The Journal of Sex Research

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hjsr20

Women’s and Men’s Reactions to Receiving

Unsolicited Genital Images from Men

Alexandra S. Marcotte , Amanda N. Gesselman , Helen E. Fisher & Justin R.

Garcia

To cite this article: Alexandra S. Marcotte , Amanda N. Gesselman , Helen E. Fisher & Justin R.
Garcia (2020): Women’s and Men’s Reactions to Receiving Unsolicited Genital Images from Men,
The Journal of Sex Research, DOI: 10.1080/00224499.2020.1779171

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2020.1779171

Published online: 02 Jul 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hjsr20
THE JOURNAL OF SEX RESEARCH
https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2020.1779171

Women’s and Men’s Reactions to Receiving Unsolicited Genital Images from Men
a a
Alexandra S. Marcotte , Amanda N. Gesselman , Helen E. Fishera, and Justin R. Garcia a,b

a
The Kinsey Institute, Indiana University; bDepartment of Gender Studies, Indiana University

ABSTRACT
Recently, mounting anecdotal reports – mostly by heterosexual women on Internet-based dating plat­
forms – have drawn attention to the frequency of men sending unsolicited photos of their own genitals
(i.e., “dick pics”). While initial research has documented that the sending of unsolicited nude pictures is
fairly common, with generally similar underlying motivations for sending solicited and unsolicited
images, understanding recipients’ experiences has social-behavioral research, clinical, and potentially
legal implications. In a U.S. sample of 2,045 women of all sexual identities and 298 gay/bisexual men, we
found that among those who had ever received a “dick pic”, nearly all (91%) had also received an
unsolicited “dick pic.” Women of all sexual identities predominantly experienced negative responses to
these unsolicited nude images, with only a minority selecting any positive or neutral/ambivalent
reactions. Additionally, women who experienced more unsolicited advances from men in the last year
were more likely to select multiple negative reactions, and younger (vs. older) women selected more
negative and neutral/ambivalent responses. Conversely, gay and bisexual men responded positively,
with few choosing any negative or neutral/ambivalent responses. Findings highlight gendered dynamics
of unsolicited sexting and misaligned reactions to male senders, raising questions about sexual harass­
ment in the digital age.

In recent years, researchers have begun to pay a great deal of
attention to the prevalence, precursors, and consequences of
sexting, defined as the transmission of sexually explicit messages,
images, and videos via any digital device or platform (Drouin,
2018; Garcia et al., 2016; Kosenko et al., 2017; Ringrose et al.,
2013). These studies have documented the prevalence of sexting
and the demographic characteristics of senders (e.g., most often
men; Garcia et al., 2016), varying motivations behind sexting
(e.g., to increase intimacy within an existing relationship, to
solicit sexual and/or romantic partners, deviant exhibitionism;
Klettke et al., 2014; Oswald et al., 2019; Weisskirch et al., 2017),
associations between sexting and health outcomes (e.g., depres­
sion, anxiety, substance use; Benotsch et al., 2013; Burić et al.,
2020; Temple et al., 2014), and potential legal concerns as
a consequence of sexting (e.g., exchanging images of nude ado­
lescents, nonconsensual distribution of received images to
others; Dake et al., 2012; Döring, 2014; McGlynn et al., 2017).
However, comparatively little research has distinguished
between solicited and unsolicited sexting. Unsolicited sexting
occurs when someone sends sexually suggestive or explicit
material to someone else without being asked to do so, and
has been shown to be a common behavior, at least among
heterosexual men (Oswald et al., 2019). While the content of
and the underlying motivations behind sending unsolicited
sext messages may be similar to solicited sexts, the valence of
responses that these unsolicited messages evoke in recipients
is currently unknown. In the current study, we examined
positive and negative responses to receiving a male genital
image – a “dick pic” – without having asked for one, and
potential demographic and behavioral correlates of those
responses. We then discuss our results within the contexts
of gender hegemony, sexual harassment, and sexism.
“Dick pics” are explicit, typically self-generated, images of male
genitalia that men send to recipients using the Internet and/or
mobile applications (Salter, 2016; Waling & Pym, 2019). Though
this practice of transmitting sexually explicit photographs and
imagery is by no means unique to the so-called “digital age,” the
speed with which content can be created and disseminated is
unprecedented. Dick pics have received considerable media atten­
tion in recent years, raising questions about the prevalence of the
phenomenon, men’s motivations for sending them, and the reac­
tions that people have to receiving them. We use “men” here not
to suggest that other people (e.g., women, nonbinary individuals,
etc.) are not engaged in sexting practices involving genital pic­
tures, nor to suggest that only cisgender men are capable of
sending “dick pics”, but rather to call attention to the ways in
which the specific practice of sending dick pics is commonly
understood to be a cisgender male activity (Waling & Pym,
2019). Although existing research and social dialogue has focused
on this phenomena among heterosexual men, in the current study
we also explore unsolicited sexting among gay and bisexual men.
Unsolicited Male Genital Images
As noted above, there is an important distinction between
solicited and unsolicited sexting. Unsolicited sexting occurs

CONTACT Alexandra S. Marcotte asmarcot@indiana.edu The Kinsey Institute, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, 47405
© 2020 The Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality
2 A. S. MARCOTTE ET Al.
when someone sends sexually suggestive or explicit material
to someone else without being asked. Whereas the content
of the communications might be similar in solicited and
unsolicited sexting, the motivations for sending and the
responses to receiving the material can be quite different.
For example, Matthews and colleagues found that women
who receive unsolicited photos, including photos of genital
images, are much more likely to view them as inappropriate
when compared with solicited images (Matthews et al.,
2018). The distinction between solicited and unsolicited
male genital images is thus important, not only in terms
of research specificity, but also as it relates to policy and
educational interventions. Consensual, solicited sexting has
generally been linked to positive psychosocial outcomes,
especially when done in the context of established romantic
and intimate relationships (Drouin et al., 2017; Parker et al.,
2013). Unsolicited sexts, however, are sent without recipi­
ents’ consent, leading many researchers to consider them
a form of sexual harassment (see Oswald et al., 2019; Waling
& Pym, 2019). Distinguishing between sexual harassment
and consensual sexting behaviors could help researchers
examine the benefits as well as potential harms associated
with sexting, while also identifying specific behaviors that
require intervention.
In a study explicitly focused on unsolicited male genital
images, Amundsen (2020) conducted interviews with women
who had received “dick pics.” She found that participants
were generally bothered by their lack of ability to consent to
receiving the images, but noted that several participants trea­
ted them as “just something to laugh at” (Amundsen, 2020,
p. 10). She also found that several participants felt comfortable
with sharing the images with friends, despite the sender’s lack
of consent.
In another recent study, Oswald et al. (2019) explored the
prevalence of and motivations for sending unsolicited genital
images. In a sample of 1,087 heterosexual men, they found
that 48% had sent an unsolicited dick pic. The most common
self-reported motivations were either transactional or done in
hope of soliciting partners. From a transactional standpoint,
men surveyed hoped to receive sexual images in return (51%)
and/or hoped to have in-person sexual encounters with the
recipient (36%). The most common non-transactional moti­
vation was to demonstrate sexual interest (49%). Based on
their findings, Oswald and colleagues argued that Haselton’s
(2003) theory of sexual overperception bias may be at play.
Drawing from error management theory, which examines the
ways in which individuals come to false conclusions due to
biases in thinking (Haselton & Buss, 2000), Haselton (2003)
found that it is common for men to erroneously perceive
sexual interest from women, whereas the inverse was not
statistically significant. Applying this framework to their
study, Oswald et al. (2019) argued that men who send unso­
licited genital images might be incorrectly assuming sexual
interest from women. Under heteronormative sexual scripts,
men tend to overestimate women’s sexual interest (Simon &
Gagnon, 1986; Wiederman, 2005), and thus might presume
women’s interest in receiving genital images.
Another study on unsolicited genital images examined
predictors and perceptions of sending: March and Wagstaff
(2017) explored connections between “dark personality traits”
(i.e., the Dark Tetrad: psychopathy, trait Machiavellianism,
narcissism, and sadism) and the likelihood of sending unso­
licited genital images. Though these researchers found some
correlation between “dark personality traits” and the decision
to send unsolicited genital images (which they labeled
a “sexually deviant” behavior), they conceded that unsolicited
sexting behavior could be an “aggressive mating strategy”
rather than an expression of particular personality character­
istics (March & Wagstaff, 2017, p. 5).
Most of the other existing research on the unsolicited
sexting of male genital images has examined social media
accounts (most notably, Tinder Nightmares) where users,
typically heterosexual women, share screenshots of harassing
images and conversations they have received through online
and mobile app dating platforms (Hess & Flores, 2018;
Thompson, 2018; Vitis & Gilmour, 2017). Though the content
of the conversations varies from user to user, themes of
misogyny (“You know you’re not attractive enough to not
respond right?”; Thompson, 2018, p. 78), female body and
sexuality shaming (“Whatever … you’re not all that anyways.
You can actually afford to drop some weight … ”; Thompson,
2018, p. 76), and harassment (“Don’t be such an uptight
bitch”; Vitis & Gilmour, 2017, p. 349) run throughout.
These social media accounts serve to highlight some men’s
concomitant sexist and harassing behavior in these contexts,
and function as a space to make public the experiences of
some women that would otherwise remain private, effectively
exposing a form of digital sexual harassment. This harassment
is especially apparent in moments of rejection as men in these
conversations frequently respond to women’s rejections with
appearance- and value-related insults (e.g., “not hot enough”,
“ugly”, “stupid”, etc.). This move allows men to psychosocially
empower themselves at the expense of the women they sext
and belittle, potentially avoiding sustained vulnerability when
confronted with rejection.
Sexual Identity and Sexting Behaviors
Missing from the literature is gay and bisexual men’s experi­
ences of sending unsolicited genital images, as well as lesbian,
gay, and bisexual (LGB) individuals’ experiences of receiving
unsolicited genital images. There is, however, a substantial
body of literature on sexting practices in general among
LGB individuals, and among gay and bisexual men in parti­
cular. Compared with their heterosexual peers, LGB indivi­
duals are more likely to engage in photo sharing when sexting
(Dir et al., 2013) and are more accepting of sexting as
a component of their romantic and sexual lives (Hertlein et
al., 2015). Young gay and bisexual men report higher rates of
sending and receiving sexually explicit messages and images
than their heterosexual counterparts (Bauermeister et al.,
2014). The use of mobile applications to engage in sexting is
particularly prevalent for gay and bisexual men. Researchers
have demonstrated the widespread use of geospatial dating
and hookup applications, such as Grindr and Scruff, among
this population (Currin & Hubach, 2017; Goedel & Duncan,
2015). These applications allow for the relatively easy and

unlimited transmission of texts and images, many of which
are body and genital images (Currin & Hubach, 2017).
Gender Identity and Sexting Behaviors
Researchers have found that the consequences of sexting can
be gendered. For example, Currin et al. (2016) found that
heterosexual women face pressure to reciprocate a sext mes­
sage and are often negatively impacted when they do not
reciprocate. Similarly, Drouin et al. (2015) demonstrated
that roughly one-fifth of their sample had been coerced to
sext, with resulting negative consequences for mental well-
being. Despite this, Ringrose et al. (2013) found that women
and girls are much more likely to be stigmatized, or “slut-
shamed”, for sexting – especially for sending nude images –
than are men and boys. In an examination of online discus­
sions around nude celebrity image leaks, Marwick (2017)
argued that men often engage in victim-blaming discourse
(i.e., “If women do not take nude images in the first place,
their images cannot be leaked”). Further, the2018 study by
Matthews and colleagues explored how men and women
perceive the appropriateness of sending both solicited and
unsolicited sexts. They found that unsolicited messages sent
by men were viewed as more inappropriate than unsolicited
messages from women. However, several researchers have
argued against gender differences in perceptions of sexting:
Lippman and Campbell (2014) found that people, especially
teenagers and young adults, often view sexting by both men
and women as common and therefore not worthy of moral
judgment.
Potential Correlates of Reactions to Unsolicited Genital
Images
In addition to gender and sexual identity, a number of other
individual differences may be associated with reactions to
receiving an unsolicited genital image. Age has not been well
controlled for in previous studies, in part due to sampling
methodology. Yet age is an important factor, given relative
age-related declines in both sexual activity and in proficiency
with new media technologies, including the use of mobile
technologies in people’s sexual and romantic lives (e.g.,
Gesselman et al., 2019). Previous findings in a sample of
adults ages 21 to 75+ years show higher rates of sending
and receiving sexts among younger adult participants
(Garcia et al., 2016).
Because sexual images are transmitted digitally, through
smartphones, messaging features, online dating apps and the
like, people who spend more time communicating with
potential partners via these media may be more likely to
encounter these images and may encounter them more
often. Such frequency may influence reactions to receiving
unsolicited genital images, perhaps facilitating positive reac­
tions as in the mere exposure effect (Zajonc, 2001), or alter­
natively intensifying negative feelings as perceived violations
mount. Relatedly, one’s other experiences of unsolicited sex­
ual advances may similarly influence responses to receiving
unsolicited genital images, increasing the likelihood of nega­
tive feelings.
An individual’s sexual history may be a further factor in
their responses to receiving unsolicited genital images. Several
THE JOURNAL OF SEX RESEARCH 3
previous studies have reported associations between rates of
sending sexts and participant sexual history (Kosenko et al.,
2017). Those who send more sexts report greater numbers of
sexual partners and inconsistent condom use, for example,
(Benotsch et al., 2013; Dir et al., 2013). However, little is
known about whether an individual’s sexual history is asso­
ciated with how often they receive sexts (including unsolicited
genital images) and with their responses to receiving unsoli­
cited genital images. The degree to which men’s unsolicited
sexting is employed as an aggressive mating strategy, as
a potential transactional attempt, and/or in response to per­
ceived sexual interest, may be in part informed by sexual
histories of both senders and receivers. Including participant
sexual history in analyses of frequency of receiving and reac­
tions to these images also helps address suggestions that those
with more diverse sexual histories are more tolerant and more
accepting of unsolicited sexting.
Current Study
Drawing on a large and diverse national sample of U.S. adult
singles, the present study examined the prevalence of receiv­
ing unsolicited genital images from men and the affective
impact that receiving unsolicited “dick pics” has on recipients.
We examined the prevalence of positive, negative, and neutral
reactions, and explored differences in reactions by demo­
graphics (age, gender, sexual identity), frequency of engaging
in digital conversations with potential or current partners,
sexual history, and recent experiences of unsolicited sexual
advances from men. Thus, our research questions were:
(1) What percentage of the sample had received unsolicited
genital images from men?
(2) Is receiving unsolicited genital images correlated with age,
sexual identity, frequency of digital communication, personal
sexual history, or recent unsolicited advances from men?
(3) What are the comparative frequencies of affective
response types (positive, negative, neutral) to receiving unso­
licited genital images from men?
(4) Are women’s and men’s affective responses to receiving
unsolicited genital images correlated with age, sexual identity,
frequency of digital communication, personal sexual history,
or recent unsolicited advances from men?
Method
Data Collection
Data were collected as part of the Singles in America (SIA) study.
SIA is an annual cross-sectional survey on the attitudes and
behaviors of single people in the United States. Each year,
between 5,000 and 6,000 single adults are recruited based on
demographic distributions in the most recent U.S. Census. The
study is funded by the relationship company Match, which
operates Match.com; however, participants were not recruited
or in any way drawn from the Match population or subsidiary
sites, were not asked questions specific to Match.com or sub­
sidiary sites, and were not screened for whether or not they had
used any Match services. Participants were recruited exclusively
by ResearchNow (Dallas, TX, USA), using independent opt-in
Internet research panels for population-based cross-sectional
4 A. S. MARCOTTE ET Al.
surveys. Panelists were initially drawn from a diverse pool of
established participants who have been continuously recruited
over several years from variety of venues, including paper and
electronic mailings, referrals, corporate partnerships, and inter­
net recruitment. Participants were recruited from these opt-in
research panels, with recruitment targeting based on demo­
graphic distributions (i.e., age, gender, ethnicity, region, income)
reflected in the most recent Current Population Survey con­
ducted by the United States Bureau of the Census. Inclusion
criteria required being at least 18 years old, being fluent in
English, and having a relationship status of single (i.e., unmar­
ried and single, defined as not in a committed relationship). The
current study also included augmented oversampling of certain
demographic categories, specifically gay men and lesbian
women.
Research panelists within the sample frame received
a recruitment message inviting them to participate for finan­
cial remuneration, directing them to a study confidentiality
statement. To screen for inclusion criteria and ensure data
quality, research panelists were required to verify their iden­
tity through a certification process, which employs validation
technologies in real-time to identify and screen out fake,
duplicate, unengaged, and unqualified respondents that may
attempt to take a survey. All data were collected over the
Internet. Data access and analysis procedures were approved
by the university’s Institutional Review Board.
Note that the final module of every SIA survey covers
behaviors and attitudes related to sexuality. To ensure that
participants are comfortable answering these questions, they
are presented with a short description and additional consent
form at the beginning of the module. Those who do not wish
to answer may exit the survey at this point with no conse­
quence. This impacted our final sample size, as described
below. Those who did consent to this module completed all
items within, meaning there are no missing data.
Participants
The original sample included 5,484 participants (3,111
women, 2,373 men). Of those, 3,913 participants (2,045
women, 1,868 men) consented to the sexuality module of
the survey.
Due to an oversight, heterosexual men were not shown the
items about receiving unsolicited genital images from men.
Thus, our sample includes 2,045 women and 298 men
(N = 2,343). Most (n = 1,885; 92%) women identified as
heterosexual, with 109 (5%) as bisexual and 51 (3%) as les­
bian. Most (n = 244; 82%) men identified as gay, with 54
(18%) identifying as bisexual.
Age ranged from 18 to 90 years (M = 37.50, SD = 14.71).
Regarding ethnicity, 62% identified as White, 21% Black, 16%
Hispanic/Latino, 5% East Asian, 2% Alaskan or Native
American, 1% South Asian, 1% Middle Eastern, and 2%
identified as “Other”. To provide an understanding of gener­
alizability, we compared our sample’s demographics with
those of the United States population as measured by the
United States Census Bureau (2017). In the U.S., average age
is 37.8 years. Regarding ethnicity, 77% of American adults are
White, 18.1% Hispanic/Latino, 13.4% Black/African-
American, 5.8% Asian, 1.3% American Indian or Alaska
Native. Thus, our sample is relatively similar in terms of age
and ethnicity, although our sample was slightly more diverse
than the national average.
Measures
Demographics
Participants self-reported several demographic characteristics,
including their age, gender, sexual identity (heterosexual, gay
or lesbian, bisexual), and race/ethnicity.
Frequency of Communication with (Potential) Partners
via Digital Platforms
To assess the percent of daily conversations happening digi­
tally with people they are dating/flirting with we asked parti­
cipants, “What percentage of your daily conversations with
people you are dating/flirting with happens digitally (through
E-mail, texts, social media, etc.)?” Participants responded
using a slider going from 0% to 100%.
Sexual History
Sexual history was assessed with the following item: “How
many sexual partners have you had in the last 12 months?”
‘Sexual partners’ was not defined for participants, as
addressed in the Limitations section. Participants entered
a numeric response of zero or greater.
Recent Experiences of Unsolicited Advances from Men
Experiences of unsolicited advances from men were assessed
with: “How many unsolicited advances from men did you
receive this past year?” ‘Unsolicited advances’ was not defined
for participants, as addressed in the Limitations section.
Participants entered a numeric response of zero or greater.
Receiving and Reacting to Unsolicited Genital Images
from Men
Participants were asked the following questions: “Have you ever
received a ‘dick pic’?” (yes/no), “Have you ever received a dick pic
without asking for one?” (yes/no), and “How did you feel when
you received a dick pic you did not ask for?” For the latter,
participants selected as many of the following 12 options as
applicable. Positive reaction options were: “Aroused”, “Curious”,
“Flattered”, and “Entertained”. Negative options were: “Violated”,
“Grossed out”, “Disrespected”, and “Sad”. Neutral or ambivalent
reactions were: “Bored”, “Resigned”, and “Confused”. Response
options were initially derived from an interdisciplinary group of
researchers and then further developed with pre-questionnaire
feedback from young professionals, including those who reported
experiences with sexting and receiving unsolicited genital images.
Results
RQ1: What Percentage of the Sample had Received
Unsolicited Genital Images from Men?
 THE JOURNAL OF SEX RESEARCH 5

Table 1. Regression coefficients for potential correlates of having ever received an unsolicited dick pic.
Women Men
OR 95% CI OR 95% CI
Age 0.99 0.97–1.01 1.02 0.99–1.05
Heterosexual vs. LGB 0.66 0.26–1.68 – –
Bisexual vs. Gay/Lesbian 1.00 0.17–5.98 1.18 0.36–3.85
Digital communication frequency 1.00 0.99–1.01 1.01 0.99–1.02
# sexual partners in last year 1.59* 1.17–2.16 1.04 0.96–1.13
# inappropriate advances from men in last year 1.02 0.98–1.06 – –
Heterosexual men were not included in the current study, and men did not answer about inappropriate advances from men over the last year. *p =.003

Over half (n = 1,254; 53.5%) of the sample had ever
received a dick pic, with 49.6% of women and 80.5% of
men having received one. Of participants who had ever
received a dick pic, 90% (n = 1,129) reported having
received an unsolicited dick pic. This includes 90.7% of
women – 90.7% of heterosexual, 91.3% of lesbian, and
90.8% of bisexual women – and 87.1% of men – 88.1% of
gay men and 82.1% of bisexual men.
RQ2: What are the Correlates of Having Received
Unsolicited Genital Images from Men?
We conducted binary logistic regressions with whether
participants had received an unsolicited dick pic as the
outcome variable (no = 0, yes = 1). Our predictor variables
were age (mean-centered), two separate variables for sexual
identity (the first coded as −.67 = heterosexual, .33 = bisex­
ual/gay/lesbian for sexual minority vs. heterosexual con­
trast; the second coded as 0 = heterosexual, −.5 = gay/
lesbian, .5 = bisexual for bisexual vs. gay/lesbian
contrast), percent of daily conversations happening digitally
with people they are dating/flirting with (mean-centered),
number of sex partners in the last year (mean-centered),
and number of unsolicited advances from men in the
last year (mean-centered). Because heterosexual men were
not included in this study and because men did not answer
about receiving unsolicited advances from men in the
last year, we conducted separate models for men and
women (Table 1).
For women, only sexual history was significantly asso­
ciated with having received an unsolicited dick pic. Women
with more sexual partners in the past year were more likely
to have received this type of image (OR = 1.59, p = .003).
There were no associations between receiving these images
and women’s age, sexual identity, frequency of digital com­
munication, or recent unsolicited advances from men. For
men, none of the measured correlates were significantly
associated with having received an unsolicited dick pic.
RQ3: What are the Comparative Frequencies of
Response Types to Receiving Unsolicited Genital Images
from Men?
Frequencies in reaction type for the whole sample and
by gender and sexual identity are presented in Table 2. For
women, reactions to unsolicited dick pics were more often
negative, with “grossed out” (50%) and “disrespected”
(46%) being the most commonly endorsed reactions.
Thirty percent of women selected no negative reactions,
33% endorsed only one negative reaction, and 37%
endorsed two to four negative reactions.
Women’s endorsement of positive reactions were com­
paratively low, ranging from 7% to 16%. Most women (74%)
did not select any positive reactions, 16% selecting only one,
and 10% selecting two to four positive reactions. Of the 529
women who chose a positive reaction, the most commonly
selected reactions were “entertained” (61%) followed by “cur­
ious” (43%).
Last, neutral/ambivalent reactions ranged from 4% to 19%.
Most women (74%) did not select any neutral/ambivalent
reactions, while 23% selected one, and 3% selected two to
three. Of the 540 women who chose a neutral/ambivalent
reaction, most (70%) selected “confused,” followed by
“bored” (29%).
For men, reactions to unsolicited dick pics were more
often positive, with “entertained” (44%) and “curious”
(41%) being the most commonly endorsed reactions.
Twenty-nine percent of men did not select any positive

Table 2. Frequency of endorsement of each of the 11 responses to receiving unsolicited genital images from men.
Women Men
All Heterosexual Lesbian Bisexual All Gay Bisexual
Positive reactions
Aroused 7.6% 7.5% 0.0% 11.9% 34.2% 33.6% 37.0%
Curious 11.0% 10.7% 7.8% 17.4% 40.6% 40.6% 40.7%
Entertained 15.8% 16.1% 3.9% 17.4% 44.0% 45.1% 38.9%
Flattered 6.5% 6.0% 11.8% 11.0% 27.9% 28.3% 25.9%
Negative reactions
Disrespected 45.6% 45.8% 41.2% 43.1% 13.8% 13.5% 14.8%
Grossed out 48.9% 48.5% 62.7% 49.5% 13.4% 13.5% 13.0%
Sad 6.3% 6.2% 7.8% 7.3% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7%
Violated 28.2% 27.9% 41.2% 27.5% 3.0% 2.5% 5.6%
Neutral/Ambivalent reactions
Bored 7.8% 7.6% 9.8% 9.2% 8.1% 8.2% 7.4%
Confused 18.5% 18.3% 17.6% 22.0% 14.4% 13.1% 20.4%
Resigned 3.7% 3.7% 5.9% 3.7% 4.0% 4.5% 1.9%
6 A. S. MARCOTTE ET Al.

reactions, while 31% selected one, and 40% selected two to
four positive reactions.
Endorsements of negative reactions were comparatively
very low, ranging from 3% to 14%. Most men (75%) did
not select any negative reactions, while 17% selected one
and 8% selected two or three. No men selected all four
negative reactions. Of the 75 men who selected a negative
reaction, the majority (55%) chose “disrespected,” followed
by “grossed out” (53%).
Last, neutral/ambivalent reactions from men were also
rare, ranging from 4% to 14%. Most men (77%) did not
select any neutral/ambivalent reactions, 21% selected only
one, and 3% selected two or three. Of the 69 men who
chose a neutral/ambivalent reaction, most (62%) chose
“confused,” followed by “bored” (35%).
RQ4: What are the Correlates of Positive, Negative, and
Neutral/Ambivalent Reactions to Receiving Unsolicited
Dick Pics?
To investigate correlates of positive, negative, and neu­
tral/ambivalent reactions to unsolicited dick pics, we con­
ducted six linear regression analyses. Rather than analyze
each of the 11 individual reactions within each gender,
resulting in 22 analyses, we chose to sum endorsements of
the reactions by valence. This keept us from attempting to
disentangle differences in a “violated” reaction versus
a “grossed out” reaction, and allowed for understanding
what contributes to more of a negative, positive, or neu­
tral/ambivalent reaction. Note that we also attempted to
classify participants based on their positive and negative
reactions, categorizing them as high-high, high-low, low-
high, and low-low. However, only 19 men and 4 men fit
into the low-high and high-high groups, respectively, and
only 29 women fit into the high-high group. We dropped
this particular analysis due to a lack of statistical power.
Zero-order correlations are presented in Table 3.
We conducted three linear regressions for each gender,
with summed positive, negative, and neutral/ambivalent
reactions as outcome variables. All predictors reported in
RQ2 were included here. Because we conducted three tests
per gender, we implemented a Bonferroni correction to
avoid Type I error. Thus, we considered significance at
p ≤ .0167. See Table 4 for all regression coefficients.
For women, younger age and having experienced more inap­
propriate advances from men in the last year were associated
with more negative reactions. There were no significant associa­
tions with the amount of positive reactions endorsed. Last, only
age predicted neutral/ambivalent reactions, with younger
women reporting more of these reactions. For men, no signifi­
cant associations emerged for negative reactions or positive
reactions. However, younger men reported more neutral/
ambivalent reactions than did older men.
Discussion
The digital age has had profound impacts on people’s intimate
lives and sexual expression, including, for instance, on dating
(e.g., Sharabi & Dykstra-DeVette, 2019; Smith, 2016), court­
ship practices (e.g., Fisher & Garcia, 2018), displays of couple­
dom (e.g., Mod, 2010; Saslow et al., 2013), relationship
dissolution (e.g., Gershon, 2010), sex work (e.g., Marcotte &
Garcia, 2018), and digital eroticism, especially as observed
with sexting (e.g., Drouin, 2018; Garcia et al., 2016). In the
current study, we sought to understand the response to
receiving male genital images – known colloquially as “dick
pics” – when sent as unsolicited sexts, and the impact that
various correlates have on negative, positive, and neutral or
ambivalent affective responses to receiving them. In a large
and diverse sample of adult U.S. singles who had ever received
a dick pic (solicitation unspecified), we found that the great
majority of women and men (90%) had also received an
unsolicited dick pic regardless of age, sexual identity, fre­
quency of using digital platforms to communicate with part­
ners, and women’s experiences of inappropriate advances
from men over the last year. Only women’s sexual history in
the last year was significantly associated with having received
an unsolicited dick pic: women with more recent sexual
partners were more likely to receive an unsolicited dick pic.
None of our tested correlates emerged as significant predic­
tors of gay and bisexual men’s receipt of these images.
Self-reported reactions to receiving unsolicited genital images
varied largely by gender. Most women selected negative reac­
tions, with very low endorsement of positive or neutral/ambiva­
lent reactions. Conversely, most men selected positive reactions,
with very low endorsement of negative or neutral/ambivalent
reactions. In our regression models, we found that women’s
younger age and more experiences of inappropriate advances
from men were associated with increased negative reactions.

Table 3. Zero-order correlations for all variables potentially associated with negative, positive, and neutral/ambivalent responses.
Variables 1 2a 3 4 5 6a 7 8 9
1. Age – −.01 −.10 .01 −.11 .03 −.22**
2. Sexual identity (heterosexual vs. LGB)a −.13** –
3. Sexual identity (bisexual vs. gay/lesbian .05 −.46** – .07 .01 −.04 .03 .02
4. Time spent in digital environment −.12** −.01 −.02 – .09 .04 −.08 .12
5. Sex partners in last year −.07 −.01 −.00 −.03 – .04 −.03 .12
6. Unsolicited advances from men −.08** .03 −.04 .11** .09* –
in last yeara
Reactions
7. Negative −.09** .01 .02 .06 −.04 .12** – −.29** .30**
8. Positive −.00 .02 −.05 .05 .04 −.01 −.35** – −.21**
9. Neutral/ambivalent −.18** .05 .01 .04 .01 .05 .12** −.02 –
Correlations for women are presented below the diagonal, and men are presented above the diagonal in the shaded gray areas. aThis question was only presented to
women, so cannot be calculated for men. **p <.01, *p <.05.
Table 4. Regression coefficients for correlates of response valences by participant gender.
Predictor variables
Age Heterosexual vs. LGB Bisexual vs. Gay/Lesbian Digital communication frequency # sexual partners in last year # inappropriate advances from men in last year
Women
Positive reactions
b 0.01 −0.03 −0.45 0.002 0.01 −0.002
t(708) 1.53 −0.19 −1.53 1.71 1.18 −0.60
rp 0.06 −0.01 −0.06 0.06 0.04 −0.02
Negative reactions
b −0.02 0.06 0.37 0.001 −0.01 0.01
t(708) −4.97** 0.34 1.19 1.10 −1.66 3.18*
rp −0.18 0.01 0.05 0.04 −0.06 0.12
Neutral/ambivalent
reactions
b −0.01 −0.05 −0.07 0.0001 −0.001 0.001
t(708) −5.15** −0.55 −0.45 0.095 −0.23 0.34
rp −0.19 −0.02 −0.02 0.004 −0.01 0.01
Men
Positive reactions
b 0.01 – 0.07 −0.004 −0.004 –
t(179) 0.98 – 0.28 −1.32 −0.34 –
rp 0.07 – 0.02 −0.10 −0.03 –
Negative reactions
b −0.004 – −0.07 0.0001 0.03 –
t(179) −1.20 – −0.49 0.03 0.60 –
rp −0.09 – −0.05 0.002 0.05 –
Neutral/ambivalent
reactions
b −0.01 – −0.05 0.001 0.01 –
t(179) −2.78* – −0.59 1.04 1.56 –
rp −0.20 – −0.04 0.08 0.12 –
Heterosexual men were not included in the current sample, and men were not asked about the number of unsolicited advances from men in the last year. **p <.001, *p ≤.01667
THE JOURNAL OF SEX RESEARCH
7
8 A. S. MARCOTTE ET Al.
However, women’s sexual identity, their sexual history over the
last year, and the frequency with which they communicate with
partners digitally were unrelated to their reactions. No correlates
emerged as significant for men, except that younger men were
slightly more likely to choose neutral or ambivalent reaction
choices than were older men.
Receiving Genital Images
The responses to receiving genital image sexts shifted signifi­
cantly depending on one’s gender. Women of all sexual identities
were more likely to respond negatively to unsolicited images
than were gay or bisexual men. Frequent negative responses
included feeling “grossed out”, “disrespected”, and “violated”.
This finding is consistent with Dir et al. (2013) who reported that
women have more negative associations with receiving sexts
than positive associations. Men who receive these images, how­
ever, typically report positive responses to receiving genital
images, even when unsolicited. This is supported in our data.
Frequent responses among men in our sample included feeling
“curious”, “aroused”, and “flattered”. Overall, based on the cur­
rent findings and consistent with existing literature, men of all
sexual identities (namely gay and bisexual men) tend to view
sending and receiving sexual images, specifically male genital
images, more favorably and positively than do women.
One possible explanation for the gender difference in
response to unsolicited images is that men are expected to
desire sexual advances and sexual imagery (see, for example,
Matthews et al., 2018; see also Salter, 2016). Thus, men may
feel pressure to respond positively to unsolicited images (and
even to report positive responses on the survey). This idea
that men need to appear sexual and desiring of sex at all times
is a main tenet of contemporary hegemonic masculinity. For
example, in a qualitative interview study, Limmer (2014)
found that sex is one of the main ways men construct and
perform their masculinities. This finding is well-supported in
the literature (e.g., Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005; Farvid &
Braun, 2006). This pattern is demonstrated in our data as well:
gay and bisexual men’s responses to receiving unsolicited dick
pics were overwhelmingly positive. Whether this holds true
for heterosexual men receiving unsolicited male genital
images, which perhaps could challenge self-conceptions of
heterosexuality, is unknown and a site for further study.
Women’s negative reactions to receiving unsolicited
images could also be linked to hegemonic gender expecta­
tions. Unlike normative masculinity, normative femininity
demands passiveness, especially when it comes to sexual
behavior (Tolman, 2005). US cultural norms do not typically
provide space for women (or those who occupy female
bodies) to discuss sex openly or advocate for their own plea­
sure (see, for example, Farvid & Braun, 2006; see also Tolman,
2005); rather, women are expected to act as sexual gatekeepers
(Wiederman, 2005). Perhaps, then, one explanation for
women’s negative responses in our study is that women are
“supposed” to reject overt displays of sexuality. This, however,
does not offer a completely satisfying explanation of the ten­
sions at play, though it may be a compounding factor. Indeed,
while women with a more extensive sexual history over the
last year were more likely to have received an unsolicited
image, they were just as likely to react negatively to receiving
them and just as unlikely to react positively. Thus, it seems
that women – even those who are potentially more active in
pursuing sexual pleasure – experience negative emotions in
response to unsolicited dick pics.
Some initial interpretations of unsolicited sexting suggest
that this behavior – much like with coercive sexting (e.g.,
Drouin et al., 2015) or nonconsensual distribution of sexts
(e.g., Garcia et al., 2016) – is perhaps best understood in terms
of sexual misconduct. Although in the current study we do
not know the content of the conversations between the sen­
ders and receivers of unsolicited male genital images (nor
whether additional conversation occurs), we do know that
on average women report strong negative reactions to receiv­
ing these images. Matthews et al. (2018) argued that “one of
the most compelling explanations … is that other people
might be holding men to tougher standards for non-
consensual sexting behaviors” than they once were (p. 4). In
other words, it is possible that women are less tolerant of
sexually aggressive or sexually harassing behavior than they
once were and this is, arguably, even more true since the rise
of the #MeToo movement.
Unsolicited Male Genital Images as Sexual Harassment
The fact that we found high rates of negative responses to
receiving dick pics suggests that, in general, senders are not
receiving affirming responses to sending these images.
Nonetheless, sending images of one’s genitals is common. In
the absence of a reinforcing positive response, it may be that
sending a dick pic is more a function of the sender attempting to
exert power and control by exposing the recipient to his genitals,
rather than seeking a positive response that might lead to
a sexual encounter. In this light, the behavior is less an act of
(aggressive) mating strategy, and more of a gendered and sex­
ualized power play (albeit one that may occasionally result in
a sexual reinforcement in return).
Lack of control is one of the core tenets of sexual harassment
(Amundsen, 2020; Powell et al., 2018). When men send unsoli­
cited images of their genitals, the receivers are inherently not
consenting to the receipt of images nor are they in control of if/
when to receive them. At its core, this form of sexual harassment
reminds women that they have no right to privacy nor authority
over their own exposure as they do not control the sending and
receiving of these images. Regardless of sender intent, whether
unsolicited “dick pics” are to be understood as harassment is, of
course, the decision of the recipient; however, the act of sending
unsolicited genital images is undoubtedly an exertion of power.
The sexual harassment literature and framework offers clear
insight into women’s experiences of receiving unsolicited genital
images. However, this literature is generally based on an assump­
tion of heterosexuality (i.e., men sending and women receiving),
and the negatively valanced responses of women to receiving
such images (see above). The fact that our data show more
positively valanced responses among gay and bisexual men
recipients suggests that the gender dynamics at play in hetero­
sexual contexts, and the potential experiences of sexual harass­
ment in those contexts, may not evenly apply to sexual minority
populations. This points to a gap in the literature on sexting and

sexual harassment that deserves exploration. Future research
could further explore the experiences of receiving both solicited
and unsolicited sexually explicit images among gay and bisexual
men, as well as further explore the experiences of heterosexual
men. Researchers should take care not to over-generalize from
heterosexual samples, and consider the sexualized subcultures
within which sexting now occurs (e.g., experiences and expecta­
tions likely vary on different websites/apps, like Grindr which is
more sex-focused and geared toward men who have sex with
men, compared to other popular dating/relationship platforms
where sexting may be less customary and less acceptable).
Limitations and Implications
To our knowledge, this study is the first to explore reactions to
receiving unsolicited dick pics – a behavior recently documented
by Oswald et al. (2019) as a relatively common occurrence (48%
in their sample) – and correlates of such reactions. Our overall
results demonstrate a marked gendered component in responses
to receiving such images, with women largely responding nega­
tively, although it may be assumed that the sender intended to
impart a positive reaction. Conversely, gay and bisexual men
were quite likely to respond positively to receiving these images,
even unsolicited. Last, we demonstrated that women’s reactions
were unrelated to their engagement with potential partners
online and their number of sexual partners over the past year,
and only slightly more negative for women who have experi­
enced more unsolicited advances from men over the past year.
Men’s reactions were unrelated to all demographics but age, with
younger men being more likely to report feeling neutral/ambiva­
lent (e.g., “confused”) upon receipt of an unsolicited dick pic.
This paper contributes to several literatures, including those on
human sexuality, technological communications, gender studies,
sexual harassment, and psychosocial health.
Despite the strengths of the current study, future research
should strive to address some of the limitations present in this
work. First, future studies should include heterosexual men, as
they have been shown to receive unsolicited dick pics as well
(Oswald et al., 2019), and should use other unsolicited sexual
images to include those coming from women or depicting other
body parts than solely the penis. Additionally, researchers would
likely benefit from including a larger set of responses for partici­
pants to choose from, including responses indicating anger or
other upset, or perhaps providing an open-ended text box for
participants to describe their feelings in their own words. Future
research should also ensure that all terms are defined for partici­
pants, in order to give the clearest interpretation of results. In the
current study, we did not define “unsolicited advances” in our
query regarding the number of unsolicited advances from men in
the past year, and did not define “sexual partners” in our query
regarding participants’ sexual history over the last year. Although
we do not expect that our participants largely misunderstood these
questions, having a clearer understanding of the experiences par­
ticipants draw on in their responses is important for the advance­
ment of this research.
Importantly, future research should include items thoroughly
assessing the context of receiving dick pics. It is possible, and even
likely, that responses to receiving unsolicited genital images are
situational, based on the larger context of the relationship between
THE JOURNAL OF SEX RESEARCH 9
sender and recipient, the platforms on which they are commu­
nicating, and the text conversation precipitating an (unsolicited)
sext. Reactions may differ quite widely depending on one’s rela­
tionship to the sender: for instance, the sender may be an ex-
partner, a stranger, an authority figure (e.g., one’s boss), someone
with whom the recipient wished to begin a sexual relationship, or
even a current partner. The sender may have sent one image, or
may have sent multiple even after being asked to stop. Relatedly,
the recipient may have asked for such an image previously, but did
not ask for any additional images. By conducting a larger con­
textual investigation, future research will allow for a closer exam­
ination of when receiving these images is most distressing for
recipients, who tends to send these unsolicited images, and poten­
tial areas of intervention with senders.
Funding
Data were drawn from the Singles in America study, which is funded by
relationship company Match.
ORCID
Alexandra S. Marcotte http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1464-5569
Amanda N. Gesselman http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6485-6404
Justin R. Garcia http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5198-4578
References
Amundsen, R. (2020). ‘A male dominance kind of vibe’: Approaching
unsolicited dick pics as sexism. New Media & Society, 1–16. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1461444820907025
Bauermeister, J. A., Yeagley, E., Meanley, S., & Pingel, E. S. (2014). Sexting
among young men who have sex with men: Results from a national
survey. Journal of Adolescent Health, 54(5), 606–611. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jadohealth.2013.10.013
Benotsch, E. G., Snipes, D. J., Martin, A. M., & Bull, S. S. (2013). Sexting,
substance use, and sexual risk behavior in young adults. Journal of
Adolescent Health, 52(3), 307–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.
2012.06.011
Burić, J., Garcia, J. R., & Štulhofer, A. (2020). Is sexting bad for adoles­
cent women’s psychological well-being? A longitudinal assessment.
New Media & Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820931091
Connell, R. W., & Messerschmidt, J. W. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity:
Rethinking the concept. Gender & Society, 19(6), 829–859. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0891243205278639
Currin, J. M., & Hubach, R. D. (2017). Sexting behaviors exhibited by
men who have sex with men between the ages of 18–70 who live in
a socially conservative state. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social
Networking, 20(7), 413–418. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2017.0050
Currin, J. M., Jayne, C. N., Hammer, T. R., Brim, T., & Hubach, R. D.
(2016). Explicitly pressing send: Impact of sexting on relationship
satisfaction. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 44(3),
143–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/01926187.2016.1145086
Dake, J. A., Price, J. H., Maziarz, L., & Ward, B. (2012). Prevalence and
correlates of sexting behavior in adolescents. American Journal of
Sexuality Education, 7(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/15546128.2012.
650959
Dir, A. L., Coskunpinar, A., Steiner, J. L., & Cyders, M. A. (2013).
Understanding differences in sexting behaviors across gender, rela­
tionship status, and sexual identity, and the role of expectancies in
sexting. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16(8),
568–574. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0545
Döring, N. (2014). Consensual sexting among adolescents: Risk preven­
tion through abstinence education or safer sexting? Cyberpsychology:
10 A. S. MARCOTTE ET Al.
Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 8(1), Article 9. https://
doi.org/10.5817/cp2014-1-9
Drouin, M. (2018). Sexting. In P. G. Nixon & I. K. Düsterhöft (Eds.), Sex
in the digital age (pp. 68–77). Routledge.
Drouin, M., Coupe, M., & Temple, J. R. (2017). Is sexting good for your
relationship? It depends. Computers in Human Behavior, 75, 749–756.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.06.018
Drouin, M., Ross, J., & Tobin, E. (2015). Sexting: A new, digital vehicle
for intimate partner aggression? Computers in Human Behavior, 50,
197–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.04.001
Farvid, P., & Braun, V. (2006). “Most of us guys are raring to go anytime,
anyplace, anywhere.” Male and female sexuality in Cleo and Cosmo. Sex
Roles, 55(5–6), 295–310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-006-9084-1
Fisher, H. E., & Garcia, J. R. (2018). Slow love: Courtship in the digital
age. In R. J. Sternberg & K. Sternberg (Eds.), The new psychology of
love (2nd ed., pp. 208–222). Cambridge University Press.
Garcia, J. R., Gesselman, A. N., Siliman, S. A., Perry, B. L., Coe, K., &
Fisher, H. E. (2016). Sexting among singles in the USA: Prevalence of
sending, receiving, and sharing sexual messages and images. Sexual
Health, 13(5), 428–435. https://doi.org/10.1071/sh15240
Gershon, I. (2010). Breaking up is hard to do: Media switching and
media ideologies. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 20(2), 389–405.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1395.2010.01076.x
Gesselman, A. N., Ta, V. P., & Garcia, J. R. (2019). Worth a thousand
interpersonal words: Emoji as affective signals for
relationship-oriented digital communication. PLoS ONE, 14(8),
e0221297. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0221297
Goedel, W. C., & Duncan, D. T. (2015). Geosocial-networking app usage
patterns of gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men:
Survey among users of Grindr, a mobile dating app. JMIR Public
Health and Surveillance, 1(1), e4.
Haselton, M. G. (2003). The sexual overperception bias: Evidence of
a systematic bias in men from a survey of naturally occurring
events. Journal of Research in Personality, 37(1), 34–47. https://doi.
org/10.1016/s0092-6566(02)00529-9
Haselton, M. G., & Buss, D. M. (2000). Error management theory: A new
perspective on biases in cross-sex mind reading. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 78(1), 81–91. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.78.1.81
Hertlein, K. M., Shadid, C., & Steelman, S. M. (2015). Exploring perceptions
of acceptability of sexting in same-sex, bisexual, heterosexual relation­
ships and communities. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, 14(4),
342–357. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332691.2014.960547
Hess, A., & Flores, C. (2018). Simply more than swiping left: A critical analysis
of toxic masculine performances on Tinder Nightmares. New Media &
Society, 20(3), 1085–1102. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816681540
Klettke, B., Hallford, D. J., & Mellor, D. J. (2014). Sexting prevalence and
correlates: A systematic literature review. Clinical Psychology Review,
34(1), 44–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr2013.10.007
Kosenko, K., Luurs, G., & Binder, A. R. (2017). Sexting and sexual behavior,
2011–2015: A critical review and meta-analysis of a growing literature.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 22(3), 141–160. https://
doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12187
Limmer, M. (2014). The pressure to perform: Understanding the impact of
masculinities and social exclusion on young men’s sexual risk taking.
International Journal of Men’s Health, 13(3), 184–202. https://eprints.
lancs.ac.uk/id/eprint/72413/
Lippman, J. R., & Campbell, S. W. (2014). Damned if you do, damned if you
don’t … if you’re a girl: Relational and normative contexts of adolescent
sexting in the United States. Journal of Children and Media, 8(4),
371–386. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2014.923009
March, E., & Wagstaff, D. L. (2017). Sending nudes: Sex, self-rated mate value,
and trait Machiavellianism predict sending unsolicited explicit images.
Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02210
Marcotte, A. S., & Garcia, J. R. (2018). Negotiations of identity, pleasure and
health in women’s online sex work advertisements. In P. G. Nixon &
I. K. Düsterhöft (Eds.), Sex in the digital age (pp. 179–190). Routledge.
Marwick, A. E. (2017). Scandal or sex crime? Gendered privacy and the
celebrity nude photo leaks. Ethics and Information Technology, 19(3),
177–191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-017-9431-7
Matthews, S. J., Giuliano, T. A., Thomas, K. H., Straup, M. L., &
Martinez, M. A. (2018). Not cool, dude: Perceptions of solicited vs.
unsolicited sext messages from men and women. Computers in
Human Behavior, 88, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.06.014
McGlynn, C., Rackley, E., & Houghton, R. (2017). Beyond “revenge
porn”: The continuum of image-based sexual abuse. Feminist Legal
Studies, 25(1), 25–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10691-017-9343-2
Mod, G. B. B. (2010). Reading romance: The impact Facebook rituals can
have on a romantic relationship. Journal of Comparative Research in
Anthropology and Sociology, 1(2), 61–77.
Oswald, F., Lopes, A., Skoda, K., Hesse, C. L., & Pedersen, C. L. (2019).
I’ll show you mine so you’ll show me yours: Motivations and person­
ality variables in photographic exhibitionism. Journal of Sex Research
57(5). https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2019.1639036
Parker, T. S., Blackburn, K. M., Perry, M. S., & Hawks, J. M. (2013).
Sexting as an intervention: Relationship satisfaction and motivation
considerations. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 41(1), 1–12.
https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2015.0334
Powell, A., Henry, N., & Flynn, A. (2018). Image-based sexual abuse. In
W. DeKeseredy & M. Dragiewicz (Eds.), Routledge handbook of critical
criminology (pp. 305–315). Routledge.
Ringrose, J., Harvey, L., Gill, R., & Livingstone, S. (2013). Teen girls,
sexual double standards and “sexting”: Gendered value in digital
image exchange. Feminist Theory, 14(3), 305–323. https://doi.org/10.
1177/1464700113499853
Salter, M. (2016). Privates in the online public: Sex(ting) and reputation
on social media. New Media & Society, 18(11), 2723–2739. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1461444815604133
Saslow, L. R., Muise, A., Impett, E. A., & Dubin, M. (2013). Can you see
how happy we are? Facebook images and relationship satisfaction.
Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4(4), 411–418. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1948550612460059
Sharabi, L. L., & Dykstra-DeVette, T. A. (2019). From first email to first
date: Strategies for initiating relationships in online dating. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 36(11–12), 3389–3407. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0265407518822780
Simon, W., & Gagnon, J. H. (1986). Sexual scripts: Permanence and
change. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 15(2), 97–120. https://doi.org/
10.1007/BF01542219
Smith, A. (2016). 15% of American adults have used online dating sites
or mobile dating apps. Pew Research Center. Pew Research. http://
www.pewinternet.org/2016/02/11/15-percent-of-american-adults-have
-used-online-dating-sites-or-mobile-dating-apps/
Temple, J. R., Le, V. D., van den Berg, P., Ling, Y., Paul, J. A., & Temple, B. W.
(2014). Brief report: Teen sexting and psychosocial health. Journal of
Adolescence, 37(1), 33–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2013.10.
008
Thompson, L. (2018). “I can be your Tinder nightmare”: Harassment and
misogyny in the online sexual marketplace. Feminism & Psychology,
28(1), 69–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184x03257438
Tolman, D. L. (2005). Dilemmas of desire: Teenage girls talk about
sexuality. Harvard University Press.
Vitis, L., & Gilmour, F. (2017). Dick pics on blast: A woman’s resistance to
online sexual harassment using humour, art and Instagram. Crime,
Media, Culture: An International Journal, 13(3), 335–355. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1741659016652445
Waling, A., & Pym, T. (2019). ‘C’mon, no one wants a dick pic’: Exploring the
cultural framings of the ‘dick pic’ in contemporary online publics. Journal
of Gender Studies, 28(1), 70–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2017.
1394821
Weisskirch, R. S., Drouin, M., & Delevi, R. (2017). Relational anxiety and
sexting. Journal of Sex Research, 54(6), 685–693. https://doi.org/10.
1080/00224499.2016.1181147
Wiederman, M. W. (2005). The gendered nature of sexual scripts.
Sex Therapy, 31(4), 496–502. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1066480705278729
Zajonc, R. B. (2001). Mere exposure: A gateway to the subliminal.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10(6), 224–228. https://
doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00154