Sexting, Consent and Young People: Regulatory Challenges
Research type
Research Study
Full title
Sexting, Consent and Young People: Regulatory Challenges in the Digital Age.
IRAS ID
280098
Contact name
Elizabeth Agnew
Contact email
Sponsor organisation
Queen's University Belfast
Duration of Study in the UK
0 years, 4 months, 30 days
Research summary
Summary of Research
A significant gap in knowledge exists concerning young people’s understanding of consent, particularly within the context of sexting. To my knowledge, there is no known research to date which explores sexting and issues of consent within Northern Ireland. Funded by the ESRC, the qualitative study’s objective is therefore to seek clarity on a significant and crucial dimension to sexting behaviour among young people: issues of consent. The two main research questions are: (i) how do young people understand and conceptualise ‘consent’ and ‘coercion’ and how does this impact on their engagement with certain sexual behaviours e.g. sexting?; (ii) what regulatory challenges are presented for professionals in effectively conceptualising and responding to sexting among young people.The project’s research site is Northern Ireland and involves: (i) semi-structured interviews with professionals across the public and private sector - which have already been approved by QUB School of Law REC and; (ii) semi-structured interviews and focus groups with young people aged between 13-17 years - for which NHS REC approval is being sought. Given the sensitive nature of the research, key ethical considerations have been scrutinised when planning the research. This includes careful consideration of: the imperative of free and informed consent (including from the young people and their parents or legal equivalent); anonymity of participants; limits of confidentiality; responsibility to participants (respecting the rights and dignity of each individual); adequate debriefing; and storing of data in accordance with QUB Handling Policy and the GDPR guidelines. The young people will be screened and first contact made via Barnardo’s (gatekeepers). The empirical phase of the study will last approximately 3 months.
Summary of Results
The main findings are summarised into five categories (many interconnected to each other).1. The normalisation of certain sexual practices within youth culture.
Some young people were receiving numerous images and content of a sexual nature daily: “Some young people that I would speak to would say, ‘yeah, yeah I get about 15 d*** pics a day.’” While exchanges between the young people were not always non-consensual, there was evidence of unwanted sexual imagery/ content being sent at a concerning rate. Yet, due to the perceived normalisation of the sexual behaviour, many young people were not identifying the behaviour as ‘harmful’ and ‘non-consensual’.2. Exposure to varying levels of peer pressure (some more subtle in nature).
Professionals spoke of challenges in working with young people who send unwanted sexual content and helping them identify their behaviour as ‘harmful’ and not in fact ‘banter’. Professionals also explained how the ‘it’s only a joke’ mentality and the subtler forms of peer pressure can result in young people participating in a sexual behaviour they would not normally engage in: “Am I a bit of a prude? Maybe I am no fun.”3. Blurred boundaries between ‘consensual’ and ‘coercive’ sexual behaviours.
The complexity surrounding youth sexual behaviours was noted. In particular, the relationship between: (i) the diversity of youth sexual practices; (ii) the normative dimension; and (iii) challenges in identifying coerce and manipulation within relationships.4. Negotiating ‘free and informed’ consent.
It became clear that young people struggle with two consensual concepts: (i) withdrawing consent; and (ii) the ‘ongoing’ nature of consent. What does it mean to withdraw consent? Further, if I consent to X does this mean I have consented to Y and Z also? Some professionals spoke directly to these issues: “The young person essentially goes and finds themselves suddenly in a scenario where sex or a sex act is expected, and they feel like well I’ve implied consent by coming here. Because I’ve already implied consent I have to follow through with it.”5. Limitations of criminal law.
The law used to govern ‘sexting’ behaviours among young people was not designed to address such sexual behaviours and therefore its application within this peer-based context is not only problematic but extremely harmful. In addition, the construction of the legislation fails to account for the complexity of the sexual behaviour - sexting can range from ‘explorative’ to more ‘harmful’ and potentially ‘abusive’ sexual behaviour. Finally, in the absence of an alternative response, and noting professional’s reluctance to utilise criminal law within the context of peer-based ‘sexting’ (for reasons noted above), responses to the sexual behaviour are often inconsistent.Moving Forward
In light of key findings, some recommendations included:
1. The current legal framework ‘is not fit for purpose’. In this vein, alternative regulatory frameworks must be explored and utilised. This includes comprehensive education programmes (as noted below).
2. More concise regulatory guidance for practitioners/ professionals. It was clear professionals were unsure when to utilise the law (noting also their great concerns of the draconian nature of the legislative framework). This results in inconsistencies in approach – some young people are being criminalised and receiving cautions and warnings while others are receiving a more health and education-based response.
3. A dedicated awareness campaign on ‘withdrawing consent.’ While campaigns including ‘Consent is Everything’ have been released. Updated campaigns which are directed towards young people specifically on ‘withdrawing consent’ and emerging peer-based sexual behaviours is required.
4. Comprehensive education programmes in schools for young people. There is a clear need for young people to learn about ‘healthy’ and ‘unhealthy’ sexual behaviours, including how to identify ‘toxic’ and ‘unhealthy’ relationship traits.REC name
HSC REC B
REC reference
20/NI/0080
Date of REC Opinion
12 Aug 2020
REC opinion
Further Information Favourable Opinion