‘Firsthand’ versus ‘Secondhand’ Perspectives of Harm

Introduction This article examines interview data from 24 Australian families, exploring how teens express perceived harms associated with online Sexually Explicit Material (SEM). For many teens, an encounter with SEM occurs prior to their first partnered sexual experience, often before their first kiss (Crabbe et al. 1; Power et al. 11; Woodley et al., Teen Perspectives 2). Of relevance was how teens expressed the potential harms of online SEM. Specifically, this article examines the difference between instances of teens expressing perceptions of SEM via the perspectives of others (secondhand perspectives) in contrast with instances of teens citing their own encounters with SEM (firsthand perspectives). Through thematic analysis, the authors argue that when making claims about teen experiences, firsthand perspectives should be emphasised where possible, given that secondhand perspectives often reflect media effects. Media effects refer to exacerbated fears in relation to the impact of media, often in the context that certain types of media are considered highly influential in shaping views and attitudes towards certain social and cultural phenomena (Tsaliki and Chronaki 402). As such, the authors aim to distinguish between teens' secondhand perceptions of potential harms – especially when observably informed by external influences – and their firsthand accounts of harm informed by their direct encounters with SEM. It is firsthand perspectives that the authors argue can lead to more effective policies. Further, the authors discuss how the use of loaded language during interviews can influence participant responses, particularly when collecting data on contentious or sensitive subjects such as SEM. Perceptions of Harm The potential risks associated with SEM are often described as harmful. Harm signifies content (or an experience) that is damaging, and often resulting in negative long-term consequences (Banko et al. 132; Livingstone et al. 14; Spišák 130). Public discourse frames online SEM, especially pornography, as inherently harmful to young people who are positioned as more vulnerable than adults (Spišák 130). In existing research, articles that identified pornography as particularly damaging specifically use the term harmful (Crabbe et al. 2; Hakkim et al. 111), whereas studies positioning pornography with more nuance – or even stating that pornography is undeservingly cited as a source of harm – position SEM as not harmful, or even acceptable, while commenting how these media are misrepresented by anti-pornography activists (Binnie and Reavey 178; Ley 208; Lišková 41; McKee 22). These varying positions on pornography illustrate how potentially contentious subjects can result in polarising views. The extent of harm caused by pornography, however, is unclear (Lim et al. 661); to justify investing resources into policies that restrict pornography, evidence of potential harms must be demonstrated, which, in turn, requires defining them (Banko et al. 136; Binnie and Reavey 179; Dwyer 516). What constitutes media as harmful is often defined as shifts in an individual's attitudes, behaviours, or values away from what is deemed healthy and/or appropriate by a culture or society. However, growing perceptions that pornography promotes sexual aggression and rape acceptance are perpetuated without rigorously proven causal links (Ferguson 28; Fisher 6; Mestre-Bach 1090) – links that even teens interviewed in the research had mixed responses to. Indeed, youth voices are mostly absent from such debates, with adult policymakers and stakeholders often deciding what is best on young people’s behalf (Third, 2). Recently, of 1,272 Australians aged 15–29 surveyed, 17% believed pornography was not harmful, with 65% of users identifying that pornography was “harmful for some people but not everyone”, with harm being particularly contingent on the nature of the pornography being consumed (i.e., if violent) and how frequently pornography was used (Lim et al. 664); however, how harm is defined from a teen-centred perspective is often missing from greater discourse. Methodology This article draws on qualitative data from an ARC-funded research project aimed at collecting teens’ and parents’ perceived impacts from under-18s consuming sexual content. Specifically, this research addressed questions concerning how teens construct meaning around their encounters with SEM, and how their understandings might be influenced by public discourse. Data were collected from 49 semi-structured interviews with 30 teens (aged 11–17) from 24 Western Australian families between 2021 and 2023; this age range was nominated to collect perspectives from teen participants soon after their initial encounters with SEM. Parents were also interviewed separately. Of the 30 teens, 19 returned for a second-round interview approximately one year later to allow for minor semi-longitudinal insights into how their perceptions may have shifted. Teen participants were asked what sexual content meant to them, which resulted in a range of media, including: sexually explicit imagery and videos, sex scenes in movies, sexualised imagery in advertising, or dick pics and nudes; the term nudes is commonly used by teens to denote naked images taken and shared via digital devices, otherwise known as a form of sexting (Albury 713; Woodley et al., Teen Perspectives 1). Ethics approval for the research with teens was given on the condition that parental permission was obtained first; parents first consented to be interviewed themselves, then gave consent for their child, before that child consented to their own interview. As such, researchers acknowledge the power dynamics present in adult-youth research and made efforts to create a safe environment for participants. Teens were interviewed in a space of their choosing (within the family home) and were advised they could withdraw from the interview at any time without needing to provide a reason. Given that encounters with SEM are a potentially sensitive topic that may cause discomfort, efforts were made to ensure participants felt comfortable in the discussion: confidentiality was assured, and teens were permitted to pass on any questions. As the age range of participants varied from 11–17, age-appropriate and respectful language was used that acknowledged the agency and insights of participants of different stages of development. Interviewers also adjusted their language and approach in response to differences in teens’ socio-cultural positionalities. These adjustments often occurred at the beginning of interviews as teens were asked informally about hobbies or interests to build rapport. Data from interviews were recorded, transcribed, and de-identified prior to coding via NVivo software. Thematic analysis was used to identify and explore key groupings of concepts; of relevance to this article, perceptions of harm were coded in instances where teens expressed negative consequences associated with pornography, ranging from feelings of discomfort to concerns about compulsive use. Research was conducted via a social constructionist framework that acknowledges there is no objective truth and that multiple interpretations of reality are equally legitimate as shaped by social and cultural contexts (Burr 6; White para 1); as such, teens’ truths about their realities are valued. Results Generally, there was an observable delineation between teens expressing perspectives directly informed by external influences (or second-hand perspectives) and teens expressing perspectives informed by their own encounters with SEM (or first-hand perspectives). Secondhand perspectives were observable in four, often intersecting instances: (1) teens directly citing external influences – often parents and teachers, and, to a lesser extent, social media; (2) teens utilising formalised concepts or terminology that contrasted with their age-appropriate vernacular, and/or were unlikely to be intuited by teens without intervention; (3) teens expressing they had encountered pornography and conceded potential harms of such content, while also asserting that they had not experienced such harms and/or did not feel that such harms were likely; (4) teens expressing potential harms while reporting they were yet to encounter pornography. Whether teens were honest or not about encountering pornography, instance four often occurred in conjunction with one of the previous three. Alternatively, firsthand perspectives were observable when teens expressed harms through age-appropriate vernacular, but more importantly, when in direct reference to their own encounters with SEM. Regarding secondhand perspectives, (1) teens directly citing adults is evident when statements are prefaced with direct phrasing like: “basically what I was told by my parents or what I got from my parents having that sort of conversations with me would be …” (Levi, age 12), as well as observable in less direct prefacing such as Heath’s (age 14) response: my mum seem[ed] more focussed on the impacts, how it can be really bad for people who are involved in production of pornography and stuff rather than it being like I feel like some other adults might have presented it a different way rather than focussed on the impacts on people involved in it and stuff and the actual impacts on everyone. Similar to Heath’s indirect phrasing – and while inquiring what is meant by harm – Levi responds to “do you feel like accessing or viewing this content [pornography] causes you harm in any way?” with: it kind of depends on what you mean by harm. I haven’t read any of the report like one of the things that annoys me is that whenever I want to do something or Mum says oh it’s too old for you, da, da, da, da, she refers to reports like oh I read this, da, da, da, I read this, da, da, da. I don’t read them and I don’t understand them so I don’t know what I consider harm but overall I’d probably say no, probably not.