The nonconsensual sharing of sexual images via digital media is not an uncommon experience for some young people. For www.parenting.digital, Dr Emma Barker-Clarke discusses her co-constructed research with young people about the ways in which they use the terms ‘cyberbullying’ and ‘nudes’ and how this can obscure gender-based digital sexual violence including cultures of non-consensual image sharing.
The Digital Youth of New Zealand study, also titled ‘#useyourvoice’, as a means of having a youth-friendly name, was a participatory project conducted across 2018–2019. 54 young people aged 13–17 participated in friendship groups at three mainstream schools and one alternative education centre. The application of feminist methods supported the students to think beyond problematic adult preconceptions that have framed cyberbullying as non-sexualised. In collaboration with the researcher, students shaped (i) the study design and (ii) the co-construction of the themes using visual illustrations.   This methodological framework aided the girls, from the cohort, to unpack their perceptions of cyberbullying and how they interpreted this term.

Co-constructed findings showed that when the girls decoded ‘cyberbullying’ experiences they categorized unwanted dick pics/cyberflashing as a form of ‘cyberbullying’. This was because cyberbullying, as a catch-all term, did not carry the sexual stigma of discussing unwanted dick pics. Therefore, girls’ co-opting of the term ‘cyberbullying’ was understandable. Certainly, there is a social void of educational and parental discussion to overtly name ‘unwanted dick pics’ or ‘cyberflashing’, or ‘image-based sexual harassment’. This amounts to a culture of silence about girls’ experiences of digital sexual violence. Consequently, girls’ categorization of cyberflashing as cyberbullying might obscure the true prevalence of gendered digital sexualized violence that girls’ experience.

What is cyberflashing?

Cyberflashing or unwanted dick pics is the non-consensual act of airdropping or sharing penis images through text, email, or social/ video media messaging platforms. In New Zealand, ‘cyberflashing’ is not specified as a criminal act. Technically however, sending unwanted dick pics could be considered a breach of harmful digital communications, or addressed via a range of alternative legislation. Contrasting this landscape to the UK, cyberflashing is criminalised using the Online Safety Act 2023. In New Zealand, public, educational, or policy discussion about cyberflashing seems to be opaque.

Prevalence and Impacts

One study in England found that 76% of tween-to-teen girls aged 12-18 had been cyberflashed. In New Zealand, there is no prevalence-specific survey focused on cyberflashing for girls’. However, insights from the girls in #useyourvoice reported that their first exposure happened at about 10 years old. From this age onwards cyberflashing was a frequent experience. Subsequently, girls expressed a sense of unease about the boundless interpersonal reach of those who cyberflash at any time of day or night.

Across society, there is a myth that unwanted dick pics are harmless and humorous. Countering this perspective, Law Professor  Claire McGlynn who successfully lobbied for the criminalisation of cyberflashing in the UK, argues that cyberflashing can be just as harmful as face-to-face exposure. In #useyourvoice, the girls considered the experience of cyberflashing as an irreversible, non-consensual sexual violation. Lakshmi, Sudha and Preeti, all 14, expressed ‘once you see it [dick pick] you can’t unsee it’. In their words, this was an experience that left them feeling ‘ashamed, grossed out and traumatised’.  Research conducted in 2021 and 2022 at Christchurch Schools also shows the broader context of girls’ experiences of male-perpetrated online sexual harassment.

The rising prevalence of digital sexual violence online has put an increased burden on schools and parents. Understandably, both groups find it challenging to confidently approach the interconnection of youth, sex, sexuality, and gender in online spaces having little of their own experiences.

Findings and Recommendations

Implicitly, girls are expected to endure cyberflashing because it happens ‘online’ not ‘in real life’.    Consequently, girls normalize cyberflashing in two categories. Strangers who cyberflash are rationalized as perverts to be ignored. Cyberflashing from friends is justified with gendered perspectives of ‘boys being boys’. Furthermore, the girls reported that cyberflashing perpetrated by a friend is not worth reporting to social media platforms, parents, or educators. If girls do report, they risk being accused of making a ‘drama’ out of this situation. This makes the real-life social consequences of friendships and networks difficult to manage.

The girls also reported that boys’ show unwanted dick pics in person on their smartphones. This tactic ensured that the uninvited image can be deleted and is therefore undetectable by school authorities. With similar-age peers, cyberflashing is more likely a display of stereotypical masculine heterosexuality in contrast to sexual grooming. In #useyourvoice, the boys expressed that their cyberflashing was motivated by the prospect of receiving a sexualized ‘nude’ image in return. In these circumstances, criminalization is not the answer; instead, sexual violence prevention education is key.

Girls sense their parents’ discomfort around this topic. Without malice, parents and educators can tend to rely on victim-blaming narratives such as “Why were you on that social media platform?” and “Why did you stay friends with the boy who sent you the picture?”. There is also the added apprehension about disclosing strangers’ or peer cyberflashing to a parent. Often in trying to protect girls’, parents might curtail their phone and social media privileges.

When the girls disclosed strangers’ cyberflashing to social media platforms, their reports were ignored, so they viewed reporting to platforms as pointless. Social media organizations are culpable as they continue to design unsafe technologies that normalises and overlooks digital sexual violence.

To address and prevent digital sexual violence a good starting point is a public conversation. In New Zealand, a multi-pronged approach, between government, education, youth and parents should work towards pressuring social media platforms.

What do girls’ want?

In #useyourvoice, the girls wanted to access support. They also wanted the boys to stop cyberflashing and for educators to educate boys about the harm. Unfortunately, educational guidance about cyberflashing seems vague. With online and social media, there is a rapidly widening gap between Relationships and Sexuality Education and the reality of youth digital-sexual experiences. To prevent all forms of digital sexual violence, it is crucial to bridge this divide by providing our educators and youth with the knowledge and tools they need to name cyberflashing. Educators need to be trained to challenge sexist and gendered prescriptive narratives to support youth to navigate the complex landscape of digital sexuality safely and responsibly. This type of education must be designed in collaboration with young people, to be relatable to their time, context, and reality. Cyberflashing or ‘unwanted dick pics’ are not a problem for girls’ to fix alone. The involvement of boys’ in these conversations is critical for digital sexual ethics and sexual violence prevention.

First published at www.parenting.digital, this post represents the views of the authors and not the position of the Parenting for a Digital Future blog, nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science.

You are free to republish the text of this article under Creative Commons licence crediting www.parenting.digital and the author of the piece. Please note that images are not included in this blanket licence.

Featured image: photo by mikoto.raw onPexels

In-text image: Eleanor Beer https://www.eleanorbeer.com/