Sexting and Young People
Murray Lee
Thomas Crofts
Alyce McGovern
Sanja Milivojevici
Report to the Criminology Research Advisory Council
Grant: CRG 53/11-12
November 2015
1
This is a project supported by a grant from the Criminology Research Grants.
The views expressed are the responsibility of the author and are not necessarily those of the Council.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the intellectual input of Dr Michael Salter to the
early stages of this project and the research assistance from Laura Wajnryb
McDonald, Shaun Welsh, Tanya Serisier, Sarah Ienna, Sally Stuart and Jared
Ellsmore.
The authors also acknowledge funding contributions of the Australian Institute
of Criminology through the Criminology Research Grants program, NSW
Commission for Children and Young People, and the University of Sydney.
2
Contents
Acnowledgements............................................................................................ 2
Contents .......................................................................................................... 3
Executive Summary ......................................................................................... 5
Aim ............................................................................................................... 5
Method ......................................................................................................... 5
Results ......................................................................................................... 5
Conclusion ................................................................................................... 6
Introduction ...................................................................................................... 8
Review of Past Research and Literature ...................................................... 9
The Current Study.......................................................................................... 14
Methodology ............................................................................................... 14
Survey .................................................................................................... 14
Focus Groups ......................................................................................... 16
Media Analysis........................................................................................ 17
Legal Analysis......................................................................................... 18
Results ........................................................................................................... 20
Survey ........................................................................................................ 20
Respondents........................................................................................... 20
Entire Cohort: Sending Receiving ........................................................... 21
Age: Sending Receiving ......................................................................... 21
Gender .................................................................................................... 22
Number of Sexting Partners.................................................................... 23
Sexuality: Sending and Receiving .......................................................... 25
Relationships: Sending Receiving .......................................................... 28
Where Did They Hear About Sexting? .................................................... 31
Perceptions of Sexting by Gender .......................................................... 32
Feelings and Fall Out From Sexting ....................................................... 40
Sending Pictures to Third parties ............................................................ 42
Legal Consequences .............................................................................. 44
Focus Groups ............................................................................................. 45
Sexting Practices, Gender and Pressures .............................................. 48
Impact and Consequences of Sexting .................................................... 50
On Crimes – Inciting Sexting and Distribution of Sexts ........................... 53
On Punishment – Morals, Age, Gender in Production and Distribution of
Sexts ....................................................................................................... 55
Media analysis............................................................................................ 56
The Emergence of Sexting ..................................................................... 57
Defining Sexting...................................................................................... 58
Framing Sexting...................................................................................... 59
Harm ....................................................................................................... 59
Causes ................................................................................................... 60
Key Stakeholders, Experts and Primary Definers in the Media .............. 61
Responses .............................................................................................. 62
Discussion and Conclusion ............................................................................ 71
Appendix 1 ..................................................................................................... 78
3
Appendix 2 ..................................................................................................... 79
References .................................................................................................... 80
Legislation .................................................................................................. 85
Cases ......................................................................................................... 86
4
Executive Summary
Aim
This project aimed to investigate the phenomenon of sexting by young people.
This under-researched but emergent contemporary legal and social issue was
examined through an inter-disciplinary and multi-method framework by asking
the question: are the current legal and policy responses to sexting reflective of
young peoples’ perceptions and practices of sexting? As such, the research
had three specific aims: 1. to document young people’s perceptions and
practices of sexting; 2. to analyse public and media discourse around sexting,
and; 3. to examine existing legal frameworks and sanctions around sexting
and develop recommendations for an appropriate and effective legislative
policy response to the practice by young people.
Method
The project consisted of a three-stage research plan: 1. quantitative surveys
and focus groups with young people regarding their views and experiences of
sexting; 2. a media discourse analysis to capture the tenure of public
discussion around sexting in Australia, and; 3. an analysis of existing laws
and sanctions that apply to sexting in all states and territories in Australia.
Results
Our results indicate that a significant number of young people have engaged
in the sending and receiving of sexually suggestive pictures (sexting). Indeed,
47% of young people surveyed reported engaging in such behaviour.
However, both the types of activity and the frequency of the engagement
varied dramatically amongst respondents. Furthermore, the vast majority of
those who reported sending or receiving sexually suggestive images did so
with only a small number of people and most commonly only with those they
already had a romantic attachment.
Focus group respondents indicated that they did not use the term sexting and
saw it as an adult or media construct. Their knowledge about sexting relied
heavily on media reports and high school curriculum. A range of motivations
for sexting practices (both their own and their peers) were also identified,
ranging from experimentation to peer pressure. Respondents tended to
perceive that young people – particularly young women – feel pressure to
exchange sexual images. On the other hand participants in sexting
exchanges were much more likely to judge their behaviour positively,
stressing the fun and flirtatious nature of sexting. Focus groups participants’
also suggested the importance of an intersectional analysis (age, class and
5
gender) in understanding and engaging with sexting practices, as well as the
need to rethink criminal justice responses to sexting.
The discourses that young people reported around sexting mirrored the
findings of the media analysis, which showed that young peoples’ sexting
behaviours were an issue of growing concern in the Australian media. Sexting
was framed in the media as a risky activity, with potentially far-reaching
consequences for young people and their romantic and career prospects, not
to mention the potential legal ramifications. Such media reporting has thus
promoted a particular image of sexting as an activity that should be avoided
by young people, and dealt with seriously by parents, educators, governments
and the law.
An analysis of the legal framework around sexting suggests that sexting has
generally been framed as child pornography and that such offences
significantly outweigh young people’s perceptions of the seriousness of most
behaviours that might be defined as sexting. In Australian jurisdictions child
pornography has a relatively broad definition, extended in recent decades in
response to concerns that new technologies are fuelling child pornography. In
most jurisdictions there is little to legally hinder prosecution (aside from the
general requirement of establishing sufficient understanding of wrongfulness
on the part of 10 to 14 year olds (presumption of doli incapax), defences to
child pornography offences for minors in certain situations in Tasmania and
Victoria and the Attorney-General’s permission being needed before
prosecution of an under 18 year old can be commenced under the
Commonwealth Criminal Code). It is therefore legally possible for young
people to be prosecuted for child pornography offences. Despite this it seems
that prosecutions for child pornography offences for sexting are rare in
Australia and that discretion is widely used to divert young people from formal
proceedings unless there are aggravating factors.
Conclusion
This project has found that the sending and receiving of sexually suggestive
pictures by young people can have serious consequences. As well as the
potential legal consequences for young people who take and/or circulate such
images, there are a number of personal costs that young people engaging in
this behaviour may face. These include the embarrassment or humiliation
resulting from the dissemination of images, coercion through the threat of
making an image public, the continuation of physical or psychologically
abusive behaviours into the digital realm (cyberbullying), and the potential for
such images to fall into the hands of paedophiles. More generally sexting can
contribute to the reproduction of gendered power relations and double
standards. Such negative consequences are reinforced by much of the media
discourse on sexting.
Nevertheless, the findings from this project suggest that such outcomes, as
reported by young people themselves, are relatively rare. Indeed, the majority
of young people, although certainly not all, who engage in sexting do so with a
6
romantic partner in a climate of perceived mutual trust. Even though this trust
might be thought of as fragile, the research shows it is not regularly broken. It
should be noted that when such trust is broken and a third party is shown the
image, it is more likely to occur in-person rather than through digital onsending – although of course this also happens.
7
Introduction
Young people have integrated online and digital technology into their
everyday lives in increasingly complex ways. New technologies and media
inform education, connect friends and peer groups, provide instantaneous
communications between users across physical space, and literally provide
the maps by which a generation of young people live their lives. Yet the ways
in which technology is incorporated into young people’s romantic and sexual
relationships and practices has been poorly understood by researchers and
policy makers and perhaps misinterpreted by media and social commentators.
At the core of contemporary debates around young people’s online sexual
practices, new technologies, social media, and childhood sexuality has been
the phenomenon of sexting.
Sexting is a term that originated in the media, a neologism created by
collapsing the terms sex and texting. Sexting, as Ostrager (2010: 713) notes,
can be described as a ‘more technological approach to sending a flirtatious
note’ (see also Lenhart 2009). Generation Y is ‘built on now. … The same
thing happens when you want to be sexual with someone. … It is instant
sexual gratification’ (Richards & Calvert 2009: 16; see also Day 2010).
Sexting is generally defined as the digital recording of sexually suggestive or
explicit images and distribution by mobile phone messaging or through the
Internet on social networking sites, such as Facebook, Instagram and
YouTube. However, commentary often extends the definition to the sending of
sexually suggestive texts. As the Law Reform Committee of Victoria noted,
the term ‘sexting’ is evolving and ‘encompasses a wide range of practices,
motivations and behaviours’ (2013: 15). These range from a person sharing a
picture with a boyfriend or girlfriend, the boyfriend or girlfriend showing the
picture to someone else, to the recording of a sexual assault, or even to an
adult sending an explicit text to ‘groom’ a child (Law Reform Committee of
Victoria 2013: 19).
Indeed, sexting amongst young people has become a significant cultural
phenomenon, a topic of major media discussion and the target of concern by
law and policy makers. Over the past few years, news media in Australia,
North America and other Western countries have reported with concern on
cases of sexting where minors have used digital cameras to manufacture and
distribute sexual images of themselves and/or other minors, in some cases
falling foul to child pornography laws. Populist responses to this behaviour
have ranged from liberal commentators, who have called for the
decriminalisation of sexting, to others who perhaps more conservatively have
insisted that sexting should be considered a form of child pornography (Weins
and Hiestand 2009-2010).
This report constitutes an investigation of the phenomenon of ‘sexting’ by
young people. This under-researched but emergent contemporary socio-legal
issue is examined through an inter-disciplinary and multi-methods framework.
The research discussed in this report was informed by the question: are the
8
current legal and policy responses to sexting reflective of young peoples’
perceptions and practices of sexting? More importantly, this research sought
to ‘give voice’ to young people on this topic - a voice that has long been
absent from such discussion (Karaian 2012).
The research had three specific aims: 1. to document young people’s
perceptions and practices of sexting; 2. to analyse public and media discourse
around sexting, and; 3. to examine existing legal frameworks and sanctions
around sexting and develop recommendations for an appropriate and
effective legislative policy response to the practice by young people.
The report first discusses the existing literature and research in regard to
young people and sexting. It then sets out the methods that were undertaken
before moving to a discussion of the key findings of the research project.
Finally, it provides conclusions and avenues for further policy and legal
reform, and indeed for future research.
Review of Past Research and Literature
In Australia, there has been little investigation of the laws that relate to
sexting. Historically, laws in this area have been designed to protect the
young from exploitation as the subjects of such material and to protect them
from the harms associated with viewing sexually explicit material. Originally
enacted to protect children from exploitation by adults, the potential now
exists for these laws to be applied to the phenomenon of sexting between
young participants; that is, laws initially created to protect young people can
now be used to criminalise them. Reports from the US, for example, are
evidence of the fact that young people can and are being prosecuted for
sexting (see for example Crofts and Lee 2013; Arcabascio 2010; Karaian
2012).
While existing Australian research has explored the implications of new and
digital technologies on young people, there has been limited research into
sexting (cf. Albury et al 2010; 2013). For example, Powell (2010) has
examined the Australian legal response to the distribution of digital images
and videos of sexual assault through online or telephone technologies but this
relates to unauthorised recordings and non-consensual and illegal sexual
activity. As this report indicates, most sexing between young people is, but for
the legal implications, consensual.
Over the last decade, sexting has gained increasing amounts of media
attention (Lee et al. 2013). As Vanderbosch et al (2013: 99) have argued, ‘the
news media pay considerable attention to stories on internet-related risks and
children, especially those involving sex and aggression’. This has led some
researchers to suggest that when it comes to internet related risks generally,
and sexting practices specifically, that the media has induced moral panics,
reminiscent of other youth related moral panics of the mid and late 1990s
(Potter and Potter 2001: 31). Others, however, have argued that rather than a
9
moral panic, what we are witnessing is a media panic, whereby ‘… the mass
media are both the source and the medium of public reaction’ (Drotner 1992:
44). As Mascheroni et al. (2010) contend, the evolution of media discourses
on sexting demonstrates the media’s tendency to frame issues negatively
when it comes to young people and the Internet.
Existing studies on the media reporting of sexting have shown some relatively
consistent patterns when it comes to the representation and framing of
sexting as an issue of concern, particularly when it comes to young peoples’
participation in it. Draper’s (2011: 225) study on television news coverage of
sexting in the US, for example, found that news coverage promoted the
‘notion that “good kids” are seduced by the accessibility of digital technologies
into deviant activities’. Further, he found that these reports depicted girls as
the producers and distributors of this material. In contrast to what we know
about sexting practices, these media reports fostered the impression that girls
engage in sexting in an effort to attract male attention (Draper 2011: 226). He
concluded that there was a noticeable trend within the media to ‘conflate
concerns regarding a perceived increase in teen sexuality brought on by the
seductive powers of digital media with a yearning for an idealized past’
(Draper 2011: 226).
Similarly, in his study on the reporting of sexting in major US newspapers
between November 2008 and April 2009, Lynn (2010: 9) found that an
overreliance on a single online survey on sexting, with an unrepresentative
participant base, was used by the media, to ‘make the case that sexting
among teens is widespread’, contributing to the media trope of a sexting
‘epidemic’.
Despite much of the media and public discussion around young peoples’
sexting, our knowledge of the practices and perspectives of young people
themselves, however, is still relatively limited. Thus far only a small number of
surveys have attempted to understand the practice of sexting amongst young
people, and questions about the definition of sexting and the type of
methodology employed to understand its prevalence ensure that these
surveys vary significantly.
For example, a survey for Pew Internet (Lenhart 2009) found relatively low
levels of sexting amongst young people in the US. The survey established
that 4% of ‘cell-owning’ young people (12-17 years) reported ‘sending a
sexually suggestive nude or nearly-nude photo or video of themselves to
someone else’ (Lenhart 2009: 4). When it came to receiving ‘sexts’ the survey
found that 15% of those aged 12-17 had received a sexually suggestive nude
or nearly nude photo or video of someone they knew on their cell phone.
On the other hand, a study by Cox Communications (2009) of 655 teenagers
aged between 13 and 18 in the US discovered a relatively high prevalence of
sexting behaviour. They reported that around 20% of respondents had
engaged in the sending, receiving and/or forwarding of sexually suggestive
nude or nearly nude photos via phone or computer, and that over 33% knew
of a friend who had done so. Only 9% of students, however, actually reported
10
producing or sending images themselves, with 3% reporting that they had
passed images of others on.
In another study by Strassberg (2013), which sampled 606 students from a
single high school in the US’s south-west (98% of the total student
population), it was determined that almost 20% of participants had sent a
sexually explicit image of themselves via mobile phone. Moreover, almost
40% reported that they had received a sexually explicit picture. Of those, over
25% indicated that they had forwarded a picture to others. In line with other
studies, the prevalence of sexting was higher among senior students than
junior students and while not generalisable, Strassberg’s study provides an
almost complete snapshot of some variables in a single school.
In the Australian context the best evidence we have of the prevalence of
sexting comes from The House of Representatives Joint Select Committee on
Cyber-Safety’s survey, which informed the High-Wire Act: Cyber Safety and
the Young (2011) report. The Committee conducted two online surveys of
young people in relation to cyber-safety issues as part of their enquiry. A total
of 33,751 young people completed the surveys: ‘18,159 for those less than 12
years old and 15,592 for 13 to 18 year olds’ (Joint Select Committee on
Cyber-Safety 2011: 21). Furthermore, of the total respondents that identified
their gender, 53.2% were female and 46.8% were male’ (Joint Committee on
Cyber-Safety 2011: 540). The prevalence of sexting overall was reportedly
low, with 91.2% of respondents saying ‘they would not or have not sent nude
or semi-nude pictures via new technologies’ (Joint Committee on CyberSafety 2011: 138).
Recently, Mitchell et al. (2014) found that more than half of the 16-18 year old
students they surveyed had received a sexually explicit text message and
26% reported sending a sexually explicit photo of themselves. Moreover, this
US-based study found that such behaviours were incorporated into broader
sexual and romantic relationships.
When it comes to motivations for sexting, the US based Sex and Tech
Internet Survey (National Campaign to Prevent Unplanned Teen and
Unplanned Pregnancy 2010: 9) suggested that the most common reason for
sending sexy content was to be ‘fun or flirtatious’, with 66% of girls and 60%
of teen boys responding thus. Of the teen girls, 52% said the sext was a ‘sexy
present’ for their boyfriend; 44% of both teen girls and teen boys said they
sent sexually suggestive messages or images in response to such content
they received; 40% of teen girls said they sent sexually suggestive messages
or images as ‘a joke’; 34% of teen girls say they sent/posted sexually
suggestive content to ‘feel sexy’; and only 12% of teen girls said they felt
‘pressured’ to send sexually suggestive messages or images (National
Campaign to Prevent Unplanned Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy 2010: 4).
Importantly, respondents could choose all the responses that applied, so the
fact that ‘pressure’ had such a low response rate was very significant.
Mitchell et al. (2012) have also surveyed motivations for sexting. Respondents
11
were asked why they thought the sexting incident(s) they were involved with
had occurred. The majority of those producing and sending (51%) and
receiving (54%) sexts said it was part of a romance or existing relationship.
Another 23% (sending and producing) and 11% (receiving) suggested it was a
joke or prank; trying to start a relationship (5% and 11% respectively), or
getting someone’s notice (3% and 7%) were also contributing factors. Only
3% and 2% respectively reported being blackmailed, coerced or threatened
into the activity, and 0% and 1% respectively reported it to be related to
conflict or revenge. Similarly, 0% and 1% respectively reported it was the
result of bullying or harassment.
While there has been much said in the media about the dangers of young
people and sexting, Phippen (2009) noted that those personally impacted by
sexts were very much in the minority. However, he highlighted that a larger
number of his respondents were aware of friends who had been ‘affected’,
with 30% of respondents reporting that they knew a friend affected by the
problems initiated by sexting.
The qualitative research on sexting adds some nuance to these survey
results. Both Ringrose et al. (2012, 2013) and Albury et al. (2013) have
highlighted the gendered dynamic of sexting and how it occurs in the context
of a ‘gendered double standard’. They note that young women and girls
generally have more to lose when consensual sexting goes wrong, or when
they feel pressured into sending an image. Ringrose et al. (2010; 2013)
revealed the coercive nature of gendered relationships in two disadvantaged
schools that extended from the school ground into the digital realm. Their
2012 research identified a troubling range of gendered practices among the
cohort of 35 Year 8 and Year 10 students interviewed across two inner-city
schools in London. Such practices included:
girls regularly receiving unsolicited explicit photos — often of other girls
performing sex acts;
requests for photos or even sex via messaging — often with the threat
of being ‘exposed’ should they decline, with exposure entailing either
having an embarrassing story or embarrassing image circulated;
boys asking for, and often receiving, semi-nude photos of their
girlfriends for their default messaging profile image. Sometimes this
would include a cleavage shot with text written across the breasts
noting that this body ‘belonged’ to the boy in question — as Ringrose et
al. (2012) put it, the girls’ bodies were the ‘property’ of the boys.
Such behaviours were largely considered to represent an extension of the
kinds of gendered relations already playing out in the school grounds. These
gendered power relations manifested through sexualised activities in the
school grounds, including:
verbal harassment — girls continually being asked to perform sex acts
on boys, and repeated comments about girls’ bodies;
being touched up — many girls had to wear shorts under their skirts for
12
fear of being inappropriately touched by boys;
being rushed, pushed down, and ‘daggering’ — this range of
harassments essentially constitutes forms of assault and often involved
groups of boys holding down a girl while a boy ‘daggered’ — thrusting
his penis against a girl from behind or masturbating against a girl from
behind (Ringrose et al. 2012).
Albury et al.’s (2013) Australian based study is more circumspect, highlighting
the mutual excitement of consensual sexting. Participants in their study noted
the different gendered interpretations of sexting practice and the likelihood of
girls who sext being judged differently to boys who do so. However, girls in
the focus groups did distinguish between boys who asked for photos — who
they deemed more likely to share them without consent — and those who
were sent photos as part of a relationship.
When taken in its entirety, existing research on the phenomenon of sexting
and young people seems to suggest that there remains a disconnect between
practices and perceptions of sexting. That is, while there is a growing concern
in the media and the general public over young peoples’ engagement in
sexting behaviours, research into young peoples’ practices remains equivocal.
This project sought to fill this gap in knowledge.
13
The Current Study
It is thus timely and important that the phenomenon of sexting is examined not
only from the perspective of young people, but through the discourses
produced in the media as well. Further, legislative and policy responses –
often, indirectly, the outcome of public and media discourse – are also to be
reconsidered accordingly. This project brings together these three
components – the media, young people and the law – in order to examine the
composite picture of sexting in Australia, and the implications this has on
policy. This under-researched but emergent contemporary legal and social
issue was examined through an inter-disciplinary and multi-method framework
by asking the question: are the current legal and policy responses to sexting
reflective of young peoples’ perceptions and practices of sexting?
The research, thus, had three specific aims:
1. To document young people’s perceptions and practices of sexting;
2. To analyse public and media discourse around sexting, and;
3. To examine existing legal frameworks and sanctions around sexting
and develop recommendations for an appropriate and effective
legislative policy response to the practice by young people.
The challenge facing government authorities, schools and parents is to
develop an evidence-based and proportionate response to sexting that
encourages a responsible rapprochement between new technology and
young people’s sexualities. This research project attempted to merge the
three components to develop a model for responding appropriately to sexting.
Methodology
The methodology guiding this project consisted of four separate stages: a
survey, focus groups, a thematic media analysis and legal analysis. Each of
these stages is detailed below.
Survey
The online survey aimed to produce data on young people’s motivations for
and perceptions of the sending and receiving of sexually suggestive pictures,
or sexts. The survey questions were developed over a twelve-month period
and were extensively trialed on our target demographic - young people
between the ages of 13 and 18. This development process involved
consultation sessions with the NSW Commission for Children and Young
People’s youth advisory group, who provided valuable feedback on the
constitution of the questions and usage of terminology. Following these
consultations, questions were adjusted accordingly, resulting in the final
survey, which consisted of 34 items.
14
These items were developed with the aim of capturing data on young people’s
perceptions of sexting, their practices of and motivations for sexting, and their
understanding of the law in relation to sexting. In addition, the survey also
aimed to collect a significant amount of demographic information including the
age, religion, gender, city/country, sexuality, and ethnicity of respondents.
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, the online survey methodology constituted a very useful
methodology for this particular sample cohort.
Between July 2013 and October 2013 the survey was made available online
for participation and completion. The survey was a self-selection style,
administered through the University of Sydney Law School Survey Monkey
platform. A Facebook site was also developed to link to the survey. The
survey was promoted via the Triple J Hack program1, Facebook, Twitter, the
Universities of Sydney, Western Sydney and UNSW, as well as a large range
of youth service providers. While the survey was aimed at 13 – 18 year olds,
older participants were also able to complete the survey, enabling us to
capture useful comparative data. The data was statistically analysed using the
SPSS program.
It should be noted that in line with ethical requirements of the project, a range
of protections were put in place so that participants could be vetted and
alerted to the sexual nature of some of the questions. When respondents
opened the survey page they were provided with information warning them
that the survey would contain questions about ‘sexual pictures’:
The Sydney Institute of Criminology at USYD, along with UNSW and
UWS is asking Australian young people to share their views on
sexting. This survey will include questions about sexual pictures (like
pictures sent to a boyfriend/girlfriend). We would like to know your
honest thoughts about this. All responses are anonymous – no one
will know you have participated and no one will know which answers
are yours. The survey will only take 10-20 minutes. If you are not
comfortable sharing your opinions, please exit the survey now. By
continuing, you are giving your consent to participate in the survey.
Those respondents who chose not to continue were directed to another page
that noted:
You indicated you do not want to continue with the survey. Please
confirm that you want to exit the survey. If you choose to continue,
you may change your decision at any stage of the survey and exit.
Your responses prior to exiting will be used for research and will
remain anonymous.
Triple J is that Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s (ABC) national youth radio network.
‘Hack’ is the Triple J current affairs program aired each weekday afternoon at 5.30pm.
1
15
For those that chose to continue the survey we set out to define the concepts
in a way that would provide clarity. We provided the following advice for
respondents:
Throughout this survey, it is important that you understand what we
mean so that we interpret your answers correctly. Please keep the
following in mind as you read and answer each question:
Any time that we ask about “sexual pictures/videos” we are only
talking about sexually suggestive, semi-nude, or nude personal
pictures and/or videos (like nudes, naked selfies, banana pic etc) –
and not those found on the internet (like unwanted mail, images,
videos or text from someone you don’t know).
If you hover your cursor over this phrase, a definition will appear to
remind you what we mean. Please note this won't work on an
iPad/tablet or mobile devices2.
Focus Groups
The focus group component of the project sought to gather the responses of
young people in relation to their perceptions and practices of sexting. Eight
focus groups were held with young people between the ages of 18 and 20
from the University of Sydney, University of Western Sydney, and TAFE
NSW. 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 topic3. 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).
Beyond this, focus groups also sought to capture young people’s opinion on
criminal justice responses to sexting cases in Australia. In order to do this,
focus groups participants were provided with two case studies that capture
common sexting scenarios: one involving a person inviting/ pressuring a
person under 16 to sext (the case of Damien Eades, for which charges laid
were inciting a person under 16 to commit an act of indecency and a
possession of child pornography); the other relating to consensual sexts
taken in a relationship between two people who were 17 at the time and
distributed after the break up (for which the charges were making and
transmitting child pornography online). 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 in these
cases and the (administered and desired) punishment in such cases.
2
See Appendix 1 for a full list of the survey questions.
3
See Appendix 2 for a full list of the focus group questions.
16
The focus group facilitator guided discussion on participants’ views of the
conduct of the individuals in each case. The focus groups therefore provided
an important forum for the examination of young people’s views on common
sexting situations and on the legal response to sexting, and it canvassed their
views on what would constitute an appropriate response to the issues posed
by sexting. In this way, the focus groups provided a way of exploring the
themes that emerged from the different arms of the project, including the
survey material, media discourse analysis and legislative analysis.
Throughout these qualitative arms of the project, data gathering, transcription
and analysis occurred in alternating sequences in accordance with a
grounded theory approach (see Strauss and Corbin 1998). In this approach,
data was analysed even as it is gathered, which in turn impacted upon
subsequent data collection, leading to the refinement of the analysis, which
fed back into data collection and so on. Interview data was transcribed and
anonymised before being imported into the qualitative analysis program,
nVivo, which enabled users to assign a code to specific lines or segment of
text. This approach is defined by Strauss and Corbin (1998) as the breaking
down, naming, comparing and categorising of data, a process in which
hypotheses or theories are generated directly from the data, rather than
through a priori assumptions or existing theoretical frameworks. In this way, a
coding matrix was developed from initial interview data that was then used to
inform and refine the structure of subsequent interviews in order to maximise
the quality of the data gathered.
Media Analysis
The media component of the project aimed to gain an understanding of the
role of the media in framing knowledge around the issue of sexting, and the
implications of this media framing. To do this, Australian and New Zealand
media reports on sexting from between 2002 and 2013 (inclusive) were
collated in order to explore the ways in which sexting has been articulated in
the media, and what definitions and explanations of sexting were being
employed in these news reports. Particular attention was paid to the key
stakeholders, ‘actors’ or spokespeople on sexting who were cited in the
media, as well as recurrent themes that appeared to define or position sexting
as an issue of concern, importance or newsworthiness.
Using the Proquest Australia and New Zealand Newsstand database,
searches were conducted for the following terms4:
“Sexting”
“Sex text” or “sex texts”
“Nude selfie” or “nude selfies”
“Naked selfie” or “naked selfies”
4
There are obvious limitations to the retrieval and compilation of content through databases
such as Proquest, not least of which being the potential for important or relevant stories to be
excluded from the sample due to the choice of search terms that may limit or narrow the
categories of analysis (Jewkes 2011b, p. 250).
17
“Banana pic” or “banana pics”
Search terms were developed following consultation with youth
representatives on the NSW Commission for Children and Young People’s
Advisory Group. Whilst commonly used by and among adults to describe
sexually suggestive, semi-nude, or nude personal pictures/videos, evidence
suggests sexting is not the preferred term of young people. For this reason, a
wider range of terms were identified and used in the search in order to
capture articles that may use alternative terminology that would otherwise be
overlooked by the search engine.
Following this, the data was thematically interpreted and analysed to identify
information consistent with the interests of the broader research project. This
analysis was driven by a number of guiding questions, including:
When did sexting emerge as a media discourse and how has it been
defined?
How do the media frame sexting? What are the common themes that
emerge around sexting, particular as it relates to young people?
How are the causes of sexting explored and/or defined?
Who are the key stakeholders, experts and/or primary definers of
sexting in the media and in what context are they being cited?
What are the responses (actual or recommended) to sexting and young
people that are explored in the media? How are these responses
framed by the media?
Searches conducted on Proquest determined that there were no relevant term
matches before 2002, therefore resulting in a timeframe of 2002-2013,
inclusive, for data collection. Media formats examined within the Proquest
database included newspapers, wire feeds5 and other sources (such as radio
broadcasts, commentary, magazines and weblinks), culminating in the
identification of over 2000 relevant articles across the twelve year period of
study.
Legal Analysis
The legal analysis component of the project consisted of a review and
examination of the legal approaches to sexting focusing on child pornography
offences (sometimes called child abuse or child exploitation offences - we
generally refer to child pornography unless referring to a specific jurisdiction)
given the media attention on these offences. Firstly, current laws in place
throughout the Australian criminal jurisdictions were reviewed. The legal
provisions in each state and territory and the Commonwealth dealing with
child pornography were identified through a search of official legislation
publication sites (including comlaw.gov.au, state law publisher and legislation
online). An examination was also carried out on the ways in which Australian
5
Wire feeds are news items that come from organisations such as the Associated Press,
whose journalists supply news reports to news organisations, such as newspapers,
magazines, and radio and television networks.
18
laws have been framed, exactly what sort of behaviour could be captured by
such laws and to what extent there is consistency in the law in Australia.
Employing legal databases and other sources, such as the Victorian Law
Committee Report and submissions, and parliamentary debates and reports,
we explored whether it was possible that young people could be prosecuted
for child pornography offences and whether there had in fact been any
prosecutions.
The legal analysis also sought to understand what might be stopping young
people from being prosecuted, such as the use of police discretion to divert
young people from criminal proceedings. Through analysis of various inquiries
and reports, policy documents and parliamentary debates information was
obtained about the background to child pornography laws and whether any
changes had been made to such laws in light of sexting practices. Finally, a
review of these documents allowed us to understand what reforms, if any, had
been suggested or planned.
19
Results
The results of the project have been divided into four sections: survey, focus
groups, media analysis and legal analysis.
Survey
Respondents
There were 2243 respondents who attempted the survey, with 1416
completing every question (63% completion rate). The sample cohort
consisted of 48% males and 52% females, with <1% of respondents (0.5%)
identifying as other. 28% of respondents were aged 13-15, with 42% aged 1618. 9% of respondents were aged 19-21, 7% were aged 22-24, and 13% were
aged 25 and above. This spread of age groups has allowed us to make some
comparisons between both different groups of young people and young
people and adults.
The survey also captured data on sexuality, with 9% of respondents indicating
they were bi-sexual, 3% indicating they were gay, 1% indicating they were
lesbian, and 6% indicating they were ‘questioning’. While 36% of respondents
were from the state of NSW, there was a good spread of respondents from
across the Australian states. In addition, data captured on the location of
respondents showed that 15% of respondents were from rural areas. While
the majority of respondents were born in Australia and of Anglo-Saxon origin,
respondents were also drawn from 15 different ethnic groups. Data captured
on the religious background of our cohort also revealed the majority of
respondents identified with no religion (57%), with a significant number
identifying with Christianity (28%). There was low representation from other
religious groups.
The vast majority of respondents reported having ‘sent and received text
messages’ (96%) and having a ‘social networking profile’ (98%). A sizable
minority ‘viewed pictures on dating or singles sites’ (10%), and a smaller
group ‘had a profile on a dating or singles site’ (8%). A majority of the sample
‘read or viewed blogs’ (61%), ‘shared photos on social media sites’ (94%),
‘shared picture or videos via MMS on a mobile phone’ (87%), ‘sent or
received pictures or videos on a computer’ (83%), and ‘posted or shared
videos through social media’ (74%). A smaller but significant minority had
‘written a personal blog’ (33%). Ninety-six % of respondents ‘used a computer
or tablet without adult supervision’, and 97% ‘used a mobile phone without
adult supervision’. These numbers demonstrate that the majority of
respondents were relatively technologically engaged.
As detailed in the Methods section of the report, the survey defined sexting
relatively narrowly as ‘the sending and receiving of sexual images or videos’,
with specific questions dealing with whether or not the images were of oneself
or others also included in the survey. While the definition we used could
20
possibly include sexual images that would not contravene the current legal
definitions of child abuse or child pornography material, it was agreed – with
the input of the young people with who we consulted – that this was the most
accurate way in which to capture sexting by young people that, in Australian
jurisdictions at least, is criminalised.
Entire Cohort: Sending Receiving
Of the entire sample, 49% of respondents reported having sent a sexual
picture or video of themselves. We would suggest that while all methodologies
have great limitations with regards to the question of prevalence, we are likely
to have oversampled those that have sent pictures, in part due to the modes
of promotion of the survey. Despite this, we think these figures reflect the fact
that the practice of sexting is more widespread in the Australian context than
much of the existing Australian and international research might indicate. The
survey also revealed that 67% of respondents had received a sexual image.
Age: Sending Receiving
The data presented in Table 1 reports the prevalence of sexting broken down
by age category. As indicated, our younger cohort were much less likely to
have sent an image or video of themselves than any other age cohort. Indeed,
they were the only cohort who reported more participants not sending than
sending at a statistically significant level. Nonetheless, with 38% of 13-15 year
olds having sent an image, a significant minority of our younger cohort have
engaged in the practice. Moreover, 50% of the 16-18 year old cohort had sent
a sexual image or video.
Table 1: Have you ever sent a sexual picture / video (by age)6
Age group
Yes
No
Total
13–15
172
(38%)
276
(62%)
448
16–18
340
(50%)
346
(50%)
686
Adult (19+)
256
(59%)
179
(41%)
435
Total
768
801
1569
6
Pearson χ2(2) = 34.15, p<.001.
21
A similar distribution is revealed on the question of receiving images or videos
(see Table 2). These results indicate high numbers of respondents receiving
images or videos (as opposed to sending) in every age category. The 13-15
year old group had received less images or videos than other cohorts, at 62%.
Tables 1 and 2 also indicate that all age groups were far more likely to receive
than send an image or video. What this data demonstrates is that sexting is
not a marginal activity in any of the age groups surveyed. While young people
were sending images less than their adult counterparts, they were receiving
also them more often than they were sending them.
Table 8.2: Have you ever received a sexual picture / video (by age)7
Age Group
Yes
No
Total
13–15
276
(62%)
169
(38%)
445
16–18
479
(70%)
204
(30%)
683
Adult (19+)
296
(68%)
138
(32%)
434
Total
1051
512
1562
Gender
Much of the academic and popular commentary about sexting has focused on
the differing dynamic of gender. As the results in Table 3 below indicate, at
the overall cohort level there were no statistical differences in prevalence
rates between males and females. Indeed, in both cohorts roughly 50% of
respondents reported having sent an image or video.
7 Pearson
χ2(2) = 37.15, p<.001.
22
Table 3: Have you ever sent a sexual picture / video of yourself (by gender)8
Yes
No
Total
Male
326
(48%)
349
(52%)
675
Female
438
(50%)
447
(50%)
885
Total
764
(49%)
796
(51%)
1560
The issue of gender was, however, a factor in the receiving of images. As the
results presented in Table 4 indicate, of the overall cohort, women and girls
were less likely to report that they had received a sexual image or video than
men and boys.
Table 4: Have you ever received a sexual picture / video (by gender)9
Yes
No
Total
Male
480
(72%)
191
(28%)
671
Female
564
(64%)
319
(36%)
883
Total
1044
(67%)
510
(33%)
1554
Number of Sexting Partners
Respondents were also asked about the number of people they had sent
images or videos to, and how many people they had received images from, in
the past 12 months. This question aimed to explore just how many sexting
partners our respondents conversed with, something not addressed in past
research. As Table 5 indicates, of those that had sent an image, the majority
of every age and gender cohort had either not sent to anyone in the past
twelve months, or had only done so to only one person. Nonetheless, in the
younger age and gender cohorts those who had sent images were more likely
to have sent to more than one person compared with the adult cohorts.
χ2(1) = 0.22, p=.64.
9 Pearson χ2(1) = 10.44, p=.001.
8 Pearson
23
Across the age / gender groups, males who had sent were more likely to have
sent to two or more people (41%) than females (29%), indicating a significant
overall difference in behaviours between males and females. That is, males
overall were likely to send images or videos to more sexting partners than
females. However, post hoc tests indicated that only adult females were
significantly less likely than other groups to have sent to more than five
people. Thus, removing adult females meant that there were no significant
differences across the other cohorts in the numbers of respondents who sent
to multiple partners.
Table 5: How many people have you sent a sexual picture / video of yourself to?10
Male
13–15
Male
16–18
Male
adult
Female
13–15
Female
16–18
Female
adult
Total
No one 11
in past (16%)
12
months
18
(12%)
22
(22%)
10
(10%)
32
(18%)
36
(23%)
129
(17%)
One
person
30
(42%)
67
(44%)
42
(42%)
47
(48%)
94
(52%)
91
(59%)
371
(49%)
2–5
people
19
(27%)
46
(30%)
24
(24%)
34
(34%)
38
(21%)
26
(17%)
187
(25%)
More
11
than 5 (16%)
people
21
(14%)
11
(11%)
8
(8%)
18
(10%)
2
(1%)
71
(9%)
Total
152
99
99
182
155
758
71
As the data in Table 6 (below) indicates, of those who had ever received a
sext, the largest percentage of young people from all the gendered categories
(except 16 to 18-year-old girls) had received a sexual image from two or more
people in the past 12 months. Post hoc tests confirmed that the younger
cohorts of females were more likely than adult females to have received
images or videos from more than five people in the past 12 months (24%).
They also confirmed that males aged 13-15 and 16-18 were similar to girls
ages 13-15 in that they were more likely to have received from multiple
persons. For both adult groups and the females 16-18, post hoc tests
indicated that the majority received from one or no partners in the past 12
months.
10
Pearson χ2(15) = 44.16, p<.001.
24
Table 6: How many people have you received a sexual picture / video from?11
Male
13–15
Male
16–18
Male
adult
Female
13–15
Female
16–18
Female
adult
Total
No one 6
in past (5%)
12
months
22
(9%)
24
(21%)
8
(5%)
27
(12%)
46
(26%)
133
(13%)
One
person
40
(33%)
74
(31%)
44
(38%)
52
(35%)
104
(44%)
88
(50%)
402
(39%)
2–5
people
51
(42%)
103
(43%)
29
(25%)
54
(36%)
73
(31%)
34
(19%)
344
(33%)
More
26
than 5 (21%)
people
39
(16%)
19
(16%)
36
(24%)
30
(13%)
9
(5%)
159
(15%)
Total
238
116
150
234
177
1038
123
Sexuality: Sending and Receiving
The survey also sought to understand the correlation between sexuality and
sexting. As the data in Table 7 (below) indicates, respondents identifying as
gay were significantly more likely to have sent or received a sexual image or
video (81%). Both lesbian and bi-sexual identifying respondents were also
more likely to have engaged in the practice than their heterosexual
counterparts. Note that this data is inclusive of the adult cohort due to the
lower number of respondents.
11 Pearson
χ2(15) = 104.50, p<.001.
25
Table 7: Have you ever sent a sexual picture / video of yourself (by sexuality)12
Yes
No
Total
Hetero
526
(45%)
636
(55%)
1162
Lesbian
13
(65%)
7
(35%)
20
Gay
30
(81%)
7
(19%)
37
Bisexual
89
(67%)
44
(33%)
133
Total
658
(49%)
694
(51%)
1352
As Table 8 further indicates, a similar distribution was also found in relation to
the receiving of images or videos, with 92% of gay identifying respondents
having received such images. Lesbian and bisexual respondents were also
more likely than heterosexual respondents to have received an image,
although less likely than their gay counterparts.
Table 8: Have you ever received … by sexuality13
Yes
No
Total
Hetero
755
(65%)
407
(35%)
1162
Lesbian
13
(65%)
7
(35%)
20
Gay
34
(92%)
3
(8%)
37
Bisexual
103
(77%)
30
(23%)
133
Total
905
(67%)
447
(33%)
1352
Pearson χ2(3) = 40.81, p<.001.
13 Pearson χ2(3) = 19.10, p<.001.
12
26
While the sample sizes of these groups were relatively low and the results
thus not statistically significant, Table 9 demonstrates that respondents
identifying as gay, followed by those identifying as bisexual, were the most
prevalent sexters. Moreover, gay respondents were more likely to send to
multiple partners, followed by bisexual respondents.
Table 9: How many people have you sent to ... by sexual preference?14
Hetero
Lesbian
Gay
Bisexual
No
one 90
past
12 (17%)
months
3
(23%)
6
(20%)
11
(13%)
One
person
271
(52%)
8
(62%)
5
(17%)
46
(52%)
2–5
people
123
(24%)
1
(7.5%)
11
(37%)
23
(26%)
1
(7.5%)
8
(27%)
9
(10%)
More than 42
5 people
(7%)
Total
526 (45% of 13 (65% of total 30 (81% of total 89 (70% of total
total hetero n)
lesbian n)
gay n)
bi n)
The same dynamic played out with regards to the receiving of images and
sexuality. As Table 10 shows, gay identifying respondents appeared to be the
most likely recipients of images or videos, although the sample is too small to
draw firm statistical conclusions.
14
Pearson χ2(9) = 23.50, p=.005.
27
Table 8.10: How many people have you received a sexual picture / video from (by sexual
preference)15
Hetero
Lesbian
Gay
Bisexual
No one past 101
12 months
(13%)
2
(15%)
2
(6%)
7
(7%)
One person
310
(41%)
8
(62%)
7
(21%)
39
(38%)
2–5 people
244
(32%)
2
(15%)
11
(32%)
37
(36%)
More than 5
100
(13%)
1
(8%)
14
(41%)
20
(19%)
Total
755
13
34
103
Relationships: Sending Receiving
The survey also sought to establish the types of relationships between those
that send pictures or videos to one another. Perhaps implicit in much of the
current discourse on sexting has been that it is a practice that is engaged in
by singles or those in the early stages of a relationship; that is, it is part of
getting to know someone, or attracting the attention of the receiver so that a
relationship of some kind might ensue.
As the data reported in Table 11 indicates, however, those in some kind of
relationship, particularly those in a long-term relationship (with the exception
of married respondents), were more likely to have sent a sexual image or
video of themselves than those who were not in a relationship, or those who
had ‘just started seeing someone’. This suggests that those that sent pictures
of themselves, in the vast majority of instances, sent them to someone they
had an established relationship with. One caveat here would be that we
cannot conclusively say that those in a relationship were actually sending the
pictures to their partner in that relationship. Nor can we establish with
certainty that the respondent was in a relationship when they sent or received
an image or video.
15 Pearson
χ2(9) = 30.00, p<.001.
28
Table 11: Have you ever sent a sexual picture / video of yourself (by relationship status)16
Not in a Just
relationship started
seeing
someone
Casual/
dating
relationship
Long-term
relationship
Married
Other
Total
Yes
288
(40%)
63
(53%)
86
(62%)
218
(62%)
18
(41%)
27
(53%)
700
(49%)
No
435
(60%)
56
(47%)
52
(38%)
132
(38%)
26
(59%)
24
(47%)
725
(51%)
Total
723
119
138
350
44
51
1425
As reported in Table 12, those dating or in long-term relationships were more
likely to have received an image or video. Least likely were those who were
not in a relationship followed by those that were married.
Table 12: Have you ever received a sexual picture / video (relationships).17
Not in a Just
relationship started
seeing
someone
Casual/
dating
relationship
Long-term
relationship
Married
Other
Total
Yes
435
(60%)
91
(77%)
115
(83%)
256
(73%)
24
(55%)
35
(69%)
956
(67%)
No
288
(40%)
28
(23%)
23
(17%)
94
(27%)
20
(45%)
16
(31%)
469
(33%)
Total
723
119
138
350
44
51
1425
As Table 13 (below) illustrates, those who reported being in a long-term
relationship were also most likely to have sent images or videos to only one
person. The same was true of respondents who were married.
Pearson χ2(5) = 61.02, p<.001.
17 Pearson χ2(5) = 45.93, p<.001.
16
29
Table 13: How many people have you sent a sexual picture / video of yourself (by
relationship status)18
Not in a Just
relationship started
seeing
someone
Casual/
dating
relationship
Long-term
relationship
Married
Other
Total
No one 51
past 12 (18%)
months
13
(21%)
11
(13%)
38
(17%)
5
(28%)
2
(7%)
120
(17%)
One
person
112
(39%)
26
(41%)
33
(38%)
144
(66%)
11
(62%)
13
(48%)
339
(48%)
2–5
people
87
(30%)
18
(29%)
36
(42%)
25
(12%)
1
(6%)
7
(26%)
174
(25%)
More
38
than 5 (13%)
people
6
(10%)
6
(7%)
11
(5%)
1
(6%)
5
(19%)
67
(10%)
Total
63
86
218
18
27
700
288
Similarly, as represented in Table 14, those who had received images or
videos, were more likely to be in a relationship with the exception of married
respondents.
18
Pearson χ2(15) = 70.49, p<.001.
30
Table 14: Relationship status by how many people respondent has received from in the
past 12 months19
Not in a Just
relationship started
seeing
someone
Casual/
dating
relationship
Long-term
relationship
Married
Other
Total
No one 45
past 12 (10%)
months
8
(9%)
12
(10%)
46
(18%)
10
(42%)
1
(3%)
122
(13%)
One
person
146
(34%)
25
(28%)
38
(33%)
139
(54%)
10
(42%)
13
(37%)
371
(39%)
2–5
people
168
(39%)
39
(43%)
44
(38%)
54
(21%)
3
(13%)
12
(34%)
320
(34%)
More
9
than 5 (26%)
people
19
(21%)
21
(18%)
17
(7%)
1
(4%)
9
(26%)
143
(15%)
Total
91
115
256
24
35
956
435
Perceptions of Sexting
The survey also asked respondents about their perceptions of sexting. That
is, we asked respondents a range of questions about what they knew of and
perceived about sexting, in order to differentiate perceptions from practice. As
previous studies have often confused perceptions with practices or
motivations, it was important in this study to differentiate between the two, so
as not to conflate the two.
Where Did They Hear About Sexting?
Respondents were initially asked how they came to know about sexting in the
first place. As the data in Table 15 indicates, the highest percentage younger
cohorts had heard about sexting from friends, whereas the higher percentage
older respondents reported hearing about sexting from the media.
19 Pearson
χ2(15) = 93.16, p<.001.
31
Table 15: Where did you first hear about sexting?20
Age
School
teacher
Friend
Police
Internet
Parent/
Guardian
Sibling
Social
networking
Media
This
survey
Other
Total
13–15
74
(14%)
187
(36%)
43
(8%)
2
(<1%)
20
(4%)
5
(1%)
58
(11%)
117
(22%)
7
(1%)
14
(2.7%)
527
16–18
96
(12%)
304
(39%)
71
(9%)
3
(0.4%)
18
(2.3%)
6
(0.8%)
70
(9.0%)
175
(22.6%)
1
(0.1%)
31
(4%)
775
Adult
(19+)
17
(3%)
156
(31%)
5
(1%)
2
(<1%)
5
(1%)
2
(<1%)
31
(6%)
255
(51%)
5
(1%)
19
(4%)
497
Total
187
(10%)
647
(36%)
119
(7%)
7
(<1%)
43
(2%)
13
(<1%)
159
(9%)
547
(30%)
13
(<1%)
64
(4%)
1799
Perceptions of Sexting by Gender
Respondents were also asked about their perceptions of sexting; specifically,
why they think young people engage in sexting, as opposed to why one might
engage in it oneself. Table 16 presents the results of respondents’ top three
responses to the question ‘why do you think girls send sexual
pictures/videos?’. The data shows the answers that were the most popular
choices and what percentage of respondents selected each response as one
of their three choices (thus percentages do not add up to 100%).
As the results indicate, the most popular options for males and females were:
(1) to get attention, with 54% of males and 65% of females choosing this
response; (2) because of pressure from the receiver, with 42% of males and
46% of females choosing this response; or (3) according to the perceptions of
males, as a ‘sexy present’ (38%) or, according to females, to get a girl or guy
to like them (33%). In short, there was a general perception that girls might be
pressured or feel compelled to send an image to get a partner interested.
There were also some significant differences within some of the lesser chosen
categories, with females more likely to suggest ‘getting a guy/girl’s attention’
and ‘to get a girl/guy to like them’ than males. However, males were
significantly more likely than females to perceive sexting a ‘sexy present for a
boyfriend/girlfriend’ or a ‘to be fun and flirty’.
Those respondents who chose ‘other’ offered a number of alternative
reasons, including because they “Liked them and trusted them”, for “Self
validation”, “To feel empowered”, or several variants of “To help keep a
relationship alive while partner is working away”.
20 Pearson
χ2(18) = 194.83, p<.001.
32
Table 16: Why do you think girls send sexual pictures/videos?
Frequency
Χ2
Female
(%
of
females)
p value
445
(54%)
633
(65%)
21.02
0.00**
Bf/gf pressured them 794
to send it
343
(42%)
451
(46%)
3.46
0.06
As a sexy present for 610
bf/gf
314
(38%)
296
(30%)
12.03
0.00**
To feel
confident
or 424
191
(23%)
233
(24%)
0.11
0.74
To get a guy/girl to like 504
them
186
(23%)
318
(33%)
22.00
0.00**
Pressure from friends
98
41
(5%)
57
(6%)
0.49
0.49
To get compliments
365
157
(19%)
208
(21%)
1.49
0.22
To be included/fit in
151
58
(7%)
93
(10%)
3.53
0.06
To be fun/flirty
334
202
(25%)
132
(14%)
36.15
0.00**
To get noticed or show 436
off
191
(23%)
245
(25%)
0.85
0.36
Because she received 156
one
78
(9%)
78
(8.0%)
1.27
0.26
I don’t know
44
25
(3%)
17
(2%)
3.31
0.07
Other (please specify)
59
30
(4%)
29
(3%)
0.65
0.42
Frequency Frequency
Male
(%
of
males)
Get
or
keep
guy/girl’s attention
sexy
a 1078
**indicates significance at the p<.001 level
33
In comparison, as show in Table 17, when respondents were asked to select
their top three reasons for why males send sexual images/pictures, responses
were quite different. These results are perhaps reflecting the stereotypical
notion that boys predominantly pressure girls to send images — but also
reflecting a gendered double standard that constructs girls as ‘sluts’ and boys
as active agents, ‘doing what boys do’. Both male and female respondents
believed that males were likely to send images to: (1) ‘get noticed or show off’,
with 54% of females and 34% or males choosing this response; or (2) ‘get or
keep a guy/girl’s attention’ with 37% of females and 34% of males choosing
this response. Significant differences in male and female responses were
apparent, however, with the third most popular choice for male respondents,
‘because he received one’ (31%) and for female respondents ‘as a sexy
present’ (27%). There were also some statistically significant variations in
responses to particular items between males and females. More males than
females endorsed the items ‘boyfriend or girlfriend pressured them to send it’,
‘to be fun and flirty’ and ‘because he received one’. More females than males
endorsed the items ‘to feel sexy and confident’, to get compliments’, to be
included and fit in’, and ‘to get noticed or show off’.
34
Table 17: Why do you think guys send sexual pictures/videos?
Frequency Frequency
Male
(%
of
males)
Frequency
χ2
Female
(%
of
females)
p value
Get
or
keep
a 637
guy’s/girl’s attention
278
(34%)
359
(37%)
1.83
0.18
Bf/gf pressured them 156
to send it
84
(10%)
72
(7%)
4.55
0.03*
As a sexy present for 495
bf/gf
227
(28%)
268
(27%)
0.02
0.90
To
feel
confident
or 443
182
(22%)
261
(27%)
5.11
0.02*
To get a guy/girl to like 355
them
170
(21%)
185
(19%)
0.96
0.33
Pressure from friends
192
51
(6%)
141
(14%)
31.09
0.00**
To get compliments
341
130
(16%)
211
(22%)
9.42
0.00**
To be included/fit in
155
49
(6%)
106
(11%)
13.08
0.00**
To be fun/flirty
435
234
(29%)
201
(21%)
15.17
0.00**
To get noticed or show 878
off
350
(43%)
528
(54%)
23.31
0.00**
Because he received 476
one
252
(31%)
224
(23%)
13.71
0.00**
I don’t know
128
68
(8%)
60
(6%)
3.05
0.08
Other (please specify)
87
37
(4%)
50
(5%)
0.26
0.61
sexy
*indicates significance at the p<.05 level
** indicates significance at the p<.001 level
35
Specific questions were also asked with regard to the posting of sexual
pictures on social networking platforms, and the pressure to do so. When
asked whether they agreed or disagreed with the statement ‘There is pressure
among people my age to post sexual pictures/videos in their (social
networking) profiles’, overall there were no significant differences between
those that believed there was pressure and those that did not, indicating that
the perception that there is pressure is quite far reaching (see Table 18).
Table 18: There is pressure among people my age to post sexual pictures/videos in their
(social networking) profiles21
Strongly Agree
agree
Neither
Disagree
agree nor
disagree
Strongly Don’t
disagree know
Total
Male
75
(12%)
168
(27%)
119
(19%)
173
(27%)
87
(14%)
12
(2%)
634
Female
147
(17%)
268
(31%)
120
(14%)
213
(25%)
82
(10%)
23
(3%)
853
Total
222
(15%)
436
(29%)
239
(16%)
386
(26%)
169
(11%)
35
(2%)
1487
When broken down according to gender (see Table 18), post hoc tests
confirmed that significantly more females than males agreed or strongly
agreed with the statement that ‘there is pressure to post sexual
pictures/videos on their social networking profiles’. Significantly more females
neither agreed nor disagreed and significantly more males strongly disagreed
with the statement. These responses demonstrate a gender disparity in
perceptions of pressure to post images.
We also broke this down further in relation to age. As Table 19 indicates, a
high percentage of 13-15 year old females either agreed or strongly agreed
that there was pressure to post sexual pictures on networking sites (65%),
while 54% of 16-18 year old females also endorsed this statement.
21
Pearson χ2(5) = 22.27, p<.001.
36
Table 19: There is pressure among people my age to post sexual pictures/videos in their
(social networking) profiles22
Strongly Agree
agree
Neither
Disagree Strongly
agree nor
disagree
disagree
Don’t
know
Total
Male
13–15
34
(19%)
31
(23%)
43
(24%)
39
(22%)
14
(8%)
7
(4%)
178
Male
16–18
37
(13%)
101
(34%)
49
(17%)
69
(23%)
37
(13%)
4
(1%)
297
Male
adult
(19+)
4
(3%)
26
(16%)
27
(17%)
65
(41%)
36
(23%)
1
(1%)
159
Female 63
13–15 (27%)
88
(38%)
34
(15%)
33
(14%)
9
(4%)
7
(3%)
234
Female 68
16–18 (19%)
123
(35%)
53
(15%)
81
(23%)
21
(6%)
10
(3%)
356
Female 16
adult
(6%)
(19+)
57
(22%)
33
(13%)
99
(38%)
52
(20%)
6
(2%)
263
Total
436
(29%)
239
(16%)
386
(26%)
169
(11%)
35
(2%)
1487
222
(15%)
Motivations
As the data presented in Table 20 shows, respondents were asked to select
the three reasons why they were motivated to send an sexual image or video.
While the perceptions data above suggests that people engage in sexting due
to pressure, ‘motivations’ responses suggested that pleasure or desire were
the driving motivations for those who actually engaged in the sending of
images. Respondents were asked to select the three reasons why they were
motivated to send a sexual image or video. We have disaggregated the
responses by age and gender.
This data suggest that teenage girls first and foremost sent images to be ‘fun
and flirty’, secondly ‘as a sexy present’, and thirdly to ‘feel sexy and confident’.
This was very closely followed by ‘because I received one’.
Teenage boys responses differed somewhat. They suggested firstly that they
were motivated to send an image or video again ‘to be fun and flirty’, secondly
‘because I received one’, and thirdly ‘as a sexy present’.
22 Pearson
χ2(25) = 204.81, p<.001.
37
Again there were also some statistically significant variations between groups
on particular items that warrant some discussion. Male and female adult
groups endorsed the item ‘as a sexy present for a boyfriend of girlfriend’
significantly more than their teen counterparts, although all groups endorsed
this in relative high numbers, Similarly, adults in both groups were more likely
to have chosen the popular overall response of being motivated ‘to be fun and
flirty’ than their teen counterparts. Female adults (28%) were more likely to
suggest that it made them ‘feel sexy and confident’ than other groups. Males
overall were more likely to report be motivated to send ‘because they received
one’, although this was a popular category for all groups. Adult males (15%)
were more likely than the other groups to nominate ‘to get noticed or show off’
as a motivation. While there were only 13% of both female teens and adult
females who endorsed the response that a ‘boyfriend of girlfriend pressured
them’, they did so significantly more than males of either category. Male teens
were less likely to suggest they were motivated to ‘get a girl or guy to like
them’ (5%) or ‘to get compliments’ (5%) than the other groups. Female teens,
though in small numbers (5%), were more likely than the other groups to be
motivated ‘to be included or fit in’. Female teens were more likely to nominate
‘I don’t know’ as a response than other groups – but in very small numbers.
38
Table 20: Why did you send a sexual picture/video of yourself?
Frequency Male
total
teen
Male
adult
Female
teen
Female
adult
χ2
p value
Get or keep a 194
guy’s/girl’s
attention
51a
(10%)
26b
(16%)
85b
(14%)
32a,
(12%)
Bf/gf
136
pressured me
to send it
19a
(4%)
4a
(3%)
77b
(13%)
36b
(13%)
42.49
0.00**
As a
present
bf/gf
83a
(16%)
57b
(35%)
112a
(18%)
109b
(40%)
80.26
0.00**
To feel sexy or 239
confident
45a
(9%)
29b
(18%)
90b
(15%)
75c
(28%)
50.17
0.00**
To
get
a 118
guy/girl to like
me
25a
(5%)
12a,
(7%)
b 56b
(9%)
25b
(9%)
8.44
0.04*
Pressure from 30
friends
7a
(1%)
1a
(1%)
19a
(3%)
3a
(1%)
7.67
0.05
To
get 130
compliments
25a
(5%)
18b
(11%)
53b
(9%)
34b
(13%)
16.03
0.00**
To
be 43
included/fit in
6a
(1%)
4a,
(3%)
2a
(1%)
20.86
0.00**
To
fun/flirty
119a
(23%)
60b
(37%)
132a
(21%)
86b
(32%)
23.50
0.00**
To get noticed 132
or show off
39a
(8%)
24b
(15%)
50a
(8%)
19a
(7%)
9.53
0.02*
Because
I 288
received one
116a
(23%)
46a
(28%)
86b
(14%)
40b
(15%)
26.99
0.00**
I don’t know
18a, b, c 2c
(4%)
(1%)
36b
(6%)
4a,
(2%)
c 13.92
0.00**
39a
35a
23a
sexy 361
for
be 397
60
Other (please 108
specify)
11a
b 31b
(5%)
b 5.87
0.12
2.32
0.51
*indicates significance at the p<.05 level
39
Feelings and Fall Out From Sexting
Respondents were asked to nominate which three reasons might discourage
them from sending sexts (see Table 21). Young males reported that the risk of
getting in trouble with the law was the primary factor that would discourage
them from sexting. While young females endorsed damage to their reputation
as their most popular choice, they also endorsed getting in trouble with the
law in high numbers. This suggests that young people are generally aware of
the laws around sexting and their capacity to fall foul of them. This response
contrasted significantly with the adult cohort, who are much less likely to be
criminalised under existing laws and therefore perhaps less concerned with
this as a risk.
For each age and gender cohort the notion that ‘I might regret it’ was also a
very popular reason not to engage in sexting. For adult females ‘potential
embarrassment’ of their behaviour being revealed to others was a strong
motivation not to sext, with 46% choosing it as one of their three options.
40
Table 21: What might discourage you from sending a sexual picture/video (of yourself)?
Frequency Male
total
teen
Male
adult
Female
teen
Female
adult
χ2
p value
Past
bad 180
experience
(10%)
48
(8%)
11
(6%)
93
(14%)
28
(9%)
18.79 <.001***
Disappoint
family
391
(22%)
149
(24%)
18
(9%)
197
(29%)
27
(9%)
70.42 <.001***
Disappoint
friends
72
(4%)
34
(5%)
4
(2%)
32
(5%)
2
(<1%)
14.92 .002**
Disappoint
teacher
19
(1%)
2
(<1%)
0
(0%)
17
(2.5%)
0
(0%)
22.36 <.001***
343
/ (19%)
153
(25%)
45
(23%)
105
(16%)
40
(13%)
25.61 <.001***
Hurt reputation 679
(38%)
199
(32%)
70
(36%)
275
(41%)
135
(45%)
18.87 <.001***
Hurt family’s 107
reputation
(6%)
31
(5%)
6
(3%)
56
(8%)
14
(5%)
11.56 .009**
Potential
554
trouble
with (31%)
law
236
(38%)
37
(19%)
244
(36%)
37
(12%)
84.28 <.001***
Potential
trouble
school
37
(6%)
2
(1%)
30
(5%)
1
(<1%)
21.81 <.001***
352
(20%)
88
(14%)
40
(21%)
140
(21%)
84
(28%)
26.11 <.001***
Potential
491
embarrassment (27%)
121
(19%)
73
(38%)
159
(24%)
138
(46%)
87.16 <.001***
Might regret it
179
(29%)
73
(38%)
197
(30%)
128
(43%)
23.75 <.001***
24
(4%)
7
(4%)
110
(16%)
28
(9%)
68.29 <.001***
Hurt
relationship
chances
70
at (4%)
Employer
might see
577
(32%)
Might
make 169
people
think (9%)
I’m slutty
41
I don’t know
45
(3%)
22
(4%)
10
(5%)
9
(1%)
4
(1%)
13.62 .003**
Other (please 142
specify)
(8%)
37
(6%)
18
(9%)
51
(8%)
36
(12%)
10.81 .01*
*indicates significance at the p<.05 level
**indicates significance at the p<.01 level
*** indicates significance at the p<.001 level
Sending Pictures to Third parties
When asked how strongly they agreed with the statement ‘personal
pictures/videos usually end up being seen by more than the people they were
sent to’, the vast majority of respondents believed that the images were
‘mostly’ seen by more people than they were sent to (see Table 22). This was
particularly the case with female teens, with around 84% agreeing or strongly
agreeing with the statement. As seen in Tables 21 and 22 (below), these
figures were at odds with what sexting participants tell us about how often
images are actually seen by third parties.
Table 22: Personal pictures/videos usually end up being seen by more than the people
they were sent to?23
Strongly
agree
Agree
Neither
agree
nor
disagree
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
Don’t
know
Total
Male teen
152
(32%)
205
(43%)
51
(11%)
44
(9%)
12
(3%)
11
(2%)
475
Male adult
41
(26%)
70
(44%)
23
(15%)
14
(9%)
8
(5%)
3
(2%)
159
Female teen
263
(45%)
234
(40%)
45
(7%)
31
(5%)
7
(1%)
10
(2%)
590
Female adult 81
(31%)
106
(40%)
40
(15%)
23
(8%)
3
(1%)
10
(4%)
263
Total
615
(41%)
159
(11%)
112
(8%)
30
(2%)
34
(2%)
1487
537
(36%)
As demonstrated in Table 23, of those respondents who had ever sent or
received an image or video, only a very small minority sent a picture on or
shared it digitally. As such, the perception that an image will be shown to a
23 Pearson
χ2(15) = 55.39, p<.001.
42
third party seems to significantly outstrip the reported risk of this occurring.
Table 23: Have you ever shared a sexual picture/video with someone who wasn’t meant to
see it (by age)
Shown
person
somebody
13–15
16–18
Adult
(19+)
χ2
p value
in 87
(20%)
153
(22%)
68
(16%)
7.83
.02*
23
(5%)
41
(6%)
16
(4%)
2.99
.22
or 26
(6%)
57
(8%)
18
(4%)
8.22
.02*
Shared online
Forwarded
email)
(MMS
*indicates significance at the p<.05 level
There were, however, some gender disparities in this practice, with males
being significantly more likely to forward on images than females, as indicated
in Table 24 (below).
Table 24: Have you ever shared a sexual picture/video with someone who wasn’t meant to
see it (by gender)
Male
Female
Total
χ2
Shown somebody in person
168
(25%)
138
(16%)
306
(20%)
21.96 <.001***
Shared online
44
(7%)
34
(4%)
78
(5%)
6.00
Forwarded (MMS or email)
59
(9%)
41
(5%)
100
(7%)
11.12 .001**
p value
.01*
*indicates significance at the p<.05 level
**indicates significance at the p<.01 level
*** indicates significance at the p<.001 level
Of those surveyed, 20% said they showed others the image/video in person.
Respondents who were married or in long-term relationships were least likely
to show somebody else, as seen in Table 25. For example, only 13% of those
in long-term relationships and 14% of those married said they had shown
another person images/videos they had received.
43
Table 8.25: Shown (in person) a sexual picture/video to someone who wasn't meant to see
it (by relationship status) 24
Not
in Just
Casual/
relationship started
dating
seeing
someone
Long-term
Married
relationship
Other
Total
148
(21%)
46
(13%)
15
(29%)
285
(20%)
30
(25%)
40
(29%)
6
(14%)
Legal Consequences
The survey also captured data on respondents’ understandings of the
seriousness with which the Australian legal system was dealing with sexting,
particularly sexting between young people. Respondents were asked to
choose what they believed were the most serious consequences that could
result from a particular scenario (see Table 26). Specifically, they were asked:
A 16 year old guy takes a nude picture of his 15 year old girlfriend and
sends it to his school mate. What do you think is the most serious thing
that could happen to the 16 year old guy?
69% of the sample selected the most correct answer, that ‘he could be
charged with child pornography offences and placed on a sex offenders
register’, while another 18% chose the second most likely consequence, that
‘he could be charged with child pornography offences’. These responses
indicated that respondents were generally cognisant of the possible
consequences of sending explicit images in this particular scenario.
Table 8.26: What do you think is the most serious thing that could happen (consequences
of sexting between teenagers)?25
Male teen
Male
adult
Female Female Total
teen
adult
Nothing
6
(1%)
2
(1%)
4
(<1%)
1
(<1%)
13
(<1%)
Suspended from school
4
(<1%)
2
(1%)
15
(2%)
7
(3%)
28
(2%)
Formal police caution
18
(4%)
15
(9%)
26
(4%)
14
(5%)
73
(5%)
χ2(5) = 23.31, p<.001.
25 Pearson χ2(21) = 41.97, p=.004.
24 Pearson
44
Police could force to remove 7
social media page
(1%)
0
(0%)
1
(<1%)
3
(1%)
27
(2%)
Could be charged with child 95
pornography
(19%)
27
(17%)
108
(18%)
56
(20%)
286
(18%)
Could be charged with child 353
pornography and placed on sex (69%)
offenders register
114
(70%)
431
(70%)
178
(66%)
1076
(69%)
Could face life in prison
16
(3%)
0
(0%)
13
(2%)
6
(2%)
35
(2%)
Other
15
(3%)
3
(2%)
3
(<1%)
4
(2%)
25
(2%)
Focus Groups
A total of 54 young people participated in the eight focus groups. 34 were
female and 20 male. All were aged between 18 and 20. Although these
participants came from a cross-section of backgrounds in relation to class
and ethnicity, all were either students at university or TAFE.
Information Technologies, Risk, Sexting Definitions and Terminology
The focus groups revealed that information technologies play a very important
role in the lives of the young women and men who participated in these
groups. Whether exploring their sexuality, seeking general education,
socialising, meeting potential sexual partners or maintaining existing
relationships, the Internet and social networking platforms have become sites
where young people congregate, hang out, explore and learn. Sexual content
in the digital world, as one participant noted, is ‘uncensored and everywhere.
It’s so casualised’ (Female, UWS FG2). This was exemplified by another
participant, who explained that in Holland, for example, Facebook is called
‘Flacebook… Flace in Dutch means meat, so like Meatbook because
everybody’s putting pictures up like that’ (Female, USyd FG3).
Focus group participants highlighted the importance of the Internet and social
media in sustaining long-distance relationships between intimate partners. At
the same time, online interactions between potential or actual partners were
seen as having the power to:
‘make it or break it. So much drama happens online, so many
relationships have been destroyed that I’ve seen, just from social media.
It’s sad’ (Female, USyd FG3).
45
Interestingly, the role of social media was not only significant in
sustaining/deconstructing terrestrial relationships; it also served to validate,
making terrestrial relationships ‘official’:
‘[W]hen I was dating with my boyfriend and we weren’t officially together,
it was like everybody knew but it was not official, and then they say yeah
you should put it on Facebook then it’s official. So it’s official only when I
put it on Facebook first.’ (Female, USyd FG3)
As another participant explained:
‘If it’s on Facebook that means it’s official… There are some people that
I know that are going out but they don’t necessarily post it on Facebook
and make it official so that’s on their privacy terms. And I think good on
you for doing that, because you don’t need everyone to know unless you
want them to know what their relationship status is.’ (Female, TAFE FG)
Minimising risks while online was considered an important task that many
young people devoted much of their time towards. As noted by one
participant, the online world is a ‘memory in a digital format’ that ‘cannot be
forgotten’ (Female, UWS FG2), warranting such interventions. Indeed,
according to participants, young people often engage in thorough selfcensoring:
‘I’m not going to put photos of me disgustingly off my face from last
Saturday night on Facebook. That can stay private. You only put out
what you feel comfortable people seeing and consider the
consequences of where the photos end up.’ (Male, UWS FG1)
In this way, a carefully managed social media presence was often motivated
by the concern that a potential employer might be checking a young person’s
digital identity. In order to avoid the risk of being discredited, some young
people changed their name/identity on Facebook, or avoided posting updates
on their Facebook timeline. As one focus group participant noted, ‘I just
consider anything on Facebook is no longer private. If you want to message
someone’s Inbox, that’s private. Anything else is not’ (Male, TAFE FG).
The issues of surveillance and invasion of privacy in a cyber-world were also
debated in focus groups26. While some participants agreed that an invasion of
privacy might be necessary depending on the job you were applying for
(Female, USyd FG3), surveillance by other agents (such as school teachers)
was assessed as ‘a bit much, it’s really none of your business’ (Female, USyd
FG3). Similarly, cyber-stalking was not something that was taken lightly by
participants. As one female commented:
‘… I get random notifications from people liking all the photos [on
Instagram] and think okay they’re stalking me. You can tell because
26
One notable testimony relates to requests to potential employees to log into their Facebook
account during job interviews (Male, USyd FG3).
46
they’re looking through all of them. A photo that has been there for two
months or so, you think okay they’re just looking at my profile now. You
sense a bit of stalking happening.’ (Female, TAFE FG)
When it came to sexting, participants were also cognisant of the role that
technology and social media played in this space. Focus group responses
indicated that young people predominantly defined sexting as ‘nudes’ (Male,
TAFE FG), ‘sexually explicit images over the phone or explicit texts’ (Male,
UWS FG2), ‘inappropriate texting’ (Female, USyd, FG2), ‘makeshift porn’
(Female, UWS FG2), ‘attention whoring’ (Female, UWS FG2) and ‘dirty talk’
(Female, USyd FG2).
Interestingly, the term sexting itself was rarely used by the young people to
describe the practice; they were ‘pretty much taught that it was called sexting’
(Female, UWS FG2). Despite this, participants were familiar with the term
‘sext’ and used it in their interactions with peers (Male, UWS FG2). While
young people who participated in focus groups conceptualised sexts as both
visual and textual messages27, they also acknowledged that the development
in phone technology (especially in relation to high-resolution pictures and
video capabilities) and affordability of photo sharing services was linked to the
increase in sexting behaviours (Male, UWS FG2; Male, TAFE FG).
Focus groups also revealed that young people’s understanding of, and
knowledge about, sexting was heavily related to high school curriculums and
educational campaigns about sexting, particularly those provided in schools
by law enforcement and government agencies. The key message that
participants took from these campaigns was ‘generally not to do it, in the
event that it does lead into someone else’s hands, and in case it does get
misconstrued. So basically be on your guard more or less’ (Male, UWS FG2).
Participants reported that such educational campaigns were typically based
on ‘extreme [case studies and examples], because we were at that age and
[educators] didn’t want us to get into the whole sexting thing’ (Female, UWS
FG2). Participants reported that in some schools ‘teachers were really grilling
students… you can get in serious trouble. … teachers were very adamant on
[boys] not having any possession of pictures. It was pretty serious at my
school’ (Female, USyd FG3).
Unsurprisingly, news reporting and media content also impacted on
participants’ understandings and conceptualisations of sexting. The role of the
tabloid and teenage-content media was seen as especially pivotal in emitting
(often gendered) warnings about perils of sexting. As one participant
explained:
‘The first time I heard the term sexting was through a newspaper article
about the rise in teenage girls taking part in sexting to their boyfriends. It
was in the Daily Telegraph, so that was the first time I’d heard of it.’
(Female, UWS FG2)
As one focus group participant indicated, sexting includes ‘very descriptive texting’
(Female, TAFE FG).
27
47
Similarly, this participant was alerted to sexting through popular forms of teen
media:
‘[T]he first time I ever read the word sexting was in Dolly magazine and
then in recent years I’ve just been reading lots of articles about it, online,
about kids at high schools who have had to transfer because of bullying,
that was initiated from sexting.’ (Female, UWS, FG2)
While most of the focus group participants acknowledged that sexting was
prevalent among their peers, they pinpointed the role of the media in creating
the ‘sexting problem’ (Male, UWS FG2). For some, media focus on the issue
of sexting was potentially a catalyst for some young people’s engagement in
the practice:
‘… 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. So
instead of seeing it and being oh that’s obviously really bad, it gave them
the idea to go out and do it.’ (Female, USyd, FG4)
Sexting Practices, Gender and Pressures
Young people’s responses indicate their awareness of the complexities of
sexting practices, and the impact sexting might have on participants, their
families and society more broadly.
When discussing motivations for sexting behaviour, focus groups participants
identified a wide range of incentives for sending sexts, ranging from boredom
and naiveté, to attention seeking and explorations of sexuality. For some,
sexting in a ‘loving relationship’ was considered desirable, as ‘sex can be a
very personal thing for most people’ (Female, UWS FG2). Sexting was also
seen to play a very important role in maintaining long-distance relationships
(Male, UWS, FG3), and in that context sexting was viewed as an extension of
a loving, committed relationship. For some young women, sexting their
boyfriends was a way that they could ‘visualise them, rather than I don’t know,
girls in Playboy or whatever’ (Female, USyd FG3). Importantly, as one
participant explained:
‘[F]or a woman it’s this really personal thing to reveal herself to a man in
this private setting and on that basis of that devotion, yes you can have
it, it’s like a gift.’ (Female, USyd, FG2)
Another, relating a friends’ story, stated:
‘She thought it was this loving thing, like a gift, she was enabling his
sexuality and making sure it was directed towards her.’ (Female, USyd,
FG2)
For focus group participants, sexting whilst in a relationship was clearly
different from non-relationship sexting practices. Similarly, gender differences
48
were expressed as deriving from distinctive motivations for sexting.
Experimenting with sexting was seen as peer acceptable behaviour for young
men but not for women, as they were expected to protect their modesty. In
other words there was seen to be a gendered double standard to acceptable
sexting. As one focus group participant pointed out, sexting is ‘a normal part
of being young and growing up just to joke around in that kind of way.
Especially for guys more so than girls’ (Male, UWS FG2). When asked to
elaborate on why male and female sexting practices might be seen differently,
one respondent explained that young men often use sexts as a joke and send
them to their male friends, ‘saying I want to rape you or something really foul,
but it’s funny because it’s so foul and wrong’ (Male, UWS FG2). Focus group
participants also claimed that men tended to send sexts for attention,
especially gym and bathroom selfies (Male, TAFE FG). Young women, on the
other hand, according to one participant ‘are expected to be modest and not
prancing around with their bare legs and cleavage popping out and whatnot’
(Female, UWS FG2). Yet, young women do send sexts ‘out of like courtesy
pretty much’ (Female, TAFE FG).
Peer pressure was also identified as an important incentive to be involved in
the erotic digital economy. Some focus group participants acknowledged that
such pressures apply to both girls and boys, as often ‘they’re too quick to trust
the other partner’ (Female, UWS FG2). A majority, however, agreed that peer
pressure to sext applies more to young women. As one participant explained,
‘[g]irls do eventually get bullied for showing themselves to people on the
Internet’ (Female, UWS FG2). Such pressure was seen as especially
pronounced if the young woman in question is dating ‘an older guy’:
‘I think it’s pressure from a partner, like if a girl is going out with an older
guy and he says I want to see your titties, she’ll think to herself – like if
she’s really young like 14 or something – she’ll think oh well he’s my first
boyfriend and if I don’t do it for him he’s going to break up with me, so
they get pressured into it.’ (Female, UWS FG2)
The status of a relationship was seen as particularly important in terms of
motivations for sexting. Participants saw non-relationship sexting as being
linked to a lack of self-confidence, particularly among young women:
‘I think it’s self-confidence… Can I see your tits? Oh crap, my tits aren’t
that good. Should I do it, should I do it? And they go around asking, and
their friends being silly, as they are, say you should show him your tits. If
you’re insecure while you’re doing it, it’s more likely to pop up in the
future, and you become more and more pressured by people going wow
you were such a slut.’ (Female, UWS FG2)
As another participant explained:
‘[Girls are], especially at high school, at a vulnerable stage in their life,
their self-esteem is very based on what other guys think of them, so I
think a lot of the time it’s that pretty much trying to impress them, trying
to feel good about themselves.’ (Female, USyd FG3)
49
While seen as more significant for girls, the link between a lack of selfconfidence and sexting for boys was also reported in focus groups, with one
respondent suggesting that boys often question ‘how should a real man look,
what’s an ideal man. How do I get girls, am I good looking enough’ (Female,
UWS FG2).
Trusting a person not to circulate or abuse sexts was seen in focus groups as
the foundation that underpins much of the sexting behavior engaged in by
young people:
‘I probably just have a bit more faith in the youth today than I should be
having. It’s more some of them know that if you send an image, that
image is there forever. It doesn’t matter if you’re sending it phone to
phone or phone to internet, if you send it and you break up, and the
other person wants petty revenge, all it takes is one click and they’re
done.’ (Female, UWS FG2)
Occasionally, however, this trust is breached and sexts are distributed, often
for revenge. As one participant explained:
‘I’m thinking of more relationship problems when you got dumped… and
you are thinking why are you doing this to me, even though I’m being a
horrible person to you. I’ll get you back even worse. I’ll post up all your
private information, your personal stories that were meant for me only
and have everyone laugh at you. So it’s kind of petty revenge, but it can
end in something very serious. The other person committing suicide, or
you get sent to gaol.’ (Female, UWS FG2)
Beyond this, however, focus group participants reported that distributing sexts
could also have a different purpose, including for popularity and gaining
attention among young men’s mates (Male and Female, USyd FG3) - a ‘look
how hot my girlfriend is’ type of behaviour (Female, USyd FG3). Regardless
of motivation, focus group participants were acutely aware that the
consequences of sexting were many and serious.
Impact and Consequences of Sexting
The focus groups findings confirmed the notion that sexting practices are
considered to be more harmful when they involve minors and are held to a
higher account than sexting involving adults. While focus group participants
reinforced the notion that sexting among adults was perceived as safe and
acceptable behaviour (Weisskirch & Delevi 2011), they reported that alarm
bells amongst policy makers and in general public start to ring when
teenagers engage in sexting practice. In this context, disparities between
sexting in adult relationships, sexting among teenagers of approximately
same age and sexting between adults and teens was emphasised by many of
the young people who participated in the focus groups.
50
Differences too were distinguished between the types of exchanges that
occurred. Text messages, for example, were seen as less harmful than photo
messages. Focus group participants were quick to identify the potential for
ongoing, permanent harm as a consequence of image-based sexting:
‘[Sexting] can add to insecurities. Sure if you don’t get caught then fine,
whatever [is] good for you. But you’d be thinking pretty much every day,
what if we break up tomorrow, is he going to post it on Facebook or
something like that.’ (Female, UWS FG2)
‘I think it can be humiliating because a girl sent a picture of herself naked
to her boyfriend and then he uploaded it onto Facebook when they broke
up, ‘cause it kind of sticks around forever once you send a text or an
image.’ (Female, USyd FG3)
While focus groups participants argued that there were some platforms that
could be identified as potentially ‘more safe’ for exploring sexuality than
others, they admitted that there was no such thing as safe sexting practice,
echoing many of the educational campaigns against the practice:
‘I think regardless of what media they use, I think they forget that
anything can be – like even Skype they can record any chats that you
have just for monitoring the quality of stuff and it might come up as some
kids flashing and stuff.’ (Female, UWS FG2)
‘You should just be aware when you take those photos that there’s a
possibility of everyone in the world seeing them, and if you’re not willing
to accept that then you should never do them.’ (Female, USyd, FG2)
The negative repercussions of sexting were the reason why some (mostly
female) focus group participants decided not to engage in phone-sexting
behaviour. As one explained:
‘I think it’s a really bad idea to do it because you don’t know who they’re
showing it to and you don’t know who’s going to see it these days, they
could show it to whoever they want.’ (Female, USyd, FG2)
Such concerns were seen as the driving motivation behind young peoples’
decision to use alternative social network websites (Grahl 2014) for sexting
(such as Reddit or Skype) under the (typically incorrect) assumption that
anonymity and privacy would be assured.
Sexting practices, thus, were seen by focus group participants as not simply
limited to mobile phones (phone-to-phone) or traditional social networking
websites (phone-to-internet; Facebook and Instagram). As explained by one
focus group participant, alternative platforms were ‘non-relative because
typically those photos would be shared around way too many times for normal
people to go back to the source of it’ (Female, UWS FG2). At the same time,
participants reported that Facebook and other traditional social networking
websites were increasingly being avoided and/or not used for sexually explicit
51
purposes. Innovative opportunities for sexting practices instead flourished
through platforms such as ‘Deviant Art’, a site ‘where artists and art lovers can
meet up and artists can post their artworks and then people can comment on
it’ (Female, UWS FG2). However, young people who participated in focus
groups were also familiar with the risks associated these and other new online
file-sharing forums 28 , arguing that such websites have ‘a lot of implied
paedophilia … and child pornography’ (Female, UWS FG2) due to the open
nature of access.
Focus groups participants were also familiar with instances when sexting
practices resulted in expulsions from school, missing out on a job, criminal
justice implications and suicide. Here too, gender was also reported to play an
important role:
‘I don’t know why it’s always girls that gets looked down on. If a girl
sends a nude picture of herself, of say her breasts to her boyfriend, with
both parties consenting and they break up and the boyfriend releases
that picture online or something along the lines, the girl is seen as
attention whoring, as in she’s begging for attention, when she’s saying
no I don’t want this, this is between me and my ex not online, kind of
thing.’ (Female, UWS FG2)
‘I think even for me like I hate it, but what I think about it is gosh, you
know Jessie took a picture of herself and she sent it to him, she was
willing to take naked pictures of herself and give it to this guy, gosh, how
could she do that. But what I should be thinking is oh my gosh, so this
guy got broken up with, and he decided to ruin this girl’s life by sending
these around.’ (Female, USyd, FG2)
However, some participants pointed out that hierarchy in terms of popularity
of young girls and boys at school plays an important role when it comes to
sexting consequences:
‘[I]t depends on who you are. If it was me that sent it in high school I’d
probably have the shit kicked out of me by someone. But because this
guy was also up there, nothing happened to him, it was just like oh yeah
sick man!’ (Male, TAFE FG)
While most of the cases focus group participants described resulted in
consequences relevant to young people’s education (such as expulsion from
or moving schools), suicide 29 and punishment through the criminal justice
system were also identified as the most damaging potential consequences of
sexting.
Such as R-Creepshots, a sub-forum of Reddit ‘where redditors share suggestive photos of
women taken publicly and without their consent’ (Alfonso 2014).
29
Some focus groups participants argue that incidents of suicide are more prevalent in LGBT
teens (Female, USyd, FG1).
28
52
On Crimes – Inciting Sexting and the Distribution of Sexts
One element of the focus group sessions involved participants being asked to
reflect on particular sexting case studies, in order to draw out their
perspectives on the link between sexting, age and gender. The first case
study related to the case of Damien Eades in which Eades – a 20 year old
male – sent a nude photo of himself to a 13 year old girl he had just met; he
then invited her to do the same, which she eventually did, after several text
message exchanges. After her parents found out about this, they reported
Eades to police. He was charged with incitement of a person under 16 to
commit an act of indecency and possession of child pornography. Focus
groups participants stressed two important starting points in the debate:
firstly, that one of the participants was under age of consent, and secondly,
that there was also a significant age gap between the two parties. As Temple
et al. (2012, p. 6) have argued:
‘while juvenile-to-juvenile sexting may come to be understood as part of
adolescents’ repertoire of sexual behaviors, this understanding should
not be applied to sexting between teens and adults’.
The views of focus group participants echoed this notion. The majority of
focus groups participants identified the age gap as too excessive; they had
trouble understanding ‘why an 18 year old would be texting a 13 year old’
(Female, USyd, FG2). As one participant reflected:
‘[T]hinking an 18 year old approaching a 13 year old, you’re thinking –
you would say why do you think – like do you not have a life, you have
your own age friends, why would you go for a 13 year old sort of thing’
(Female, TAFE FG).
Moral transgressions of adult-to-teen sexting were emphasised along the
lines that young adults should not engage in (real-life or virtual) sexual
exchanges with prepubescent or pubescent teenagers. The power imbalance
generated by the age difference, according to focus group participants,
makes these cases similar to child sexual abuse. According to focus group
participants, such transgressions in sexting should invoke strong moral
condemnation, similar to the condemnation child sexual abuse evokes.
Furthermore, participants also believed there should be social and criminal
accountability. As an adult, Eades was expected to act maturely; his request
for nude photos was a negation of that, for which he was perceived as solely
responsible, according to those in the focus groups.
The issue of consent in sexting, or more precisely – one’s capacity to give
consent – was identified as central to the moral and social appropriateness of
sexting behaviour. Focus group participants acknowledged that in the case of
Damien Eades there was no possibility for an underage person to actually
give consent. Yet, while the majority of participants in focus groups argued
that consent was impossible and that Eades was ‘an idiot’ who ‘should have
known she was underage’ (Female, UWS FG3), they later acknowledged the
53
potential difficulties in establishing a person’s age, especially in this case,
where their acquaintance was recent.
Harmful consequences of sexting were especially highlighted in the context of
non-consensual distribution of sexts (Walker et al. 2011; McLaughlin 2010).
The second case study examined in focus groups related to two 17 year olds
in a relationship who took several pictures while having sex. After the breakup the male distributed the pictures to his friends. The girl found out and
reported the case to police. Although the pictures had been deleted, the male
was charged with making and transmitting child pornography. The key
observation that emerged from focus groups debating this second case study
was that the sexting participants demonstrated a lack of understanding of the
complexities sexting practices between consenting teens bring to both the
legal and social milieu. As one participant pointed out:
‘I don’t get why children are charged for child pornography. I thought the
whole idea of child pornography was like children being exploited in this
power play with an adult and maybe it was a teacher or an employer or
something, but when it’s like oh we were both 17, it was a pretty stupid
thing to do it’s not like he’s exploiting a child, he was a child.’ (Female,
USyd, FG2)
While Eades’ case was immediately linked to narratives around sexual
predation and exploitation, the language participants in focus groups used to
describe offenders in the second case study was dramatically different; they
mostly talked about ‘immature’ (Male, TAFE FG) and ‘intrusive’ behaviour
(Female, TAFE FG), not criminality. The age of those involved in sexting was
again identified as an important starting point in the debate. As one focus
group participant noted, in this case both actors ‘were legally allowed to have
sex’ (Male, USyd FG4), thus removing many of the moral transgressions
identified in Damien Eades’ case.
Privacy violations when sexts go ‘viral’, and the breaking of trust that is
supposed to be the basis of intimate relationships are comprehensively
explored in sexting literature (see, for example, Arcabascio 2010; Walker et
al. 2011). Focus groups participants confirmed such violations have to be
considered when debating the moral and social wrongdoings of sexters.
Participants argued that, while in the second case study the sex was indeed
consensual, the girl did not consent to pictures of that act being sent to
others. Although they called the offender ‘a creep’ (Male, USyd FG2), focus
group participants acknowledged the importance of the fact that he tried to
get rid of images and that the young woman was not identifiable in the
photos. This led participants to conclude that the harm caused by the
distribution of the photos in this case was minimal, and that the wrongdoer
redeemed himself by trying to rectify the consequences of his actions. In line
with the Damien Eades’ case, and parallel to feminist debates on
pornography (Hayward 2012), the young woman’s willing participation in
creating the sex tapes/sexts was scrutinised; as one male participant
commented, it did not ‘speak very highly of her character’ (Male, USyd FG4).
54
On Punishment – Morals, Age and Gender in the Production and
Distribution of Sexts
The age disparity between sexting parties and the power imbalance
generated by such disparities guided focus group participants’ thinking on the
appropriate punishment in the case of Damien Eades. An extreme response
came from a small group of young people in two focus groups who argued
that Eades was a paedophile who ‘could grow into... something [more
sinister]’ (Male, TAFE FG). This group of focus groups participants perceived
Eades as a sexual ‘predator’ (Female, USyd FG2), regardless of the fact that
the photo in question was not obtained by force or deception, and had not
been distributed. Given this, focus group participants felt the criminal justice
response needed to be severe.
A majority of participants acknowledged that, while some form of punishment
was needed, Eades’ behaviour did not warrant a prison sentence.
Punishment was perceived as necessary in order to eliminate the risk of
future transgressions and to send a message to other potential offenders - to
achieve both general and specific deterrence. Yet, similar to educational
campaigns that aim to deter young people from sexting, the outcome of such
interventions is dubious. As Day (2010, p. 8) points out, ‘[a]lthough the threat
of criminal sanctions is considered a strong deterrent, its deterrent effect on
kids is minimal, if nil’. Similarly, some focus groups participants maintained
that appropriate punishment should relate to the notion of harm – the
detrimental consequences the sexting had on the female victim (Female,
UWS FG3). Arguing that harm caused by Eades is negligible, majority of
participants called for application of non-custodial sentences. By claiming that
‘if he gets some help hopefully he'll get straightened out’ (Male, TAFE FG),
they identified ‘counselling or something [similar]’ (Male, TAFE FG),
community service (Male, USyd FG3; Female, UWS FG2) or restorative
justice as more appropriate interventions in such cases.
Many sexters find themselves on a sex offenders’ register (see also Ostrager
2010; Richards & Calvert 2009). This issue polarised the participants in
discussing this case; some argued that participants should be put on sex
offenders’ registers if they distribute or unwillingly take images of someone
else, or when the age difference is too excessive. The age difference was,
yet again, identified as a key ingredient that needs to be taken into
consideration when debating penalty for sexting. When asked whether the
punishment would be different in a scenario where participants are teenagers
of a similar age, focus groups participants indicated that if distribution of
images does not occur neither side should be punished (Female, UWS FG3).
At the same time, while Eades was predominantly identified as a sole
wrongdoer, several focus groups participants indicated that a young girl in the
case study should also bear some responsibility as she ‘was edging him on…
she was reciprocating it… not trying to avoid him at all costs, even though of
course she was under 16’ (Male, UWS FG2).
55
Similar to findings by Ringrose et al. (2013), the inherent responsibility for
sexting is located within the body in the image, rather than in the act of
pressure to sext. The consequences for violation of ‘age appropriate’ sexual
expression (Ringrose et al. 2013) in the case of Damien Eades, as suggested
by one female focus groups participant, could be criminal charges against
young woman in question. A more common standpoint, however, was that
she ought to participate in education programs that would teach her that girls
of her age should not engage in sexting with adults. Young woman’s age
was, nevertheless, a mitigating factor as she ‘might not have known that it’s
illegal because she’s so young. It might have just been the fact that she
wanted to be cool’ (Female, UWS FG3). In this context some female
participants identified the notion of young girls exploring their sexuality via
sexting as important when discussing the case. Sexual awakening and a
changing notion of privacy for Generation Y are identified as potential drivers
behind sexting behaviour, especially for young girls.
Media analysis
Over 2000 articles relating to sexting were identified for the study period of
2002-201330. As Table 25 and Figure 1 below demonstrate, sexting-related
articles were first published in the Australian and New Zealand media in 2002,
with a rapid increase in the number of articles being published from 2009
onwards, when concerns over young peoples’ sexting practices began to take
hold in media discourse.
Media interest in sexting was shown as been primarily confined to the print
media, with the number of articles published in newspapers far outweighing
other media formats identified by the ProQuest database.
Table 25 Number of Sexting Articles By Year and Media Source
Media Type
and
Year
Newspapers
Wire Feeds
Other Sources
TOTAL
2002
2
0
0
2
2003
4
0
0
4
2004
13
0
0
13
2005
35
0
0
35
2006
12
0
1
13
2007
25
1
0
26
30
The research time from of 2002-2013 was established after Proquest data searches
determined no relevant term matches before 2002
56
2008
10
1
0
11
2009
171
21
2
194
2010
198
22
1
221
2011
406
26
3
435
2012
433
27
1
461
2013
579
45
9
633
Total
1888
143
17
2048
Figure 1 Number of Sexting Related Articles by Year
700
600
500
400
Other Sources
300
Wire Feeds
Newspaper
200
100
0
The Emergence of Sexting
Analysis of media items found that while the issue of sexting, initially termed
sex texting, first came to media attention in 2002 and 2003, specifically in
relation to Australian cricketer Shane Warne, the term sexting itself did not
enter media lexicon until 2005. Cited in an article published in The Daily
Telegraph, Sydney, on July 2nd (James 2005, p. 87), Shane Warne’s alleged
mobile phone activities were the focus of attention and served to provide the
57
first example of the use of the term sexting in the Australian media. Reflecting
on Warne’s actions, James’ (2005, p. 87) article stated:
A telling aspect of his sexual farragos is the use of his mobile for sexting
(texting).
Although "kiss and sell" newspaper accounts must always be treated
with caution, there is a suspiciously similar theme to the sexts.
Three women, from different continents, have accused him of harassing
them with unwanted calls or sexts. In one case, he was alleged to have
performed a sex act during a call to her answerphone. Another claimed
the sexts "made my flesh creep".
Despite use of the term sexting, the article did not refer to the use of images
in relation to the practice. This contrasts with current day understandings of
the term sexting, which primarily refer to nude or semi nude, sexual images.
By 2007, however, media reports painted a different picture on the practice of
‘sex texts’, or ‘sexts’, with increasing numbers of articles referring to the
sending and receiving of nude and sexual images and photographs via mobile
phone. Interestingly, one of the first articles to connect sexting with the
sending of nude or semi nude images related to a Northern Territory police
officer, who was demoted after:
…he was caught sending a nude picture of himself -- via mobile phone -to a junior female colleague in December. The woman lodged an official
complaint against the Darwin-based officer (Anonymous, Sunday
Territorian, September 2 2007, p. 2).
By 2008, the term sexting was being used to describe such sexual images
and their dissemination, resurrecting the term that was first used in 2005 to
describe Shane Warne’s alleged text-based ‘sexts’.
Defining Sexting
As well as introducing the term sexting into everyday vernacular, the media
have also played an important role in shaping definitions of the term sexting.
By 2008 the tone and focus of articles on sexting shifted significantly. While,
for the most part, articles between 2002 and 2007 tended to report on the
alleged celebrity sexting scandals of high profile sportsmen, from 2008
onwards an increasing number of stories linked sexting with cases of
workplace harassment (Cann 2008: 32) and young peoples’ sexting practices.
Findings from a Western Australian survey in 2008 on cyberbullying in
particular appeared to prompt a surge in reporting on young people and
sexting, conflating the practice with broader concerns around cyberbullying
that were taking hold at the time (Pritchard 2008). As sexting moved from the
focus of salacious celebrity gossip pieces to an increasingly ‘mainstream’
issue that could affect the broader population, the media made a more active
attempt at defining the practice for audiences. Early media definitions of
sexting included:
58
The new trend of "sexting" - in which explicit photos of oneself are
forwarded to friends or potential partners (Porter 2008: 18)
Sexting involves taking or sending an explicit photo of oneself and
forwarding it to friends or potential suitors (Battersby 2008: 3).
As the media focus on sexting increased, so too did attempts at defining the
practice, and those engaging in the practice. Gender and age began to
feature prominently in media definitions, and it is here where the media made
explicit the narrative of the young female protagonist and the male (exboyfriend, ex-partner) antagonist; that is, young women were defined as the
producers and senders of sexts, while (young) men were portrayed as the
recipients of sexts. For example:
…“sexting", [is a practice] in which a girl records her sexual activities on
a mobile phone and sends it to her boyfriend, who then sends it to his
friends… (Pritchard 2008)
Last year, a year 10 girl from a private school in Mentone texted nude
photos of herself to her boyfriend that quickly spread to his friends and
beyond. The practice, which police say is becoming more prevalent
among adolescent girls, has been dubbed "sexting" (Farrer 2008: 11).
In this way, over the space of just a few years, the media framed the issue of
sexting as one in which young girls were the central players; that is, girls were
engaging in sexting at the request of boys and men. While initially framed as a
practice engaged in by adults, shifting concerns about the involvement of
young people in sexting saw definitions increasingly refer to the age – either
explicitly or implicitly – of those engaging in the practice.
Framing Sexting
A number of themes emerged in the media analysis in relation to sexting and
the way in which the practice was framed. These included defining the
practice as harmful, establishing causes or reasons for its occurrence, primary
definers (experts pronouncing on the topic), and the responses to or
recommendations on what to do about the sexting ‘problem’. These are
addressed below.
Harm
Overwhelmingly, when harm was discussed in the media in relation to young
people sexting, the most common harm identified was the risk of prosecution
or criminal charges, accompanied frequently by reference to the risk of being
placed on a sex offender’s register. For example:
… children risk being stuck on the sex offenders register if found with a
naked or overtly sexual image of a person under 18.
59
Australian Federal Police agent James Braithwaite said the images were
considered child pornography.
He said the law was developed to target serial paedophiles but "it can
also capture young people -- like a boyfriend and girlfriend -- sending
images to each other. (Turner 2012: 5)
Other common harms cited across the sample were reputation, future career
prospects and future relationship prospects, as well as the amorphous
warnings that the image is permanent and out of the individuals control once it
goes online:
…"Obviously, things that are posted on the internet are there forever,"
[Senior Sergeant Wilson] said. "We don't really put much thought into it
now, but this can affect people's lives, their reputations, their careers."
(Hobsons Bay Weekly 2012: 6)
The risk of the image ending up in the hands of paedophiles was also
increasingly cited as harm:
Tens of thousands of explicit self-portraits taken by teenagers are
finishing up on websites looked at by pedophiles.
The naked or sexual pictures are often taken by girls at the request of
boys in their classes and sent by mobile phone, in a practice known as
"sexting".
But unbeknown to the girls, these photographs may end up being
passed around the school and even shared on social networking sites
such as Facebook - then stolen and published on websites used by
pedophiles (The Courier Mail 2013).
Overall, sexting was framed as a harmful practice, with long lasting
consequences that may impact on young people well into their future, with
disastrous outcomes.
Causes
The vast majority of articles that depicted the harms of sexting as being the
risk of prosecution tended to cite ignorance of the law as the cause of, or at
least an excuse for, the practice. Such articles suggested that if adolescents
knew the law they would cease to sext. An increasing number of the sample
also cited legal ambiguities or inconsistencies around legal responses to
sexting, particularly with regards to the age of consent, as being a concern
around the issue.
Of the articles that portrayed sexting as more generally harmful, the most
common explanation given was technology itself, the pornification of society
and raunch culture, and the psychological immaturity of young people. The
60
introduction of mobile phone apps such as Snapchat, for example, were
overwhelmingly discussed in negative terms, with media reports citing
concerns that such applications may lead young people to think they can sext
without consequences. For example:
Police say social media apps and websites such as Facebook,
Instagram and Snapchat are of particular concern, with many young
people wrongly believing they could permanently delete their racy
pictures (Pearson 2013: 1)
Some commentators linked young peoples’ sexting to a more general
pornification of society; that is, “little girls being too sexy too soon, children
being pressured to look and act much older than they actually were”
(Tankard- Reist cited in Hills 2012: 12). Integral to such arguments were
claims that young people were not mature enough to understand the longterm impacts of sexting. As child psychologist Michael Carr-Greg, a key
commentator on children and technology in the media, wrote:
…technology also brings challenges in the form of cyberbullying,
sexting, malware and scams. We have created the perfect digital storm.
We have brought together an immature teenage brain and a technology
that is in the moment and of the moment (Carr-Gregg, 2012: 11).
These themes were reasonably consistent across the period of analysis and
correlated with more general (moral) panics about the vulnerability of young
people to the risks of sexting. The overwhelming message being
communicated in media discourses was that young people do not understand
that sexting is harmful and that they need protection from themselves as
much as they need protection from others when it comes to cybersafety.
Key Stakeholders, Experts and Primary Definers in the Media
The analysis of media reports indicated that there was a clear process of
issue-claiming around sexting during the period of analysis. While early media
reports of sexting provided little in-depth analysis of the issue, presumably
due to a focus on celebrity sexters, once young people entered the picture
experts were sought out by the media to provide comment on the issue,
becoming primary definers of the subject (Hall et al 1978).
The most commonly cited experts in the sample analysed were the police,
who not only provided expert opinion on sexting, particularly from a legal
context, but were also often referred to with regards to their involvement in
school education campaigns around sexting. After the police, the next most
referenced definers in the media were the developers of government
programs and curricula designed for schools.
While these two groups were often held up as experts, teachers and parents
themselves were often depicted as lost and unable to respond to the
‘problem’. As such, police and education experts were often positioned as
advisers in such media pieces, providing information and guidance to parents
61
about how they should approach and deal with the issue of sexting,
specifically, and cyberbullying more generally. This was evident in a number
of articles that provided handy ‘tips’ for parents in dealing with their teens,
such as the following example, which advised parents to:
-
-
-
Discuss any changes in mood or behaviour with your child as it may
relate to cyber bullying - are they quieter than normal or more
aggressive?
Notify police immediately if you have serious concerns for your child’s
safety.
Work with your child to save evidence of cyber bullying behaviour. It
may need to be followed up by the child’s school, internet service
provider (ISP), mobile phone carrier or the police.
Speak to your child's school (Nelligan and Etheridge 2011: 5).
The media analysis also indicated a class of expert entrepreneurs – Maggie
Hamilton (author on pornification), Susan McLean (ex-police officer who runs
cyber-safety training, author), Michael Carr-Greg (child psychologist), Kath
Albury (academic) and Nina Funnell (victim advocate, freelance opinion writer
and researcher) – who commented regularly in the media as experts on
sexting-related matters, providing definitions of the problem as well as their
own authoritative solutions. The panopoly of voices were, however, also
polyvocal, undermining a simple moral panic scenario.
Teenagers themselves were almost never quoted in media articles about
young people and sexting. Moreover, when their voices were heard they were
almost always framed by the expert opinion provided by these primary
definers. In this way, experts often quoted a teenager in order to evidence
their point on the harm or lack of harm of sexting. As a result, teens and
young people themselves have been, for the most part, been excluded from
debates on sexting, and their voices and opinions silenced in the media
discourse that has developed around sexting.
Responses
There were a number of responses or recommendations to the sexting
‘problem’ that emerged from the period of analysis. While these
recommendations varied depending on the aim and intent of the article, they
tended to fit into one of three broad categories: legal/legislative responses,
educational/programmatic and parental responses, or technological
responses.
A number of articles discussed the use of charges or referred to police
discretion options related to young peoples’ sexting practices. While initially
these articles focused on criminal sanctions/responses to the practice, from
2011 onwards reports began to emerge that discussed efforts to reform
legislation, culminating in the 2013 Victorian Inquiry into Sexting, which
focused on exactly this matter. Much of this discussion emerged from the
realisation that legal responses to young peoples’ sexting might be
inadequate, leading to concerns over the criminalisation of young people. Of
62
the articles that presented views on what should be done about sexting, law
reform formed an increasingly large proportion of the sample from 2011
onwards, and from 2012 law reform was by far the most prominent discourse
in the media in relation to sexting responses.
In addition to the legislative discourse, official governmental responses were
also a key discourse in the media. Government programs, curriculum and
teacher training were all referred to as possible measures to deal with young
peoples’ sexting consistently across the sample period. Such discourses were
often accompanied by more general recommendations around the education
of youth about sexual ethics, healthy relationships and sexual citizenship –
again these were most frequently an exhortation to parents and secondarily a
call for school programs. When it came to parental responses, the most
common recommendations made were for parents to educate their children
on the dangers of sexting. A smaller number of articles also called for
increasing education in schools or for forums to be run by police.
Technologically, a range of suggested responses were raised in media
discourse. The banning or regulation of mobile phones and portable devices,
particularly in schools, was one response often discussed. In addition, several
commercial mobile phone apps were introduced from 2009 onwards that
would enable parents to monitor their children’s phones. These apps were
raised in the media as possible approaches parents or schools could consider
to monitor children’s online activities. Most experts, however, were fairly
disapproving of these measures, advocating instead for parental or educative
measures for more effective results.
Legal Analysis
The media analysis revealed that a major theme in how the media framed the
harm associated with sexting was the danger of prosecution of young people
for child pornography offences and the harms that could follow, including
placement on the sex offender register. Some media reports claimed that
hundreds of young people were being prosecuted for child pornography
offences (e.g. Herald Sun 2011). Our legal analysis therefore focused on child
pornography/child abuse/child exploitation material offences.31
The analysis of the legal response to sexting showed that there has been
much concern in Australia and internationally about the impact that new
technologies have had on child pornography. As a report by the Criminal
Justice Division of the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department noted
(2009: 10–11):
31
The terms used to cover the offences relating to child pornography differ throughout
Australia. Some jurisdictions distinguish between child pornography material and child abuse
material (see e.g. Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), s 473.1), some use the term child abuse
material to cover both child abuse material and child pornography material (see e.g. Crimes
Act 1900 (NSW), s 91FB, Criminal Code (NT), s125A(1)), some use the term child
exploitation material to incorporate child pornography and child abuse material (see e.g.
Criminal Code (WA), s 217A). In the following the term child pornography will generally be
used.
63
While previously child pornography was relatively hard to find, internet
technologies such as newsgroups and chat rooms have resulted in the
move of child pornography onto the internet in a major way. The
internet is rapidly becoming the most important exchange medium for
child pornography and allows paedophiles and other child pornography
exploiters the opportunity to make contacts worldwide.
These concerns have led to Australian jurisdictions significantly strengthening
child pornography legislation in the past decade. The Commonwealth
Government has taken the lead in this realm and incorporated a range of
changes into the Commonwealth Criminal Code through the Crimes
Legislation Amendment (Telecommunications Offences and Other Measures)
Act (No 2) 2004 (Cth) and the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sexual
Offences Against Children) Act 2010 (Cth). Child pornography now has a
relatively expansive definition in s 473.1 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code
Act 1995:
child pornography material means:
(a) material that depicts a person, or a representation of a person, who is, or
appears to be, under 18 years of age and who:
(i) is engaged in, or appears to be engaged in, a sexual pose or sexual
activity (whether or not in the presence of other persons); or
(ii) is in the presence of a person who is engaged in, or appears to be
engaged in, a sexual pose or sexual activity;
and does this in a way that reasonable persons would regard as being, in
all the circumstances, offensive; or
(b) material the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a sexual
purpose, of:
(i) a sexual organ or the anal region of a person who is, or appears to
be, under 18 years of age; or
(ii) a representation of such a sexual organ or anal region; or
(iii) the breasts, or a representation of the breasts, of a female person who
is, or appears to be, under 18 years of age;
in a way that reasonable persons would regard as being, in all the
circumstances, offensive; or
(c) material that describes a person who is, or is implied to be, under 18 years
of age and who:
(i) is engaged in, or is implied to be engaged in, a sexual pose or sexual
activity (whether or not in the presence of other persons); or
(ii) is in the presence of a person who is engaged in, or is implied to be
engaged in, a sexual pose or sexual activity;
64
and does this in a way that reasonable persons would regard as being, in
all the circumstances, offensive; or
(d) material that describes:
(i) a sexual organ or the anal region of a person who is, or is implied to
be, under 18 years of age; or
(ii) the breasts of a female person who is, or is implied to be, under 18
years of age;
and does this in a way that reasonable persons would regard as being, in
all the circumstances, offensive.
It is noteworthy that this definition sets the age at which a child is deemed a
child for child pornography at 18, which is two years higher than the age of
consent under Commonwealth law. The definition extends not only to where
the person depicted or described in the material is under 18, but also where
they appear to be under 18. Moreover, the definition includes behaviours
actually engaged in or impliedly engaged in. It also covers depictions of the
sexual organ or anal region or the breasts of a female. This definition could
lead to child pornography offences also having a wide application. For
example, it could potentially apply to family photographs of a naked child. To
ensure that such images are captured by law in ‘appropriate’ circumstances
but not in others, such as where the images are family ‘snaps’, there is a
requirement that the depiction or description must be such a that ‘reasonable
persons’ would find offensive in all the circumstances.
Commonwealth offences regarding child pornography are in line with the
Commonwealth’s power to make criminal law. The Commonwealth Criminal
Code Act 1995, s 474.19, prohibits the use of a carriage service (that is,
telephone, mobile telephone, internet etc) to access, transmit or make child
pornography available. Alongside criminalising the use of the communication
technology for these purposes, the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act 1995,
ss 474.20, includes the preparatory offences of possessing, controlling,
producing, supplying or obtaining such material with the intent to place it on
the internet or distribute it through a mobile network. The Commonwealth
Government viewed the reforms undertaken to the Criminal Code Act 1995
(Cth) as a model for the other jurisdictions to follow.
Several jurisdictions have closely followed this definition, although not always
adopting the same age level or terminology. For instance, in NSW sending
sexually explicit material may be prosecuted as the ‘production, dissemination
or possession of child abuse material’ if the person depicted is under 16
(Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 91H(2)). ‘Child abuse material’ includes ‘material
that depicts or describes, in a way that a reasonable person would regard as
being, in all the circumstances, offensive’ a child engaged in a sexual pose or
sexual activity, or in the presence of a such activity or the private parts of a
child (Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 91FB(1)). This definition also covers
implying that the person is a child or is engaged in a sexual pose or activity.
Importantly, for the purposes of determining that the material is offensive the
65
standard to be applied is ‘the standards of morality, decency and propriety
generally accepted by reasonable adults’ (Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s
91FB(2)(a)). Similar offences and definitions can be found in the Northern
Territory, Queensland, Tasmania and Western Australia.
The definitions are slightly different in the Australian Capital Territory, South
Australia and Victoria. In the Australian Capital Territory and South Australia
rather than requiring a determination that the material is offensive to the
ordinary or reasonable person, the material depicting or describing a child
engaged in sexual activity or a body part of the child must be such that it is
intended, or apparently intended, to excite or gratify sexual interest (South
Australia) or substantially for the sexual arousal or sexual gratification of
someone other than the child (Australian Capital Territory) (Crimes Act 1900
(ACT) s 64(5); Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 62). In Victoria,
child pornography is defined as ‘a film, photograph, publication or computer
game that describes or depicts a person who is, or appears to be, a minor
engaging in sexual activity or depicted in an indecent sexual manner or
context’ (Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s 67A).
Table 26 (below) shows that the age levels for child pornography differ across
Australia and are not always in line with age of consent (which also differs
across Australia).
Table 26 Age levels in Australia
Jurisdiction
Age for child
pornography
Age of consent
Commonwealth
18
16
Australian Capital Territory
18
16
New South Wales
16
16
Northern Territory
18
16
Queensland
16
16 (18)
South Australia
17
17
Tasmania
18
17
Victoria
18
16
66
Western Australia
16
16
What is clear from the review of child pornography offences is that there is
little that legally prevents young people from being prosecuted under these
laws for sexting. Only two jurisdictions provide defences to child pornography
offences for young people. Victoria originally had a limited defence in relation
only to the offence of possession of child pornography if the person who made
the film or took the photograph or was given the film or photograph by the
minor was not more than 2 years older than the minor was or appeared to be,
or if the person is the minor or one of the minors depicted in material (Crimes
Act 1958 (Vic), s70(2)(d),(e)). New defences were introduced through the
Crimes Amendment (Sexual Offences and Other Matters) Act 2014 (Vic)
following the recommendations made by the Victorian Law Reform Committee
(discussed below). The defences were broadly based on, but go further than,
the Tasmanian approach where a defence applies if the material which is the
subject of the charge depicts sexual activity between the accused person and
a person under the age of 18 years that is not an unlawful sexual act (Criminal
Code (Tas), s130E(2)).
A barrier to prosecution also exists under the Commonwealth Criminal Code
Act 1995 in that the Attorney-General’s permission is required before a person
under 18 can be charged with a child pornography offence. 32 This was an
amendment made to the Code following debate on changes to be made
through the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sexual Offences Against
Children) Bill 2010 (Cth). This was one of the first times that the issue of the
appropriateness of young people being prosecuted under child pornography
offences was debated in Parliament. Clarke and Svantesson, representing the
Australian Privacy Foundation, gave evidence before the Senate Legal and
Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry, drawing on examples of
children being prosecuted for pornography offences in the US for sexting and
expressed concern over the possibility of children being prosecuted in
Australia (2010: 2–5). They noted the need for legislative means to generally
protect young people from prosecution for child pornography offences while at
the same time allowing prosecution in serious cases (2010: 2).
The Liberal member for Cowan, Luke Simpkins, picked up on this issue,
stating (2010: 2046):
I agree that sexting is not in its original sending intentionally child
pornography, yet it may be the next time it is transmitted or the time
after that. I think that, when you look at the intention involved, there
could be an offence. I would, however, say that it is not healthy
behaviour of teenagers to win favour with their friends by sending
32
See Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sexual Offences Against Children) Bill 2010 (Cth);
Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 18 March 2010, 3017
(Anthony Albanese). Sections 273.2A and 474.24C were inserted into the Criminal Code
1995 (Cth).
67
them fully or partially naked photos, nor is it right for so-called
friends to pressure other young persons to have their photo taken
and send it to others. … I think there is a need for some penalties
in these cases in order to discourage this unhealthy behaviour. I
would, however, say that, given that the intention was not originally
to be child pornography, the distinction can be made.
Brendan O’Connor, Federal Minister for Home Affairs, also noted these
concerns but was not in favour of completely excluding young people from the
reach of child pornography laws (2010: 2051):
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. Although the child pornography
offences could potentially apply to young people, there is scope for
law enforcement and prosecution agencies to take the
circumstances of a particular case into account before proceeding
to investigate or proceeding to prosecute.
A further legal barrier to prosecution is the general provision concerning
criminal responsibility that applies to children aged between 10 and 14 in all
jurisdictions (sometimes called the presumption of doli incapax). A child in this
age group can only be held criminally responsible and convicted of an offence
if, alongside proof of all the elements of an offence, it is also proven that the
child understood the wrongfulness of the behaviour according to the
standards of ordinary people (R v M (1977) 16 SASR 589). It is possible that
this requirement means there would be very few prosecutions of children of
this age group because such understanding may well be lacking. From the
age of 14 there is no special assessment of the child’s understanding or level
of development and a child is assumed to be as criminally responsible as an
adult.
Aside from these legal barriers to prosecution it seems that discretion is
commonly used to prevent the prosecution of young people. Research in the
US suggests that police use discretion not to prosecute children for child
pornography offences in relation to sexting unless there are other factors that
are less readily assigned to childish misbehaviour or normal childhood
experimentation with sexuality (Wolak et al 2012: 4). This approach has also
been confirmed by comments from Neil Paterson, the Acting Commander of
Victoria Police’s Intelligence and Covert Support Department, who in evidence
before the Victorian Law Reform Committee’s Inquiry into Sexting noted that
(2012, 12-13):
We have gone back over the data in particular to look at the number of
juveniles who have ever been investigated for the offences that I
68
outlined earlier on, and through a manual search of the data we can
certainly identify that there are six juveniles who have been
investigated in the context of a 57A offence — that is, the transmission
of child pornography — which best fits the sexting scenario. Only one
matter proceeded to the Children’s Court, but that matter was also
complicated by the young person downloading child pornography from
the internet, completely separate to the sexting-type offence. Of the
remaining five juveniles, one was cautioned and four were subject to
no further police action, which means that the matter was dealt with by
police but no charges were laid and no caution was given for the young
person. So from what we are seeing, whilst we understand the concept
of sexting out there, there are not too many matters that are coming to
police attention, and certainly of any of the juvenile matters that are
coming to our attention, they are not being charged. We are exercising
our discretion of the office of constable and dealing with the matters
outside of the court process.’
Legal analysis for this research has determined that legally it is possible for
young people to be prosecuted and convicted of child pornography offences
for sexting behaviours. It was also found that there are few formal legal
barriers to prosecution (aside from the exceptions noted in Victoria, Tasmania
and under Commonwealth law). The main barrier to prosecution, therefore,
seems to be police exercising discretion not to prosecute young people unless
there are aggravating factors.
The findings of this analysis led to further investigation of whether legal
change is necessary and desirable in the Australian context. The question
here was whether the laws that apply to adult offenders ought to apply equally
to the young, or whether these laws initially designed to protect the young
potentially cause more harm to young people than good. While the focus of
the research was on child pornography laws, it should also be noted that
alongside child pornography there are other criminal offences that may be
applied to sexting behaviours, including prohibitions against encouraging
indecent acts or publishing indecent material. For instance in DPP v Eades
[2009] NSWSC 1352, (discussed in focus groups) the accused was charged
with possessing child pornography and also inciting an act of indecency under
the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s61N(1) after he persuaded a 13-year-old girl to
send him photos of herself naked. Furthermore, civil law, particularly actions
for defamation and breach of confidence, may be used to provide redress in
certain instances of sexting.
So far in Australia the only state government to order an investigation of
sexting is Victoria, which commissioned its Law Reform Committee in
September 2011 to investigate:
(1) the incidence, prevalence and nature of sexting in Victoria;
(2) the extent and effectiveness of existing awareness and education
about the social and legal effects and ramifications of sexting;
(3) the appropriateness and adequacy of existing laws …
69
The Committee recommended a number of reforms including a defence to
child pornography offences based on the Tasmanian provision (noted above),
a new offence of non-consensual sexting, review of civil law and a rethinking
of educational campaigns. Victoria has now introduced defences which apply
to child pornography offences where a minor who is depicted in the image
with an adult or with another minor if he or she is not more than two years
older than the youngest minor or believes on reasonable grounds that he or
she is not more than two years older and the image does not depict a criminal
offence (for example, both are consenting to the act). There is also a defence
if the young person is not depicted and the image does not depict an offence
punishable by imprisonment or the young person believes on reasonable
grounds that it does not and the young person is not more than two years
older or reasonably believes this to be the case.
The VLRC favoured the introduction of such defence based on a closeness in
age between the minor and any minor depicted because it formed the opinion
that where the age gap between the sexting parties is significant, this could be
an indication of exploitation and that the sexting behaviour should be seen as
criminal behaviour on the part of the older person. It was also felt that this
would bring the defence in line with the defences to other sexual offences
against children. A further advantage was that it would make clear to young
people who they can legally engage in sexually intimate behaviour with,
including sexting (VLRC 141).
The VLRC also recommended that a new offence be created to cover sexting
where a person intentionally distributes or threatens to distribute an intimate
image of a person (VLRC 2013: 152). Such new offences have been adopted
through the Crimes Amendment (Sexual Offences and Other Matters) Act
2014 (Vic). It is now an offence to intentionally distribute or threaten to
distribute an intimate image in a manner that is ‘contrary to community
standards of acceptable conduct’ (Summary Offences Act 1966 (Vic), ss40,
41DA, 41DB). It is a defence to this offence if the subject of the image
expressly or impliedly consented to its distribution or could reasonably have
been considered to consent, however, this defence does not apply to minors.
70
Discussion and Conclusion
Two decades ago Catharine MacKinnon (1993: 36) argued that ‘sex pictures
[should be] legally considered as sex acts’ that harm the children in the
pictures. Actual intervention in sexting cases, however, can be equally if not
more harmful for young people than the production and distribution of
images. As Hayward (2012: 12) reminds us, ‘[b]efore society embarks on a
crusade to rid the nation from the supposed evil of sexting, it would be
prudent to pause and ask some important societal and legal questions’.
While legal scholars and criminologists alike have been debating criminal
justice responses to sexting for quite some time (see McLaughlin 2010 for
key points in the debate), there has been a notable absence of young
people’s voices in the debate. As a protected object of legal interventions,
they are absent from the parliament floor and other decision-making spaces
in Australia and beyond. As Leigh Goldstein (2009: 1) suggests, ‘it is virtually
impossible to hear a child’s voice on the subject of sexuality’.
This absence was confirmed by the media analysis, which found that young
people themselves were rarely cited in sexting related articles. Indeed, the
media analysis highlights how many of the primary definers in debates about
sexting in Australia have had a stake in producing anxiety about young
people’s sexuality, technology, and sexting. The media has played an
important role in generating, locating and guiding the debate around the
issues of sexting in Australia, particularly in relation to young people. Whilst
parents, teachers, academics, police and government officials discuss the
issues around sexting and the possible solutions, young people themselves
rarely feature in such discussions. This research indicates that media
discourses contextualise legal and social consequences in a familiar milieu of
risk, while identifying young people as naive, vulnerable, prone to risky
behaviour and in a need of protection. More education about sexting (by
parents, schools and in the social context more broadly), legal reforms and
other measures aim at minimising harm were predominant recommendations
suggested by experts in the media reports, but at no stage were young
people asked to provide recommendations. As Heath et al. (2009) noted
understanding sexting from the perspective of young people is essential if we
wish to develop criminal justice and other strategies for preventing potential
harm generated by sexting practices.
As noted in the literature review, the prevalence data on sexting and young
people is vexed. Recorded rates of prevalence vary from around 2% upwards
to the almost 50% we have reported for 16-18 year olds, and 38% for 13-15
year olds in this data. That is, almost 50% of our sample have either sent or
received sexually explicit images or videos. Rates of recorded prevalence
appear to be closely related to the methodologies, definitions, and samples of
specific research projects. Online surveys record higher rates of prevalence
than stratified random samples for example. However, we also believe that
attempts at representative sampling through phone recruitment – as has been
71
used in a number of surveys which find much lower prevalence rates – would
likely see prevalence under-reported. For example, having to gain consent
from both parent and participant before the survey is administered would
seem to us to inevitably lead to under-reporting or non-participation from the
very individuals who involve themselves in the activity. This project used an
online survey to recruit participants. And while the sample size is excellent,
and various demographics well represented, it is likely that active participants
in online cultures will have been over represented. Thus, while we would urge
caution with these overall prevalence data we also believe that it indicates
that sexting amongst young people is not a marginal activity. This is
reinforced by statements from our focus group interview data where
participants talk about sexting being relatively normal amongst many peer
groups.
However, our data also indicates that most of those who do engage in sexting
generally do so ‘consensually’ and with few sexting partners. That is, a
majority of 13-15 year olds (58%) and 16-18 year olds (63%) who had ever
sent an image had sent to either nobody or one person in the past 12 month
period. And while a significant number of respondents had sent images to 2-5
people (31% and 25% respectively), few had sent to more than 5 people (11%
and 12% respectively). The data thus suggests a small proportion of very
active participants, with these participants increasing their risk of negative
outcomes.
Evidence from existing research (Ringrose et al. 2013) reinforced by the focus
group data discussed above indicates young males may engage in exercises
of fishing for girls images; that is sending images in the hope of collecting
return images by girls that feel compelled or pressured into responding.
Indeed, young women who did send more that 5 images in the past 12
months were also over represented compared to their adult female
counterparts. There were no significant differences in the frequencies of
sending images between young males and young females. However, given
the gendered double standards at play, as discussed in the focus groups –
boys being less likely shamed or humiliated by their photo being circulated
(also see Albury et al 2013; Ringrose et al. 2013) - it is the small cohort of
girls who send to multiple partners who are likely most at risk of negative
outcomes from their actions.
Returning to the majority of the cohort again, the partner frequency data
indicates that most actively sexing respondents are sexting with only one
partner or no partner (in the last 12 months). This is reinforced by the fact that
those not in a relationship were much more likely to send to more than five
people (13%). The focus groups talk of ‘trust’ built up between participants.
Indeed, our data seems to reinforce findings from the US (Mitchell et al. 2012)
that suggests that most young people who engage in sexting do so with a
‘trusted’ partner. This would seem at odds to much of the media and popular
rhetoric which often constructs sexting amongst young people in terms of a
72
moral panic. On the contrary, policy makers might be heartened somewhat by
the fact that most young people appear to be aware of the risks and take
measures to minimise these rather than being ‘out-of-control’ compulsive
sexters. One caveat here would be that we could not conclusively say that
those in a relationship are actually sending the pictures to their partner in that
relationship. Nor can we establish with certainty that the respondent was in a
relationship when they sent or received an image or video.
However, if there is one cohort who are highly over-represented in a culture of
sexting it is those respondents who identified as gay or bisexual. More
analysis is needed here, but gay online cultures that have proliferated around
on-line applications such as Grindr, Scruff and GROWLr appear to be
normalising the exchange of sexual digital images for these groups. Indeed, if
our respondents are representative, sexting is a normal behaviour for these
groups.
This data on relationships also makes sense in terms of the types of
motivations our respondents experienced and expressed. Most young people
who sent images reported they did so to be ‘fun and flirty’. And while girls also
said it was often about ‘a sexy present’ for a romantic partner, or to ‘feel sexy
and confident’, boys reported that is was ‘because I received one’.
These motivations appear consistent with a system of mutual exchange
where particular expectations are constructed in a digital economy of images
and videos. The inherent risk of the activity, while obviously being something
to be managed by most participants, is also part of the attraction.
However, our general cohort had very different perceptions of sexting than the
self reported motivations we have just discussed. When asked why girls sent
images/videos for example, respondents suggested it was; to ‘get attention’;
‘because of pressure from the receiver’; or – according to the perceptions of
males – as a ‘sexy present’; or – according to females – ‘to get a girl or guy to
like them’. In short there was a general perception that girls might be
pressured or feel compelled to send an image. Such perceptions tend to
construct girls as either willing ‘sluts’ or sad ‘dupes’ with little space for
teenage desire. This tends to speak to both the gendered double standard
acknowledged in the literature (Albury et al 2013; Ringrose et al. 2013), and
the silencing of young women’s narratives of desire (Karaian 2012). It is also
reinforced by our focus groups.
By contrast, when respondents were asked to select their top three reasons
why they perceived that guys send sexual images/videos, responses were
quite different, perhaps reflecting the stereotypical notion that boys
predominantly pressure girls to send images and are active agents ‘doing
what boys do’. This gendered double standard was indeed a key theme of the
focus groups with many respondents (male and female) even somewhat
sheepishly admitting they judge girls who sext differently from boys.
73
Moreover, many admitted that they hold girls more responsible for negative
outcomes they somehow bring on themselves. In short, they responsibilised
girls.
Also clear from the survey data was the most respondents knew the severe
negative legal outcomes that could result from producing and sending sexual
digital images of themselves or others. Yet the rates of participation suggest
that such laws are not stopping young people from taking these risks. Indeed,
in the focus groups young people indicated the importance of understanding
shades of grey in sexting practices, prevention, appropriate criminal justice
interventions and changing the social context around sexting. What emerged
from the focus groups was that young people rejected a ‘one size fits all’
approach in sexting, and called for more nuanced understandings of sexting
practices.
They also drew our attention to the importance of participants’ age and issues
around consent, outlining that adult-teen sexting (dependent on age
difference) requires both moral and social condemnation, an accountability of
adults in question, and appropriate criminal justice or other interventions.
Focus groups participants also called for more refined interpretations of
gender in sexting, in terms of (mostly female) victims and (mostly male)
offenders, a focus on the over responsibilisation of female victim, and the role
sexting plays in exploring female sexuality. At the same time, they argued
that ‘[i]nstead of threatening you they should educate you’ (Female, USyd,
FG1); this final point also extends to challenging gender stereotypes and
roles, especially for young men (Male, USyd, FG1).
The age of participants engaged in sexting behaviour was yet again
perceived as an important element when considering the form of regulation
by our focus group participants. While the objective of policy makers and
legislators is to protect minors from sexual abuse, in this research and
elsewhere (Salter et al. 2013; Crofts & Lee 2013; Lee et al 2013) we
demonstrate how criminal justice intervention in this area that includes
overciminalisation of young people can ultimately be harmful for those we
ought to protect. While policy makers argue the rationale for criminal
sanctions in sexting is in the best interests of young people and society
(Angelides 2013), charging young people under child pornography laws were
seen as especially unwarranted where young peoples ages were closely
alligned. A “ticking the boxes” approach that does not acknowledge the
context in which sexting practices occur, or the impact of placing an offender
on sex offender registry, was heavily criticised by focus groups participants.
As Corbett (cited in McLaughlin 2010, p. 169) argues, a balance between
punishment and sensibility needs to be attained. The impact of placing an
offender on sex offenders’ registry was assessed as both disproportionate
and permanent (Richards & Calvert 2009).
Young people we talked to believe the law is trailing the technological
advancements in communication with old laws applying poorly to new
‘crimes’. Similar to findings from Podlas (2011), focus groups participants also
linked media hype about teenage sexuality and/or vulnerability and
74
‘legislative outbreaks’ to sexting (also see Lee et al 2013). The harm (or lack
of it) caused to sexting participants was identified as a key point in
administering criminal justice interventions (see also Richards & Calvert
2009).
The key themes to emerge from the focus groups were:
There is a need to acknowledge the crucial role of information
technologies and managing digital identity in young peoples’ lives;
The definition of sexting includes pictures, texts and alternative
platforms;
Knowledge about sexting is mostly generated from schools and media;
Sexting among focus groups participants’ peers is prevalent;
There is a range of motivations for sexting behaviour;
Sexting is treated differently if occurs in or out of a relationship;
Sexting is perceived to be a highly gendered practice;
Peer pressure is perceived as a cause for sexting (especially for young
women);
There are many gendered double-standards in the perception and
social construction sexting;
Commodification and sexualisation of young women should be an
important part of the sexting debate;
The notion of trust and its abuse between sexting partners/participants
is important in the sexting debate;
Young people are aware of harm sexting practices can have for
participants;
Age of participants (as well as age difference), consent and extent of
harm are crucial when debating criminalisation of sexting;
There is a need to rethink punishment in sexting cases.
For the young people we sampled, being ‘on-line’ was a normal part of their
lived experience. As such, practices around sexting need to be understood in
this context.
Our research confirms that the motivations and practices around sexting by
young people rarely fit the rationales behind child pornography offences and
that prosecuting children for child pornography offences for sexting alone
would cause more harm than good. This confirms that it is appropriate that
police are generally not prosecuting young people for child pornography
offences and are using discretion to divert young people for sexting unless
there are aggravating factors. Given the range of different scenarios that have
been labelled sexting it would be desirable for prosecutorial guidelines to be
developed specifically for sexting behaviours indicating when prosecution
might be warranted and what factors should be considered in determining
whether to prosecute. This could also involve a review of existing
prosecutorial guidelines which may mean that police see child pornography as
the most fitting offence for sexting scenarios (see VLRC 2013: 115) which in
turn may hinder police considering other perhaps more appropriate alternative
existing offences.
75
Given that sexting rarely fits the rationale behind the criminalisation of child
pornography it would be desirable for all jurisdictions to develop a defence
that indicates when a young person should be not liable for a child
pornography offence. The defences developed in Victoria are therefore
commendable. However, it may be overly restrictive to require that there is
such a close age level (not more than two years) between the parties as is the
case in Victoria. This is because it is well established that young people
develop at very different and inconsistent rates (see for example, Crofts,
2002, Steinberg & Scott, 2003). The biological age of a child may not
necessarily reflect their level of intellectual and social development. It should
not simply be assumed that the biologically older child is exploiting the
younger. It is possible that a biologically older child may have the same, or
even lower level of maturity than a biologically younger child.
The issue of whether to create a new offence to cover non-consensual sexting
behaviours is a complex one. On the one hand, it would generally be a
preferable option to prosecution for a child pornography offence. Such an
offence could provide a middle ground where prosecution for child
pornography is thought to be too severe a response but some criminal
resppnse is deemed necessary. The advantage is that it addresses where the
main harm lies in sexting – where images are distributed without consent –
and appropriately labels the wrongdoing. On the other hand, it could lead to
net-widening in the case of young people because of police prosecuting for an
offence that they see as designed specifically for sexting, rather than diverting
young people. In many instances even where the sexting is not consensual
the question remains as to whether a conviction for this offence is the
appropriate response unless there are aggravating factors. A preferable
approach would be to explore restorative programmes that could be
specifically designed to foster ethical practices. Our research also shows that
non-criminal and non-legal avenues for addressing sexting behaviours by
young people should also be explored.
Many education campaigns have been based on abstinence or
responsibilisation messages (see Salter et al 2013). That is, they seek to
present sexting as either always a danger to young participants outweighing
any pleasurable benefits, or seeking to make participants (young women in
particular) responsible for their own negative outcomes – much in the way
early sexual assault prevention literature did. However, our data suggests that
these messages do not equate with the lived experiences of young people
engaged in these activities. Rather, a more realistic and effective approach to
regulating such behaviour might be more aligned with ‘harm minimisation’.
That is, to recognise that young people who live lives on-line will almost
inevitably experiment with sexting at some point, but that there is a need to
attempt to minimise the potentially negative outcomes of the behaviour. Apps
such as SnapChat move us closer to this, but are certainly not a panacea, as
romantic partners will no doubt also want to ‘collect’ images of each other – a
practice apps such as SnapChat make more difficult but not impossible. More
effective may be education that seeks to prepare young people with a ‘sexual
ethics’ (Carmody 2014). Such ethics may allow participants to understand the
76
context of their behaviour and to be able to identify when they are exploiting
others or being exploited. It could also be effective in ensuring that when
young people enter this exchange economy they are aware of the parameters
and mutual expectations of their practice.
77
Appendix 1
See survey document attached.
78
Appendix 2
Focus Group questions:
History of using online technology and social media
1. When was the first time you started using mobile phones?
2. What are the kinds of situations in which you use your
mobile phone camera? What do you do with photos you
take?
3. How do your friends and family respond?
4. What about text messages? How many you send a day?
5. When did you start using the Internet?
6. What did you mainly use the Internet for?
7. Do you have a presence at Social Networking Sites? What
do you think about them? What role do they have in your
life?
8. When did you join Facebook? Twitter? Other?
9. What do you use SNS for? How much time you spend on
SNS? How often do you check them?
10. Do you use technology to keep in touch with
friends/family/partners?
11. Did you have any negative experience using the Internet,
mobile phones or social networking sites? What happened?
Experiences of ‘sexting’ and views about the frequency of ‘sexting’
amongst teenagers
12. Has there been a situation in the past where someone has
sent you/you have sent someone ‘private’ messages or
photos, either online or through a mobile?
13. Can you describe what happened?
14. How did you feel at the time?
15. What was your response? Your family, friends?
16. Did you ask for an advice?
17. Were the incidents reported to the police?
18. What was the outcome of it?
19. What do you think about it now?
20. Was that common when you went to school?
21. How common do you think these incidents are among
teenagers?
22. Do you think that the outcome of your case is something that
happens to others too?
23. Anything else you would like to add?
79
References
Albury K, Crawford K, Byron P & Mathews B. 2013. Young People and
Sexting in Australia: Ethics, Representation and the Law. ARC Centre for
Creative
Industries
and
Innovation
website.
http://www.cci.edu.au/sites/default/files/Young_People_And_Sexting_Final.pd
f
Alfonso F 2014. Creepshots never went away – we just stopped talking about
them, The Daily Dot website. http://www.dailydot.com/lifestyle/redditcreepshots-candidfashionpolice-photos/
Angelides S 2013. Technology, hormones and stupidity: The effective politics
of
teenage
sexting.
Sexualities
16(5-6):
665-689
Anonymous 2007. Sex text cop's rank cut. Sunday Territorian 2 Sept
Arcabascio C 2010. Sexting and Teenagers: OMG R U Going 2 Jail???, aXVI
Richmond
Journal
of
Law
and
Technology
16:3.
http://jolt.richmond.edu/v16i3/article10.pdf
Battersby L 2008. Alarm at teenage sexting traffic. The Age 3. 10 July
Cann L 2008. Strife of the party. The Sunday Times 32. 16 Nov
Carr- Greg M 2012. Oh what a tangled world wide web it can be. Newcastle
Herald 30 Oct: 11
Chibnall S 1977. Press Ideology: The Politics of Professionalism in Greer C
(ed.) Crime and Media: A Reader. London: Routledge: 203-214
Christie N 1986. ‘The Ideal Victim’ in Fattah E (ed.) From Crime Policy to
Victim Policy: Reorienting the Justice System. Basingstoke: Macmillan
Cox Communications 2009. Teen Online and Wireless Safety Survey:
Cyberbullying,
Sexting,
and
Parental
Controls.
http://www.cox.com/wcm/en/aboutus/datasheet/takecharge/2009-teensurvey.pdf
Crofts T 2002. The Criminal Responsibility of Children and Young People.
Aldershot: Ashgate
Crofts T & Lee M 2013. Sexting, Children and Child Pornography. Sydney
Law Review 38: 85-106
Dake J Price J Maziarz L and Ward B 2013. Prevalence and Correlates of
Sexting Behaviour in Adolescents. American Journal of Sexuality Education
7(1): 1-15
80
Danks K 2010. Bond for Sydney man “sexting” with teens, The Daily
Telegraph website. http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/bond-for-sydney-mansexting-with-teen/story-e6freuy9-1225972931904
Davidson J & Gottschalk P 2010. Internet child abuse: Current research and
policy. London: Routledge
Day T 2010. The New Digital Dating Behavior – Sexting: Teens’ Explicit Love
Letters:
Criminal
Justice
or
Civil
Liability.
http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=terri_day
Draper N 2012. Is Your Teen at Risk? Discourses of adolescent
sexting in United States television news. Journal of Children and Media 6(2):
221-236
Drotner K 1992. Modernity and media panics in Skovmand M & Schroder KC
(eds.) Media cultures: Reappraising transnational media. New York:
Routledge: 42–62
Ehrlich S 2002. Representing rape: language and sexual consent. New York:
Routledge
Farrer G 2008. The art world should not sneer at society's genuine concerns.
The Age 11. 9 July
Goldstein L 2009. Documenting and denial: discourses of sexual selfexploitation. Jump Cut: A review of contemporary media website.
http://www.ejumpcut.org/archive/jc51.2009/goldstein/
Grahl T 2014. The 6 Types of Social Media. http://outthinkgroup.com/tips/the6-types-of-social-media
Greenfield P 2004. Inadvertent exposure to pornography on the internet.
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 25(6): 741-50
Hall S Critcher C Jefferson T Clarke J & Roberts B 1978. Policing the Crisis:
Mugging, the State and Law and Order. New York: Holmes & Meiser
Hayward J 2012. Hysteria Over Sexting: A Plea for Common Sense
Approach. http://works.bepress.com/john_hayward/10/
Heath S Brooks R Cleaver E & Ireland E 2009. An introduction in researching
young people’s lives. London: Sage
Hills R 2012. Who’s afraid of Melinda Tankard Reist. Sun Herald 8 Jan: 12
Hobsons Bay Weekly 2012. Sex assault sequel. Hobsons Bay Weekly 8 Jan:
6
81
James O 2005. He's clean bowled by a sick need for pleasure. The Daily
Telegraph 87. 2 July
Jewkes Y 2011. Media and Crime, 2nd edition. London: Sage Publications
Joint Select Committee on Cyber Safety 2011. High-wire Act: Cyber Safety
and
the
Young,
Parliament
of
Australia
website.
http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/house_of_represe
ntatives_committees?url=jscc/report.htm
Karaian L 2012. Lolita speaks: “Sexting”, teenage girls and the law. Crime
Media Culture 8(1): 57-73
Kimpel, Amy F 2010. Using Laws Designed to Protect as a Weapon:
Prosecuting Minors under Child Pornography Laws. New York University
Review of Law & Social Change 34: 299: 332
Kowalski R Limber S & Agaston P 2012. Cyberbullying: Bullying in the Digital
Age. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell
Law Reform Committee 2013. Report of the Law Reform Committee for the
Inquiry into Sexting. Parliamentary Paper 230: Session 2010-2013: Victorian
Government: Australia
Lee M Crofts T Salter M Milivojevic S McGovern A 2013. 'Lets Get Sexting’:
Risk, Power, Sex and Criminalisation in the Moral Domain, International
Journal for Crime and Justice 2(1): 35-49
Lenhart A 2009. Teens and sexting. Pew Internet and American Life Project
website. http://www.pewinternet.org/2009/12/15/teens-and-sexting/
Lenhart A 2013 Internet Usage Over Time. Pew Internet and American Life
Project website. http://www.pewinternet.org/data-trend/internet-use/internetuse-over-time/
Lounsbury K. Mitchell K. and Finkelhor, D. 2011. The True Prevalence of
“Sexting”, Crimes Against Children Research Centre, University of New
Hampshire
website.
http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/Sexting%20Fact%20Sheet%204_29_11.pdf
Lynn R 2010. Constructing parenthood in moral panics of youth, digital media
and sexting. 105th Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association.
Atlanta, GA, 14-17 August
MacKinnon C 1993. Only Words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press
Mascheroni G Ponte C Garmendia M Garitaonandia C & Murru MF 2010.
Comparing media coverage of online risks for children in southern European
countries: Italy, Portugal and Spain. International Journal of Media and
Cultural Politics 6(1): 25-44
82
McClymont K 2010. Prosecutor pursues first “sexting” conviction in case
involving naked 13-year-girl. The Sydney Morning Herald 1 Nov
McLaughlin J 2010. Crime and Punishment: Teen Sexting in Context. Penn
State Law Review 115: 135-181
Mitchell A Patrick K Heywood W Blackman P & Pitts M 2014. National Survey
of Australia Secondary Students and Sexual Health 2013. La Trobe University
Melbourne
Mitchell K Finkelhor D Jones L and Wolak J 2012. Prevalence and
Characteristics of Youth Sexting: A National Study. Pediatrics 129(1): 13-20
Nelligan K & Etheridge M 2011. Facecrooks. Weekly Times Messenger 5. 25
May
O’Connor B 2010. Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates, House of
Representatives. 9 March: 2051
Ostrager B 2010. SMS. OMG! LOL! TTYL: Translating the Law to
Accommodate Today’s Teens and the Evolution from Texting to Sexting.
Family Court Review 48(4): 712-726
Parker M 2009. Kids These Days: Teenage Sexting and How the Law Should
Deal
with
It.
http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=michael_
parker
Pearson E 2013. Tween sexting shock: 11-year-olds sending naked pics on
phones. The Geelong Advertiser 12 July: 1
Peskin M Markham C Addy R Shegog R Thiel M and Tortolero S 2013.
Prevalence and Patterns of Sexting Among Ethnic Minority Urban High
School Students. Cyberpsychology, Behaviour and Social Networking 16(6)
Phippen A 2009. Sharing personal images and videos among young people,
South West Grid For Learning website. http://www.swgfl.org.uk/StayingSafe/Sexting-Survey
Podlas K 2011. The “Legal Epidemiology” of the Teen Sexting Epidemic: How
the Media Influenced a Legislative Outbreak. Pittsburgh Journal of
Technology Law and Policy 12
Porter L 2008. Malice in Wonderland. Sunday Age 18. 10 Aug
Potter R H & Potter L A 2001. The Internet, Cyberporn, and Sexual
Exploitation of Children: Media Moral Panics and Urban Myths for Middleclass Parents? Sexuality and Culture 5(3): 31-48
83
Pritchard J 2008. WA: 10 per cent of kids cyber-bullied: WA survey. AAP
General News Wire 22 Oct
Richards R & Calvert, C 2009. When Sex and Cell Phones Collide: Inside the
Prosecution of a Teen Sexting Case. Hastings Communications and
Entertainment Law Journal 32(1): 1-40
Ringrose J 2010. Sluts, whores, fat slags and Playboy bunnies: teen girls’
negotiations of “sexy” on social networking sites and at school in Jackson C
Paechter C & Renold E (eds.) Girls and education 3-16. Maidenhead: Open
University Press: 170-82
Ringrose J Gill R Livingstone S & Harvey L 2012. A Qualitative Study of
Children, Young People and ‘Sexting’. Report prepared for the NSPCC.
http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/resourcesforprofessionals/sexualabuse/sextin
g-research_wda89260.html
Ringrose J Harvey L Gill R & Livingstone S 2013. Teen girls, sexual double
standards and “sexting”: Gendered value in digital image exchange. Feminist
Theory 14(3): 305-323
Roger C & Dan Svantesson 2010. Evidence before Legal and Constitutional
Affairs Legislation Committee, Inquiry into the Crimes Legislation Amendment
(Sexual Offences Against Children) Bill 2010, Commonwealth Parliamentary
Debates, Senate, 9 March. http://www.privacy.org.au/Papers/Sen-100309S12821.pdf
Salter M Crofts T & Lee M 2013. Beyond Criminalisation and
Responsibilisation: Sexting, Gender and Young People. Current Issues in
Criminal Justice 24(3): 301-316
Simpkins L 2010. Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates, House of
Representatives. 9 March: 2046
Steinberg L & Scott E 2003. Less Guilty by Reason of Adolescence:
Developmental Immaturity, Diminished Responsibility, and the Juvenile Death
Penalty. American Psychologist 58:1009
Strauss A & Corbin J 1998. Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and
procedures for developing grounded theory. CA: Sage
Strassberg D McKinnon R Sustaıta M & Rullo J 2013. Sexting by High School
Students: An Exploratory and Descriptive Study. Archives of Sexual
Behaviour 42(1): 15-21
Temple J Paul J Van den Berg P Lee V McElhany A & Temple B 2012. Teen
sexting and its association with sexual behaviors. Archives of pediatrics &
adolescent medicine 166(9): 828-833
84
The Courier Mail 2013. Thousands of naked 'selfies' ending up on pedophile
sites. The Courier – Mail 15 Oct
The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy 2008.
Sex and Tech: Results From a Survey of Teens and Young Adults. The
National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy and
CosmoGirl.com. http://thenationalcampaign.org/resource/sex-and-tech
Turner E 2012. Teens are text sex offenders. The Northern Territory News 15
Aug: 5
Vanderbosch H Simulioniene R Marczak M Vermeulen A & Bonetti L 2013.
The Role of the Media in Smith P K & Steffgen G (eds.) Cyberbullying through
the new media: Findings from an international network. Psychology Press
Walker S Sanci L & Temple-Smith M 2011. Sexting and young people:
Experts’ views. Youth Studies Australia 30(4): 8-16
Wastler S 2010. The harm in “sexting”: Analyzing the constitutionality of child
pornography statutes that prohibit the voluntary production, possession, and
dissemination of sexually explicit images by teenagers. Harvard Journal of
Law and Gender 33: 687-702
Weins W & Hiestand T 2009-2010. ‘Sexting’, statutes and saved by the bell:
Introducing a lesser juvenile charge with an aggravating factors framework.
Tenneesee Law Review 77: 1-56
Weisskirch R & Delevi R 2011. ”Sexting” and adult romantic attachment.
Computers in Human Behavior 27: 1697-1701
Wolak J, Finkelhor D & Mitchell KJ 2012. How Often Are Teens Arrested for
Sexting? Data from a National Sample of Police Cases. Pediatrics 129: 4
Legislation
Crimes Legislation Amendment (Telecommunications Offences and Other
Measures) Act (No 2) 2004 (Cth)
Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sexual Offences Against Children) Act 2010
(Cth).
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth)
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA)
Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s 67A
85
Criminal Code (Tas)
Cases
DPP v Eaves [2009] NSWSC 1352
Roper v. Simmons ,543 US 551 (2005)
i
The authors acknowledge the intellectual input of Dr Michael Salter to the early stages of this
project and the research assistance from Laura Wajnryb McDonald, Shaun Welsh, Tanya
Serisier, Sally Stuart and Jared Ellsmore. The authors also acknowledge funding
contributions of the NSW Commission for Children and Young People, and the University of
Sydney.
86