Abstract
Introduction
‘Porn literacy education’ is emerging as a pedagogical strategy to support youth in navigating the new technological pornography landscape. However, the characteristics of effective porn literacy education according to those who will be most affected by it—young people, their caregivers and educators—is unknown. Yet, end user views are imperative to policy development in sexuality education worldwide.
Methods
Using Q-methodology, the commonalities and idiosyncrasies of these stakeholder views were explored. In 2019, 30 participants recruited through nine schools in New Zealand completed an online Q sort, and 24 also took part in a follow-up interview.
Results
There were two distinct discourses regarding porn literacy education among stakeholders: (i) the pragmatic response discourse and (ii) the harm mitigation discourse.
Conclusions
Stakeholders hold nuanced and ideologically charged perspectives about porn literacy education and educational initiatives more generally. It is therefore important that policy caters for these different perspectives and that a 'one-size-fits-all' policy approach is acknowledged as insufficient.
Policy Implications
It is crucial that policy development is guided by evidence about what constitutes effective sexuality education. The social discourses reported here are important to consider in developing policy about porn literacy education and require further research to more fully understand the potential of porn literacy as pedagogy.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability
Please contact the lead author to request access to the data.
Notes
In New Zealand, school deciles indicate the extent a school draws students from low socio-economic communities. Decile 1 schools have the highest proportion of students from low socio-economic communities, whereas decile 10 schools have the lowest.
#25 refers to statement number 25 (i.e., “Our efforts should be focused on censorship (blocking and restricting access to internet pornography), rather than porn literacy education”), and −3 refers to the position of this statement on the Q-set distribution for this discourse, in the direction of strong agreement.
References
Albury, K. (2013). Young people, media and sexual learning: Rethinking representation. Sex Education, 13(sup1), S32–S44. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681811.2013.767194
Albury, K. (2014). Porn and sex education, porn as sex education. Porn Studies, 1(1–2), 172–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/23268743.2013.863654
Albury, K. (2018). Porn and participation: Implications for learning and teaching practice. Porn Studies, 5(1), 104–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/23268743.2017.1405739
Alldred, P., David, M. E., & Smith, P. (2003). Teachers views of teaching sex education: pedagogy and models of delivery. The Journal of Educational Enquiry, 4(1).
Allen, L. (2005). ‘Say everything’: Exploring young people’s suggestions for improving sexuality education. Sex Education, 5(4), 389–404. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681810500278493
Allen, L. (2007a). Doing ‘it’ differently: Relinquishing the disease and pregnancy prevention focus in sexuality education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 28(5), 575–588. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425690701505367
Allen, L. (2007b). ‘Pleasurable pedagogy’: Young people’s ideas about teaching ‘pleasure’ in sexuality education. Twenty-First Century Society, 2(3), 249–264. https://doi.org/10.1080/17450140701631437
Allen, L. (2008). “They think you shouldn’t be having sex anyway”: Young people’s suggestions for improving sexuality education content. Sexualities, 11(5), 573–594. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460708089425
Baker, K. E. (2016). Online pornography–Should schools be teaching young people about the risks? An exploration of the views of young people and teaching professionals. Sex Education, 16(2), 213–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681811.2015.1090968
Bay-Cheng, L. Y. (2003). The trouble of teen sex: The construction of adolescent sexuality through school-based sexuality education. Sex Education: Sexuality, Society and Learning, 3(1), 61–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/1468181032000052162
Beckner, S., Jepson, W., Brannstrom, C., & Tracy, J. (2019). ‘The San Antonio river doesn’t start in San Antonio, it now starts in Burleson County’: Stakeholder perspectives on a groundwater transfer project in central Texas. Society & Natural Resources, 32(11), 1222–1238. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2019.1648709
Beyers, C. (2013). In search of healthy sexuality: The gap between what youth want and what teachers think they need. The Journal for Transdisciplinary Research in Southern Africa, 9(3), 550–560. https://journals.co.za/content/transd/9/3/EJC149267
Buckingham, D., & Bragg, S. (2003). Young people, sex and the media: The facts of life? Springer.
Buckingham, D., & Chronaki, D. (2014). Saving the children? In S. Wagg and J. Pilcher (Eds.), Thatcher’s grandchildren? (pp. 301–317). Palgrave Macmillan.
Burr, V. (2015). Social constructionism (3rd ed,). Routledge.
Byron, P., McKee, A., Watson, A., Litsou, K., & Ingham, R. (2020). Reading for realness: Porn literacies, digital media, and young people. Sexuality & Culture. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-020-09794-6
Chronaki, D. (2013). Young people’s accounts of experiences with sexual content during childhood and teenage life. The Communication Review, 16(1–2), 61–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/10714421.2013.757495
Chronaki, D. (2019). “Why internet doesn’t necessarily matter”: Constructing sexual citizenship through pornographic literacies. Journal of Diversity and Gender Studies, 6(2), 61–74. https://doi.org/10.11116/digest.6.2.4
Comella, L., & Tarrant, S. (2015). New views on pornography: Sexuality, politics, and the law. ABC-CLIO.
Cousins, J. J. (2017). Infrastructure and institutions: Stakeholder perspectives of stormwater governance in Chicago. Cities, 66, 44–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2017.03.005
Davis, A. C., Wright, C. J. C., Murphy, S., Dietze, P., Temple-Smith, M. J., Hellard, M. E., & Lim, M. S. C. (2020). A digital pornography literacy resource co-designed with vulnerable young people: Development of “The Gist.” Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(6), e15964. https://doi.org/10.2196/15964
Dawson, K. (2019). Educating Ireland: Promoting porn literacy among parents and children. Porn Studies, 6(2), 268–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/23268743.2018.1518727
Dawson, K. (2020). Establishing an evidence base for the development of porn literacy interventions for adolescents. [Doctoral dissertation, NUI Galway]. ARAN - Access to Research at NUI Galway. http://hdl.handle.net/10379/15826
Dawson, K., Nic Gabhainn, S., & MacNeela, P. (2019). Toward a model of porn literacy: Core concepts, rationales, and approaches. The Journal of Sex Research, 57(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2018.1556238
Education Review Office. (2018). Promoting wellbeing through sexuality education. https://www.ero.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/Promoting-wellbeing-through-sexuality-education.pdf
Egan, R. D. (2013). Becoming sexual: A critical appraisal of the sexualization of girls. John Wiley & Sons.
Goldstein, A. (2019). Beyond porn literacy: Drawing on young people’s pornography narratives to expand sex education pedagogies. Sex Education, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681811.2019.1621826
Goldstein, A. (2021). Learner, laugher, lover, critic: young women’s normative and emerging orientations towards pornography. Porn Studies, 8(1), 5–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/23268743.2020.1736608
Healy-Cullen, S., Morison, T., Ross, K., & Taylor J. E. (2021a). How youth, caregivers and educators draw on sexual scripts to make sense of young people’s engagement with Internet pornography. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Healy-Cullen, S., Morison, T., Ross, K., & Taylor J. E. (2021b). Harm, reality, and norms: Exploring what it means to be ‘porn literate’ according to youth, caregivers and educators. Manuscript in preparation.
HtmlQ [computer software] (2019). Retrieved from https://github.com/aproxima/htmlq
Hutchings, N. (2017). Porn literacy: Raising sexually intelligent young people. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 14(5), e292. https://www.jsm.jsexmed.org/article/S1743-6095(17)30844-5/pdf
Ingham, R. (2005). ‘We didn’t cover that at school’: Education against pleasure or education for pleasure? Sex Education, 5(4), 375–388. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681810500278451
Jearey-Graham, N., & Macleod, C. (2015). A discourse of disconnect: Young people from the Eastern Cape talk about the failure of adult communications to provide habitable sexual subject positions. Perspectives in Education, 33(2), 11–29.
Jearey-Graham, N., & Macleod, C. I. (2017). Gender, dialogue and discursive psychology: A pilot sexuality intervention with South African high-school learners. Sex Education, 17(5), 555–570. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681811.2017.1320983
Kitzinger, C. (1999). Researching subjectivity and diversity: Q-Methodology in feminist psychology. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23(2), 267–276. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1999.tb00358.x
Kitzinger, C., & Rogers, R. S. (1985). A Q-methodological study of lesbian identities. European Journal of Social Psychology, 15(2), 167–187. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420150204
Lamb, S., & Randazzo, R. (2016). An examination of the effectiveness of a sexual ethics curriculum. Journal of Moral Education, 45(1), 16–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2016.1156520
Löfgren-Mårtenson, L., & Månsson, S. A. (2010). Lust, love, and life: A qualitative study of Swedish adolescents’ perceptions and experiences with pornography. Journal of Sex Research, 47(6), 568–579. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490903151374
Macleod, C., & Vincent, L. (2014). Introducing a critical pedagogy of sexual and reproductive citizenship: Extending the ‘framework of thick desire’. In K. Quinlivan, M. Rasmussen, & L. Allen (Eds.), The politics of pleasure in sexuality education (pp. 131–151). Routledge.
Mckenzie, J. A., & Macleod, C. I. (2012). Rights discourses in relation to education of people with intellectual disability: Towards an ethics of care that enables participation. Disability & Society, 27(1), 15–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2012.631795
Moore, A., & Reynolds, P. (2017). Childhood and sexuality: Contemporary issues and debates. Springer.
Morison, T., & Herbert, S. (2019). Rethinking ‘risk’ in sexual and reproductive health policy: The value of the reproductive justice framework. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 16(4), 434–445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-018-0351-z
Office of Film and Literature Classification. (2018). NZ youth and porn: Research findings of a survey on how and why young New Zealanders view online pornography. https://www.classificationoffice.govt.nz/news/latest-news/%0Anzyouthandporn/
Ollis, D. (2016a). The challenges, contradictions and possibilities of teaching about pornography in sex and relationships education (SRE): The Australian context. In V. Sundaram & H. Sauntson (Ed.), Global perspectives and key debates in sex and relationships education: Addressing issues of gender, sexuality, plurality and power (pp. 48–67). Palgrave MacMillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137500229.0008.48
Ollis, D. (2016b). ‘I felt like I was watching porn’: The reality of preparing pre-service teachers to teach about sexual pleasure. Sex Education, 16(3), 308–323. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681811.2015.1075382
Oosterhoff, P., Müller, C., & Shephard, K. (2017). Sex education in the digital era. IDS Bulletin, 48(1), 1–118. https://doi.org/10.19088/1968-2017.100
Pound, P., Langford, R., & Campbell, R. (2016). What do young people think about their school-based sex and relationship education? A qualitative synthesis of young people’s views and experiences. British Medical Journal Open, 6(9), e011329. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011329
Ranford, J. (2015). 'Pakeha', its origin and meaning. Auckland College of Education, 6(8), 64-70.
Rothman, E. F., Adhia, A., Christensen, T. T., Paruk, J., Alder, J., & Daley, N. (2018). A pornography literacy class for youth: Results of a feasibility and efficacy pilot study. American Journal of Sexuality Education, 13(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/15546128.2018.1437100
Rothman, E. F., Paruk, J., Espensen, A., Temple, J. R., & Adams, K. (2017). A qualitative study of what US parents say and do when their young children see pornography. Academic Pediatrics, 17(8), 844–849. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acap.2017.04.014
Sex Education Forum (2021). Can parents withdraw their children from school RSE? https://www.sexeducationforum.org.uk/resources/frequently-asked-questions/7-can-parents-withdraw-their-children-school-rse
Short, M. B., Black, L., Smith, A. H., Wetterneck, C. T., & Wells, D. E. (2012). A review of Internet pornography use research: Methodology and content from the past 10 years. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15(1), 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2010.0477
Smith, M. (2013). Youth viewing sexually explicit material online: Addressing the elephant on the screen. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 10(1), 62–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-012-0103-4
Spišák, S. (2016). ‘Everywhere they say that it’s harmful but they don’t say how, so I’m asking here’: Young people, pornography and negotiations with notions of risk and harm. Sex Education, 16(2), 130–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681811.2015.1080158
Stainton-Rogers, W. (1998). Using Q as a form of discourse analysis. Operant Subjectivity, 21(1/2), 1–18.
Stainton Rogers, R., & Stainton Rogers, W. (1990). What the Brits got out of the Q: And why their work may not line up with the American way of getting into it. Electronic Journal of Communication, 1(1), 1–11.
Stenner, P., Watts, S., & Worrell, M. (2017). Q Methodology. In C. Willig & W. Stainton-Rogers (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research in psychology (2nd ed., pp. 215–239). Sage.
Van Puyenbroeck, H., Elaut, E., & T’Sjoen, G. (2017). Online pornography in sex education at school: A Flemish survey. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 14(5), e276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2017.04.688
Vandenbosch, L., & van Oosten, J. M. F. (2018). The relationship between online pornography and the sexual objectification of women: The attenuating role of porn literacy education. Journal of Communication, 67(6), 1015–1036. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12341
Watts, S., & Stenner, P. (2012). Doing Q methodological research: Theory, method & interpretation. Sage.
Weaver, A. D., Byers, E. S., Sears, H. A., Cohen, J. N., & Randall, H. E. S. (2001). Sexual health education at school and at home: Attitudes and experiences of New Brunswick parents. Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 11(1), 19–32.
Webler, T., Danielson, S., & Tuler, S. (2009). Using Q method to reveal social perspectives in environmental research. Greenfield MA: Social and Environmental Research Institute, 54, 1–45. www.seri-us.org/pubs/Qprimer.pdf
Wright, P. J. (2014). Pornography and the sexual socialization of children: Current knowledge and a theoretical future. Journal of Children and Media, 8(3), 305–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2014.923606
Zabala, A. (2014). qmethod: A package to explore human perspectives using Q methodology. The R Journal, 6(2), 163–173.
Zabala, A., Sandbrook, C., & Mukherjee, N. (2018). When and how to use Q methodology to understand perspectives in conservation research. Conservation Biology, 32(5), 1185–1194. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13123
Acknowledgements
We would like to express particular thanks to the schools and participants who took part in this research. We also thank Harvey Jones at Massey University for technical support.
Funding
This research is funded by a Massey University Doctoral Scholarship for full‐time study towards a PhD degree at Massey University.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by Siobhán Healy-Cullen. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Siobhán Healy-Cullen and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors contributed to interpretation of the data and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics Declarations
This research was approved by the Massey University Human Ethics Committee on 27th September 2018 (SOB 18/51). Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study, and the procedures used in this study adhere to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki.
Competing Interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix
Appendix
Q Set Distribution and Items
-
1.
Porn literacy education is needed, and young people should be taught porn literacy skills.
-
2.
There is no need for porn literacy education; this suggestion is just a reaction to a societal moral panic.
-
3.
Young people do not need porn literacy education; they just need good online resources/platforms with information about internet pornography.
-
4.
Since Internet pornography is here to stay, young people should be taught how to make sense of it, and the messages it delivers.
-
5.
Porn literacy education is a waste of time; it is just something that young people figure out themselves as they get older.
-
6.
Young people should just be taught about Internet pornography’s negative effects, and how to avoid Internet pornography online.
-
7.
School teachers should receive training on how to deliver porn literacy education to young people in schools.
-
8.
Both parents/guardians and school teachers should to be trained to deliver porn literacy education to young people.
-
9.
External providers should be brought in to schools to deliver porn literacy training to young people.
-
10.
Schools should not be teaching anything to young people about Internet pornography.
-
11.
Parents/guardians should be provided with training to help them understand and talk about porn literacy with young people in their care, rather than leaving it to educators.
-
12.
Porn literacy education should be separate to sexuality education, and should be delivered as a stand-alone programme by schools.
-
13.
Porn literacy should be a once off session delivered by an external body, at some stage during secondary school.
-
14.
Porn literacy education should be taught on an ongoing basis throughout the secondary school years.
-
15.
Porn literacy education should be run as an after school programme delivered over a number of weeks, at some stage during secondary school.
-
16.
Porn literacy education should be integrated as part of the sexuality education curriculum in secondary schools.
-
17.
Ultimately, it should be the responsibility of the ministry of education to ensure young people receive porn literacy education as part of their sexuality education.
-
18.
Ultimately, it should be the responsibility of parents/guardians to ensure young people receive porn literacy education as part of their sexuality education.
-
19.
Porn literacy should be used as a platform for talking about bigger issues like consent, racism and sex work.
-
20.
Porn literacy should be taught from the age of 13.
-
21.
Porn literacy should be taught from the age of 16.
-
22.
Showing ‘healthy pornography’ videos in classrooms could be a useful educational tool.
-
23.
Showing photos of healthy consensual sex could be a useful educational tool.
-
24.
I do not think imagery or videos need to be shown as part of porn literacy education or sexuality education, but I do think we need to talk about the imagery and videos.
-
25.
Our efforts should be focused on censorship (blocking and restricting access to Internet pornography), rather than porn literacy education.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Healy-Cullen, S., Taylor, J.E., Morison, T. et al. Using Q-Methodology to Explore Stakeholder Views about Porn Literacy Education. Sex Res Soc Policy 19, 549–561 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-021-00570-1
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-021-00570-1