Content uploaded by Michael Salter
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Michael Salter on Feb 17, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Beyond Criminalisation and
Responsibilisation: Sexting,
Gender and Young People
Michael Salter, Thomas Crofts and Murray Lee*
Abstract
In recent years, the prosecution of teenagers who use digital and online technology to
produce and circulate erotic imagery (‘sexts’) under child pornography statutes has been
the subject of sustained controversy. Debates over sexting have foregrounded the harms
of criminalisation as well as the role of sexts in cyber-bullying and online child
solicitation. While acknowledging the problematic dimensions of legal interventions in
sexting, this article notes that patterns of relational coercion often begin in adolescence
and that malicious sexting cases follow patterns similar to other forms of technologically
facilitated gendered victimisation. The gendered dimensions of sexting are often
overlooked in education campaigns that position girls and young women in ways that
responsibilise them to reduce their own risk of victimisation. It is argued that efforts to
prevent or intervene in the harms of sexting should consider the broader sociocultural role
of digital and online technology in coercive control and dating abuse and also avoid a
simplistic responsibilisation of potential victims.
Introduction
‘Sexting’ is a term widely used to describe emails, text messages and other forms of
electronic communication that contain sexual material, such as a suggestive or provocative
text, or images of people who are nude, nearly nude or that are sexually explicit (Ringrose et
al 2012). Self-produced erotic images and movies circulate widely throughout online and
mobile phone networks, but the participation of minors in the self-production and
distribution of such material has been the focus of considerable media attention and social
concern. Sexting by children and teenagers not only challenges prevailing views about
normative sexuality and childhood (Jewkes 2010), but in some jurisdictions can result in
* Michael Salter BA (Hons) PhD, Lecturer in Criminology, School of Social Sciences and Psychology,
University of Western Sydney, Locked Bag 1797, Penrith NSW 1797, michael.salter@uws.edu.au;
Thomas Crofts LLB LLM Dr iur, Associate Professor in Law, Sydney Institute of Criminology, Sydney Law
School, Level 3, New Law Building, University of Sydney NSW 2006, thomas.crofts@sydney.edu.au;
Murray Lee BA (Hons) PhD, Associate Professor in Law, Sydney Institute of Criminology, Sydney Law
School, Level 3, New Law Building, University of Sydney NSW 2006, murray.lee@sydney.edu.au. This
article is part of the Sexting and Young People: Perceptions, Practices, Policy and Law research project which
is supported by a Criminology Research Grant provided by the Australian Institute of Criminology. The
authors also wish to acknowledge the research support of the NSW Commission for Children and Young
People.
302 CURRENT ISSUES IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE VOLUME 24 NUMBER 3
children being prosecuted under child pornography legislation (Svantesson 2011). Weins
and Hiestand (2009) described a variety of responses to sexting, ranging from calls for the
decriminalisation of sexting to the hardline position that sexting should be considered a form
of child pornography. These laws and the resulting sanctions (which may include placement
on sex offender registers) have come under sustained criticism in the popular media and
from academics (McClymont 2010; Richards and Calvert 2009; Walker et al 2011). Legal
scholars have argued that there should be exceptions in child pornography laws for minors
who sext, even where there is a general consensus that teen sexting is undesirable and can be
harmful (see, for example, Shafron-Perez 2009; Weins and Hiestand 2009; Arcabascio
2010).
In the course of questioning whether sexting should be prosecuted under child
pornography legislation, academic and media commentary has at times failed to distinguish
adequately the various forms of behaviour which may be labelled as sexting. Sexting may be
seen to cover consensual image taking and sharing, as well as consensual taking and
non-consensual sharing of images (and sometimes even non-consensual taking and
non-consensual sharing). The effect is that aggravated sexting incidents are often minimised
as momentary ‘lapses of judgement’ or a case of ‘raging hormones’. In fact, the circulation
of naked images with the intention to humiliate and shame is an increasingly common
technique among domestic violence offenders seeking to threaten, control or punish partners
and ex-partners (Dimond et al 2011; Hand et al 2009; Southworth et al 2007). Domestic
violence research has consistently found that early initiation of relationship coercion is an
important indicator of future violence or abuse (Manchikanti Gómez 2011). Hence a
malicious sexting incident may signal a host of other issues beyond ‘adolescent immaturity’,
including the willingness of boys or young men to use technology and other means to abuse,
stalk and harass girls and women.
This article suggests that debates over the excesses of criminalisation have to an extent
overshadowed some of the more subtle but nonetheless important questions about gender,
abuse and technology raised by sexting. It begins with a general introduction to young
people’s sexual use of digital and online technology, before going on to examine legal and
educational responses to sexting in Australia. It then draws together the literature on the role
of technology in gendered violence to argue that adolescent sexting provides a point of early
intervention in the potential escalation of relational abuse and coercion.
Young people, technology and sexuality
The social impact of online and digital technologies is particularly evident among teenagers
and young people, for whom mobile phones, social media and the internet play a central role
in leisure, pedagogy and work practices (Lenhart et al 2010). Australian children’s and
teenagers’ use of online and digital technology has significantly higher rates than many of
their counterparts overseas (Green et al 2011). The benefits of this technology for young
people include expanded opportunities for communication and community involvement and
increased exposure to a variety of views and opinions (O’Keeffe et al 2011). This has
proven particularly important in vexed areas such as teenage sexuality, with online forums
and social networking sites providing a relatively safe space for young people to explore
questions about sexual practice and identity (Brown et al 2009). Friendships and
relationships, including sexual relationships, are increasingly initiated through and mediated
by these technologies. However, teenagers’ sexualised use of technology has caused
considerable consternation in recent years: see, for example, Cooper (2012), where the
The Daily Telegraph (Sydney) reports that sexting among teenagers has become an
‘epidemic’. In particular, the role of digital technologies, such as mobile phones with
MARCH 2013 SEXTING, GENDER AND YOUNG PEOPLE 303
camera capabilities, in enabling the self-manufacture and distribution of naked or erotic
sexts by teenagers has been the subject of sustained media attention and public concern.
Anxieties about teenage sexuality, child pornography and the pitfalls of technology have
coalesced around the sexting phenomenon (Jewkes 2010), which has been linked in
Australia and overseas to cyber-bullying, school harassment and, in some cases, teenage
suicide (Ryan 2010; Walker et al 2011). A related concern is that ‘youth may be
jeopardizing futures by putting compromising, ineradicable images online that could be
available to potential employers, academic institutions, and family members’ (Mitchell et al
2012:14). Submissions to the Joint Select Committee on Cyber-Safety Inquiry (2011:141)
raised concerns that teenagers’ sexts may find their way into child pornography collections,
and included anecdotal reports that teenage girls are bargaining sexts in exchange for
cigarettes and drugs. The sensationalism that has characterised the public debate on sexting
has been inflamed by the provocative findings of unrepresentative online surveys of
teenagers, which have found high rates of sexting among young people, although the
methodology and generalisability of these studies has been questioned (Lounsbury et al
2011). For example, a non-representative 2008 survey of 653 teenagers (aged 13–19) found
that one in five respondents have sent electronically or posted online nude/semi-nude
pictures or videos, including 11 per cent of teenage girls (13–16) (TRU 2008). In Australia,
a non-representative survey of over 33 000 Australian young people under the age
of 18 carried out by the Joint Select Committee on Cyber-Safety (2011) found that 8.8 per
cent of responders would send or have sent a ‘nude image’, including 20 per cent
of 18-year-old respondents who stated they had done so.
The recent publication of statistics regarding representative samples of young people
suggests that these figures are somewhat exaggerated. A random stratified sample
of 400 Australian young people aged 11–15 who use the internet found that 15 per cent
reported having seen or received a ‘sexual message’ (including image or text) online and
four per cent reported that they had posted or sent such a message (Green et al 2011). One in
five children who reported having seen or received a ‘sexual message’ reported being upset
by it. It should be noted that this survey was not representative of Australian teenagers as a
whole, but rather of teenagers who use the internet; hence these findings, while
generalisable to teenagers with internet access, do not reflect the prevalence of sexting
among all teenagers. The overall prevalence of sexting among teenagers was investigated by
the Third Youth Internet Safety Survey, a representative survey of 1500 teenagers in the
United States, which found that approximately 10 per cent of respondents reported
‘appearing in or creating nude or nearly nude images or receiving such images in the past
year’; however, most respondents reported that they had only received images and had not
appeared in or created them (Mitchell et al 2012:16). Only a small number (39) of
respondents reported appearing in or creating images; of those that who did, one in five
reported feeling very or extremely upset as a result.
Contrary to popular belief, only a small minority of teenagers make and/or distribute
sexting images, and the majority of these young people do not report significant distress or
harm. The upset of some children victimised within sexting incidents is an important issue
that will be discussed shortly; however, sexting represents a very small proportion of all
incidents of child victimisation (Berkman Center for Internet and Society 2008). The moral
opprobrium that has greeted revelations of teenage sexting is further confounded by
evidence that adults are much more enthusiastic sexters than minors (TRU 2008), casting
doubt on claims that the popularity of sexting among teenagers is a function of their
psychological or neurological immaturity (see, for example, Arcabascio 2010). This
highlights the double standard evident in moral panics about teenage sexting that excludes
304 CURRENT ISSUES IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE VOLUME 24 NUMBER 3
young people from the forms of sexual citizenship and representation exercised by adults
(Albury et al 2010). Lumby and Albury (2010) have drawn attention to the gendered
dimensions of these moral panics and, in particular, to the ways in which they construct an
image of the ‘prematurely’ sexualised and commodified girl. It is girls, rather than boys,
who are positioned as ‘at risk’ in the debate over sexting, as moral entrepreneurs present an
image of girls and young women without an interest in, or capacity for, sexual expression
(Ringrose et al 2012). Conversely, more optimistic accounts of teenage sexuality can present
an equally simplistic account of teenage girls as ‘agentic, knowledgeable, savvy navigators
… of a contemporary “toxic” sexual culture’ (Renold and Ringrose 2011:391–2).
These debates reproduce a simplistic victimisation/empowerment dualism that does not
account for the participation of teenage girls in the self-production of media such as sexts
and ignores the complexity of young people’s engagement with new technology in a cultural
environment characterised by significant gender disparities (Ringrose et al 2012). A survey
of more than 33 000 Australian young people under the age of 18 consistently found that
girls reported feeling less safe online than boys in virtually all age categories (Joint Select
Committee on Cyber-Safety 2011:124). Further, girls are significantly more likely than boys
to report being upset or distressed by the sexts they view or receive (Green et al 2011) and,
as will be discussed, the criminal cases concerning sexting that have emerged in Australia
and overseas have primarily involved boys maliciously circulating images of girls with the
intention of causing them distress, or the solicitation of sexts from girls by adult men
(Wolak et al: 2012). Renold and Ringrose (2011:402) call for an approach to sexting that
considers girls’ feelings of pleasure and power in the context of ‘their experiences of virtual
and embodied networks colonized with real and symbolic (hetero)sexualised violence in
their everyday lives’. The qualitative research of Ringrose and colleagues (2012) on the
social and relational contexts of sexting in Britain emphasised that sexting is closely linked
to the sexual harassment and relational coercion that is common in teenage peer groups. The
researchers also highlight the linkages between sexting and other gendered social issues in
which sexual negotiation, consent and pleasure is vitiated by significant inequalities.
From a criminological perspective, sexting practices among young people are not
generally as ‘deviant’ from relatively common adult behaviours as is commonly portrayed.
Indeed, the practice reproduces what Matza and Sykes (1961) describe as ‘subterranean
values’ in adult culture. The coercion that some girls and young women (and boys and
young men in some cases) experience to send sexualised images of themselves to others, as
well as the differential impacts of such behaviours on girls and women, can be understood
as extensions of broader gendered social relations (Ringrose et al 2012). This being the case,
legislators and policy makers are misinterpreting motivations for offences and missing key
opportunities for public education. The twin processes of criminalisation and
responsibilisation, both of which either censure or shame the individual, overlook sexting as
part of a broader pattern of gendered sexual negotiations.
In the two sections that follow, we further assess these twin processes of criminalisation
and responsibilisation. First, we explain the current Australian laws that deal with sexting
between young people. Second, we examine a key education campaign aimed at reducing
the practice of sexting between young people. Such assessments highlight the need to
discriminate between different motivations in sexting behaviours. We then explore further
‘aggravated’ or malicious sexting and its impacts.
MARCH 2013 SEXTING, GENDER AND YOUNG PEOPLE 305
The legal response to sexting in Australia
There are a range of laws spanning civil and criminal law which are and which can be
applied to sexting behaviours. In criminal law, aside from child pornography laws, offences
such as inciting an act of indecency (see, for example, DPP v Eades) or publishing an
indecent article may cover sexting cases. Civil laws, such as defamation, privacy and breach
of confidence may also apply to such behaviours (for a review of applicable laws, see
Svantesson 2011). The focus of this article is, however, the most severe reaction of the
criminal law, which has caused much media commentary: child pornography laws. These
laws were designed to protect young people from exploitation by adults and, within
Australia, until recently there has been little investigation into whether or not current
criminal laws are adequate and appropriate to deal with sexting between young people. The
only government which has made a commitment to examine the nature of sexting and the
applicable laws is Victoria’s, which commissioned the Victorian Law Reform Committee to
investigate these issues in 2011, and the inquiry is ongoing at the time of writing.
All Australian states and territories have laws prohibiting the creation, possession and
transmission of child pornography. However, given that sexting usually involves the use of
mobile phones or the internet to store and pass on images, Commonwealth criminal law
applies. ‘Child pornography material’ is defined in s 473.1 of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth)
(‘Criminal Code’) as material that depicts or describes a person who is, or who appears to
be, under 18 years old either engaged in a sexual pose or sexual activity or being present or
apparently present while another person engages in a sexual pose or sexual activity. Further,
the definition includes material where the dominant characteristic of that material is the
depiction, description or representation, for a sexual purpose, of the sexual organ or anal
region of a person or breasts of a female who is, or who appears to be, under 18. In all these
instances, the depiction or description must meet a threshold test of whether ‘reasonable
persons’ would regard it as being, in all the circumstances, offensive. This is designed to
ensure that community standards are incorporated into the determination of whether the
material amounts to child pornography (Krone 2005:2).
The age level under which a child is thought to be a child for the purposes of child
pornography is two years higher than the age at which a child may consent to sexual
activity. The Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department notes that it is appropriate that
the age threshold for child pornography should ‘be higher than the age of consent because
child pornography involves the exploitation (often for commercial purposes) of children’
(Australian Government 2008:6).
In terms of offences, as the Commonwealth only has jurisdiction in certain criminal
matters, the Criminal Code does not contain a broad range of offences concerning child
pornography. Rather, the offences are linked to the mode by which the child pornography is
accessed, transmitted or made available. Thus, it is an offence to use a ‘carriage service’
(that is, telephone, mobile telephone, internet etc: Telecommunications Act 1997 (Cth) s 7)
to access, transmit, make available or solicit child pornography (Criminal Code s 474.19).
The Criminal Code also prohibits the preparatory offences of possessing or producing such
material with the intent to place it on the internet or distribute it through a mobile network
(s 474.20). Furthermore, in line with the Commonwealth’s jurisdiction over external affairs,
possessing, controlling, producing, distributing or obtaining child pornography outside
Australia is prohibited by the Criminal Code (s 273.5). Such behaviours within Australia or
where there is no intention to place such material on the internet or distribute it by mobile
phone are matters for the criminal law of the states and territories.
306 CURRENT ISSUES IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE VOLUME 24 NUMBER 3
The child pornography offences contained in the Criminal Code are designed to act as a
model for the states and territories (Slipper 2004:32 035–6). However, there still exists a
degree of difference in the definition of ‘child pornography’ throughout Australia, with
some jurisdictions adopting a definition closely following the Commonwealth, while others
retain a narrower definition. New South Wales, for example, closely follows the
Commonwealth definition by defining ‘child abuse material’ as material that depicts or
describes a child, or a person appearing to be a child, engaging in a sexual act or sexual
pose, or witnessing a sexual act or sexual pose, or a depiction or description of the private
parts of a child, or a person who appears to be a child (Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 91FB(1)).
The private parts include the genital or anal area or a person or breasts of a female
(s 91FB(4)). Importantly, for the purposes of determining whether such material amounts to
child pornography, the material must also be such that reasonable persons would regard it as
being, in all the circumstances, offensive. In making such a determination the standards to
be applied are ‘the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by
reasonable adults’ (s 91FB(2)(a)). There should also be a consideration of the merit of the
material from a literary, artistic, educational, and journalistic standpoint, as well as the
general character of the material.
The definition of ‘child exploitation material’/‘child pornography’/‘child abuse material’
in Queensland, the Northern Territory, Tasmania and Western Australia is relatively similar,
although none of these jurisdictions makes reference to depictions or descriptions of private
parts (but the Western Australian Criminal Code Act Compilation Act 1913 (WA) s 217A
does refer to ‘a person, or part of a person’). The remaining jurisdictions do not make
reference to the standards of reasonable persons; rather, in South Australia and the
Australian Capital Territory, the material depicting or describing a child engaged in sexual
activity or a body part of the child must be such that it is for the purposes of sexual arousal
or sexual gratification of someone other than the child (Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 64(5);
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 62). By contrast, in Victoria, the material must
show a child, or an apparent child, in an indecent sexual manner or context or engaging in
sexual activity (Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s 67A).
Aside from such definitional differences, and perhaps even more strikingly, the age at
which a person is classified as a child for the purposes of child pornography laws differs
throughout Australia, with some jurisdictions setting the age at 16 and others at 17 or 18.
This is not always in line with the age of consent and, as a result, it may be illegal for some
young people to record sexual activity that may lawfully take place in ‘real time’.
Only a few Australian jurisdictions prevent children being prosecuted under these laws.
An amendment made to the Commonwealth Criminal Code in 2010 requires that the
permission of the Attorney-General is required before a child can be prosecuted under child
pornography laws. Broader protection is found in Victoria, where it is a defence to a charge
of possessing child pornography that the accused who made or was given material by a
minor was not more than two years older than the minor was or appeared to be (Crimes Act
1958 (Vic) s 70(2)(d)). Further, a defence applies to prevent a minor who appears in the
material deemed to be pornographic from being charged with possessing child pornography
(s 70(2)(e)).
Aside from these jurisdiction-limited protections, the main form of legal protection or
concession for children is the general provision of criminal law that children aged between
10 and 14 are presumed incapable of guilt (presumption of doli incapax, found on a
legislative footing in some jurisdictions and a matter of common law in others). (A child
less than 10 years of age can never be prosecuted in any Australian jurisdiction.) According
MARCH 2013 SEXTING, GENDER AND YOUNG PEOPLE 307
to the presumption of doli incapax, children 10–14 years old cannot be convicted of an
offence unless it is proved that the child understood the wrongfulness of the behaviour
according to the standards of ordinary people (R v M). However, 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. Thus the offences in this area are
applicable to young people and, aside from the exceptions noted, no allowance is made in
law for the possibility that young people may have a different perception or understanding
of such behaviours. Indeed, senior magistrates have complained that these laws are
inappropriately applied to young people:
These people shouldn’t be regarded as sex offenders. It’s going beyond the pale in relation to
the imposition of long-term penalties which are not judicial penalties, they’re not fines or
community-based orders or even sex offender treatment programs. This is a limitation on what
a person can and can’t do for the next eight years of their life, for God’s sake (Brady 2011).
Criminal prosecutions
The first attempt to prosecute sexting in Australia involved Damien Eades who, when he
was 18 and working in a fast-food outlet in western Sydney, struck up a friendship with a
13-year-old girl. In 2008, following a sexually charged text message exchange, the girl sent
Eades a naked picture of herself. The police were notified after the girl’s father, checking
her phone, found the photo, along with text messages in which Eades encouraged the girl to
send him ‘hot steamy’ photos. As a result, Eades was charged with inciting a person under
16 to commit an act of indecency towards him under s 61N(1) of the Crimes Act 1900
(NSW) and with the possession of child pornography under former s 91H(3) of that Act.
Both charges were dismissed by a magistrate on the grounds that the naked photo did not
qualify as ‘indecent’ and the sexual dimensions to the exchange between Eades and the girl
could not be taken into account by the Court. It was also found that the image did not
amount to child pornography because there was ‘no posing, no objects, no additional aspects
of the photograph which are sexual in nature or suggestion’ (DPP v Eades at [13]).
However, at the time of trial, the definition of ‘child pornography’ in New South Wales was
narrower. The definition is no longer restricted to depictions or descriptions of sexual
behaviour or sexual poses, but now extends to description or depiction of the private parts of
a child: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 91FB(1). When the Director of Public Prosecutions
appealed over the ‘act of indecency’ charge, the Supreme Court found that the magistrate
had erred and should have considered the sexual nature of Eades’ intent and the content of
the text messages, as well as the age difference between Eades and the girl (DPP v Eades at
[58]). The matter was referred to the Local Court to be heard again (McClymont 2010). In
Ryde Local Court, Magistrate Daniel Ross found the offence of inciting an act of indecency
to be proven, but a conviction was not recorded and Eades was given a good behaviour bond
(Danks 2010).
In other cases, teenagers who were already known to the police were charged with
offences after incriminating sexts were found when police checked their mobile phones
while investigating other matters (Australian 2008; McKean 2010). These cases raise the
possibility that the legal ambiguities surrounding sexting behaviours can be used by the
police in order to further threaten and intimidate young people who are already in trouble
with the law. Evidence from the United States suggests that, there, police are in the main
only seeking prosecution where there are aggravating factors present, such as malicious or
reckless distribution of images, rather than consensual circulation (Wolak et al 2012).
Nonetheless, this research also reports that in around 18 per cent of incidents police sought
prosecution even where there was no malicious or reckless circulation and no other offences
308 CURRENT ISSUES IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE VOLUME 24 NUMBER 3
were involved (Wolak et al 2012:9). In Australia, media reports suggest that young people
are increasing falling foul of child pornography laws. For example, in 2011, The Sunday
Mail claimed that ‘[i]n the past three years, more than 450 child pornography charges have
been laid against youths between the ages of 10 and 17’ (Tin 2011). The reliability of such
reports is, however, questionable, especially given that in Australia there is little reliable
literature on sexting (Walker et al 2011) and, in particular, in relation to the police and
prosecutorial practice. However, it is clear that in most jurisdictions legally there is little to
stop prosecution of children for sexting, whether this is done with or without consent, and
much relies on the discretion of the police and prosecution agencies. While there are
harmful dimensions to the practice of sexting, its criminalisation under child pornography
legislation is also a source of harm to 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.
Education and minimising the harms of sexting
An educational approach to online safety has been an important recommendation from a
recent public inquiry into sexting in Australia (Joint Select Committee on Cyber-Safety
2011). Campaigns have been mounted in Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States
and elsewhere which aim to educate young people about the potential negative impacts of
sending sexually explicit material. These campaigns are generally focused on raising
awareness of the legal consequences that could flow from this behaviour, as well as the
humiliation that attends the unauthorised circulation of images. Disquiet over the harms of
sexting (its criminalisation, as well as its association with cyber-bullying and child
solicitation) has resulted in the development of a number of educational initiatives aimed at
teenagers and their parents. In Australia, the Australian Federal Police is trialling a national
pilot of the online safety program Think U Know (www.thinkuknow.org.au), which was
created by the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (‘CEOP’), a specialist
British law enforcement agency. Think U Know provides information on online safety,
tailored to children as well as concerned parents and teachers, using fact sheets and online
videos. The website explains different forms of electronically mediated communication, and
emphasises the benefits of these technologies and platforms for children and young people,
as well as potential risks and pitfalls. Young people are provided with strategies to ‘stay in
control’ and manage risk when using online and digital technology. It also provides advice
about reporting on and intervening in victimisation when it occurs to others, with a strong
focus on bystander culpability through forwarding on sext material. School staff can also
book a free presentation about online safety for their primary or high-school students.
Much of the Australian Think U Know promotional and education material is built around
‘Megan’s Story’, a two-minute video following the story of high-school student ‘Megan’. In
the video, Megan is first shown emerging from the school bathroom buttoning up her top
and sending a picture message to ‘Ryan’. She then enters a classroom and exchanges a
knowing smile with a male student looking at his phone, who is by implication Ryan, the
recipient of Megan’s sext. When Megan sits down at her desk, she begins receiving
comments, meaningful looks and notes suggesting that other students have seen her sext.
Megan becomes increasingly anxious as this behaviour escalates, until finally the teacher’s
phone beeps, indicating the receipt of a picture message that he views, and then he looks
disapprovingly at Megan. This is followed by a screen shot advertising the Think U Know
website, and a voiceover that says: ‘Think you know what will happen to your images, who
will see them, how they will affect you? Think again.’
MARCH 2013 SEXTING, GENDER AND YOUNG PEOPLE 309
A video with a male protagonist has yet to be made for Australian audiences, although
the Think U Know Australia website includes links to videos made in Britain by the CEOP.
One such video tells the story of 14-year-old ‘Matt’, who believed he had struck up an
online relationship with a teenage girl, only to discover, after arranging a meeting in a
secluded area, that he had been deceived by an adult male paedophile. This man appears
first as a looming shadow in a dark coat before lunging at Matt with his hands around his
throat, and blackmailing him into sexual activity with the sext material Matt had sent to his
‘girlfriend’. This scene then begins to ‘rewind’ to a time prior to the meeting between Matt
and the offender, and shows Matt using the Think U Know website to notify the authorities
of the suspicious activities of his online ‘girlfriend’. The offender is then arrested by the
police. The closing scene of the video shows Matt seated at his computer, reading with
satisfaction an online article about a man being convicted for ‘online grooming’, as his
voiceover assures the audience that ‘you don’t have to let it get out of control’.
Matt was tricked into exchanging sexting material, but Megan did so voluntarily, and this
shifts the focus of moral opprobrium in Matt’s case from the sext to the deception of the
‘paedophile’. The primary message of the video with Matt is that people online are not
always who they claim, and therefore ‘experimental’ exchanges of picture or video material
may have unknown consequences. The primary aim of the video is to encourage victims to
report paedophiles to the police. This is a very different message from what is delivered in
Megan’s video, which is that girls should ‘think again’ about producing sexual images of
themselves. In that video, Ryan’s decision to send Megan’s image to his friends takes place
off-screen and is only ever implied, so that the viewer’s attention is not drawn away from
Megan’s response to her public humiliation. Both videos depict scenarios that become
emotionally charged due to male wrongdoing: Ryan forwarding Megan’s sext, and the
paedophile manipulating Matt. However, Matt is portrayed as entirely innocent
(if somewhat naive), whereas the contortions of Megan’s face as she shifts through the
emotional registers of initial sexual allure to fear, anxiety and shame mark her as foolish and
implicated in her own moral downfall.
It could be argued that the ways in which Megan is depicted as sexually provocative and
therefore implicated in her own victimisation, and Matt is not, reflect a gendered double
standard that is often applied to victims of sexual violence, including children. It is
commonly observed that women’s clothing and behaviour is frequently at issue in rape trials
(Young 1998), but it is less well known that sexually abused girls have been accused in
court of dressing inappropriately, flirting or otherwise inviting their own victimisation
(despite consent not being at issue, since the victim is a minor) (Eastwood and Patton 2002).
Matt’s attacker is represented as significantly more dangerous and violent than Ryan, who is
portrayed as a leering but goofy teenager. The policing of child sexual abuse is replete with
distinctions between offenders that characterise men who abuse boys as predatory
‘paedophiles’, while men who abuse girls are viewed as less serious ‘opportunistic’ or
‘situational’ offenders (Miller 1997; for a critique, see Cossins 1999). In a similar vein,
Matt’s abuse represents an unexpected break from normative (hetero)sexuality for which he
is not held accountable, whereas Megan’s victimisation occurs within the ‘everyday’ sphere
of gendered interaction in which ‘flirting’ can be reworked into a hidden indicator of
consent for activities to which a girl (or woman) does not agree.
The role of technology in gendered coercion and violence
Debates over the appropriateness of sexting prosecutions and the sanctions imposed can at
times trivialise or misinterpret the harms of this behaviour. Importantly, such debates appear
to overlook the sometimes malicious motivations behind some incidences of sexting.
310 CURRENT ISSUES IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE VOLUME 24 NUMBER 3
Acknowledging the range of sexting behaviours, and the different motivations and impacts
of such behaviours, is an important starting point for the development of a more
proportionate and appropriate response. Based on their review of 550 sexting cases obtained
from a national survey of United States police agencies in 2008 and 2009, Sacco and
colleagues (2010) draw a useful distinction between ‘aggravated’ and ‘experimental’
incidents of youth-produced sexual images. Whereas the term ‘experimental’ denotes
relatively harmless incidents of sexting exchange between consenting minors, ‘aggravated’
incidents include criminal or abusive dimensions, such as adult solicitation, extortion or
threats, and circulating images without consent. The Third Internet Safety Survey found that
aggravating factors were present in approximately one-third of incidents in which teenagers
reported appearing in or creating a sext (Mitchell et al 2012). Adults were involved in a
minority of these incidents, indicating that there is some overlap between sexting and what
may be child sexual abuse.
While the possibility that sexting may expose a child to abuse and exploitation has
attracted considerable attention, it is less well recognised that prior experiences of child
sexual abuse may heighten a child’s vulnerability to sexual harassment and abuse when
using digital or online technology. The Second Internet Safety Survey found an association
between prior sexual abuse and riskier sexualised use of technology (such as discussing
sexual matters in a chat room or sending private information to strangers online) such that
physical and sexual abuse victims are more likely to receive unwanted or harassing requests
online for sexual pictures (Mitchell et al 2007). This suggests that sexting can be part of an
accumulation of traumatic or victimising experiences in the lives of some minors,
particularly girls with histories of prior abuse (Mitchell et al 2007). The report of the Joint
Select Committee on Cyber-Safety (2011) recognised that family and social problems and/or
mental health problems can contribute to the vulnerability of young people online,
particularly among those who lack the skills to identify and respond self-protectively to
inappropriate behaviour.
Teenagers’ motivations for engaging in technologically facilitated exchanges of
‘experimental’ nude or nearly nude images are often to maintain an ongoing romantic
relationship or to establish a new romantic or sexual contact (TRU 2008; Lenhart 2009;
Mitchell et al 2012). However, there are significant gender disparities within these
exchanges. In the TRU (2008) survey, half of the teenage girls reported that pressure from
boys is a reason why girls send suggestive messages or pictures, but only one-fifth of boys
reported such pressure from female partners. While one-quarter of teenage girls and boys
said that they were pressured by friends to send/post sexual content, 12 per cent of teenage
girls felt pressured by their partners to do so. A focus group study with teenagers that
discussed sexting with mobile phones also highlighted the relational contexts and gendered
dynamics of sexting, and the ways in which sexts are exchanged between current or
potential romantic partners (Lenhart 2009). Boys and girls in the study reported the
circulation of sext images by boys to other boys, either to ‘show off’ their girlfriend or as
revenge in the advent of a fight or break-up. Girls also discussed explicit or implicit pressure
from boyfriends or potential boyfriends to send sexts in order to maintain their interest. This
does not mean that all ‘pressure’ equates with abuse or control. Peer pressure is a fact of life
for young people. However, on the strength of these surveys, there is likely to be a
significant minority of cases where abusive or controlling behaviours are present, and not
just in cases that might be regard as ‘aggravated’ (Sacco et al 2010).
Ringrose and colleagues (2012) argue that sexting is inextricably linked to the normalised
physical and verbal harassment experienced by teenage girls, which in turn mirrors
inequalities in broader gender relations. It follows then that the circumstances in which
MARCH 2013 SEXTING, GENDER AND YOUNG PEOPLE 311
sexting arises can in some cases be shaped by a continuum of coercion that includes
cyber-stalking, coercive control and intimate partner violence. Women in domestic violence
shelters have described the ways in which social media, the internet and other information
and communication technologies have been used by violent partners to stalk, control and
abuse them, where requests for sexual pictures were interspersed with threats and insults
(Dimond et al 2011). Importantly, adult victims of sexualised technological coercion have
rarely found redress through the courts. In Australia, only a few men have faced legal
sanction after maliciously circulating sexual images or videos of ex-partners. In a Victorian
civil case the Supreme Court awarded damages to a woman after her violent ex-partner
repeatedly attempted to show a video of their sexual activity to friends and relatives
(Giller v Procopets). Recently, in New South Wales, a 20-year-old man was sentenced to six
months jail for the offence of publishing an indecent article under s 578C of the Crimes Act
1900 (NSW) after he uploaded naked images of his ex-girlfriend to Facebook
(Police v Ravshan Usmanov). However, the rarity of such prosecutions was highlighted
when the Court could only find one prior decision that addressed similar issues, which was a
New Zealand case from 2010.
Among men as well as boys, perceived injuries to masculine pride in the aftermath of a
relationship breakdown, or generalised aggression towards girls and women, can be
expressed through the non-consensual circulation of compromising digital imagery of girls
and women. The opprobrium that has greeted sexting among minors has served as a medium
through which similar impulses and behaviour among adults has been disavowed and
projected onto ‘deviant’ teenagers. The fact that the burden of sexting-related harms falls
disproportionately on girls and women due to the deliberate perpetration of abuse by boys
and men has been all but lost in legal processes that mislabel and inappropriately punish
many cases of sexting. Indeed, criminalising sexting under child pornography laws operates
to obscure the patterned nature of such behaviour, although it appears that in Australia
police, prosecution agencies and the courts have shown more constraint than in the United
States in applying child pornography legislation to sexting cases. While all parties to a
sexting incident can be considered legally culpable under child pornography legislation,
including the minor who self-produces and sends an image of himself or herself to someone
else, it is primarily the ‘receivers’ of sexts who have been the subject of criminal charges,
particularly where they circulate the image to others. This speaks perhaps to an implicit
acknowledgement of the gendered relations within which sexts are produced and circulated.
Nonetheless, the current raft of prevention and education programs also fails to situate
sexting within its social and cultural context. The subject of these campaigns is the
inadequately self-regulated, unsupervised and/or overly sexed individual, usually female. As
the Australian Psychological Society (cited in Australian Government 2009:13) noted,
‘“technology” is often blamed for behaviour rooted in wider social problems, and in the
range of issues characterising adolescence’. Only when we recognise that sexting
behaviours are varied and complex, and a component of broader social patterning and
subterranean values, can we begin to meet the challenge of preventing aggravated sexting
behaviours among minors and adults alike. Ferrell et al (2008) note that, with the
development of each new form of mediated communication technology, there develops the
need for a new language and a new set of cultural norms and values. This being the case,
sexting may require the development of new ‘sexual ethics’ (Carmody 2009) appropriate to
these emerging technologies and the cultures that accompany them.
312 CURRENT ISSUES IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE VOLUME 24 NUMBER 3
Conclusion
Public debate over sexting has brought to the fore a range of emotionally charged issues
pertaining to teenage sexuality and the increasing integration of technology into social life.
This has been further complicated by ambiguities within child pornography legislation,
which has snared minors and young people who self-produce, distribute or receive sexts.
These debates have centred on the harms of criminalisation, as well as the harms associated
with sexting, which range from public humiliation to cyber-bullying and online child
solicitation. However, the role of online and digital technology in relationship coercion has
been largely absent from these debates.
In misinterpreting the offence and offenders’ motives in sexting cases, the existing
criminal law is implicit in obscuring the reproduction of gender inequities that have a
broader social aetiology. Educational material aimed at raising young people’s awareness of
sexting harms has maintained a strong focus on gender and relationships, but the material
arguably positions girls as the main agents in prevention in a similar way to which women
have been held responsible for protecting themselves from sexual assault. The possibility
that ‘Megan’s’ goofy boyfriend ‘Ryan’ may grow up to become an offender of comparable
seriousness to the man portrayed attacking ‘Matt’ is worth considering in light of the
evidence that highlights that relational abuse and violence often begins in adolescence.
Online and digital technologies provide new modes through which such abuse may be
initiated; however, they also provide important new means for education, prevention and
intervention.
Cases
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Eades [2009] NSWSC 1352 (17 December 2009)
Giller v Procopets (2008) 24 VR 1
Miller v Skumanick, 605 F Supp 2d (MD Pa, 2009)
Police v Ravshan Usmanov [2011] NSWLC 40 (9 November 2011)
R v M (1977) 16 SASR 589
Legislation
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth)
Criminal Code Act Compilation Act 1913 (WA)
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA)
Crimes Act 1958 (Vic)
Telecommunications Act 1997 (Cth)
MARCH 2013 SEXTING, GENDER AND YOUNG PEOPLE 313
References
Albury K, Funnell N and Noonan E (2010) ‘The Politics of Sexting: Young People, Self-
Representation and Citizenship’ in Refereed conference proceedings, Australian and New
Zealand Communication Association Conference, ‘Media, Democracy and Change’,
Old Parliament House, 7–9 July 2010, Confucious Institute <http://www.confuciusinstitute.
unsw.edu.au/media/File/AlburyFunnellNoonan.pdf>
Arcabascio C (2010) ‘”Sexting” and Teenagers: OMG R U Going 2 Jail???’, Richmond
Journal of Law & Technology 16(3), 1–43
Australian (2008) ‘Party Boy to Face Child Porn Charge’, The Australian, 17 January
2008, 3
Australian Government, Attorney-General’s Department, Criminal Justice Division (2009)
Proposed Reforms to Commonwealth Child Sex-Related Offences <http://www.ag.gov.au/
Consultations/Documents/ConsultationonreformstoCommonwealthchildsexrelatedoffences/
Reforms%20to%20Commonwealth%20child%20sex-related%20offences.pdf>
Berkman Center for Internet & Society (2008) Enhancing Child Safety and Online
Technologies, Final Report of the Internet Safety Technical Task Force to the Multi-State
Working Group on Social Networking of State Attorneys General of the United States
(31 December 2008) Harvard University <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/pubrelease/isttf/>
Brady N (2011) ‘Sexting Punishment is Unjust Says Magistrate’, The Age (online),
14 August 2011 <http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/sexting-
punishment-is-unjust-says-magistrate-20110813-1isa0.html>
Brown J, Keller S and Stern S (2009) ‘Sex, Sexuality, Sexting, and SexEd: Adolescents and
the Media’, Prevention Researcher 16(4), 12–16
Carmody M (2009) Sex & Ethics: Young People and Ethical Sex, Palgrave Macmillan,
South Yarra
Connelly C (2012) ‘Hunter Moore Sells “Revenge Porn” Site to Anti-Bullying Group
BullyVille.com’, The Telegraph (online), 23 April 2012 <http://www.dailytelegraph.
com.au/technology/bullyville-internets-most-hated-man-shuts-down-revenge-porn-site/
story-fn7bsi21-1226336249832>
Cooper G (2012) ‘Sexting: A New Teen Cyber-Bullying “Epidemic”’, The Telegraph
(online), 12 April 2012 <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/9199126/
Sexting-a-new-teen-cyber-bullying-epidemic.html>
Cossins A (1999) ‘A Reply to the NSW Royal Commission Inquiry into Paedophilia:
Victim Report Studies and Child Sex Offender Profiles — A Bad Match?’, Australian and
New Zealand Journal of Criminology 32, 42–60
Danks K (2010) ‘Bond for Sydney Man “Sexting” with Teen’, The Telegraph (online),
18 December 2010 <http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/bond-for-sydney-man-sexting-
with-teen/story-e6freuy9-1225972931904>
Dimond JP, Fiesler C and Bruckman AS (2011) ‘Domestic Violence and Information
Communication Technologies’, Interacting with Computers 23, 413–21
Dobash RE and Dobash RP (1992) Women, Violence & Social Change, Routledge, London
314 CURRENT ISSUES IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE VOLUME 24 NUMBER 3
Dodero C (2012) ‘Hunter Moore Makes a Living Screwing You’, Village Voice (online),
4 April 2012 <http://www.villagevoice.com/2012-04-04/news/revenge-porn-hunter-moore-
is-anyone-up/>
Eastwood C and Patton W (2002) The Experiences of Child Complainants of Sexual Abuse
in the Criminal Justice System, Criminology Research Council, Canberra
Ferrell J, Hayward K and Young J (2008) Cultural Criminology: An Invitation, Sage,
London
Finkelhor D, Jones L and Wolak J (2012) ‘Prevalence and Characteristics of Youth Sexting:
A National Study’, Pediatrics 129, 13–20
Green L, Brady D, Ólafsson K, Hartley J and Lumby C (2011) Risks and Safety for
Australian Children on the Internet, ARC Centre of Excellence for Creative Industries and
Innovation <http://cultural-science.org/journal/index.php/culturalscience/article/view/49/
129>
Hand T, Chung D and Peters M (2009) ‘The Use of Information and Communication
Technologies to Coerce and Control in Domestic Violence and Following Separation’,
Stakeholder Paper No 6, Australian Domestic & Family Violence Clearinghouse
<http://www.adfvc.unsw.edu.au/PDF%20files/Stakeholder%20Paper_6.pdf>
Jewkes Y (2010) ‘Much Ado about Nothing? Representations and Realities of Online
Soliciting of Children’, Journal of Sexual Aggression 16, 5–18
Joint Select Committee on Cyber-Safety (2011) High-Wire Act: Cyber-Safety and the
Young, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra
Karaian L (2012) ‘Lolita Speaks: “Sexting,” Teenage Girls and the Law’, Crime, Media,
Culture 8, 57–73
Kerig PK (2010) ‘Adolescent Dating Violence in Context: Introduction and Overview’,
Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment and Trauma 19, 465–8
Krone T (2005) ‘Does Thinking Make it So? Defining Online Child Pornography
Possession Offences’ (April 2005) Trends and Issues in Criminal Justice, No 299,
Australian Institute of Criminology <http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/9/A/B/
%7B9AB4DA8B-6EDB-401B-AC9E-C59EA93B1EE0%7Dtandi299.pdf>
Lavoie F, Robitaille L and Hebert M (2000) ‘Teen Dating Relationships and Aggression:
An Exploratory Study’, Violence Against Women 6, 6–36
Law Reform Committee (Vic) (2011) Inquiry into Sexting (15 August 2012) Committees,
Parliament of Victoria <http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/lawreform/article/947>
Lenhart A (2009) Teens and Sexting (15 December 2009) Pew Internet
<http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/Teens-and-Sexting/Overview.aspx>
Lenhart A, Purcell K, Smith A and Zickuhr K (2010) Social Media and Young Adults
(3 February 2010) Pew Internet <http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Social-Media-
and-Young-Adults.aspx>
Lounsbury K, Mitchell KJ and Finkelhor D (2011) The True Prevalence of Sexting, Crimes
Against Children Research Center, University of New Hampshire <http://unh.edu/
ccrc/pdf/Sexting%20Fact%20Sheet%204_29_11.pdf>
MARCH 2013 SEXTING, GENDER AND YOUNG PEOPLE 315
Lumby C and Albury K (2010) ‘Too Much? Too Young? The Sexualisation of Children
Debate in Australia’, Media International Australia, Incorporating Culture & Policy 135,
141–52
McClymont K (2010) ‘Prosecutor Pursues First Sexting Conviction in Case Involving
Naked 13-Year-Old’, The Sydney Morning Herald (online), 1 November 2010 <http://www.
smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/prosecutor-pursues-first-sexting-conviction-in-
case-involving-naked-13yearold-20101031-178xv.html>
McKean B (2010) ‘Court Dismisses Sexting Case’, Daily Mercury (online), 22 October
2010 <http://www.dailymercury.com.au/news/sexy-text-or-child-porn-court-dismisses-case-
again/665761/>
Manchikanti Gómez A (2011) ‘Testing the Cycle of Violence Hypothesis: Child Abuse and
Adolescent Dating Violence as Predictors of Intimate Partner Violence in Young
Adulthood’, Youth & Society 43, 171–92
Matza D and Sykes G (1961) ‘Juvenile Delinquency and Subterranean Values’, American
Sociological Review 26, 712–19
Miller K (1997) ‘Detection and Reporting of Paedophilia: A Law Enforcement Perspective’
in James M (ed) Paedophilia: Policy and Prevention, Australian Institute of Criminology
<http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/A/D/2/%7BAD2B7912-AA15-4DB3-84B5-
5AE6680D0C15%7DRPP12.pdf>
Mitchell KJ, Finkelhor D and Wolak J (2007) ‘Youth Internet Users at Risk for the Most
Serious Online Sexual Solicitations’, American Journal of Preventive Medicine 32, 532–7
Mitchell KJ, Finkelhor D, Jones LM and Wolak J (2012) ‘Prevalence and Characteristics of
Youth Sexting: A National Study’, Pediatrics 129, 13–20
O’Keeffe G and Clarke-Pearson K (2011) ‘The Impact Of Social Media on Children,
Adolescents, and Families’, Pediatrics 127, 800–4
Pearce M (2012) ‘Your Friends and Neighbours’ (23 April 2012) The New Inquiry 3
<http://thenewinquiry.com/essays/your-friends-and-neighbors/>
Powell A (2010) ‘Configuring Consent: Emerging Technologies, Unauthorized Sexual
Images and Sexual Assault’, Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology 43, 76–90
Renold E and Ringrose J (2011) ‘Schizoid Subjectivities? Re-theorizing Teen Girls’ Sexual
Cultures in an Era of Sexualization’, Journal of Sociology 47(4), 389–409
Richards RD and Calvert C (2009) ‘When Sex and Cell Phones Collide: Inside the
Prosecution of a Teen Sexting Case’, Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law
Journal 32, 1–40
Ringrose J, Gill R, Livingstone S and Harvey L (2012) A Qualitative Study of Children,
Young People and ‘Sexting’, Report prepared for the NSPCC, NSPCC
<http://www.nspcc.org.uk/inform/resourcesforprofessionals/sexualabuse/sexting-research-
report_wdf89269.pdf>
Ryan EM (2010) ‘Sexting: How the State can Prevent a Moment of Indiscretion from
Leading to a Lifetime of Unintended Consequences for Minors and Young Adults’, Iowa
Law Review 96, 357–83
316 CURRENT ISSUES IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE VOLUME 24 NUMBER 3
Sacco D, Argudin R, Maguire J and Tallon T (2010) Sexting: Youth Practices and Legal
Implications, Berkman Center Research Publication No 2010-8
Shafron-Perez S (2009) ‘Average Teenager or Sex Offender? Solutions to the Legal
Dilemma Caused by Sexting’, John Marshall Journal of Computer & Information Law 26,
431–53
Slipper P (2004) Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives,
4 August 2004, 32 035–36
Southworth C, Finn J, Dawson S, Fraser C and Tucker S (2007) ‘Intimate Partner Violence,
Technology, and Stalking’, Violence Against Women 13, 842–56
Svantesson D (2011) ‘“Sexting” and the Law — How Australia Regulates Electronic
Communication of Non-Professional Sexual Content’, Bond Law Review 22(2), 41–57
Tin J (2011) More than 450 Child Pornography Charges Laid against Youths Aged 10 to 17
in Past Three Years, news.com.au, 9 October 2011 <http://www.news.com.au/national-
news/more-than-450-child-pornography-charges-laid-against-youths-aged-10-to-17-in-past-
three-years/story-e6frfkvr-1226162162475>
TRU (2008) Sex and Tech: Results from a Survey of Teens and Young Adults, The National
Campaign <http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/sextech/PDF/SexTech_Summary.pdf>
Walker S, Sanci L and Temple-Smith M (2011) ‘Sexting and Young People’, Youth Studies
Australia 30(4), 8–16
Weins WJ and Hiestand TC (2009) ‘Sexting, Statutes and Saved by the Bell: Introducing a
Lesser Juvenile Charge with an “Aggravating Factors” Framework’, Tennessee Law Review
77, 1–56
Wolak J, Finkelhor D and Mitchell KJ (2012) ‘How Often are Teens Arrested for Sexting?
Data from a National Sample of Police Cases’, Pediatrics 129, 4–12
Young A (1998) ‘The Waste Land of the Law, the Worldess Song of the Rape Victim’,
Melbourne University Law Review 22, 442–65
