The crucial area that the Welcome to Sex book gets wrong

There has been a flurry of social media posts in the past few days around new book Welcome to Sex. Written by Yumi Stynes and Dr Melissa Kang, its graphic approach to sex advice for tweens and teens has attracted a backlash that has only seen sales soar. But what really concerns me about this book is its section about taking and sharing nude images.

We need clear, concise and relevant resources on sex to assist young people and their parents/carers to make good choices and to assist them in understanding the legal considerations. I know this because I work in schools with young people every day and have done so for more than 13 years. Before that, I was a police officer for 27 years, specialising in children and young people, so I’m acutely aware of what is going on in their lives and how adults should be doing more to support them through the often tricky teenage years and around topics such as sex, relationships, technology and consent.

Every week I deal with the tears, harm and hurt when a student sees me as a safe place to talk and seek advice after something has gone wrong. I am also aware and concerned about the harm that results from many young people using pornography as a “sex educator”.

But while much of the content in Welcome to Sex may be correct, I have significant concerns that the authors have not properly explained the legal implications from sending nude images of a person under the age of 18 years.

First, a naked or sexually explicit picture or video of a person under the age of 18 years is classed by law as child abuse material. It’s not child pornography – an outdated term used in the book that implies consent, and which hasn’t been used by authorities in the field for a decade. But what is vitally important to understand is that it is illegal to share nude pictures of people under 18, whether they have given consent or not.

I am the first to agree that catching kids breaking these laws when they often don’t see an issue with their choices is not a good use of a law. Laws need to be fit for purpose. To that end, I was part of a group who advocated in Victoria to have the laws amended so that young people were not criminalised for what might be a poor choice rather than a criminal act. But it is also important to note that teens do commit these crimes and if police are notified they have little flexibility to use discretion. (Victoria has some options for police to use discretion but only when specific criteria are met and NSW allows police an opinion-based option in certain situations.)

The authors make the flippant comment: “If we were talking to our own kids we’d tell them to crop their head out ...” This is dangerous advice that could be read by some as suggesting it is OK to send a headless nude. The head is not the important part in a description of what constitutes child abuse material and a young person can be charged regardless of whether you have cropped out the head or not. It is not safe nor is it sensible.

The authors make the point that a person you share a nude picture with is not allowed to share it – but the book fails to acknowledge to young people in search of guidance that the reality is vastly different. For example, I dealt with a case at an Australian school last year where a young girl had sent a headless nude photo on the suggestion of a boy who promised he wouldn’t share it. He had then posted the image online with a poll in which he asked other students to guess who it was.