identified in media reports, including negative impacts on the young person’s privacy and reputation, which can follow them into adulthood and have negative impacts on career and relationship prospects (Parliament of Australia, Joint Select Committee on Cyber-Safety, 2011; Parliament of Victoria Law Reform Committee, 2013). There is also a view that young people are harmed by the creation of the images even if they give apparent consent because they may feel coerced into making or distributing the image, either directly by a partner exerting pressure or through peer group dynamics. Some researchers have identified a gendered dimension to sexting, with images more likely to be of girls and distributed by boys (see Drake et al., 2013; Ringrose et al., 2013; also Lee and Crofts, 2015). There is also the risk that others will use intimate images as a tool for cyberbullying (Katz et al., 2014). Underlying some of these discourses is the disquiet that adults feel about young people exploring and expressing their sexuality. Kimpel (2010) argues that the digital recording of intimate moments is the cause for concern because it ‘constitutes indisputable evidence that adolescent sexuality exists’ (p. 313). As such, the ‘uneasiness’ that adults may feel about young people expressing their sexuality in this way may lead to the perception that legal responses are necessary (Crofts et al., 2015: 72; Kimpel, 2010: 313).
Given the range of behaviours termed sexting and the varied legal discourses at play, however, it is hardly surprising that the law is still grappling with how to best respond to sexting by young people. While many would argue that young people should not be routinely prosecuted under child pornography offences for sexting where it occurs consensually, there is a clear view that there is a need to retain the possibility of prosecuting young people in circumstances of aggravation. This view was expressed during debate on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sexual Offences Against Children) Bill 2010 (Cth):
Excluding the sending of child pornography or child abuse material by young people from the proposed offences would be inappropriate, as it might reduce protections for young people. For example, instances of young people sending sexually explicit images of themselves or other young people may in some cases be malicious or exploitative. (O’Connor, 2010: 2052)
In light of concern about the appropriateness of child pornography offences in these instances, some jurisdictions have introduced mechanisms to restrict the prosecution of young people. For instance, the Australian Commonwealth Parliament introduced a requirement that the Attorney-General’s permission is required before a person under 18 can be prosecuted for a child pornography offence (
Deconstructing risk and harm: Young people’s perceptions of sexting
While media and legal discourses have defined the ‘problem’ and potentially somewhat over-exaggerated risks and harms when it comes to young people’s sexting, as well as what should be done about it, we argue that the voices of young people themselves have, for the most part, been lacking from these debates, particularly in the Australian context. While, internationally, studies from Ringrose et al. (2012), Lippman and Campbell (2014) and Walker et al. (2013) have explored the experiences and perceptions of young people, thus far the voices of Australian youth have been absent. As a result, we know little of these young people’s accounts or perceptions of sexting practices and what (if anything) they think should be done about sexting. The findings from our study show a range of convergences and divergences in what young people think about sexting when compared with the dominant discourses in the public and legal arenas. It is clear that young people often have to reconcile their own personal experiences and perceptions of sexting with sometimes competing discourses communicated to them by the media, educators and other ‘experts’.
As our survey with young people suggested (Crofts et al., 2015), the vast majority of young people who engage in sexting do so for flirtatious fun, to feel sexy or confident, or as a sexy present for a girlfriend or boyfriend. Contrary to media and legal discourses, few respondents suggested they were pressured or coerced into sending a sext. Despite this, young people surveyed often judged the actions of others who sexted harshly, with many expressing gendered beliefs that females are pressured into sexting or do so just to get the attention of a guy or girl. Males were judged to be sending sexts to get noticed or show off. 6 This mismatch of motivations compared to perceptions requires further analysis to understand the ways in which dominant discourses intersect with personal narratives in regard to sexting.
Risk, harms and convergences
The convergences and divergences in young people’s perceptions of sexting demonstrate just how important external voices are in the formation of opinions around the practice. Indeed, even though media discourses are largely directed towards adults, the very first time many of the young people who participated in our focus groups became aware of sexting was through the media:
I feel like I didn’t really know anything about sexting until it became a media issue if that makes sense … like I didn’t hear about it occurring until it became something big in the media, and I felt like seeing it in the media gave people ideas. (Female, FG4)
For a number of these young people, the media were identified as the key communicators of the negative consequences of sexting. As one participant put it, ‘[t]he articles that I’ve read from various online newspapers and online magazine websites, they focus on the negative ramifications of sexting like between school kids’ (Female, FG5). This negative media coverage was seen as a potentially effective deterrent mechanism:
[B]ecause of the media coverage I’ve become very, very cautious. I won’t even send a guy a photo of myself, just a normal photo of myself if he asks because I’ll be like ‘what if he Photoshop’s it and changes it’, do you get me? I get very cautious now and I think it’s because of the media coverage. (Female, FG5)
With this kind of media backdrop, it is hardly surprising that many of our survey respondents were critical of others who participated in sexting; the message being sent to young people via the media – when combined with the rhetoric of legislators and educators – is at the forefront of their own perceptions of sexting and its likely consequences. Indeed, the majority of our focus group participants related and reinforced some of the very same messages articulated in the media about the harms that could result from sexting. As one participant explained,
[Sexting] could really traumatise somebody who thought it would be okay to send a picture to a boyfriend. Even texts, you can pass those around, if they’re too sexual and you could still be embarrassed by that. (Female, FG4)
Another told of the possibility of haunting harm caused by the supposed irreversibility of sexting and the permanency of images in the digital world, notions heavily promoted in media and legal discourses:
Yeah, because you can erase it on face value but it’s happened, so it’s almost like a memory in a way but in a digital format, and it cannot be forgotten. (Female, FG6)
Similarly, for many of those who participated in the focus groups, the risk to their reputation that sexting creates is real; once pictures go viral, there can be no going back:
You might have a really trusting relationship, but it only takes one moment of anger to go upload, send and you could feel so bad but you’re never going to get that picture back. (Male, FG4) When [a friend and her boyfriend] broke up, she was absolutely terrified, and two years later she said to me – last week, she said I just keep thinking [he] can sit in his room any time within the next 50 years and double click on that file and I know he hasn’t deleted it, and he can masturbate over it, he can show it to anyone he wants … She said I will never be at peace about this. (Female, FG2)
Young people’s perceptions also mirrored those of the media when it came to the consequences of sexting for young people. For focus group respondents, sexting as an adult was less problematic because when you are an adult ‘[y]our inner circle is kind of separated, but when you are younger it’s all inter-tangled’ (Male, FG4) as ‘you all go to the same high school’ (Male, FG4). Many participants were aware of peers being expelled from or leaving school as a consequence of sexting. Others recounted stories they had heard of young people committing suicide as a result of sexting gone wrong. The stakes for young people appear to be higher:
I remember there was one girl … she was popular bad girl, in the eighth grade, and she got kicked out of her high school for sending nude pictures, and I thought that was just ridiculous … why would you ever [sext]. (Female, FG4) I don’t think any [practices of sexting] are safe. They’re equally dangerous. I saw a lot on TV – there’s a lot of people that kill themselves over something like this. It’s that much of a big thing to some people. (Female, FG5)
In this way, the young people we spoke with in focus groups reproduced many of the same discourses of risk and harm being communicated by the media and in legal frameworks, demonstrating that the framing of sexting plays an important role in how young people reflect on the issue.
Gender, double standards and divergences
While the perspectives and opinions of young people we surveyed and spoke with often aligned with the dominant discourses in the media, there were some divergences in how young people perceived and understood sexting. There was some agreement with dominant media discourses about the possibility of young women being coerced into sexting; however, there was also an acknowledgement of the gendered double standard whereby young women who send sexts are judged more harshly than young men. As one focus group participant related,
Once when I was in Year 11, I was sitting on the school bus going home and I had my Bluetooth turned on and so did a bunch of other girls and boys around me. This message came and a guy was like, ‘Oh receive it, it’s really funny’. And I opened it and it was a picture of the genitals of the guy sitting next to me. They were just both smiling and laughing and all these kids on the bus had a picture of his penis. It wasn’t embarrassing for them. He thought it was hilarious but if a girl’s vagina, a picture of that was sent around that would not be seen in the same way … It would be harmful for her. (Female, FG5)
For many participants, it was clear that girls were perceived differently to boys when it came to the body and expressions of sexuality:
Yeah guys tend to get away with more than girls, because we’re still living in a world where girls are expected to be modest and not prancing around with their bare legs and cleavage popping out and whatnot. (Female, FG6) [T]here is no equivalent word for slut with guys for example, only stud or whatever. (Female, FG3) That’s always the case, the guys come out as a legend and the girls are a slut. There is no winning for girls essentially. (Female, FG3) Yeah, you’re either a prude or a slut. (Male, FG3) [S]ay you found out some guy was in a porn film. I just don’t think it would be defamatory to his character. But if people found out that a girl had been in a porn film I think it really would. So maybe we want to get to a stage where girls don’t care if a naked picture of themselves get spread around. (Female, FG2)
Furthermore, according to focus group participants, young women were much more likely to ‘make the headlines’ (Female, FG5) and experience negative repercussions from sexting:
[I]t’s not really considered humiliating to have anything spread around of you non-consensually as a dude, whereas as a lady it’s kind of an affront and you’re becoming the slut or whatever. (Male, FG2) I don’t know maybe we’re culturally conditioned to do this, but we think in that moment she was taking a picture of herself, she was in this vain pose, what a stupid idea. But I think yeah maybe that’s life changing and we should definitely focus on the perpetrator. (Female, FG2)
In this way, young people displayed a capacity to unpack the gendered double standards around sexting, diverging from many of the standard discourses communicated in the media.
These refined readings of sexting by young people also extended to the risks and harms of sexting. While on one level young people repeated many of the same discourses in the media around the potential consequences of sexting, there was also recognition that perhaps sexting was not always as risky and harmful as the media, educators and other experts claim. In fact, for some it was decidedly less risky than the realities of sex. As one focus group participant stated, young people often sext to explore their sexuality, so ‘you [don’t] have to go through the actual experience [of sex]’ (Female, FG4).
Furthermore, many young people engaged in sexting as a normal part of their relationships (Male, FG4; Male, FG2), to ‘increase intimacy’ (Female, FG5), to maintain a long distance relationship (Male, FG5) or for attention (Female, FG4). As these male participants explained,
I don’t quite understand why it’s such a big deal, like I wouldn’t do it ’cause it seems kind of weird, but if someone wants to do it, that’s their relationship and their business kind of thing. (Male, FG4) I kind of see it as a bit of a following on from even just flirting I guess. Not malicious. No mal[icious] intent but just following on from flirting. (Male, FG5)
As one female participant explained, for those in relationships sexting is less risky because of the trust between the participants:
I think the girls who get [their sexts] sent everywhere are the girls who are sending it to a guy that is not to be trusted. Like couples, girlfriend and boyfriend, it happens between them more often, but no one else would know because they’re trusting each other. (Female, FG1)
Importantly, young people saw the message of abstinence from sexting, commonly represented in the media, as futile, much like the message for abstinence from sex more generally:
I think people do it, it’s a really personal thing, I don’t think you could stop it. It’s like people are curious who do it, and it’s non-confrontational. So I think people are going to do it regardless. I think there’s probably fear of the act of sex, so younger people are curious so they can kind of dabble in it, and then it’s still non-confrontational. (Female, FG4) [Y]oung people are told not to have sex either. They still do it. I think you have a discussion about why it’s bad but if you say just don’t do it they rebel. That’s what young people do. (Female, FG5) I think it’s realistic to expect that young people, by which I mean under 18, would be aware of the risks involved and the fact that their images, their text, their whatever, are out in the world. And so that would instil in them the fear to refrain from certain forms of sexting. But I don’t think it’s realistic for governments or anyone else not to expect them to do it whatsoever … I think it’s a normal part of a being young and growing up just to joke around in that kind of way. Especially for guys more so than girls. (Male, FG6)
Some respondents noted that for the most part sexting goes on undetected and has no negative consequences for those involved:
It’s not something people really talk about so we only see it when it does go wrong. I’m sure there are plenty of people who are entertaining each other in any way they want with mobile phones. (Male, FG1)
What these responses demonstrate is that young people are aware that there is more to the story than ‘sexting gone wrong’, a discourse that contrasts with that which is communicated in the press, at school and by some experts in the field.
Conclusion
The practice of sexting by young people and appropriate responses to it are part of an ongoing dialogue. While we often hear about the negative experiences and outcomes of sexting, there is an increasing recognition that young people’s experiences of sexting are much more diverse. As such, our moral and legal positions on young people’s sexting need to consider the broad range of contexts in which sexting takes place for young people, and how these contexts can be better accounted for in legal and educative responses to the practice.
As our focus group and survey data indicate, young people articulated a range of attitudes, opinions and approaches to sexting. While many of their sentiments echoed dominant media discourses about the potential harms of sexting to young people – such as coercion, unequal power dynamics and gendered double standards – a strong theme within responses challenged these normative discourses around sexting, showing that sexting must be understood in a more nuanced manner. Such responses highlighted the mundane partner-based dynamics of much of the sexting that takes place between young people and questioned the belief that sexting was a risky activity. The data demonstrate that the experiences and perceptions of young people do not always correspond with the discourses of risk and harm communicated by adults and the media, the very same people who are often tasked with developing appropriate responses, legally and morally, to the perceived ‘problem’.
The data also showed us that campaigns that seek to advance an abstinence message about sexting may not have the desired effect. As the responses from some focus group participants demonstrated, such warnings about sexting may fall on deaf ears, as the harms articulated in these dominant discourses often do not match the experiences of young people themselves. With ongoing educational, legal and legislative reform in this area, it begs the question what role, if any, young people might play in contributing to legislative reforms. It is clear that a one-size-fits-all approach to young people’s sexting is not sufficient (see Crofts et al., 2015 for more detailed discussion), and as lawmakers and other key stakeholders continue to grapple with an appropriate way forward, we must look more broadly at the frameworks available to address the spectrum of sexting experiences of young people. We must also ensure that the voices of young people themselves are part of the conversation, allowing not only for a more nuanced understanding of their experiences, perceptions and opinions but also hopefully a more refined response to young people’s sexting.
Footnotes
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This project was funded by the Criminology Research Council, Australian Institute of Criminology, the NSW Commission for Children and Young People, and the University of Sydney.