consequently, necessary to explore how and why some are labelled deviant. Crofts et al. (2015) discuss how not all self-produced images or sexting practices are labelled and treated as deviant. They argue images are not inherently sexual but have to be read as such; a process influenced by gendered sociocultural norms surrounding bodily expression. While much sexting is likely never discovered and stays private, this may include the harmful practices needing to be drawn out and addressed. Rendering primary sexting the ‘problem’, therefore, means those who construct their practices as positive and seek little input or guidance are excluded from the narrative, and those who experience harmful practices, but see the emphasis being on their refusal to engage, also go unaccounted for. It is, therefore, necessary to look at what harms are accepted in the process of labelling acts as deviant (Hillyard and Tombs, 2011). Labelling initial consensual sexting deviant has implications for constructions of harm and how harm-reduction is achieved. It is about victim-blaming, rather than addressing breaches of privacy and consent. However, my intention was not to create new deviants by focusing on perpetrators of breaches of consent and privacy, but to deconstruct and challenge the meanings that underpin harmful practices; meanings shaped by the notion that some individuals are to blame for the harm perpetrated against them and deserving of negative treatment. Becker (1967) suggests interactionist work exploring the interpretive processes involved in the construction of deviance and treatment of deviants can be criticised for privileging the accounts of rule breakers, being subversive and engaging in ideological attacks on the social order. Such a critique could apply to my emphasis on providing young people with agency, and rights to legitimate sexuality and bodily and sexual expression. Becker (1967) suggests the criticism arises from conceiving of deviance as a self-evident truth and suggests
consequently, necessary to explore how and why some are labelled deviant. Crofts et al. (2015) discuss how not all self-produced images or sexting practices are labelled and treated as deviant. They argue images are not inherently sexual but have to be read as such; a process influenced by gendered sociocultural norms surrounding bodily expression. While much sexting is likely never discovered and stays private, this may include the harmful practices needing to be drawn out and addressed. Rendering primary sexting the ‘problem’, therefore, means those who construct their practices as positive and seek little input or guidance are excluded from the narrative, and those who experience harmful practices, but see the emphasis being on their refusal to engage, also go unaccounted for. It is, therefore, necessary to look at what harms are accepted in the process of labelling acts as deviant (Hillyard and Tombs, 2011). Labelling initial consensual sexting deviant has implications for constructions of harm and how harm-reduction is achieved. It is about victim-blaming, rather than addressing breaches of privacy and consent. However, my intention was not to create new deviants by focusing on perpetrators of breaches of consent and privacy, but to deconstruct and challenge the meanings that underpin harmful practices; meanings shaped by the notion that some individuals are to blame for the harm perpetrated against them and deserving of negative treatment. Becker (1967) suggests interactionist work exploring the interpretive processes involved in the construction of deviance and treatment of deviants can be criticised for privileging the accounts of rule breakers, being subversive and engaging in ideological attacks on the social order. Such a critique could apply to my emphasis on providing young people with agency, and rights to legitimate sexuality and bodily and sexual expression. Becker (1967) suggests the criticism arises from conceiving of deviance as a self-evident truth and suggests
eThesis%20Emily%20Setty.docx