Mitchell and Finkelhor, 2011). Some of the studies survey only those under 18, while others include young adults aged up to 25. These issues make it difficult to draw firm conclusions about the extent of youth sexting, although it appears to be a potentially substantial, if minority, activity. Despite the lack of firm and reliable evidence regarding the prevalence and nature of youth sexting, perceived high levels of sexting among young people under 18 are associated with concern surrounding the supposed inappropriateness and riskiness of their behaviour (Lounsbury et al., 2011; Klettke et al., 2014). In several countries, including the UK, US and Australia, scholars have analysed representations of youth sexting in the media, and in campaign and educational materials directed toward young people, their parents and the general public (Crofts et al., 2015; Dobson and Ringrose, 2015; Döring, 2014; Hasinoff, 2015a; Moran-Ellis, 2012). From these analyses, some consistent themes are apparent, with discourses of fear, negativity and alarm dominating (Angelides, 2013). Crofts et al. (2015), Hasinoff (2015a) and Moran-Ellis (2012) tracked the development of the news media focus on sexting. They outline how coverage began around 2002 and initially tended to relate to adults, with reports on ‘sexting scandals’ involving celebrities, politicians and others in the public eye. The focus later shifted to children being victimised by adults and then to young people sexting among themselves. In her analysis of UK media, Döring (2014) found sexting tends to be depicted as inherently harmful and, therefore, inappropriate for young people. Unauthorised distribution, in which privately produced sexts are circulated beyond the intended recipients without the consent of the subject, is considered likely, even inevitable (Angelides, 2013; Döring, 2014). Young people are considered vulnerable to bullying and harassment by peers, and exclusion from future employment and educational
consequently, necessary to explore how and why some are labelled deviant. Crofts et al. (2015) discuss how not all self-produced images or sexting practices are labelled and treated as deviant. They argue images are not inherently sexual but have to be read as such; a process influenced by gendered sociocultural norms surrounding bodily expression. While much sexting is likely never discovered and stays private, this may include the harmful practices needing to be drawn out and addressed. Rendering primary sexting the ‘problem’, therefore, means those who construct their practices as positive and seek little input or guidance are excluded from the narrative, and those who experience harmful practices, but see the emphasis being on their refusal to engage, also go unaccounted for. It is, therefore, necessary to look at what harms are accepted in the process of labelling acts as deviant (Hillyard and Tombs, 2011). Labelling initial consensual sexting deviant has implications for constructions of harm and how harm-reduction is achieved. It is about victim-blaming, rather than addressing breaches of privacy and consent. However, my intention was not to create new deviants by focusing on perpetrators of breaches of consent and privacy, but to deconstruct and challenge the meanings that underpin harmful practices; meanings shaped by the notion that some individuals are to blame for the harm perpetrated against them and deserving of negative treatment. Becker (1967) suggests interactionist work exploring the interpretive processes involved in the construction of deviance and treatment of deviants can be criticised for privileging the accounts of rule breakers, being subversive and engaging in ideological attacks on the social order. Such a critique could apply to my emphasis on providing young people with agency, and rights to legitimate sexuality and bodily and sexual expression. Becker (1967) suggests the criticism arises from conceiving of deviance as a self-evident truth and suggests
their perspectives and experiences. Skelton (2008) suggests, while there may be risks to young participants, there can be benefits in having their voices heard, and exploring their perspectives, ideas and experiences. She questions whether it is ethical to exclude those who wish to participate and understand their participation, and suggests “the ethical starting point [should be] ‘what is best for the children and young people’” (ibid: 33). I did not want to exclude those who arrived to participate but were a matter of months younger than others. I confirmed their understanding of the research and they chose whether to participate and what they shared, in line with Coyne’s (2010) emphasis on ethical practice. On balance, I felt the ethical course of action was to allow willing volunteers to participate. Essentially, I chose to value the young person’s right to participate and express themselves, which they had chosen to do, over the need to protect them by gaining parental consent. The groups were mixed in terms of age, with the 15-year-olds participating alongside 16-year-olds, so I did not consider it exploitative to include them despite the lack of parental consent. I considered it more disempowering to exclude them, while their similarly aged peers, often friends, would have proceeded without them. When there are challenges to gaining parental consent, Keenan (2015) suggests finding a “trusted or responsible adult” (p.11). I discussed it with the gatekeeper and as head of safeguarding and child protection, he was content for the young people to participate as they had adequate understanding of the research and it was believed there was little risk to their participation that could not be managed. I ensured appropriate mechanisms were in place for safeguarding and support.
Resultantly, how they seek to obtain images of girls in the peer group could be criticised. Boys constructed as ‘going too far’ when they sext were described as ‘desperate’ or ‘creepy’. Participants emphasised that boys, while they may legitimately be ‘pursuers’, need to balance this with just ‘letting things happen’, so to look like they have not had to try too hard. I: So, how would you go about it in a non-creepy way if you’re a guy? Dan (15-year-old boy): Like, you’d get to know someone first. Simon (15-year-old boy): Like, you wouldn’t really ask them – Adam (15-year-old boy): Yeah, it’s just happens. Dan: You’d slowly get to that stage, rather than like straight away being like, send me a pic. Boys who go ‘overboard’ and bombard numerous girls with images to get one back were criticised. Naomi, a 15-year-old girl, recalled a boy who did this who now “hasn’t really got any friends for it and he’s in a really bad place”. While boys did not have to manage the ‘virgin-whore’ dichotomy, they needed to embody and project successful masculinity (Holland et al., 1998; Lunceford, 2008). They may gain ‘lad points’ from sexting but status enhancement depended upon looking and acting ‘right’ (Crofts et al., 2015; Ringrose and Harvey, 2015). The precarious nature of sexting in terms of masculinity was what made them so valuable in the peer group as ‘jokes’. Lily, a 17-year-old girl, recounted how girls together at sleepovers would message boys and encourage them to send an image, while posing as an individual. Lily described this as a ‘game’ in which the image of the boy becomes a joke for people to laugh at. The boy is funny because, Andy and Chris (both 16-year-old boys)
those with experiences sexting, narratives of shame and blame sometimes shaped a belief they may have been better off abstaining, despite, at times, accounts of more pleasurable experiences, suggesting a form of ambivalence in which experiences – of harm and pleasure – bump up against broader social and cultural narratives. Consequently, harmful practices were considered attributable to the actions of individuals rather than shaped by broader contexts. This also meant more visible and socially impactful forms of harm were discussed more than, perhaps, more pervasive and hidden forms of harm, including unwanted sexting. The narrative around which practices require tackling may, therefore, need to shift. Unsolicited image-sharing by boys toward girls is not, for example, well captured in current approaches that emphasise risk and shame. While boys may be at some risk in the peer group, sexting for them did not carry the same ingrained, inherent risk that it did for girls. Emphasising risk is, therefore, less relevant when trying to tackle some gendered practices, including unsolicited image-sharing. Addressing harmful sexting may need to be about duties not to harm rather than individualised notions of risk. Responding to youth sexting: ways forward While participants’ support for abstinence may be reassuring for those seeking to circumscribe youth sexting, the systems of meaning underpinning support for abstinence shaped harmful sexting practices and social shaming processes. Young people perceived themselves to be ‘older and wiser’ now; however, it seemed the learning process involved an internalisation of an individualistic mantra around managing socially constructed risks and harms related to gender and sexuality. The ‘informal’ processes of learning occurring within the peer group are contextualised by a broader educational and legal context that seeks to
More pleasurable experiences countered narratives of shame and inherent risk. However, while participants wanted to be met ‘on their own terms’, they discussed a range of factors and influences upon their decision-making that meant pleasure needed to be contextualised (see Gill, 2007; Lamb and Petersen, 2012). Resultantly, neither abstinence nor liberal sex positivity is likely to wholly engage with the breadth and complexity of young people’s perspectives, nor the sociocultural context to their practices (see Döring, 2010: Livingstone and Mason, 2015). Young people should be empowered to critique harmful practices, restrictive ethical attributions of responsibility and individualised solutions to harm, while acknowledging their rights to make free and informed choices as to the encounters in which they do or do not engage. However, it is not just about shifting blame narratives to perpetrators, but understanding the conditions of young people’s lives, deconstructing their practices, exposing the underlying meanings and challenging harm more broadly. Bystander intervention – in terms of recognising the roles and responsibilities of the ‘audience’ in providing a facilitating context to harm (Powell, 2010b) – can be valuable, but only if it reconnects harm to broader social and cultural narratives and inequalities, and does not just become another individualised endeavour of searching for blame and responsibility. Renold (2016) developed an approach to doing so in ‘Agenda’. Agenda is a national online toolkit developed with young people, and designed to support young people to raise awareness of gender-based and sexual violence in schools and communities across Wales. Renold’s (2016) ‘What Jars You?’ task, for example, encourages young people to think more broadly about what ‘jars’ them about inequality and unfairness, which may help challenge individualistic narratives.