From 'Harmful Sexual Behaviour' to 'Harmful Sexual Culture': Addressing School-Related Sexual and Gender-Based Violence among Young People in England through 'Post-Digital Sexual Citizenship'
Saved in:
| Title: | From 'Harmful Sexual Behaviour' to 'Harmful Sexual Culture': Addressing School-Related Sexual and Gender-Based Violence among Young People in England through 'Post-Digital Sexual Citizenship' |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Emily Setty (ORCID |
| Source: | Gender and Education. 2024 36(5):434-452. |
| Availability: | Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 19 |
| Publication Date: | 2024 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Evaluative |
| Descriptors: | Foreign Countries, Sexuality, Gender Bias, Violence, Peer Influence, Public Policy, Sex Education, Student Empowerment, Sexual Abuse, Student Behavior, Social Influences, Computer Mediated Communication, Empowerment, Behavior Change |
| Geographic Terms: | United Kingdom (England) |
| DOI: | 10.1080/09540253.2024.2348534 |
| ISSN: | 0954-0253 1360-0516 |
| Abstract: | Sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) in schools in England is a pressing concern, especially since the 'Everyone's Invited' movement laid bare the extent of the problem across the country. This article analyses the national policy context, asserting that SGBV is a systemic problem rooted in young people's school and online peer cultures that requires transformative solutions, involving active youth participation. We introduce and explore the utility of the concept of post-digital sexual citizenship. We contrast this approach with the prevailing behavioural science 'nudge' philosophy of government policy making and societal discussions on youth sexuality and rights currently shaping Relationships and Sex Education (RSE) discourse and policy in England. Challenging adult-centric, top-down methods and instead empowering young people as post-digital sexual citizens entitled to comprehensive RSE is vital. While our focus is on England, the arguments apply globally to jurisdictions tackling SGBV in schools. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2024 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1427843 |
| Database: | ERIC |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwE8qU806glLC1VJCBJ6IqdPAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDNZqy4Ig_tFw_-O2gAIBEICBmummRetHlXTu2LpYJVhPRgRyWc8g4D0-vOzNKZrsnq0HNvFzyM3xOaDvUHBFwPEHsSYKLJ2u1cDD4XHw7chw3Y2bCVjtQrCGt3svZGNVnFkcjLkZkY6umxrLOeBfL_WisrDvZMnEs5dfA9-MJk9jewlTMzbmwQD8b3MuATBAvjBlJv9v-ZufQ56cWgAExWx2oHGMylone6Ty1hk= Text: Availability: 1 Value: <anid>AN0177739124;gae01jul.24;2024Jun11.03:40;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0177739124-1">From 'harmful sexual behaviour' to 'harmful sexual culture': addressing school-related sexual and gender-based violence among young people in England through 'post-digital sexual citizenship' </title> <p>Sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) in schools in England is a pressing concern, especially since the 'Everyone's Invited' movement laid bare the extent of the problem across the country. This article analyses the national policy context, asserting that SGBV is a systemic problem rooted in young people's school and online peer cultures that requires transformative solutions, involving active youth participation. We introduce and explore the utility of the concept of postdigital sexual citizenship. We contrast this approach with the prevailing behavioural science 'nudge' philosophy of government policy making and societal discussions on youth sexuality and rights currently shaping Relationships and Sex Education (RSE) discourse and policy in England. Challenging adult-centric, top-down methods and instead empowering young people as post-digital sexual citizens entitled to comprehensive RSE is vital. While our focus is on England, the arguments apply globally to jurisdictions tackling SGBV in schools.</p> <p>Keywords: Harmful sexual behaviour (HSB); young people; schools; relationships and sex education; sexual citizenship</p> <hd id="AN0177739124-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Recent years have seen an increase in societal awareness and concern about the problem of what the United Nations (UN) and other global organisations term 'sexual and gender-based violence' (SGBV) among young people in schools. This paper examines the national policy context in England regarding the prevention and response to SGBV in schools, with the aim of informing policy debates concerned with tackling the problem. We outline how in England, SGBV is identified within the Violence against Women and Girls (VAWG) sector as a systemic social crisis rooted in gender inequalities. The Department for Education (DfE) has responded with psychological models that position SGBV as a behavioural problem that requires effective identification, prevention, and response by schools and statutory partners. Behavioural science driven 'nudge' approaches in policy making coupled with ideological discomfort with youth sociosexual agency and rights has resulted in an emphasis on disciplinary action and hierarchical 'role modelling' of 'acceptable behaviour.'</p> <p>We argue that tackling SGBV in schools instead requires policy formulations based on the active participation of young people in identifying problems and developing solutions. It entails supporting young people's 'digital sexual citizenship,' grounded in a rights-based approach. We adapt this concept to <emph>post-</emph>digital sexual citizenship to capture the entanglement between the digital online and offline in young people's experiences, including in and around school (see Ringrose et al. [<reflink idref="bib93" id="ref1">93</reflink>]; Evans and Ringrose, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref2">32</reflink>]; McCosker, Vivienne, and Johns [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref3">65</reflink>]; Nelson, Perry, and Rogers [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref4">72</reflink>]; Yue and Lim [<reflink idref="bib123" id="ref5">123</reflink>]). Our emphasis runs counter both to the philosophy of nudge and to socio-political discourses about youth sexuality and rights that currently dominate Relationships and Sex Education (RSE) policy in England. For example, the fact Gillick competence[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref6">1</reflink>] is omitted from the DfE's RSE guidance for schools (i.e. young people's right to access contraceptive advice and treatment regardless of their age) should be seen as a clear indication of the direction of travel. DfE policy on RSE is now under review, but whether it is feasible for SGBV to be mitigated through new or amended forms of guidance is questionable given this terrain.</p> <hd id="AN0177739124-3">Policy context in England</hd> <p>In 2016, the Women's and Equalities Committee identified sexual violence and sexual harassment in schools as a serious concern and as spanning a continuum of behaviour often not recognised or responded to as abuse by pupils and staff but as impactful both for young people and in terms of harmful normative expectations taken into adulthood. The Committee recommended clear reporting and recording structures and preventative education starting at an early age to address underlying causes before gender and sexual norms become entrenched in patterns of abusive behaviour. It was noted that schools require funding and resources, including to work with specialist organisations.</p> <p>Since the Committee's report, the 'Everyone's Invited' movement, created by Soma Sara in 2020, laid bare the ongoing extent of the problem across the England. This movement involved survivors sharing their experiences of sexual harassment and abuse to a website and Instagram platform. It began as a social media campaign to create a safe space for individuals to speak out about their experiences, with the aim of raising awareness and generating conversations around the issues. The movement gained significant attention through its social media presence and testimonies, highlighting a wide range of experiences from sexual harassment to assault, both online and in person. A 'rapid response' report published in May 2021 by Ofsted, the school's regulator in England, described a 'shocking' normalisation of SGBV in state and independent schools and colleges (Ofsted [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref7">76</reflink>]). Subsequent discussion has focused on gender disparities in experiences of sexual harassment and abuse, issues surrounding consent and healthy relationships, and the problems with the nature of institutional responses to young people's experiences of and involvement in the behaviours (Horeck et al. [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref8">48</reflink>]).</p> <p>Government policy pertaining to SGBV in schools includes 'Sexual harassment and sexual violence between children in schools and colleges' (DfE [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref9">22</reflink>]) and 'Keeping children safe in education' policy (DfE [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref10">23</reflink>]). Both instruct schools to take proportionate, zero-tolerance, and trauma-informed responses to SGBV and preventative action to address 'wider societal factors' and 'sexism' (DfE [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref11">22</reflink>], 9), including through a 'whole school approach' to articulating a 'clear set of values and standards' (DfE [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref12">22</reflink>], 18). Staff training, leadership, multiagency working and information sharing, and context-specific assessments of risks and vulnerabilities are emphasised.</p> <p>'Sharing nudes and semi-nudes: Advice for education settings working with children and young people' (UK Council for Internet Safety [<reflink idref="bib112" id="ref13">112</reflink>]) specifically addresses prevention and response to sexual image sharing among young people, including non-consensual and abusive sharing. While it recommends a contextualised approach to responding to incidents, it does not specifically frame non-consensual and abusive sharing as a form of SGBV. There is little in the guidance about how to address the gendered nature of the enactment and experience of, what we term below, online image-based sexual harassment and abuse. The recently passed Online Safety Act is now being deferred to as the primary means for keeping children and young people safe online in relation to sexual harm and pornography, although education leaders and Ofsted are still being called upon 'to address the harmful use of mobile devices on school and college premises' (Women and Equalities Committee [<reflink idref="bib121" id="ref14">121</reflink>]), suggesting a lack of clarity regarding overarching responsibility to address online SGBV with, as we elaborate below, implications for acknowledgement of and response to the problem and, in turn, post-digital sexual citizenship.</p> <p>Related policy includes 'Prevention and tackling bullying: Advice for schools' (DfE [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref15">20</reflink>]) which describes 'sexual harassment and sexual bullying' (<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref16">18</reflink>) as occurring along a continuum, including potentially normalised but nevertheless harmful behaviours. It states that pupils need to learn what is and is not acceptable based on modelling within the school and clear and consistent messaging and sanctions. 'Behaviour in schools: Advice for headteachers and school staff' (DfE [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref17">24</reflink>]) also makes this point. Across policy, pupils are to be provided with 'an open forum to talk things through' (DfE [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref18">22</reflink>], 20) and to 'be asked about their experience of behaviour and offered opportunities to provide feedback on the school's behaviour culture' (DfE [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref19">24</reflink>], 71). However, this emphasis on pupil voice sits within an overarching punitive framework regarding exclusion and isolation.</p> <p>'Tackling violence against women and girls' (Home Office [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref20">47</reflink>]) takes a social justice-oriented and victim-centered approach to SGBV. It frames SGBV as multifactorial, societal, and systemic and states that schools should address it through educating pupils about what is and is not acceptable and changing their attitudes and beliefs. RSE is identified as a key site for preventative action. Yet, the Ofsted Report ([<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref21">76</reflink>]) identified RSE provision/delivery as substandard and ineffective in addressing SGBV and recommended improving provision across schools.</p> <p>Schools in England are now under a statutory obligation to deliver RSE. Curriculum guidance issued by the DfE (DfE [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref22">21</reflink>]) outlines learning objectives relevant to SGBV centered on pupils understanding their legal rights and responsibilities and how to recognise and report abuse. Pupils also need to learn about the character traits that comprise healthy relationships. The guidance conceives of RSE as part of how schools are to foster healthy relationships and address norms and stereotypes through 'whole school approaches' that 'build a culture where these are not tolerated, and any occurrences are identified and tackled' (<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref23">14</reflink>). Consistent with other policies, it states that 'Good practice allows children an open forum to discuss potentially sensitive issues. Such discussion can lead to increased safeguarding reports' (<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref24">40</reflink>). In response to the Ofsted Report ([<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref25">76</reflink>]), the DfE is producing new non-statutory guidance 'Teaching Relationships Education to prevent sexual harassment and sexual violence.'</p> <p>Overall, policy shows awareness of the complexity of SGBV and the need for prevention and response action to tackle the normative contexts that facilitate it. We suggest, however, that the emphasis on encouraging 'appropriate' behaviour and deterring 'inappropriate' behaviour reflects a behavioural theory approach to conditioning behaviour through punishment and reinforcement (see Skinner [<reflink idref="bib107" id="ref26">107</reflink>]). From this theoretical perspective, wider normative contexts are significant in terms of the impact of perceived norms and actions of others in the environment on conditioning individual behaviour and choices (see Bandura [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref27">6</reflink>]). Pupil consultation is oriented around encouraging disclosures and receiving feedback about issues and effective practice, with adults taking action based on a comprehensive assessment of the issues to be addressed. There is, therefore, scope for consultation to identify the contexts that facilitate SGBV, but policy presupposes that SGBV can be addressed through clearly and consistently implementing and enforcing rules of conduct and speech, including through zero tolerance and sanctions. There is implicit recognition of how adults may uphold and perpetuate cultures of SGBV through their attitudes and actions but little acknowledgement or amelioration of the tensions between addressing root causes and documenting and escalating incidents, with the latter potentially creating cultures of 'box ticking' rather than genuine change (Lloyd [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref28">62</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0177739124-4">Behavioural science ('nudge') and government policy-making</hd> <p>The role of behavioural theory in underpinning government policy connected to SGBV in schools may be attributable to the influence of behavioural science in government policy making generally, which, in the case of SGBV in schools, is coupled with dominant socio-political discourses about youth sexuality and organised attempts to delimit young people's access to comprehensive and holistic RSE.</p> <p>The incorporation of behavioural science into government policy making began with the New Labour government as part of the 'What Works' agenda. The coalition government established an 'in-house' unit in 2010, the 'Behavioural Insights Team' (BIT), which became autonomous and is now independent from government. BIT claims to 'deliver social impact and develop practice solutions to complex challenges' and has addressed SGBV-related issues. While articulating a commitment to gender equity and social justice and to addressing the normative contexts shaping behaviour, BIT's deployment of 'effective, easy to implement and low cost strategies' to change behaviour through 'nudge' has been critiqued for its troubling implications for the agency of the 'targets' of interventions and for delimiting the scope for genuine transformative change. As with government policy pertaining to SGBV in schools, recognition of culture and norms seems more about conditioning of behaviour rather than deeper emancipatory change, even though BIT may contend that the latter is best achieved through behavioural approaches.</p> <p>Consistent with behavioural theory, 'nudge' entails effecting behaviour change through adjustments to 'choice architecture' that shape decision making (Pedwell [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref29">81</reflink>]). Its advocates argue that because individuals may not always make the best choices – due to predictable cognitive biases that lead to automatic and irrational decision-making – they should, and can, be encouraged, through nudges, to make different choices (Thaler and Sunstein [<reflink idref="bib110" id="ref30">110</reflink>]). While an individual may be a ' ... rational neoliberal subject' (<reflink idref="bib248" id="ref31">248</reflink>) capable of making decisions based upon an assessment of potential consequences, such rationality is to be 'constituted [because] ... there are inherent limitations on an individual's capacity for rationality' (Bradbury, McGimpsey, and Santori [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref32">10</reflink>], 250). Constituting rationality through nudge, Pedwell ([<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref33">81</reflink>], 60) outlines, involves 'subtle tweaks to the environments that shape unconscious, automated or habitual behaviour ... [in ways that] fundamentally preserve people's freedom and choice.'</p> <p>Nudge is morally permissible because, supposedly, the ends justify the means and the freedom to choose is ostensibly retained (Selinger and Whyte [<reflink idref="bib101" id="ref34">101</reflink>]). Nudge has, however, been described as 'behavioural engineering' of what nudgers deem the 'right' behaviour (Boeckler and Berndt [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref35">9</reflink>], 428). Critics suggest that who gets nudged and who does the nudging reflects social inequalities and power differentials regarding what is defined as the desired outcome and the design and implementation of choice architecture (Reid and Ellsworth-Krebs [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref36">89</reflink>]). Individuals are deemed irrational for not acting in alignment with desired outcomes and as needing to change their decision-making, with less attention to any structural patterning to the problems identified (Burgess [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref37">12</reflink>]; Pedwell [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref38">81</reflink>]).</p> <p>Behavioural scientists and nudges may claim to have moral or political concerns, but the underlying philosophy and epistemology of nudge does not support free will and agency (Hampton and Adams [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref39">43</reflink>]). Either indirectly or by design, nudge may foreclose deeper transformative and transferable (to other contexts) change because it focuses on changing decision-making and behaviour within environments and does not resolve, and may entrench, the deeper systemic issues (Pedwell [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref40">81</reflink>]). Van Der Linden ([<reflink idref="bib116" id="ref41">116</reflink>], 208) describe it as 'almost purposely steering clear of trying to solve some of the world's biggest and most complex social dilemmas' in favour of supposedly more efficient 'quick fixes' done <emph>to</emph> or <emph>through</emph> individuals.</p> <p>Passivity among target/s and claims of 'universality and homogeneity' in how people think and react are features of nudge (Reid and Ellsworth-Krebs [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref42">89</reflink>], 298). Jones, Pykett, and Whitehead ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref43">54</reflink>]) consider it disempowering due to the subconscious influence of nudge, whereby any agency among targets is in service of preconceived outcomes. Thaler and Sunstein ([<reflink idref="bib110" id="ref44">110</reflink>]) counter, however, that governments are always creating choice architectures and must do so for the good. Lodge and Wegrich ([<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref45">64</reflink>]) suggest there results a rationality paradox whereby policy makers are deemed unbiased and conscious of the limitations on rationality despite the effects of considerations regarding, for example, financial constraints and political priorities, among other matters, which, we argue below, shape and constrain policy making regarding SGBV in schools.</p> <p>Nudge has previously been purposely deployed within schools in England, including to encourage socio-economically disadvantaged youth to make 'better' decisions regarding extracurricular and other activities amid the supposed nefarious impact of peer norms and pressures. Bradbury, McGimpsey, and Santori ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref46">10</reflink>]) analyse how the 'youth opportunity card' was harnessed to 'promote desired behavioural change' (<reflink idref="bib251" id="ref47">251</reflink>) with a 'focus on actions, choices and behaviour, rather than changing the subject itself' (<reflink idref="bib262" id="ref48">262</reflink>). In this case, wider structural patterns of disadvantage were not directly addressed.</p> <p>Regarding SGBV, we suggest that culture should be harnessed in more fundamental ways, whereby culture is the target of change rather than utilised in service of preconceived behavioural outcomes. Below, we conceptualise SGBV in terms culture and then argue for sexual citizenship as a way of addressing cultures of SGBV with – not for or on behalf of – young people as active agents, rather than passive targets. This approach may be incompatible with or difficult within the current political landscape surrounding young people's socio-sexual rights and RSE. Rather than managing young people's behaviour or socialising them into preconceived 'appropriate' attitudes, beliefs, and behaviours, sexual citizenship involves young people actively transforming the longstanding and systemic cultural contexts of SGBV, including those perpetuated and reinforced by adults. It thus starts with conceiving of SGBV in schools as a cultural problem.</p> <hd id="AN0177739124-5">SGBV in schools as a cultural problem</hd> <p>As would likely be acknowledged by behavioural theorists, SGBV, even when seemingly involving private behaviour (e.g. when alone or with a partner away from the purview of peers), is affected by social meanings and norms that shape expectations for behaviour in a given context. Behavioural and cultural approaches differ, however, with the former harnessing and adapting punishment and reinforcement within normative contexts to achieve preconceived behavioural outcomes. The latter, meanwhile, identifies and seeks to directly address culture, with the expectation that cultural change will, in the case of SGBV, occur in service of young people's rights to sexual safety and wellbeing through reforming the underlying beliefs and attitudes that facilitate harm rather than just deterring harm through conditioning behaviour.</p> <p>From a cultural perspective, the disproportionate impacts of SGBV on girls and LGBT + young people relate to gender roles and sexual scripts (Flood [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref49">34</reflink>]; Horeck et al. [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref50">49</reflink>]), which can be identified and explored with young people in ways that improve gender relations, and, in turn, young people's interpersonal and social lives. Framing SGBV as a gendered cultural problem is not, however, to essentialise about gender but to recognise how attitudes and behaviours unfold in context (Durham [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref51">29</reflink>]). Boys, for instance, may not recognise abuse perpetrated against them or that they perpetrate toward others as abuse because of normalised masculinity narratives and practices (e.g. Abbott, Weckesser, and Egan [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref52">1</reflink>]; Mishna et al. [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref53">70</reflink>]; Setty [<reflink idref="bib103" id="ref54">103</reflink>]; Ging et al. [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref55">38</reflink>]). A cultural lens redefines incidents of SGBV as micro-level manifestations of culture that encompass individual, interpersonal, and cultural levels of meaning and experience (see Jackson and Scott [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref56">51</reflink>]), rather than just atomised individuals enacting choices in response to normative contexts.</p> <p>A cultural lens enables exploration of when and why behaviour is not recognised and/or responded to as harassment or abuse, both by young people and adults (Firmin [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref57">33</reflink>]; Lloyd [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref58">62</reflink>]; Mishna et al. [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref59">69</reflink>]). Contrary to top-down 'nudge' approaches, there ensues a question regarding who gets to define SGBV, particularly as pertains so-called 'lower level' gendered and sexualised bullying and 'banter.' Tackling cultures of SGBV also entails addressing the institutional structures of schools (Elliott [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref60">30</reflink>]) whereby, as microcosms of wider society, sexist attitudes and victim blaming within schools – including among adults – may perpetuate the problem.</p> <hd id="AN0177739124-6">Post-digital sexual citizenship</hd> <p>We offer sexual citizenship as a means through which to address SGBV in schools as cultural. We further adapt the concept to acknowledge the digitally mediated terrains young people traverse in their everyday lives. Broadly, sexual citizenship is an aspect of citizenship (Evans [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref61">31</reflink>]), related to belonging, recognition, and diversity (Aggleton et al. [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref62">2</reflink>]). It addresses sexual rights and responsibilities as reciprocal and relational (Donovan, Heaphy, and Weeks [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref63">28</reflink>]; Plummer [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref64">84</reflink>]; Richardson [<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref65">92</reflink>]) and conceptualises private sexual life as 'connected to, structured by, and regulated through the public sphere' (Plummer [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref66">85</reflink>], 70), including, we argue, culture.</p> <p>Supporting young people's sexual citizenship is about harm reduction, prevention of abuse, and positive sexual rights. We conceive of it as a <emph>process</emph> whereby young people actively shape, develop, and give meaning to sexual citizenship rather than it being an objective ontological reality bestowed upon them by adults (Alldred and Fox [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref67">4</reflink>]). It contrasts with nudge because it involves active participation and conscious deliberation rather than redirection of behaviour in line with the preconceived objectives of nudgers. As suggested above, culture is an end in itself rather than a facet of behavioural theory.</p> <p>SGBV is also enacted and experienced online, as has been acknowledged in studies on non-consensual image sharing (Setty, Ringrose, and Regehr [<reflink idref="bib106" id="ref68">106</reflink>]), which attests to the prevalence and normalisation of image-based sexual harassment and abuse online within young people's digital sexual cultures (Henry, Flynn, and Powell [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref69">45</reflink>]; McGlynn et al. [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref70">67</reflink>]; Ringrose, Regehr, and Whitehead [<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref71">96</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib94" id="ref72">94</reflink>]). We suggest that young people's digital sexual cultures, as well as the research terrains we are working in, are actually 'post-digital' (Yue and Lim [<reflink idref="bib123" id="ref73">123</reflink>]) since the digital and non-digital elements are closely interwoven. Young people's behaviours, experiences, and cultures span online and offline and are digitally mediated rather than distinctly online or offline (Nelson, Perry, and Rogers [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref74">72</reflink>]). This indissoluble connection between digital and non-digital life is shaping new relations of intimacy, emotion, and affect that collapse the public and private spheres of life suggesting that sexual citizenship encompasses digital citizenship. 'Post-digital' is especially evident in peer or 'youth digital sexual cultures' of 'networked teens' which spill over into their lives and relationships in and around school (Ringrose et al. [<reflink idref="bib93" id="ref75">93</reflink>]).</p> <p>A post-digital framing makes visible the social and cultural nature of the impact of digitally mediated SGBV on young people and how a lack of understanding of these issues has resulted in policy and practices that shame and blame victims of abuse and normalise, or render inevitable, the actions of those who enact abuse, for example when they non-consensually share images of others (De Ridder [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref76">25</reflink>]; Dobson and Shields [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref77">27</reflink>]; Harder [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref78">44</reflink>]; Ravn, Coffey, and Roberts [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref79">88</reflink>]; Ringrose and Regehr [<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref80">95</reflink>]). Abusive image sharing behaviours are often considered 'grey areas' in educational policy and practice regarding how to respond and who is responsible for responding (Cooper et al. [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref81">16</reflink>]; García-Gómez [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref82">37</reflink>]; Thomas [<reflink idref="bib111" id="ref83">111</reflink>]; Ringrose, Regehr, and Whitehead [<reflink idref="bib97" id="ref84">97</reflink>]).</p> <p>Schools are not solely or entirely at fault in their failure to address the nuances of post-digital SGBV, nor their inability to enact a post-digital sexual citizenship, rights-based response. Statutory government policy (DfE [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref85">21</reflink>]) is shaped by an overarching objective of deterring young people's online sexual behaviours through emphasising risk. While protection and participation rights online for young people must be balanced (Crofts and Lievens [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref86">17</reflink>]), de-emphasising abstinence and prohibition would create space for delineating abusive practices from consensual practices and addressing the former as a cultural problem rather than as a consequence of volitional engagement with digital intimacies (Krieger [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref87">60</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0177739124-7">Addressing SGBV through post-digital sexual citizenship</hd> <p>Sexual citizenship is defined by York, MacKenzie and Purdy ([<reflink idref="bib122" id="ref88">122</reflink>]) as the knowledge, skills, and literacy that young people need to understand and actively uphold their own and one another's socio-sexual rights. It differs from behavioural theory-informed nudge approaches because young people are no longer responding to punishment and reinforcement to act in ways desired by adults but instead are actively identifying and creating the conditions required for sexual safety and wellbeing for themselves and their peers. Practicing and developing post-digital sexual citizenship – both under the guidance of adults and independently within their peer contexts and interpersonal relationships – enables young people to actively address the cultures of SGBV.</p> <p>Addressing SGBV through post-digital sexual citizenship aligns with scholarship by Hirsch and colleagues. Responding to the issue of sexual assault on US college campuses, they conducted extensive ethnographic research which identified how assaults occur within students' everyday peer networks, with varying levels of recognition and reporting (Wamboldt et al. [<reflink idref="bib117" id="ref89">117</reflink>]). They critique the overemphasis on reporting and responding to assaults and advocate also preventing sexual assault from happening through transformative interventions that develop sexual citizenship (Hirsch and Khan [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref90">46</reflink>]). They describe sexual citizenship as about the critical life skills to negotiate social and intimate situations. They argue that rights are 'reciprocal,' and sexual citizenship is not innate but needs to be developed and supported. Doing so, they contend, involves identifying and addressing the power dynamics that exist within interpersonal contexts and 'sexual geographies' in ways that support sexual self-determination.</p> <p>Sexual citizenship contrasts with 'nudge' because young people are positioned as change agents ('citizens') who can actively participate in identifying problems and transforming the conditions in which SGBV occurs and is given meaning. It creates scope for 'whole school approaches' that address policy and protocol but also the institutional structures of schools that may facilitate or hinder deeper change (e.g. Meiksin et al. [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref91">68</reflink>]; Kearney et al. [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref92">57</reflink>]; Niolon et al. [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref93">74</reflink>]). It requires broadening focus from just reporting and responding to incidents. While young people's perceptions of safety and willingness to report abuse is an important part of school climate (Fritz and Firmin [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref94">36</reflink>]), it is necessary to also address school culture distinctly and reflexively<emph>.</emph> Through doing so, unintended consequences of efforts to suppress SGBV in schools can be identified.</p> <p>For example, while 'zero-tolerance' of language and behaviours deemed to constitute or cause abuse is often well-meant, it may be counterproductive through disengaging or alienating targets, exacerbating peer divisions, increasing a disclination to report incidents among young people, and leading to detection/punishment avoidance rather than genuine change (Lloyd and Bradbury [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref95">63</reflink>]). A post-digital sexual citizenship framing, in contrast, entails acknowledging how zero-tolerance depends upon adult-centric definitions of SGBV and there may be missed opportunities to fully address deeper causes. It may visibly and directly communicate what is and is not acceptable, as mandated in policy guidance for schools in England, but does not necessarily address the relational dynamics, value systems, and socio-affective skills required for healthy and positive cultures, particularly when punitive and exclusionary action is taken (see Restad [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref96">91</reflink>]). Elliott ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref97">30</reflink>]) argues that young people cannot just be told what is and is not acceptable; they also need to explore <emph>why</emph> and what they should do about it and be provided with the tools to do so, which would align with conceiving of young people as sexual citizens rather than subjects of behavioural change initiatives.</p> <p>Rather than excluding or punishing 'perpetrators' of unacceptable behaviour as a way of upholding standards and deterring SGBV, sexual citizenship makes spaces for constructive and inclusive approaches whereby incidents are treated as 'teachable moments' regarding culture and young people can be 'called in' to create cultural change based on meaningful and genuine reflection and learning. It conceives of schools as learning environments where young people may get things wrong but can develop under the guidance of adults.</p> <p>Sexual citizenship goes beyond individual-level imploration to challenge and report incidents to encompass the role bystanders play in creating and sustaining peer cultures that impact abuse (Banyard, Plante, and Moynihan [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref98">7</reflink>]; Rogers, Rumley, and Lovatt [<reflink idref="bib98" id="ref99">98</reflink>]). It acknowledges the influence of norms and culture but seeks to transform rather than adjust these contexts. While several interventions have focused on bystanders, evidence suggests that creating widespread and long-lasting change may be difficult without deep engagement with culture (Wamboldt et al. [<reflink idref="bib117" id="ref100">117</reflink>]) and the socio-affective dimensions of and barriers to intervening experienced by young people whereby 'going along' with abuse demonstrates cultural capital (Harder [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref101">44</reflink>]) and facilitates inclusion beyond atomised concerns with maximising benefits and reducing costs as per behavioural theory. Sexual citizenship addresses these terrains through conscious deliberation, rather than unconscious nudging.</p> <p>The inclusive and constructive nature of sexual citizenship may be advantageous when working with boys and young men. Empowering boys and young men to play an active role in addressing masculinity cultures that shape SGBV can be challenging (Flood and Burrell [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref102">35</reflink>]) ineffective if they feel unduly blamed or stigmatised (Burrell [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref103">13</reflink>]). Rather than just telling boys and young men they are wrong or manipulating their behaviour through adjustments to 'choice architecture,' supporting their sexual citizenship involves identifying and addressing the forms of masculinity that are celebrated and rewarded in their peer contexts and the role they can play in challenging and transforming those that facilitate SGBV. It needs to be engaging (Limmer [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref104">61</reflink>]) while acknowledging the discomfort and discordance that may arise (Keddie [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref105">58</reflink>]) from how masculine subjectivity may conflict with the cultural dynamics of reward available to boys and young men in heterosexual peer terrains (Setty [<reflink idref="bib103" id="ref106">103</reflink>]). Power may operate at a sociocultural level but not feel accessible or real to boys and young men as they navigate these terrains, suggesting that simply adjusting choice architectures risks disconcerting or alienating boys and young men rather than enabling positive and healthy self-concepts and peer relations.</p> <hd id="AN0177739124-8">Post-digital sexual citizenship and Relationships and Sex Education</hd> <p>While RSE is positioned in government policy as a vehicle for addressing SGBV, extensive evidence suggests that young people find it dissatisfactory and ineffective (e.g. Jørgensen et al. [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref107">55</reflink>]; Pound, Langford, and Campbell [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref108">87</reflink>]). The concerns raised by Ofsted following Everyone's Invited (Ofsted [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref109">76</reflink>]) are not new (Ofsted [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref110">75</reflink>]). Long-standing shortcomings relate to lack of skilled and qualified teaching staff; lack of willingness, knowledge, and confidence to deliver materials; lack of timetable space; and low priority and esteem of RSE in schools, among others (Pound, Langford, and Campbell [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref111">87</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref112">86</reflink>]). Moreover, it is unclear whether schools are ready and willing to address the <emph>digital</emph> mediation of sex and relationships for young people beyond framings of risk and abstinence, nor how RSE aligns with school policies on behaviour (including rules around using mobile phones); safeguarding, referral, and discipline; and responses to young people's sexual behaviours (online and offline).</p> <p>RSE could constitute a place for young people to develop and practice the knowledge, skills, and literacy required for sexual citizenship, in recognition that healthy relationships cannot be 'nudged.' There are examples of RSE programmes and philosophies that address critical and cultural literacy skills in accordance with young people's rights to sexual citizenship (see Rogow and Haberland [<reflink idref="bib99" id="ref113">99</reflink>]). While beyond the scope of this policy-focused paper to fully review the evidence on such programmes, the underlying approach is endorsed in international guidance on best practice for RSE (UNESCO [<reflink idref="bib114" id="ref114">114</reflink>]; UNESCO and UN Women [<reflink idref="bib113" id="ref115">113</reflink>]). As discussed below, however, socio-political discourse surrounding RSE in England seems to be diverging from these standards, which may further hinder educational efforts to address SGBV through sexual citizenship.</p> <p>Statutory guidance on RSE in England (DfE [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref116">21</reflink>]) constructs young people as needing to be educated <emph>by</emph> adults, within an emphasis on legal rights and responsibilities and information transfer from teachers to learners (Setty and Dobson [<reflink idref="bib104" id="ref117">104</reflink>]). Rights-based sexual citizenship addresses rights to information (including about the law) while also positioning RSE as a space for active participation and non-didactic, collaborative learning, which can help young people develop and practice the critical reflection skills needed to create change themselves within their peer cultures, rather than just act within the punishment and reinforcement structures set by adults. This is pertinent to SGBV given the behaviour often occurs beyond the purview of adults, and this is particularly the case in online spaces.</p> <p>Young people want relevant RSE that connects to the realities of their lives and to be able to discuss the issues that affect them and not just be dictated to by adults (O'Higgins and Gabhainn [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref118">77</reflink>]; Jarpe-Ratner and Marshall [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref119">52</reflink>]; Cameron-Lewis and Allen [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref120">14</reflink>]). Yet, incorporating rights-based sexual citizenship into RSE does not entail uncritically accepting young people's perspectives or removing all adult structures and guidance but instead engaging with young people to identify the issues that need addressing and empowering them to do so. For example, 'healthy relationships' are typically framed by adults in terms of traits and virtues, which may neglect the ways young people <emph>interpret</emph> traits and virtues. Jealousy or controlling and possessive behaviour can, for instance, be interpreted as indicating love or care by some young people (Abbott, Weckesser, and Egan [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref121">1</reflink>]; Barter et al. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref122">8</reflink>]). Even when young people identify features of healthy relationships, this does not necessarily transfer to their experiences of and decisions within their relationships (Davies [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref123">18</reflink>]). Sexual citizenship focuses on the skills and emotional required to identify, create, and uphold healthy relationships not just knowledge of the traits and virtues.</p> <p>With online sexual behaviours, post-digital sexual citizenship addresses how young people may absorb online safety messages or legal frameworks around nudes, for instance, but not implement them because they clearly fail to grasp the power dynamics of peer dynamics and social norms (McGeeney and Hanson [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref124">66</reflink>]; Johnson et al. [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref125">53</reflink>]; Setty, Ringrose, and Regehr [<reflink idref="bib106" id="ref126">106</reflink>]). Rather than conceiving of these normative contexts as 'choice architectures,' young people should be given opportunities to consider, reflect upon and revise the underlying meanings that facilitate harm including as relate to post-digital interplays between online and offline contexts. It goes beyond just telling young people to not engage in or to abstain from the behaviours, and instead enables them to identify when behaviours are abusive and (Krieger [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref127">60</reflink>]) and be part of strategies to address these (De Ridder [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref128">25</reflink>]; Setty [<reflink idref="bib102" id="ref129">102</reflink>]; Ringrose et al. [<reflink idref="bib93" id="ref130">93</reflink>]; Ging et al. [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref131">38</reflink>]).</p> <p>Abstinence approaches to addressing online SGBV have not, thus far, reduced the behaviours (Choi, Cho, and Lee [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref132">15</reflink>]; Strassberg, Cann, and Velarde [<reflink idref="bib109" id="ref133">109</reflink>]). Instead, they have closed lines of dialogue and inhibited reporting of abuse due to fears about self-incrimination and punishment among victims while leading to efforts to avoid detection/punishment among those enacting abuse (Jørgensen et al. [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref134">55</reflink>]; McGeeney and Hanson [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref135">67</reflink>]; Phippen [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref136">82</reflink>]; Setty, Ringrose, and Regehr [<reflink idref="bib106" id="ref137">106</reflink>]; Ringrose, Regehr, and Whitehead [<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref138">96</reflink>]). They also neglect to consider acts of abuse, for example girls' experiences of receiving unsolicited explicit images from boys and adult men (Setty and Dobson [<reflink idref="bib105" id="ref139">105</reflink>]; Ringrose, Regehr, and Whitehead [<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref140">96</reflink>]), for which punishment and reinforcement structures may encourage, rather than deter, the behaviours, again underscoring the value of post-digital sexual citizenship to co-identifying and addressing the issues with young people.</p> <p>To support post-digital sexual citizenship, RSE policy must foreground young people's rights in a holistic way (including, but not limited to, re-incorporating Gillick competences into guidance) and frame rights and responsibilities as reciprocal and relational (see Goldfarb and Lieberman [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref141">39</reflink>]). RSE cannot just be about telling young people what to think and believe or how to behave, or trying to influence them in preconceived directions, but should instead focus on sociosexual development and learning as contextual (Paiva [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref142">79</reflink>]; Wight [<reflink idref="bib118" id="ref143">118</reflink>]). It needs to address knowledge, skills, and norms (Rogow and Haberland [<reflink idref="bib99" id="ref144">99</reflink>]). Rather than just assessing knowledge transfer on an immediate basis, longer-term social and cultural change through gradual knowledge and attitude development should also be measured (Kippax and Stephenson [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref145">59</reflink>]). Alldred and Fox ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref146">4</reflink>]) take a relational approach to sexual citizenship and conceive of it as unfolding (or not) within the interactional dynamics of RSE. They suggest that where RSE upholds autonomy and participation, it can support sexual citizenship through contributing 'not only to young people's capacities to participate or not participate in sexual encounters, but also the wider social context within which human sexualities are located' (<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref147">17</reflink>).</p> <hd id="AN0177739124-9">Conclusion: The (im)possibilities of post-digital sexual citizenship in England?</hd> <p>Education and equalities policy in England demonstrates awareness of SGBV in schools as a complex societal and systemic problem but predominantly frames it as best addressed through psychological behavioural interventions. We argue that behavioural science 'nudge' approaches coupled with a reluctance to legitimise young people as agentic sexual citizens shape and constrain policy making in ways that favour interventions <emph>done to,</emph> rather than <emph>with</emph>, young people. Social norms and cultural contexts are to be leveraged through changes to 'choice architecture' designed to influence behaviour in ways deemed appropriate and acceptable by adults. Current thinking thus delimits scope for cultural change predicated on active participation and conscious deliberation of young people. The situation is not helped by current, albeit longstanding (see Pilcher [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref148">83</reflink>]), controversies and ideological disputes about youth sexual rights and RSE provision in England.</p> <p>The current direction of travel for RSE policy in England is not aimed at promoting young people's rights but is instead focused on adults' rights to police when and in what formats information is given. Most recently the DfE's planned review in 2023 of the statutory guidance for RSE, was side-lined and repositioned as a direct response to criticism by evangelical religious groups that oppose the inclusive teaching of RSE. Miriam Cates MP presented a report by the New Social Covent Unit (NSCU) to Parliament in February 2023 to challenge the supposed 'widespread indoctrination and age-inappropriate teaching that has been steadily advancing for well over a decade' (NSCU [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref149">73</reflink>], 2). The 104-page dossier describes the UNESCO International Technical Guidance on Sexuality Education ([<reflink idref="bib114" id="ref150">114</reflink>]) as 'unmandated' and 'poorly scrutinised' (<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref151">92</reflink>), contributing to 'intrusive sexualisation,' and 'politically indoctrinated with ideas that are destructive to a sense of self, of family and even of nationhood' (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref152">3</reflink>). The dossier demands a return to <emph>traditional family values</emph>, with parents as the primary arbiters of what their children are told about relationships and sex.</p> <p>Similar to 'Letting Children be Children (DfE [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref153">19</reflink>]) and 'The Sexualisation of Young People' (Papadopoulos [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref154">80</reflink>]), the NSCU dossier relies heavily on anecdotes and sensationalist claims that do not reflect the realities of what is happening in the classroom, while simultaneously rejecting academic evidence that counters the narrative (e.g. Attwood, et al. [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref155">5</reflink>]; Smith and Attwood [<reflink idref="bib108" id="ref156">108</reflink>]). Rather than empowering young people to critically question the messages they receive and giving them the tools to negotiate their relationships and boundaries, these developments risk curtailing young people's rights to RSE, particularly RSE that conceives of them as sexual citizens.</p> <p>We have argued throughout that addressing young people's protection and positive sexual rights through post-digital sexual citizenship, offers a significant departure from the low-cost behavioural science 'nudge', 'choice architecture' frames that continuously offload responsibility from the state and society to the individual. Rather than unconscious nudging, we argue that young people must be harnessed as active participants capable of conscious deliberation in line with child rights perspectives. We argue against interventions <emph>done to</emph> young people by adults, not least because adults themselves are not always fully cognisant of the problems and may reinforce the underlying causes through their attitudes and responses, particularly in the case of abusive online sexual behaviours. Placing young people in a passive role also limits their ability to develop their understanding of reciprocal rights and responsibilities and their part in developing ethical and positive relationships and peer cultures and enabling them to flourish and thrive as post-digital sexual citizens.</p> <hd id="AN0177739124-10">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).</p> <ref id="AN0177739124-11"> <title> Note </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref6" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Gillick Competence refers to the rights of children under 16 to consent on their own behalf if assessed as having the intelligence, competence, maturity to do so. This includes vis-à-vis sexual health decisions.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0177739124-12"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Abbott, Keeley, Annalise Weckesser, and Helen Egan. 2021. " 'Everyone Knows Someone in an Unhealthy Relationship': Young People's Talk About Intimate Heterosexual Relationships in England." Sex Education 21 (3): 304 – 318. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681811.2020.1801407.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref62" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Aggleton, Peter, Rob Cover, Deana Leahy, Daniel Marshall, and Mary Lou Rasmussen. 2018. Youth, Sexuality and Sexual Citizenship. London : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref152" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Albury, Kath. 2017. " Just Because It's Public Doesn't Mean It's any of Your Business: Adults' and Children's Sexual Rights in Digitally Mediated Spaces." New Media &amp; Society 19 (5): 713 – 725. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816686322.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref67" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Alldred, Pam, and Nick J. Fox. 2019. " Assembling Citizenship: Sexualities Education, Micropolitics and the Becoming-Citizen." Sociology 53 (4): 689 – 706. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038518822889.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref155" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Attwood, Feona, Meg Barker, Sara Bragg, Danielle Egan, Adrienne Evans, Laura Harvey, Gail Hawkes, et al. 2012. " Engaging with the Bailey Review: Blogging, Academia and Authenticity." Psychology and Sexuality 3 (1): 69 – 94.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref27" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bandura, Albert. 1977. " Self-efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change." Psychological Review 84 (2): 191 – 215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref98" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Banyard, Victoria L., Elizabethe G. Plante, and Mary M. Moynihan. 2004. " Bystander Education: Bringing a Broader Community Perspective to Sexual Violence Prevention." Journal of Community Psychology 32 (1): 61 – 79. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.10078.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref122" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Barter, Christine, Melanie McCarry, David Berridge, and Kathy Evans. 2009. Partner Exploitation and Violence in Teenage Intimate Relationships. London : NSPCC. https://equation.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Partner-Exploitation-and-Violence-in-Teenage-Intimate-Relationships.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref35" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Boeckler, Marc, and Christian Berndt. 2013. " Geographies of Circulation and Exchange III." Progress in Human Geography 37 (3): 424 – 432. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132512453515.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bradbury, Alice, Ian McGimpsey, and Diego Santori. 2013. " Revising Rationality: The use of 'Nudge' Approaches in Neoliberal Education Policy." Journal of Education Policy 28 (2): 247 – 267. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2012.719638.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brown, Michael. 2006. " Sexual Citizenship, Political Obligation and Disease Ecology in gay Seattle." Political Geography 25 (8): 874 – 898. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2006.05.004.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burgess, Adam. 2012. " 'Nudging' Healthy Lifestyles: The UK Experiments with the Behavioural Alternative to Regulation and the Market." European Journal of Risk Regulation 3 (1): 3 – 16. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1867299X00001756.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burrell, Stephen R. 2020. " Male Agents of Change and Disassociating from the Problem in the Prevention of Violence Against Women." In Masculine Power and Gender Equality: Masculinities as Change Agents, edited by Russell Luyt, and Kathleen Starck, 35 – 54. Cham : Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cameron-Lewis, Vanessa, and Louisa Allen. 2013. " Teaching Pleasure and Danger in Sexuality Education." Sex Education 13 (2): 121 – 132. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681811.2012.697440.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Choi, Kyung-Shick, Sujung Cho, and Jin Ree Lee. 2019. " Impacts of Online Risky Behaviors and Cybersecurity Management on Cyberbullying and Traditional Bullying Victimization among Korean Youth: Application of Cyber-Routine Activities Theory with Latent Class Analysis." Computers in Human Behavior 100 : 1 – 10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.06.007.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cooper, Karen, Ethel Quayle, Linda Jonsson, and Carl Göran Svedin. 2016. " Adolescents and Self-Taken Sexual Images: A Review of the Literature." Computers in Human Behavior 55 : 706 – 716. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.10.003.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Crofts, Thomas, and Eva Lievens. 2018. " Sexting and the Law." In Motives and Risk in Online Sexual Self-Presentation, edited by Michel Walrave, Joris Van Ouytsel, Koen Ponnet, and Jeff R. Temple, 119 – 136. Palgrave Macmillan.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Davies, Ceryl Teleri. 2019. " This is Abuse?: Young Women's Perspectives of What's 'OK' and 'Not OK' in Their Intimate Relationships." Journal of Family Violence 34 (5): 479 – 491. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-019-00038-2.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Department for Education (DfE). 2011. Letting Children By Children. London : DfE. https://<ulink href="http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/letting-children-be-children-report-of-an-independent-review-of-the-commercialisation-and-sexualisation-of-childhood">www.gov.uk/government/publications/letting-children-be-children-report-of-an-independent-review-of-the-commercialisation-and-sexualisation-of-childhood</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Department for Education (DfE). 2017. Prevention and Tackling Bullying: Advice for Schools. London : DfE. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1069688/Preventing_and_tackling_bullying_advice.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Department for Education (DfE). 2019. Statutory Guidance on RSE for Schools in England. London : DfE. https://<ulink href="http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/relationships-education-relationships-and-sex-education-rse-and-health-education">www.gov.uk/government/publications/relationships-education-relationships-and-sex-education-rse-and-health-education</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Department for Education (DfE). 2021. Sexual Violence and Sexual Harassment Between Children in Schools and Colleges. London DfE. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1014224/Sexual_violence_and_sexual_harassment_between_children_in_schools_and_colleges.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Department for Education (DfE). 2022. Behaviour in Schools: Advice for Headteachers and School Staff. London : DfE. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1101597/Behaviour_in_schools_guidance_sept_22.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Department for Education (DfE). 2022. Keeping Children Safe in Education. London : DfE. https://<ulink href="http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/keeping-children-safe-in-education&amp;#8212;2">www.gov.uk/government/publications/keeping-children-safe-in-education&amp;#8212;2</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> De Ridder, Sander. 2017. " Social Media and Young People's Sexualities: Values, Norms, and Battlegrounds." Social Media and Society 3 (4): 1 – 11.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dobson, Amy Shields. 2018. " Sexting, Intimate and Sexual Media Practices, and Social Justice." In Digital Intimate Publics and Social Media, edited by Amy Shields Dobson, Brady Robards, and Nicholas Carah, 93 – 110. Cham : Palgrave Macmillan.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dobson, Amy Shields. 2019. " 'The Things You Didn't Do': Gender, Slut-Shaming, and the Need to Address Sexual Harassment in Narrative Resources Responding to Sexting and Cyberbullying." In Narratives in Research and Interventions on Cyberbullying among Young People, edited by Vandebosch, Heidi, and Lelia Green, editors, 147 - 160. Cham : Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Donovan, Catherine, Brian Heaphy, and Jeffrey Weeks. 2003. Same Sex Intimacies: Families of Choice and Other Life Experiments. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Durham, Andrew. 2006. Young Men who Have Sexually Abused: A Case Study Guide. John Wiley &amp; Sons.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Elliott, Kathleen. 2018. " Challenging Toxic Masculinity in Schools and Society." On the Horizon 26 (1): 17 – 22. https://doi.org/10.1108/OTH-11-2017-0088.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Evans, David. 2013. Sexual Citizenship: The Material Construction of Sexualities. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Evans, Adrienne, and Jessica Ringrose. 1993. Forthcoming. More-Than-Human, More-Than-Digital: Postdigital Intimacies as a Theoretical Framework for Intimate Therapeutics and Technology-Facilitated Sexual Violence. Social Media and Society.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Firmin, Carlene. 2020. " School Rules of (Sexual) Engagement: Government, Staff and Student Contributions to the Norms of Peer Sexual-Abuse in Seven UK Schools." Journal of Sexual Aggression 26 (3): 289 – 301. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552600.2019.1618934.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Flood, Michael. 2008. " Men, Sex, and Homosociality." Men and Masculinities 10 (3): 339 – 359. https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X06287761.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Flood, Michael, and Stephen R. Burrell. 2022. " Rape." In Rape: Challenging Contemporary Thinking–10 Years On, edited by Miranda Horvath, and Jennifer Brown, 221 – 235. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003163800-20</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fritz, Danielle, and Carlene Emma Firmin. 2016. Evidencing peer-on-peer abuse in educational settings. University of Bedfordshire: Contextual Safeguarding Network. https://<ulink href="http://www.csnetwork.org.uk/assets/documents/Learning-Project-1-Briefing.pdf">www.csnetwork.org.uk/assets/documents/Learning-Project-1-Briefing.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> García-Gómez, Antonio. 2017. " Teen Girls and Sexual Agency: Exploring the Intrapersonal and Intergroup Dimensions of Sexting." Media, Culture &amp; Society 39 (3): 391 – 407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443716683789.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ging, Debbie, Jessica Ringrose, Betsy Milne, Tanya Horeck, Kaitlynn Mendes, and Ricardo Castellini da Silva. 2024. " Moving Beyond Masculine Defensiveness and Anxiety in the Classroom: Exploring Gendered Responses to Sexual and Gender Based Violence Workshops in England and Ireland." Gender and Education 36 (3): 230 – 247. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2024.2315052.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goldfarb, Eva S., and Lisa D. Lieberman. 2021. " Three Decades of Research: The Case for Comprehensive sex Education." Journal of Adolescent Health 68 (1): 13 – 27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2020.07.036.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grobbelaar, Madelena, and Marika Guggisberg. 2018. " Sexually Explicit Images: Examining the Lawful and Unlawful new Forms of Sexual Engagement." In Violence Against Women in the 21st Century: Challenges and Future Directions, edited by Jessamy Henricksen, and Marika Guggisberg, 133 – 160. Hauppage, NY : Nova Science Publishers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hallsworth, Michael, Mark Egan, Jill Rutter, and Julian McCrae. 2018. Behavioural Government." Using Behavioral Science to Improve How Governments Make Decisions. London : The Behavioral Insights Team. https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/resource-files/2018-07/apo-nid303550.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Halpern, David, and Michael Sanders. 2016. " Nudging by Government: Progress, Impact, &amp; Lessons Learned." Behavioral Science &amp; Policy 2 (2): 52 – 65. https://doi.org/10.1353/bsp.2016.0015.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hampton, Sam, and Rob Adams. 2018. " Behavioural Economics vs Social Practice Theory: Perspectives from Inside the United Kingdom Government." Energy Research &amp; Social Science 46 : 214 – 224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.07.023.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harder, Sidsel Kirstine. 2021. " The Emotional Bystander – Sexting and Image-Based Sexual Abuse among Young Adults." Journal of Youth Studies 24 (5): 655 – 669. https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2020.1757631.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Henry, Nicola, Asher Flynn, and Anastasia Powell. 2018. " Policing Image-Based Sexual Abuse: Stakeholder Perspectives." Police Practice and Research 19 (6): 565 – 581. https://doi.org/10.1080/15614263.2018.1507892.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hirsch, Jennifer S., and Shamus Khan. 2020. Sexual Citizens: A Landmark Study of sex, Power, and Assault on Campus. New York : WW Norton &amp; Company.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Home Office. 2021. Tackling Violence Against Women and Girls Strategy. London : Home Office. https://<ulink href="http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/tackling-violence-against-women-and-girls-strategy">www.gov.uk/government/publications/tackling-violence-against-women-and-girls-strategy</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Horeck, Tanya, Jessica Ringrose, Betsy Milne, and Kaitlynn Mendes. 2023a. " #MeToo in British Schools: Gendered Differences in Teenagers' Awareness of Sexual Violence." European Journal of Cultural Studies 0 (0), https://doi.org/10.1177/13675494231191490.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Horeck, Tanya, Jessica Ringrose, Betsy Milne, and Kaitlynn Mendes. 2023b. Young People's Experiences of Technology-Facilitated Gender-Based Violence During COVID-19: Final Report, Anglia Ruskin University. https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10186290/1/Ringrose_Young%20people%27s%20experiences%20of%20technology-facilitate%20gender-based%20violence%20during%20COVID-19.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Illes, Judit. 2012. " Young Sexual Citizens: Reimagining Sex Education as an Essential Form of Civic Engagement." Sex Education 12 (5): 613 – 625. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681811.2011.634152.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jackson, Stevi, and Sue. Scott. 2010. Theorizing Sexuality. McGraw-Hill Education.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jarpe-Ratner, Elizabeth, and Booker Marshall. 2021. " Viewing Sexual Health Education Through the Lens of Critical Pedagogy: A Case Study in Chicago Public Schools." International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18 (4): 1443. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18041443.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnson, Matthew, Faye Mishna, Mosse Okumu, and Joanne Daciuk. 2018. Non-Consensual Sharing of Sexts: Behaviours and Attitudes of Canadian Youth. Ottawa : MediaSmarts. https://mediasmarts.ca/digital-media-literacy/digital-issues/sexting/sharing-sexts</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jones, Rhys, Jessica Pykett, and Mark Whitehead. 2011. " Governing Temptation: Changing Behaviour in an Age of Libertarian Paternalism." Progress in Human Geography 35 (4): 483 – 501. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132510385741.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jørgensen, Clara Rübner, Annalise Weckesser, Jerome Turner, and Alex Wade. 2019. " Young People's Views on Sexting Education and Support Needs: Findings and Recommendations from a UK-Based Study." Sex Education 19 (1): 25 – 40. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681811.2018.1475283.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kath, Albury. 2016. " The Politics of Sexting Revisited." In Negotiating Digital Citizenship: Control, Contest and Culture, edited by A. McCosker, S. Vivienne, and A. Johns, 213 – 230. Lanham, MD : Rowman &amp; Littlefield.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kearney, Sarah, Loksee Leung, Andrew Joyce, Debbie Ollis, and Celia Green. 2016. " Applying Systems Theory to the Evaluation of a Whole School Approach to Violence Prevention." Health Promotion Journal of Australia 27 (3): 230 – 235. https://doi.org/10.1071/HE16046.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Keddie, Amanda. 2021. " Engaging Boys in Gender Activism: Issues of Discomfort and Emotion." Gender and Education 33 (2): 171 – 185. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2020.1716956.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kippax, Susan, and Niamh Stephenson. 2005. " Meaningful Evaluation of Sex and Relationship Education." Sex Education 5 (4): 359 – 373. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681810500278436.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Krieger, Michelle A. 2017. " Unpacking "Sexting": A Systematic Review of Nonconsensual Sexting in Legal, Educational, and Psychological Literatures." Trauma, Violence, &amp; Abuse 18 (5): 593 – 601. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838016659486.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Limmer, Mark. 2010. " Young Men, Masculinities and Sex Education." Sex Education 10 (4): 349 – 358. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681811.2010.515093.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lloyd, Jenny. 2019. " Response and Interventions Into Harmful Sexual Behaviour in Schools." Child Abuse &amp; Neglect 94 : 104037. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2019.104037.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lloyd, Jenny, and Vanessa Bradbury. 2023. " Zero Tolerance to Sexual Harm in Schools – From Broken Rules to Broken Systems." Journal of Sexual Aggression 29 (2): 226 – 242. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552600.2022.2057605.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lodge, Martin, and Kai Wegrich. 2016. " The Rationality Paradox of Nudge: Rational Tools of Government in a World of Bounded Rationality." Law &amp; Policy 38 (3): 250 – 267. https://doi.org/10.1111/lapo.12056.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McCosker, A., S. Vivienne, and A. Johns. 2016. " Digital Citizenship as Fluid Interface: Between Control, Contest and Culture." In Negotiating Digital Citizenship, edited by A. McCosker, S. Vivienne, and A. Johns, 1 – 18. London : Rowman &amp; Littlefield International.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mcgeeney, Ester, and Elly Hanson. 2017. Digital Romance: A Research Project Exploring Young People's Use of Technology in their Romantic Relationships and Love Lives. London : National Crime Agency and Brook.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mcglynn, Clare, Erika Rackley, and Ruth Houghton. 2017. " Beyond 'revenge porn': The Continuum of Image-Based Sexual Abuse." Feminist Legal Studies 25 : 25 – 46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10691-017-9343-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meiksin, Rebecca, Rona Campbell, Joanna Crichton, Gemma S. Morgan, Pippa Williams, Micky Willmott, Nerissa Tilouche, et al. 2020. " Implementing a Whole-School Relationships and Sex Education Intervention to Prevent Dating and Relationship Violence: Evidence from a Pilot Trial in English Secondary Schools." Sex Education 20 (6): 658 – 674. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681811.2020.1729718.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mishna, Faye, Elizabeth Milne, Charlene Cook, Andrea Slane, and Jessica Ringrose. 2023. " Unsolicited Sexts and Unwanted Requests for Sexts: Reflecting on the Online Sexual Harassment of Youth." Youth &amp; Society 55 (4): 630 – 651. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X211058226.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mishna, Faye, Kaitlin J. Schwan, Arija Birze, Melissa Van Wert, Ashley Lacombe-Duncan, Lauren McInroy, and Shalhevet Attar-Schwartz. 2020. " Gendered and Sexualized Bullying and Cyber Bullying." Youth &amp; Society 52 (3): 403 – 426. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X18757150.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Naezer, Marijke, and Lotte van Oosterhout. 2021. " Only Sluts Love Sexting: Youth, Sexual Norms and non-Consensual Sharing of Digital Sexual Images." Journal of Gender Studies 30 (1): 79 – 90. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2020.1799767.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nelson, Elizabeth L., Mia Perry, and Theresa Rogers. 2020. " Introducing Offlineness: Theorizing (Digital) Literacy Engagements." Journal of Literacy Research 52 (1): 101 – 107. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X19898003.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> New Social Covenant Unit. 2023. What is Being Taught in Relationships and Sex Education in Our Schools? - A Call for A Government Review. Kings Newton : NSCU.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Niolon, N., Phyllis Holditch, Bruce G. Taylor, Natasha E. Latzman, Alana M. Vivolo-Kantor, Linda Anne Valle, and Andra T. Tharp. 2016. " Lessons Learned in Evaluating a Multisite, Comprehensive Teen Dating Violence Prevention Strategy: Design and Challenges of the Evaluation of Dating Matters: Strategies to Promote Healthy Teen Relationships." Psychology of Violence 6 (3): 452 – 458. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000043.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ofsted. 2013. Not Yet Good Enough: Personal, Social, Health and Economic Education in Schools. London : Ofsted. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/413178/Not_yet_good_enough_personal__social__health_and_economic_education_in_schools.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ofsted. 2021. Review of Sexual Abuse in Schools and Colleges. London : Ofsted. https://<ulink href="http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/review-of-sexual-abuse-in-schools-and-colleges/review-of-sexual-abuse-in-schools-and-colleges">www.gov.uk/government/publications/review-of-sexual-abuse-in-schools-and-colleges/review-of-sexual-abuse-in-schools-and-colleges</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Higgins, Siobhán, and Saoirse Nic Gabhainn. 2010. " Youth Participation in Setting the Agenda: Learning Outcomes for sex Education in Ireland." Sex Education 10 (4): 387 – 403. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681811.2010.515096.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Online Safety Act. 2024. London: HMSO. https://<ulink href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50/enacted">www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50/enacted</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Paiva, Vera. 2005. " Analysing Sexual Experiences Through 'Scenes': A Framework for the Evaluation of Sexuality Education." Sex Education 5 (4): 345 – 358. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681810500278295.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Papadopoulos, Linda. 2010. The Sexualisation of Young People. London : Home Office. https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/id/eprint/10738/1/sexualisation-young-people.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pedwell, Carolyn. 2017. " Habit and the Politics of Social Change." Body &amp; Society 23 (4): 59 – 94. https://doi.org/10.1177/1357034X17734619.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Phippen, Andy. 2017. Children's Online Behaviour and Safety. London. : Palgrave Macmillan.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pilcher, Jane. 2005. " School sex Education: Policy and Practice in England 1870 to 2000." Sex Education 5 (2): 153 – 170. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681810500038848.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Plummer, Ken. 2001. " The Square of Intimate Citizenship: Some Preliminary Proposals." Citizenship Studies 5 (3): 237 – 253. https://doi.org/10.1080/13621020120085225.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Plummer, Ken. 2003. Intimate Citizenship: Private Decisions and Public Dialogues. London : University of Washington Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pound, Pandora, Sarah Denford, Janet Shucksmith, Clare Tanton, Anne M. Johnson, Jenny Owen, Rebecca Hutten et al. 2017. " What is Best Practice in Sex and Relationship Education? A Synthesis of Evidence, Including Stakeholders' Views." BMJ Open 7 (5): e014791.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pound, Pandora, Rebecca Langford, and Rona Campbell. 2016. " What do Young People Think About Their School-Based sex and Relationship Education? A Qualitative Synthesis of Young People's Views and Experiences." BMJ Open 6 (9): e011329.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ravn, Signe, Julia Coffey, and Steven Roberts. 2021. " The Currency of Images: Risk, Value and Gendered Power Dynamics in Young Men's Accounts of Sexting." Feminist Media Studies 21 (2): 315 – 331. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2019.1642229.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reid, Louise, and Katherine Ellsworth-Krebs. 2019. " Nudge(Ography) and Practice Theories: Contemporary Sites of Behavioural Science and Post-Structuralist Approaches in Geography? " Progress in Human Geography 43 (2): 295 – 313. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132517750773.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Renold, Emma. 2018. " 'Feel What I Feel': Making da(r)ta with Teen Girls for Creative Activisms on How Sexual Violence Matters." Journal of Gender Studies 27 (1): 37 – 55. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2017.1296352.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Restad, Frode. 2020. " Is There a Hole in the Whole-School Approach? A Critical Review of Curriculum Understanding in Bullying Research." Nordic Studies in Education 40 (4): 362 – 386. https://doi.org/10.23865/nse.v40.2610.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Richardson, Diane. 2017. " Rethinking Sexual Citizenship." Sociology 51 (2): 208 – 224. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038515609024.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ringrose, Jessica, Kaitlyn Mendes, Tanya Horeck, Karen Desborough, Betsy Milne. 2023. Equipping Young People to Navigate Post-Digital Sexual Violence Final Report – AHRC Follow on Funding for Impact and Engagement Project School Based Digital Defence and Activism Lessons". London : University College London. https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10186206/1/UCL_DigitalCultures_A4_EquippingYoungPeopletoNavigatePostDigitalSexualViolence_JUN23_v8.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ringrose, Jessica, Betsy Milne, Faye Mishna, Kaitlyn Regehr, and Andrea Slane. 2022a. " Young People's Experiences of Image-Based Sexual Harassment and Abuse in England and Canada: Toward a Feminist Framing of Technologically Facilitated Sexual Violence." Women's Studies International Forum 93.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ringrose, Jessica, and Kaitlyn Regehr. 2023. " Recognizing and Addressing How Gender Shapes Young People's Experiences of Image-Based Sexual Harassment and Abuse in Educational Settings." Journal of Social Issues 79 : 1251 – 1281. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12575.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ringrose, Jessica., Kaitlyn Regehr, and Sophie Whitehead. 2021. " Teen Girls' Experiences Negotiating the Ubiquitous Dick Pic: Sexual Double Standards and the Normalization of Image Based Sexual Harassment." Sex Roles 85 : 558 – 576. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-021-01236-3.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ringrose, Jessica., Kaitlyn Regehr, and Sophie Whitehead. 2022b. " 'Wanna Trade?': Cisheteronormative Homosocial Masculinity and the Normalization of Abuse in Youth Digital Sexual Image Exchange." Journal of Gender Studies 31 (2): 243 – 261. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2021.1947206.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rogers, Michaela, Tim Rumley, and Gary Lovatt. 2019. " The Change Up Project: Using Social Norming Theory with Young People to Address Domestic Abuse and Promote Healthy Relationships." Journal of Family Violence 34 (6): 507 – 519. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-018-0026-9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rogow, Deborah, and Nicole Haberland. 2005. " Sexuality and Relationships Education: Toward a Social Studies Approach." Sex Education 5 (4): 333 – 344. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681810500278188.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rowson, Jonathan. 2011. "Transforming Behaviour Change: Beyond Nudge and Neuromania." RSA Report. <ulink href="http://www.thersa.org">www.thersa.org</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Selinger, Evan, and Kyle Whyte. 2011. " Is There a Right Way to Nudge? The Practice and Ethics of Choice Architecture." Sociology Compass 5 (10): 923 – 935. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9020.2011.00413.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Setty, Emily. 2019. " A Rights-Based Approach to Youth Sexting: Challenging Risk, Shame, and the Denial of Rights to Bodily and Sexual Expression Within Youth Digital Sexual Culture." International Journal of Bullying Prevention 1 (4): 298 – 311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42380-019-00050-6.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Setty, Emily. 2020. " 'Confident' and 'Hot' or 'Desperate' and 'Cowardly'? Meanings of Young Men's Sexting Practices in Youth Sexting Culture." Journal of Youth Studies 23 (5): 561 – 577. https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2019.1635681.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Setty, Emily, and Emma Dobson. 2023. " Department for Education Statutory Guidance for Relationships and sex Education in England: A Rights-Based Approach? " Archives of Sexual Behavior 52 (1): 79 – 93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-022-02340-5.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Setty, Emily, and Emma Dobson. 2024. " Young Love "Locked Down": Adolescent and Young Adult Perspectives on Sexting During the Covid-19 Pandemic in England." Archives of Sexual Behavior 53 (2): 481 – 495. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-023-02734-z.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Setty, Emily, Jessica Ringrose, and Kaitlyn Regehr. 2022. " Digital Sexual Violence and the Gendered Constraints of Consent in Youth Image Sharing." In Rape: Challenging Contemporary Thinking – 10 Years On, edited by Miranda H. Horvath, and Jessica M. Brown, 45 – 61. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Skinner, Burrhus F. 1953. Science and Human Behavior. New York : The Macmillan Co.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, Clarissa, and Feona Attwood. 2011. " Lamenting Sexualization: Research, Rhetoric and the Story of Young People's 'sexualization'in the UK Home Office Review." Sex Education 11 (3): 327 – 337.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Strassberg, Donald S., Deanna Cann, and Valerie Velarde. 2017. " Sexting by High School Students." Archives of Sexual Behavior 46 : 1667 – 1672. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-016-0926-9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thaler, Richard H., and Cass R. Sunstein. 2008. " Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health." Wealth, and Happiness 6 : 14 – 38.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thomas, Sara E. 2018. " "What Should I Do?": Young Women's Reported Dilemmas with Nude Photographs." Sexuality Research and Social Policy 15 : 192 – 207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-017-0310-0.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> UK Council for Internet Safety. 2020. Sharing Nudes and Semi-Nudes: Advice for Education Settings Working with Children and Young People. DCMS and UK Council for Internet Safety. https://<ulink href="http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sharing-nudes-and-semi-nudes-advice-for-education-settings-working-with-children-and-young-people">www.gov.uk/government/publications/sharing-nudes-and-semi-nudes-advice-for-education-settings-working-with-children-and-young-people</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> UNESCO and UN Women. 2016. Global guidance on addressing school-related gender-based violence. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000246651.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> UNESCO, UN Women, UNICEF, UNFPA, Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS, &amp; WHO. 2018. International technical guidance on sexuality education: An evidence-informed approach. UNESCO. https://<ulink href="http://www.unfpa.org/sites/default/files/pub-pdf/ITGSE.pdf">www.unfpa.org/sites/default/files/pub-pdf/ITGSE.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> UNHRC. nd. Gender based violence. https://<ulink href="http://www.unhcr.org/uk/gender-based-violence.html">www.unhcr.org/uk/gender-based-violence.html</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van Der Linden, Sander. 2018. " The Future of Behavioral Insights: On the Importance of Socially Situated Nudges." Behavioural Public Policy 2 (2): 207 – 217. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2018.22.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wamboldt, Alexander, Shamus R. Khan, Claude Ann Mellins, and Jennifer S. Hirsch. 2019. " Friends, Strangers, and Bystanders: Informal Practices of Sexual Assault Intervention." Global Public Health 14 (1): 53 – 64. https://doi.org/10.1080/17441692.2018.1472290.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wight, Daniel. 2011. " The Effectiveness of School-Based Sex Education: What do Rigorous Evaluations in Britain Tell Us." Education and Health 29 (4): 67 – 73.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wolak, Janis, David Finkelhor, Wendy Walsh, and Leah Treitman. 2018. " Sextortion of Minors: Characteristics and Dynamics." Journal of Adolescent Health 62 (1): 72 – 79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2017.08.014.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Women's and Equalities Committee. 2016. Sexual Harassment and Sexual Violence in Schools. London : HMSO. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmwomeq/91/9102.html.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Women's and Equalities Committee. 2023. Attitudes Towards Women and Girls in Educational Settings. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5803/cmselect/cmwomeq/331/report.html.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> York, Leanne, Alison Mackenzie, and Noel Purdy. 2021. " Sexting and Institutional Discourses of Child Protection: The Views of Young People and Providers of Relationship and Sex Education." British Educational Research Journal 47 (6): 1717 – 1734. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3751</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yue, A., and R. P. Lim. 2022. " Digital Sexual Citizenship and LGBT Young People's Platform Use." International Communication Gazette 84 (4): 331. https://doi.org/10.1177/17480485221094115.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Emily Setty; Jessica Ringrose and Jonny Hunt</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Emily Setty is a senior lecturer of Criminology.</p> <p>Jessica Ringrose is a professor of Gender and Education.</p> <p>Jonny Hunt is a lecturer in Applied Social Sciences: Childhood &amp; Youth.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib93" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib123" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib112" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib121" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib107" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib110" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib248" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib101" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib89" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib116" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib251" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib262" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib103" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib92" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib106" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib96" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib94" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib88" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib95" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib111" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib97" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib122" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib117" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib91" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib98" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl75" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl76" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl77" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl78" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl79" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref107"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl80" bibid="bib87" firstref="ref108"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl81" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref110"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl82" bibid="bib86" firstref="ref112"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl83" bibid="bib99" firstref="ref113"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl84" bibid="bib114" firstref="ref114"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl85" bibid="bib113" firstref="ref115"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl86" bibid="bib104" firstref="ref117"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl87" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref118"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl88" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref119"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl89" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref124"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl90" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref125"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl91" bibid="bib102" firstref="ref129"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl92" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref132"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl93" bibid="bib109" firstref="ref133"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl94" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref136"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl95" bibid="bib105" firstref="ref139"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl96" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref141"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl97" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref142"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl98" bibid="bib118" firstref="ref143"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl99" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref145"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl100" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref148"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl101" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref149"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl102" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref153"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl103" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref154"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl104" bibid="bib108" firstref="ref156"></nolink> |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: EJ1427843 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: From 'Harmful Sexual Behaviour' to 'Harmful Sexual Culture': Addressing School-Related Sexual and Gender-Based Violence among Young People in England through 'Post-Digital Sexual Citizenship' – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Emily+Setty%22">Emily Setty</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2085-7963">0000-0002-2085-7963</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jessica+Ringrose%22">Jessica Ringrose</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jonny+Hunt%22">Jonny Hunt</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6565-4844">0000-0002-6565-4844</externalLink>) – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Gender+and+Education%22"><i>Gender and Education</i></searchLink>. 2024 36(5):434-452. – Name: Avail Label: Availability Group: Avail Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals – Name: PeerReviewed Label: Peer Reviewed Group: SrcInfo Data: Y – Name: Pages Label: Page Count Group: Src Data: 19 – Name: DatePubCY Label: Publication Date Group: Date Data: 2024 – Name: TypeDocument Label: Document Type Group: TypDoc Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Evaluative – Name: Subject Label: Descriptors Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Sexuality%22">Sexuality</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Gender+Bias%22">Gender Bias</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Violence%22">Violence</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Peer+Influence%22">Peer Influence</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Public+Policy%22">Public Policy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Sex+Education%22">Sex Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Empowerment%22">Student Empowerment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Sexual+Abuse%22">Sexual Abuse</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Behavior%22">Student Behavior</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Influences%22">Social Influences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Computer+Mediated+Communication%22">Computer Mediated Communication</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Empowerment%22">Empowerment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Behavior+Change%22">Behavior Change</searchLink> – Name: Subject Label: Geographic Terms Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22United+Kingdom+%28England%29%22">United Kingdom (England)</searchLink> – Name: DOI Label: DOI Group: ID Data: 10.1080/09540253.2024.2348534 – Name: ISSN Label: ISSN Group: ISSN Data: 0954-0253<br />1360-0516 – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: Sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) in schools in England is a pressing concern, especially since the 'Everyone's Invited' movement laid bare the extent of the problem across the country. This article analyses the national policy context, asserting that SGBV is a systemic problem rooted in young people's school and online peer cultures that requires transformative solutions, involving active youth participation. We introduce and explore the utility of the concept of post-digital sexual citizenship. We contrast this approach with the prevailing behavioural science 'nudge' philosophy of government policy making and societal discussions on youth sexuality and rights currently shaping Relationships and Sex Education (RSE) discourse and policy in England. Challenging adult-centric, top-down methods and instead empowering young people as post-digital sexual citizens entitled to comprehensive RSE is vital. While our focus is on England, the arguments apply globally to jurisdictions tackling SGBV in schools. – Name: AbstractInfo Label: Abstractor Group: Ab Data: As Provided – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 2024 – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: EJ1427843 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1427843 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1080/09540253.2024.2348534 Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 19 StartPage: 434 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries Type: general – SubjectFull: Sexuality Type: general – SubjectFull: Gender Bias Type: general – SubjectFull: Violence Type: general – SubjectFull: Peer Influence Type: general – SubjectFull: Public Policy Type: general – SubjectFull: Sex Education Type: general – SubjectFull: Student Empowerment Type: general – SubjectFull: Sexual Abuse Type: general – SubjectFull: Student Behavior Type: general – SubjectFull: Social Influences Type: general – SubjectFull: Computer Mediated Communication Type: general – SubjectFull: Empowerment Type: general – SubjectFull: Behavior Change Type: general – SubjectFull: United Kingdom (England) Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: From 'Harmful Sexual Behaviour' to 'Harmful Sexual Culture': Addressing School-Related Sexual and Gender-Based Violence among Young People in England through 'Post-Digital Sexual Citizenship' Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Emily Setty – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Jessica Ringrose – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Jonny Hunt IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 01 Type: published Y: 2024 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 0954-0253 – Type: issn-electronic Value: 1360-0516 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 36 – Type: issue Value: 5 Titles: – TitleFull: Gender and Education Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
