海角大神

Editor's note: This is part two of Anne Collier's series about sexting. Read part one here.聽

Social norms 鈥� the expectations and cues that govern behavior in a group or a society 鈥� are protective. There hasn鈥檛 been much reference to them in the Internet safety field, but they鈥檙e a pillar of individual and collective wellbeing wherever there is community. You may鈥檝e noticed that, at the end of Part One of this series, I quoted Sydney-based researcher and author Nina Funnell where she touched on the social norms young people are developing around sexting 鈥� an important safeguard against the violation of trust involved in forwarding someone鈥檚 photos without their consent.

Young people she interviewed told her they鈥檇 never do such a thing. One invoked the Golden Rule as a reason why she鈥檇 never do such a thing, another pointed out the 鈥渆xploitation鈥� or 鈥渃heating鈥� that nonconsensual forwarding would represent. A high school student I spoke with recently said, 鈥淣ice kids would never do that.鈥� There is growing evidence that young people already have in place preventive or protective social norms around digital photography of all kinds, including sexually related imagery.

Advanced moral reasoning among sexters

Going through her interview results, Nina thought of聽Kohlberg鈥檚 stages of moral development聽because most of the answers from the 鈥渘on-forwarding group鈥� in her sample 鈥渇it somewhere between stages 3-6,鈥� she told me. 鈥�No one聽[emphasis hers] mentioned anything that would actually fit into stage 1 or 2.鈥� A Stage 1 or 2 answer would be the response that virtually all anti-sexting education has been aimed at to date: something like 鈥淚 don鈥檛 want to get prosecuted/charged with child porn offenses鈥� or 鈥淪he鈥檇 never send me another nude again鈥� 鈥� responses that are only about consequences for oneself, not the other person(s). Nina鈥檚 point, she wrote me, 鈥渋s to illustrate that the 鈥榥on-forwarders鈥� are actually highly capable of advanced moral reasoning. We shouldn鈥檛 assume that young people are not capable of this and can only be engaged in education around the laws.鈥�

That should be underscored: We shouldn鈥檛 assume that young people aren鈥檛 capable of caring about the consequences of their actions for their peers. Or at least we shouldn鈥檛 build educational campaigns based on such an assumption. What kind of message would such an educational campaign send to young people?

Risky sexting correlates with other risk factors

鈥淚 think,鈥� Nina continued, 鈥測oung people are actually doing a pretty good job most of the time of developing and negotiating what those values are. There are, of course, exceptions to the rule but, very often, when you find that an individual is out to humiliate or hurt others, there are all sorts of other things (and risk factors) going on in that young person鈥檚 life.鈥�

Which raises two questions for educators to consider: 1) If there are other risk factors in a person鈥檚 life, how effective would education be if aimed strictly at a behavior that is likely more symptomatic than the root problem? 2) How effective is it to develop education that fails to acknowledge the intelligence or wisdom demonstrated by most of the intended recipients of that education?

Sexting as individual as sex

So here are Nina鈥檚 own take-aways about young people who engage in sexting from interviews she has conducted so far: They have a wide range of views, values, and experiences around sexting; probably parallel to sexuality in general, 鈥渢heir reasons for sexting are highly diverse and individual鈥�; they 鈥渉ave very different views of consensual vs. non-consensual sexting鈥�; and 鈥渢hey are eager, able and willing to discuss the issue provided it is done in a safe, respectful space.鈥�

Respect is key. One of the problems that has hampered digital-risk-prevention education to date is that adults 鈥渄o not recognize or celebrate the competencies young people bring to these discussions,鈥� Nina wrote. I wholeheartedly agree.

For effective education

Her recommendations on how to talk with young people about 鈥渘udes鈥� or 鈥渟elfies鈥� is that the conversations be鈥�

• 鈥淧ro-active (not reactive)
• 鈥淓惫颈诲别苍肠别诲-产补蝉别诲
• 鈥淥ngoing, not one-offs (like a single school assembly or class)
• 鈥淕ender-inclusive (not heteronormative)
• 鈥淔ree from demonizing technology or young people
• 鈥淏uild on young people鈥檚 strengths and ethical decisionmaking ability
• 鈥淒eveloped in consultation with young people"

海角大神 has assembled a diverse group of the best family and parenting bloggers out there. Our contributing and guest bloggers are not employed or directed by the Monitor, and the views expressed are the bloggers' own, as is responsibility for the content of their blogs. Anne Collier blogs at聽NetFamilyNews.org.