Pornography as a cultural resource for constructing and expressing gendered sexual subjectivities among students in a co-educational boarding school

ABSTRACT

This paper draws upon research conducted in a co-educational independent boarding school in England to explore the role of pornography in students’ school-based sexual cultures. Drawing upon Mechling’s conceptualization of boarding schools as ‘total institutions’, I explore how pornography acted as both ‘play’ and ‘ritual’ through which participants asserted agency and control while producing a gendered social order surrounding sex and sexuality. Participants who spoke about pornography drew upon dominant understandings of masculine and feminine (hetero)sexuality when positioning themselves and one another regarding pornography. They tended to construct viewing pornography as a ‘typical’ and ‘normal’ part of masculine (hetero)sexuality but as antithetical to feminine (hetero)sexuality. Some of the boys expressed ambivalence and uncertainty about pornography, but this was often grounded in taken-for-granted gendered constructs about sexual performance and accomplishment. Socially approved expressions of agency and control within the research environment were, therefore, both reflective and constitutive of a gendered and heteronormative social order. I suggest that sex education should attend to the role that pornography plays as a cultural resource through which young people construct, express and designate gendered sexual subjectivities and social roles.

KEYWORDS:

• Young people
• pornography
• gender
• youth sexual culture
• qualitative

Debates about pornography and young people often focus on the impacts of pornography and how to engender critical media literacy through sex education (Albury 2014). In this article, I draw upon embedded research conducted in a co-educational boarding school in England to explore pornography as part of ‘youth sexual cultures’ (Allen 2006, 72). I consider how pornography acted as a cultural resource through which participants constructed and expressed gendered sexual subjectivities within the research context. The ‘non-linear and interactive conversations’ (Goldstein 2020a, 70) with participants allowed them to articulate what pornography meant to them, which, in turn, revealed the gender inequalities and heteronormativity within their sexual cultures. Rather than treating pornography as an object of study in itself, sex education should perhaps attend to the meanings that pornography holds for individuals and through which individuals articulate gendered sexual subjectivities regarding pornography specifically and sexuality more broadly (see Hancock and Barker 2018).

Young people, pornography and gender

Research suggests that young people perceive pornography as ‘everywhere’: part of society and hard to avoid (Mattebo et al. 2012; Mulholland 2015). Their perspectives, however, are socially contingent and structured, in particular, along axes of age, gender and sexuality (Martellozzo et al. 2016; Peter and Valkenburg 2016). Older boys are more likely to express positive attitudes towards pornography and to report deliberatively and regularly viewing it compared to girls and younger boys (Cameron et al. 2005; Löfgren-Mårtenson and Månsson 2009; Tsaliki 2011; Abiala and Hernwall 2013; Rothman et al. 2014; Martellozzo et al. 2016). LGBT+ youth, meanwhile, can value pornography for offering insights about sex and supporting them to explore and develop their sexual identities (Mutchler, Ayala, and Neith 2005; Kubicek et al. 2011).

Whether pornography is part of healthy sexual exploration and development for young people or is damaging to their conceptualizations of sex and relationships is contested (Helsper 2005; McKee 2007; Brown, Keller, and Stern 2009; Flood 2009; Tsaliki 2011; To, Ngai, and Kan 2012; Peter and Valkenburg 2016; Attwood, Smith, and Barker 2018; Dawson, Cooper, and Moore 2018). Young heterosexual men’s use of pornography is more often problematized, due to the unequal and exploitative gender dynamics and sexual practices thought to predominate in mainstream pornography (Flood 2009; Albury 2014). Qualitative research suggests that pornography may represent a frame of reference for sexual performance and expectations about sex, which may, in turn, work through gendered, heteronormative assumptions about sex and sexuality (Lavoie, Robitaille, and Hérbert 2000; Löfgren-Mårtenson and Månsson 2009; Marston and Lewis 2014; Rothman et al. 2014; Arrington-Sanders et al. 2015).

Important to consider, therefore, is that any impacts or effects of pornography on young people are located within broader socio-cultural contexts. Research finds that young men can speak openly about their use of pornography with one another and refer to it as a marker for their age-based and gender-based sexual subjectivities, while young women more often say they dislike pornography (Löfgren-Mårtenson and Mansson 2009; Weber, Quiring, and Daschmann 2012; Abiala and Hernwall 2013). Young heterosexual men have long been ‘freer’ as sexual subjects than young women, and, indeed, non-heterosexual/cis-gender men, perhaps explaining their more positive orientations towards pornography (Holland et al. 1998). Young women, meanwhile, may perceive pornography as threatening due to the location of feminine (hetero)sexuality within relational discourses (Johansson 2012). Löfgren-Mårtenson and Månsson (2009, 5) found that young women were hesitant and negative about pornography; they felt pornography is not designed for women because it is ‘too rough’ and disconnected from emotion and love. While young men can discuss pornography in terms of sexual curiosity, exploration and arousal, young women’s accounts are oftentimes rooted in their relational outlooks and connections (Ševčíková and Daneback 2014). They seem disinclined from discussing personal embodied sexual pleasures or desires, and are more oriented towards pornography as a way of understanding boys’ pleasures and desires (Scarcelli 2015).

Young people are, however, becoming more active and heterogeneous in their perspectives on pornography. Johansson and Hammarén (2007) found that both young men and young women display different levels of enthusiasm, ambivalence and opposition towards pornography. Both can be critical of the depictions of sex, gender and the body portrayed in pornography, and reflective about the need to be ethical and respectful within sexual relationships (Löfgren-Mårtenson and Månsson 2009; Mattebo et al. 2012; Martellozzo et al. 2016; Phippen 2017; Attwood, Smith, and Barker 2018). Young men, like young women, also express concerns about the perceived impacts of pornography on expectations, and may experience ‘performance anxiety’ (Phippen 2017, 59). A critical orientation towards pornography seems, however, a particularly accessible socially approved narrative for young women (Goldstein 2020b).

Critical engagement with (or trivializing or minimizing the influence of) pornography may be gendered and normalizing in terms of discourses surrounding sexuality and sexual behaviour (Löfgren-Mårtenson and Månsson 2010; Mulholland 2015; Scarcelli 2015; Goldstein 2020b). Young people may be actively negotiating what they see and pornography may be as much part of the day-to-day mundane of sex and sexuality as the spectacular (Attwood, Smith, and Barker 2018; Goldstein 2020b). Mulholland (2015, 327) suggests, however, that there is far from an ‘anything goes’ culture regarding gender and sexuality for young people (also see Johansson 2012). She argues that any ‘[expressions of] agency … [work alongside] conventional gender and heteronormative frameworks’ (Mulholland 2015, 333).

Pornography and sex education

Pornography may be a source of information that young people use to develop their values and beliefs about sex, gender and sexuality, particularly when sex education is perceived as limited or lacking (Byron 2008; Brown and L’Engle 2009; Smith 2013; Ybarra, Strasburger, and Mitchell 2014). Yet Dawson, Gabhainn, and MacNeela (2019) found that there was no direct relationship between using pornography as a source of sexual information and satisfaction with school-based sex education or learning about sex among a sample of Irish 18–24 year olds. Young people may instead be motivated to access and view pornography for different reasons, and it may become part of the tapestry of ways they encounter and learn about sex, gender and sexuality. Given that most of their participants were dissatisfied with their experiences of sex education, Dawson, Gabhainn, and MacNeela (2019) suggest that, regardless, there is a missed opportunity here to critically unpack issues relating to sexual intimacy, consent, communication and pleasure vis-à-vis pornography.

For legal, ethical and practical reasons, as well as taken-for-granted assumptions about the nature of child and youth sexuality, candid and open discussions about pornography are often absent in mainstream sex education (Hancock and Barker 2018; Goldstein 2020a). As in other jurisdictions, sex education policy in England constructs pornography as inherently problematic for young people and emphasizes its illegality for youth (Department for Education 2019). Debates about how to restrict and regulate young people’s exposure to pornography are ongoing (Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, and Home Office 2019).

Engendering critical media literacy may not, however, sufficiently account for the complexities and social contingencies of young people’s perspectives on pornography (Goldstein 2020a). Albury (2014, 173) identifies two discourses around pornography and learning: ‘pedagogy about pornography’ (critical media literacy skills) and ‘porn as pedagogy’ (what pornography may be teaching them about sex and sexuality). She contends that while young people may critical reflect upon on and develop a literacy around pornography, they may nevertheless find it arousing or otherwise enjoyable or informative. While ostensibly about protecting young people from perceived harms, sex education about pornography can be implicitly normalizing about legitimate forms of sexual knowledge and practice, and can fail to adequately engage with the gendered and heteronormative dimensions of youth sexual culture (Albury 2014; Hancock and Barker 2018). Albury (2014, 178) suggests that ‘an ideal education’ about pornography would involve exploring what young people are drawn to and find arousing, desirable and pleasurable. Their perspectives may be revealing about their developing gendered sexual subjectivities and how pornography acts as a resource for formulating and expressing these subjectivities.

This article discusses how participants within the boarding school articulated a perspective on pornography and the meanings and norms that shaped these perspectives. Within the school, sex education is delivered through lectures and small-group tutorials. The school predominantly positions pornography as an issue affecting boys, and students are warned of the dangers of pornography (in terms of boys becoming addicted/desensitized to the content and the impacts on boys’ expectations and attitudes towards girls). Such education can be found in other schools; however, as a boarding school, the participants were arguably subject to greater constraints on their ability to access information about and to explore their developing sexual subjectivities. The students were forbidden from accessing pornography, although unsurprisingly many had established ‘workarounds’ to the restrictions in place. While unique to this context, the findings underscore how pornography is part of youth sexual culture and, for these participants, a resource through which they expressed agency and resistance within the school. Critically deconstructing pornography with young people is, therefore, about their developing gendered sexual subjectivities, as well as the pornography itself (Goldstein 2020a).

Theoretical framework

A social constructionist approach to sexuality underpinned this research. Drawing upon Gagnon and Simon’s work on sexual scripts, Jackson and Scott (2010, 13) argue that ‘ … acts, feelings and body parts are not sexual in themselves, but become so only through the application of sociocultural scripts that imbue them with sexual significance’. These scripts emerge from the ‘agentic individual, the interactional situation, and the surrounding sociocultural order’ (Gagnon 2004, 276). Jackson and Scott (2010) argue that while culture does not necessarily determine sexual conduct, it represents a resource through which to make sense of sexuality at interpersonal/interactional and individual levels. Pornography may, therefore, be ‘ … part of the discourses or cultural scenarios on which they [youth] draw in making sense of their sexuality and locating themselves as competent sexual actors’ (Jackson and Scott 2015, 50). Jackson and Scott (2010, 43) suggest that while gender does not necessarily dictate how they do this, it provides ‘the parameters within which we become sexual and make sense of ourselves as sexual subjects’. Through processes of construction, enaction and negotiation, young people develop a sense of sexual selfhood that may make real a gendered and heteronormative social order.

I was, therefore, interested in how participants co-constructed a sexual subjectivity regarding pornography. In a survey of teenagers’ perspectives on sex education, Allen (2006) found that young men frequently referred to pornography in open-ended questions. She located their narratives within their school-based youth sexual cultures, and suggests that they were both challenging school authority and constructing themselves as masculine (hetero)sexual subjects in an educational context in which their sexual subjectivities were often delegitimized.

The boarding school represented a particular context in which to explore the role of pornography in youth sexual culture. Mechling (2019), a folklorist, describes boarding schools as ‘total institutions’, characterized by ‘near-total’ control over the lives and routines of residents and limited privacy. He suggests that ‘life in a total institution as experienced by residents is one of total control by others, a loss of personal agency, and, in some cases, a loss of individual identity as individuals are absorbed into a group identity’ (2019, 2). ‘Informal folk cultures’ can emerge, in which ‘folklore’ represents ‘a resource for resisting control and for asserting agency’ in ways that ‘reveal the creativity of people who find their daily life controlled by others’ (2019, 15). In this article, I explore how pornography acted as what Mechling (2019, 7) terms both ‘play’ and ‘ritual’ to reproduce gendered, heteronormative constructions of sex and sexuality.

Methodology

The research was conducted over a two-week period in late 2018, during which time I lived as an embedded researcher in a co-educational independent boarding school in England. I explored students’ perceptions, attitudes and practices surrounding sex, relationships, identity and well-being, and focus here on their perspectives on pornography. The article addresses the following questions:

1. How did participants talk about pornography within their peer contexts?

2. How did pornography act as a cultural resource within participants’ youth sexual cultures?

3. What socio-cultural norms and meanings did participants draw upon to construct a subjectivity and designate social roles regarding pornography?

4. How did pornography act as ‘play’ and ‘ritual’ to assert agency and meaning, and reproduce a broader social order?

Embedded research is used in educational research and enables researchers to immerse themselves within the research site, thus gaining insight into the intersecting social, cultural and institutional realities of the site and, therefore, an appreciation of the participants’ lives in situ (McGinty and Salokangas 2014). Through qualitative methods, embedded researchers can ‘experience the mundane and sacred, brash and nuanced aspects of socio-cultural life and, through observations, encounters and conversations … come to an understanding of it’ (Lewis and Russell 2011, 400). Lewis and Russell (2011, 400) explain that embedded researchers are not, necessarily, either participants in or separate to the research site, but through developing a ‘detailed and shared knowledge’ of the site can ‘[understand] the context of [participants’] lives’. Researchers thus become reflective and reflexive learners. The analysis of pornography presented here, therefore, is based upon both the participants’ accounts and a first-hand experience of the school, which, by virtue of being a total institution, shaped so much of their lives.

I interacted with individuals and groups of participants aged 12–18 years. I predominantly spoke to single-gender groups and spent with boys and girls. Conversations were open and fluid, and participants came and left discussions freely. I said I was interested in how the school engages with them about their personal lives and development. The topics of conversation were directed by the participants, some of whom spoke about pornography. Discussions took place in their boarding houses, during meal and break times, and occasionally during lessons where I observed and interacted with students. I was alive to the multiple identities and orientations that participants adopted and moved between. I particularly observed the different subject positions they expressed during their ‘downtime’, but how these were ultimately shaped by the constraints and expectations within the school.

All students were provided with information sheets in advance of my arrival. Anyone who did not wish to participate (or, for those aged under 16 years, whose parents did not consent to their participation) had the opportunity to opt out. No student or parent opted out; however, I conceptualized informed consent as ongoing and negotiated. Students were introduced to me by staff members and told they could come and speak to me if they wished. I located myself within private and quiet, but accessible, spaces within the school. I presented myself as separate from the institutional structures of the school and as a non-judgmental, open-minded adult with whom they could speak openly and honestly. I was alone with them and they were reassured about confidentiality and anonymity. I explained that they could speak about practices typically considered wrong or deviant for young people, but if I thought they or another young person was at risk of harm I would have to disclose it via the school’s safeguarding and child protection processes. The ethical approach was negotiated and agreed with the research site prior to the study commencing.

I did not record discussions so as not to inhibit participants or impede the flow of conversation (and due to ethical concerns about what constituted the boundaries of ‘research’, given that participants came and left discussions freely and the implications for informed consent). I took extensive notes (during and, predominantly, after discussions). While I did not have an exact record of what was said, the data generated were rich and enhanced by the lengthy and unstructured time spent with participants building trust and rapport, and developing insight into their perspectives. Relying on fieldnotes inevitably involves prioritizing trust, rapport and insight over producing a detailed, verifiable dataset; a trade-off that may be worthwhile in sensitive research in which participants may be concerned about confidentiality, anonymity and trust (Bott 2010).

I encouraged participants to speak openly and honestly, and did not censor their accounts, either as an adult or as a woman. The girls oftentimes seemed to conceive of me as a trusted confidante and ‘similar’ to them, and I wanted to avoid unarticulated and unexplored assumptions in our discussions. I also wanted to avoid inhibiting the boys. I asked probing and clarifying questions, and participants sometimes directed their discussions at me and asked questions. I engaged in these discussions and contributed to two-way interactions. I respected their desire for me to share my perspective, which I did to facilitate discussions rather than suggesting ways to think or feel. I did not claim to have all the answers and they seemed to enjoy discussing dilemmas and complexities with me collaboratively.

I was inspired by Goldstein’s (2020b) approach to ‘narrative thematic analysis’ when analyzing the notes. I explored how participants’ co-constructed and positioned themselves and one another in their narratives about pornography, and, through this, designated and enacted social roles and subjectivities. This approach revealed how pornography was part of broader developmental and cultural processes surrounding sex and relationships (Ševčíková and Daneback 2014). Research findings are, of course, not ‘discovered’, researchers are part of discovering them so ‘ … any theoretical rendering involves an interpretive portrayal of the studied world, not an exact picture of it’ (Charmaz 2006, 10; original emphasis). I contributed to the co-construction of the data and my conclusions are based on my interpretation of their accounts, namely in terms of the implications for egalitarian, mutual youth sexual practices and cultures.

Participants predominantly came from a white British ethnic background and most identified as heterosexual, although I spoke with some identifying as LGBT+. Participants who spoke about pornography were overwhelmingly heteronormative in their accounts. I reflect upon the implications for my interpretations and conclusions. While perhaps problematic because the perspectives of LGBT+ young people were not captured in the analysis, the findings illuminate the taken-for-granted heteronormativity that infused assumptions about the significance of pornography in youth sexual culture among these participants.

Findings

Participants who spoke about pornography oftentimes described watching pornography as a ‘typical’ and ‘normal’ activity for boys, but unlikely and unusual among girls. Girls were more likely to problematize pornography, both in terms of the impacts on boys and for themselves as individuals and as girlfriends of boys. Some of the boys’ narratives revealed feelings of uncertainty and ambivalence about pornography, feelings that were shaped by norms and expectations surrounding masculine (hetero)sexuality. While pornography acted as ‘play’ for the boys to express agency and resistance within the school, it nevertheless worked as ‘ritual’ through which participants produced a gendered heteronormative social order surrounding sex and sexuality.

Pornography as a ‘normal’ part of masculine (hetero)sexuality

Most participants who spoke about pornography perceived boys as likely to view pornography. Many of the boys normalized this, with some stating, for example, that pornography is ‘fine’ and ‘nothing to worry about, it’s just something boys enjoy’. Many participants, regardless of whether they spoke about pornography, constructed teenage masculine (hetero)sexuality as hormonal, sex-driven and visually oriented. Some boys positioned pornography as an outlet for expressing, exploring and relieving their sexual desires, drives and tensions, and broader stresses and frustrations.

One group of seven boys aged 15–17 years was particularly insistent that watching pornography is a harmless, normal activity for boys. They presented as ‘laddy’; they joked around, were comfortable taking up space in the communal areas and seemed at ease with their position in the peer hierarchy. They seemed part of the ‘popular crowd’ and projected a status adhering to the demands and ideals of hegemonic masculinity characterized by sexual pursuit and accomplishment, athleticism and strength (Connell 1995). They engaged in homosocial bonding (they were tactile and openly discussed how bonded they felt with one another) and, perhaps due to their relatively privileged positionality (white, heterosexual, middle class), expressed classed ideals around restraint, respectability and achievement.

They spoke candidly about watching pornography, sometimes engaging in masculine bravado about its harmlessness and normality. They said they do not watch it ‘all the time’ but occasionally to ‘speed things up’ (i.e. as a masturbation aid). They described this as ‘normal’ and felt they should not be prevented from accessing or using pornography. They were critical of the regulatory burdens imposed by the school (e.g. in restricting their access to pornography) and asked whether I thought that what they were doing was ‘wrong’. Their perspectives reflected many of the boys’ initial constructions of pornography as ubiquitous and normal, but also as ‘against the rules’.

Other boys described watching and sharing pornography with one another. A group of 12–13 year olds discussed, in a jokey and light-hearted fashion, how boys watch pornography at night in their dormitories ‘under the covers’. ‘All boys’ do this, they said, and it is permitted and goes uncommented upon in the male peer group. Boys from across the age range described sharing and showing one another clips and screenshots from pornography to, variously, recommend ‘good bits’, shock one another with ‘dodgy bits’ and ‘have a laugh’.

Feminine (hetero)sexuality and the ‘threatening irrelevance’ of pornography

There were two elements to participants’ constructions of feminine (hetero)sexuality and pornography: firstly, it is not appropriate for them to watch pornography; and, secondly, there are potential negative consequences to them of boys’ use of pornography. Most girls described it as ‘weird’ for them to watch pornography and pornography as ‘demeaning’ to women and, therefore, as ‘anti-feminist’. Many described pornography as offensive due to its sexist depictions of sex and sexuality. While they distanced themselves as viewers, some felt affected by boys’ viewing habits.

The girls who spoke about pornography all said they do not watch it and most felt that other girls likewise do not (or that it is uncommon for girls to watch it). A group of eight girls aged 15–17 years, for example, said that girls are not as ‘visual’ as boys and are more oriented to emotions and intimacy in relationships. They perceived pornography, due to its emphasis on physical sex and visual stimulation, as offering them little. They believed they would be seen, and would see themselves, as ‘odd’ for watching pornography and that doing so would be shameful and embarrassing. They described feeling worried, however, about boys’ pornography habits; they believed that boys are ‘regular’ viewers, which, they felt, is changing boys’ expectations about sex and how girls should look and behave. They described being concerned about the bodily ideals contained within pornography (e.g. ‘perfect, hairless bodies’ and large breasts) and the normalization of different sexual practices (e.g. anal sex, ejaculation on women’s faces/bodies and irrumation).

Other girls described themselves as ignorant about pornography and mystified by what happens and what boys are watching. They expressed anxiety about the ‘unknown’. Some were concerned about whether pornography changes boys’ expectations and said that there is a difference between pornography as a ‘fantasy’ and the ‘reality’ of sex, intimacy and relationships. This meant that they conceived of pornography as something boys engage in away from girls. Some were worried about their boyfriends’ potential use of pornography, with many describing this as a ‘betrayal’.

One 16-year-old girl, for example, said that her boyfriend told her that he has watched pornography but does not anymore and that ‘real-life’ sex is different. She said she has never watched pornography but believes that it is demeaning and derogatory towards women in terms of the depiction of sex and female bodies. She said that while she would be angry if she found out that her boyfriend continues to watch pornography, she is more concerned about what it means that he feels that ‘real-life’ sex is different. He told her that it is ‘better’ but she questioned whether this is true. Pornography must, she felt, offer boys something and considered it a ‘threat’ to girls in terms of sexual expectations of women and the damage to relationships if boys find they ‘prefer’ pornography to them.

Ambivalence about pornography

Most boys tended to express positive attitudes towards pornography through stating that it is ‘not real’ and has no bearing on ‘real-life’ sex and relationships. Many felt that this distinction is central to ‘healthy’ viewing habits. Some, however, struggled to navigate the meanings of pornography in terms of their self-concepts. They expressed concerns about their use of pornography and ambivalence about whether pornography is ‘good’ for individuals, relationships and society.

A group of four boys aged 17–18 years, for example, joked about pornography and having watched and shared it with one another. They described pornography as ‘funny’ and said they know it is not realistic in terms of behaviour and appearance. They discussed how practices that may seem pleasurable may be ‘shocking’ and feel ‘painful’ if enacted ‘in real life’. They felt that if pornography is used as an ‘outlet’ rather than a model for sex, then it is acceptable. In particular, they argued that if a boy can still ‘get an erection’ without pornography and enjoy ‘real-life sex’, then it is non-problematic. A group of young boys, meanwhile, described feeling ‘addicted’ to pornography. They described compulsive viewing in which they access ever-more ‘extreme content’. They said they sometimes tell themselves to ‘have a day off’ but often feel unable to. They described feeling ‘ashamed’ and ‘bad about themselves’ for what they believed to be their uncontrollable use of pornography and desensitization to the content.

While many of the older boys said they know that pornography is not real (and described ultimately having learnt about ‘real sex’ experientially and from peers/siblings), some younger boys described confusion about what is ‘real’ and what they should be ‘learning’ from pornography. One group of 12–13 year olds said that pornography looked ‘staged’ and ‘acted’ but they do not know what to compare it to. They said they do not know what happens during sex and that pornography shows them ‘the basics’. However, they also discussed the ‘endless’ and ‘aggressive’ depictions of male sexual performance and their doubts about whether they can emulate such depictions. They felt that they fall short of the standards embodied by male actors, in terms of physique and penis size. They resultantly expressed concern about the nature of ‘real-life’ sex.

Another group of younger boys spoke about how pornography actors look like they are ‘having fun’, but questioned whether it is as pleasurable as depicted. They described pornography as ‘intense’ and ‘aggressive’, and felt that some acts would be painful in real life. They also questioned what is says about them that they watch pornography characterized by aggression, dominance and pain regardless of whether it is ‘just a fantasy’. The earlier group of older boys also reflected on their use of pornography as an outlet. They recounted being shown a video in school in which ex-pornography actors spoke about injuries they had experienced. While they felt this highlights the distinction between fantasy and reality, they questioned whether it is ‘innocent’ to watch pornography given the implications for ‘real-life’ individuals working in the industry.

Some boys’ ambivalence was expressed in terms of girls’ pleasures and desires. Some of the older boys queried whether girls ‘secretly watch porn’ despite their claims not to. They said they believed girls are ‘more sexual than they let on’ and probably do watch pornography but feel they cannot ‘admit it’. When asked why they felt girls would have to keep it a secret, they said that it is seen as ‘abnormal’ for girls to be sexually driven and visually oriented. Other boys expressed anxiety about performance and pleasure. Some, for example, expressed confusion about whether girls like ‘rough sex’ and what ‘real-life pleasure’ looks like for girls given that female pornography actors may look like they are enjoying it when they are not.

Discussion

Participants’ narratives about pornography suggest a dominant cultural construction that pornography privileges male sexual desire and interest, and is demeaning to women (Goldstein 2020b). In a context in which their access to and use of pornography was curtailed, pornography represented a form of ‘play’ in which some boys expressed agency and resistance in line with taken-for-granted constructs of masculine (hetero)sexuality (see Mechling 2019). They discursively challenged the prohibitions and controls within the school through positioning pornography as harmless and ubiquitous (see Allen 2006). Their ambivalence, however, challenged the invisibility oftentimes accorded to the uncertainties and contradictions of masculine sexual subjectivity. The girls, meanwhile, lacked access to pornography as ‘play’, while the boys’ ambivalence was predominantly constructed through discourses of male performance and accomplishment. Pornography thus ultimately acted as ‘ritual’, through which participants constructed and expressed gendered sexual subject positions. I suggest that their socially approved narratives reveal the norms and meanings surrounding masculine and feminine (hetero)sexuality within their school-based youth sexual cultures.

Allen (2006) found that in a school context that denies legitimate sexual subjectivity to students, boys’ requests for pornographic representations of sex in sex education represented an expression of agency and control. The boarding school, similarly, tended to frame youth sexuality as potentially problematic and needing to be regulated, and access to pornography was prohibited. Mechling (2019) argues that in ‘total institutions’, such as boarding schools, residents can use cultural resources as ‘play’ through which to assert control. Some of the boys discursively resisted institutional constraints on pornography and constructed counter-narratives around the normality and ubiquity of pornography (see Bryant 2009; Phippen 2017). In a context of limited privacy, they described bonding with each other through the use of pornography, including in shared spaces (see Löfgren-Mårtenson and Månsson 2009; Weber, Quiring, and Daschmann 2012). Their use of pornography perhaps represented a form of ‘regulated … homosociality’ through which they expressed closeness and connectivity with one another (Johansson 2012, 28). These narratives were articulated through taken-for-granted constructs of masculine (hetero)sexuality, in which being sexually driven and visually oriented, and thus drawn to pornography, was seen as part and parcel of being a teenage boy. Discussing pornography was not, therefore, taboo because it signalled masculinity and, in turn, acted as a way of reclaiming and expressing agency (see Holland et al. 1998).

Some of the boys emphasized their right to explore and express their natural, developing sexualities and their right to sex education that accepts these subject positions (Allen 2006; Phippen 2017). Some insisted that pornography is not real and should be seen as an escape, a bit of fun and a fantasy that they can dip into as they wish. They were, like most in the school, relatively socio-economically privileged. When articulating the normality and harmlessness of pornography, they often distanced themselves from out-of-control others and expressed adherence to conventional markers of success and respectability, perhaps reflecting classed discourses surrounding legitimate sexuality (see Walker and Kushner 1997, 1999; Mulholland 2015). They perhaps had space (or capital) to frame pornography as a normal, habitual and harmless part of sexual expression and exploration and, in turn, to express resistance against the controls and prohibitions within the school (Cameron et al. 2005; Löfgren-Mårtenson and Månsson 2009; Tsaliki 2011; Abiala and Hernwall 2013; Rothman et al. 2014).

Participants’ narratives about pornography suggest that it acted as ‘ritual’ regarding feminine (hetero)sexuality. The girls defined pornography as offering them little because being sexually driven and visually oriented was attributed, by both boys and girls, to masculine (hetero)sexuality. Participants described girls as more oriented to emotions, intimacy and relationships (Cameron et al. 2005; Löfgren-Mårtenson and Månsson 2009). Some girls perceived pornography as a threat to the integrity of their relationships with boys (Bridges, Bergner, and Hesson-McInnis 2003). They seemed to be navigating a contradictory sexuality in which they had to balance being too sexual (perhaps seen in their denial of viewing pornography) with not being sexual enough (illustrated perhaps through their worries about what boys want and are viewing) (see Jackson and Scott 2010). Their construction of sexuality in terms of pleasing and attracting men, ‘potentially [promotes] an insecure sexuality for women’ because they are framed as being in ‘competition’ for the attention of men, in this case with pornography (Farvid and Braun 2006, 300). Goldstein (2020b, 5) argues that such perspectives rest upon a construction of ‘pornography as a deeply problematic and inherently male-dominant object, and that constructs female sexuality as essentially other-oriented’.

As Goldstein (2020b) found, some of the girls harnessed narratives of gender equality and feminism to articulate their opposition to pornography. They had little latitude, however, to express a subjectivity unencumbered by constraints on feminine sexuality in which sex is legitimized through the presence of a relationship and holds meaning to girls through its association with emotion, connection and intimacy (see Johansson 2012). Research has found that young women also describe engaging with pornography within intimate relationships (while constructing this in terms of understanding and fulfilling men’s desires) and as a ‘laugh’ (albeit not for sexual desire or pleasure) (Scarcelli 2015, 244; Goldstein 2020b, 3). The girls here did not describe doing so, nor consuming other forms of sexually explicit media. Due to the unstructured nature of the conversations, the girls were not prompted to discuss pornography. Those who did invoked it as a resource – or ‘border object’ (Scarcelli 2015, 246) – through which they discursively performed a socially approved femininity. As with the boys, their socio-economic privilege meant that the contradictions between post-feminist imperatives of pleasing boys and not appearing slutty were perhaps contextualized by classed understandings of good and respectable femininity (Mulholland 2015). The girls often discussed sex and relationships in terms of their long-term aims for settled, committed relationships. Women in mainstream pornography may represent deviant others due to the violation of these norms and standards; perhaps further explaining the girls’ tendency to distance themselves from pornography.

The ambivalence and uncertainty about pornography among some boys complicates the dominant narratives of masculine (hetero)sexuality constructed by participants (see Walker and Kushner 1997, 1999; Frosh, Phoenix, and Pattman 2002; Johansson and Hammarén 2007). While young people may not necessarily be accessing pornography intentionally as a form of sex education (see Dawson, Gabhainn, and MacNeela 2019), it may indirectly become ‘partly educational because it teaches you some things about the act of sex that you’d never learn from your teachers or parents’ (Baker 1992, 130). Some boys were concerned about the depictions of sex and sexuality, on a practical basis (would they be able to emulate such depictions?), a realist basis (is it as pleasurable as it looks?) and a moral/ethical basis (is it even right to be aroused by such depictions?). Some internalized their concerns into shame and self-doubt, in which discursive expressions of agency and resistance (i.e. insisting that pornography is ‘healthy’ if boys can distinguish fantasy from reality, enjoy real-life sex and exercise control over their viewing habits) conflicted with their complexities of their developing sexual self-concepts.

The boys’ unease was, however, predominantly articulated through (perhaps socially approved) narratives of masculine (hetero)sexual performance and accomplishment. Some were ostensibly interested in girls’ pleasures and desires. Whether such interest was based on genuine mutuality and reciprocity, or imperatives around the ‘accomplishment’ of pleasing a woman, particularly given the male-centric, eroticized and performative nature of female pleasure that predominates in much mainstream pornography, was unclear (see Roberts et al. 1995; Allen 2006; Farvid and Braun 2006). The perception that girls may be ‘more sexual than they let on’ was, meanwhile, perhaps predicated upon the eroticization of the ‘unknowable’ nature of feminine (hetero)sexuality. Lamb (2010, 316) suggests that such ‘use of women’s and girls’ bodies for male pleasure is antithetical to equity and mutuality in sex, two of the hallmarks of sex that make sexual practices just and respectful’.

Implications for sex education

Presently, in England and elsewhere, sex education about pornography involves emphasizing its harmfulness and illegality. This may include some critique of the depictions of sex, gender and sexuality contained within pornography. Young people may, however, be simultaneously capable of critical thought and continue to be drawn to (or repelled by) pornography in line with dominant heteronormative constructions of masculine and feminine (hetero)sexuality (see Albury 2014). The findings presented here suggest that sex education should account for how pornography represents a cultural resource within youth sexual culture through which to enact and designate gendered sexual subject positions (Allen 2006; Goldstein 2020a).

Legitimizing young people’s developing sexual subjectivities (Allen 2006) does not necessitate uncritically celebrating their perspectives. Rather, it could involve supporting their sexual citizenship. Attwood (2006) conceives of sexual citizenship in terms of ethics, equality, rights, democracy and power. She argues that teaching sexual citizenship entails exploring what is defined as normal and who gets to define it as normal, and avoiding common-sense models of sex and sexuality that reify gendered, heteronormative assumptions. Specifically, therefore, sex education should critically deconstruct the subjectivities that young people construct (rather than, for example, positioning pornography as an issue for heterosexual teenage boys and as potentially negatively impacting upon girls, as was the case in the boarding school). This could facilitate recognition of pleasure, in that socially approved narratives of pleasure and arousal may illuminate the nature of their developing gendered sexual subjectivities, with the aim of making space for alternative conceptualizations (Allen and Carmody 2012; Goldstein 2020a).

While varying in their willingness to speak openly about pornography (Mulholland 2015), many participants seemed to want and enjoy engaging in holistic, nuanced and honest discussions (Löfgren-Mårtenson and Månsson 2009; Abiala and Hernwall 2013; Martellozzo et al. 2016; Phippen 2017). The research methodology provided space for participants to express themselves (albeit in socially approved ways), and for many of the boys to express resistance and agency and to complicate assumptions about teenage masculine (hetero)sexuality (Allen 2006; Mechling 2019). Hancock and Barker (2018) identify several practical, legal and ethical obstacles to creating such environments in sex education about pornography. Young people, meanwhile, can feel awkward and reticent about discussing pornography with traditional educators (Martellozzo et al. 2016; Phippen 2017). These obstacles are no doubt heightened within a boarding school because so much of students’ lives is structured in terms of institutional control and regulation. Due to the legal prohibitions on under 18s accessing pornography, boarding school students are inevitably going to be restricted from doing so, and pornography may, therefore, always hold potential as a resource for play and resistance. Schools should not, however, continue to solely emphasize its risks for boys and its irrelevance to girls. Hancock and Barker (2018) suggest that pornography itself need not be the focus; rather, sex education should engage with the narratives young people produce around sex, gender and sexuality, which are both specific to pornography and reflective of their broader sexual cultures.

Limitations and avenues for future research

These findings are specific to the boarding school and reflective of the perspectives of those who wanted to discuss pornography, and, therefore, for whom pornography may have been particularly salient in terms of their sexual self-concepts and subjectivities. The findings are not necessarily reflective of the perspectives of all young people, nor indicative of how young people think, feel and act on individual and interpersonal levels. Participants’ narratives were reflective of what was ‘permitted’ within the research space. Non-normative subject positions may, therefore, have gone unheard (Johansson and Hammerén 2012). The value of the research is, however, perhaps rooted in its unstructured, socially contingent nature. That participants who spoke about pornography produced gendered, heteronormative narratives revealed the role that pornography plays as a cultural resource in their developing sexual subjectivities.

Their heteronormativity was both problematic and significant in terms of its taken-for-granted nature (Mutchler, Ayala, and Neith 2005; Luder et al. 2011; Arrington-Sanders et al. 2015). Future research could explore the perspectives of differently situated young people, particularly exploring, perhaps, how non-heterosexual and/or less socio-economically privileged young people position themselves and one another through pornography. Future research could also explore the different forms of sexually explicit material that the girls consume, and how their constructions of different material align with the narratives outlined here. Finally, research could explore how young people assimilate these norms and meanings into their interpersonal practices and decision-making, which may reveal more varied and complex subjectivities regarding pornography (Johansson and Hammerén 2012; Rothman et al. 2014).

Conclusion

Participants’ narratives suggest that pornography represented a cultural resource through which they expressed agency within the boarding school context. The boys co-constructed masculine (hetero)sexual identities through pornography as ‘play’, and challenged both the problematizing and simplification of their developing sexual subjectivities. The girls, meanwhile, used pornography to align themselves with approved forms of feminine (hetero)sexuality. Narratives of pleasure, desire and arousal (and lack of) are, therefore, revealing about young people’s sexual cultures and developing sexual subjectivities. While the nature and specificities of differently situated young people’s perspectives likely vary, sex education should engage with young people’s sexual cultures and the cultural resources, including pornography, that gain significance within these cultures.

Declaration of conflicts of interest

The author was paid a consultancy fee to conduct the research in the co-educational independent boarding school. The author worked with the school to design the research and manage research ethics but carried out the research and the analysis independently. All conclusions drawn are the author’s own.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.