The recent decision by the federal government to legislate to limit young people’s access to social media, speaks to the anxiety parents, mental health advocates and legislators feel about the negative impact on teenagers of material available on these platforms. The prime minister suggested the ban may apply between 14 and 16 years old, and is a policy supported by both major parties. One aspect of particular concern has been access to pornography often before a young person has experienced their first kiss, and the fear of negative impacts on future intimate relationships. While much has been written what do we know about harm and what do young people think?
What Do We Know?
Researchers See and Woodley, from Cowan university were interested to explore the views of this demographic. They note that evidence for the extent of harm caused by pornography is unclear and that the opinions of young people rarely sought. They cite a recent survey of 1,272 Australians from 15 to 29 years which showed that 17% of this sample believed pornography harmful, while 65% thought it was harmful for some and not others depending on its nature and frequency of use. The authors suggest that more research is needed in the debate about harm from a ‘teen-centric’ perspective to support development of policy.
See and Woodley’s Research
The data was drawn from interviews with twenty-four young Australians and their parents to explore their views about the perceived impact of viewing pornography. The researchers drew a distinction between young people’s views that were shaped by external influences, like parents or teachers’ views, referred to as second-hand perspectives, as opposed to firsthand perspectives, based on personal experiences with sexually explicit material (SEM).
What Did They Find?
The authors noted ‘an observable delineation between teens expressing perspectives directly informed by external influences (or second-hand perspectives) and teens expressing perspectives informed by their own encounters with SEM (or first-hand perspectives).’ From the examples cited it appears that the firsthand perspective was less worried than the second with young people either reporting that they had not encountered this material or had not been harmed by it.
In Conclusion
It is difficult to decide how to interpret these findings beyond the authors conclusion that understanding the distinction between first and second-hand perspectives will inform better policy. Clearly this is a very small sample and one where young people were willing to discuss a sensitive topic, making it hard to generalise. However, one interpretation is that young people who have either had no exposure to pornography or who, from their perspective, were unharmed by it were responsive to other’s views about its potential risks. This must be a potentially protective and positive stance.
See, H. W., & Woodley, G. (2024). ‘Firsthand’ versus ‘Secondhand’ Perspectives of Harm: Emphasising Teens’ Firsthand Perspectives of Online Sexual Content. M/C Journal, 27(4). https://doi.org/10.5204/mcj.3077 (Original work published August 7, 2024)
©Copyright Bower Place Pty. Ltd. 2024
