Adolescents, Sexting, Consent and Coercion; a Critical Discursive Psychology Approach

ABSTRACT The present study explores how adolescents negotiate consent and coercion in sexting through the employment of Critical Discursive Psychology (CDP), focusing on the socio‐political and ideological aspects of such constructions. Focus groups were conducted with 18 UK‐based adolescents, aged 16–18, highlighting the role of gender in shaping the discursive terrain. The first interpretative repertoire, “ The negotiation of consent and construction of coercion as absence of affirmative consent ” highlights that adolescents initially framed consent as clear and explicit, with the absence of these affirmative elements seen as coercion. However, after the introduction of vignettes, the discursive landscape shifted. The interpretative repertoire “ The negotiation of responsibility in sexting coercion ” highlights how, in coercive scenarios, adolescents often shifted the blame to the vignette victim for not clearly rejecting advances, drawing on gendered socio‐historical discursive resources. Despite this, some adolescents resisted this rhetoric and attributed responsibility to the coercive party. The findings suggest that sexting consent and coercion constitute an ideological dilemma, with adolescents both excusing coercion and challenging traditional norms. The implications of these findings highlight the persistent challenges in achieving more progressive rhetoric regarding sexual consent and carry significant relevance for both sex education and consent activism.