Authored by Ayanna J.
Member, Digital Wellness Lab 2025-26 Student Advisory Council
Introduction
In my mind, clear and regular conversations about consent, especially online, equated to safety.
In one casual relationship, the breadth of our serious conversations took place over online messages. A subset of these conversations centered on consent, and communication seemed thoughtful: boundary-laying was emphasized, and past experiences were shared openly.
When time was spent in-person, this respectfulness was not mirrored; he centered his own gratification intensely, asking over and over again for intimate favors, accompanied by physical pressure, ignoring my disinterest.
I naturally felt uncomfortable and would bring up my concerns over messages. He responded attentively and apologized for the miscommunication, explaining that he had pure intent. Repeatedly asserting his attention to consent, I found it easier to brush off instances of coercion, telling myself it was accidental.
Our digital communication created a layer of ambiguity that I used as justification to stay in a risky situation longer than I should have.
In my middle school years, I remember two main PSA’s surrounding online relationships: warnings about catfishing, often reinforced by videos like Coby Persin’s ‘Child Predator Social Experiment,’ and messaging to not send racy images of yourself, even if encouraged. The overall takeaway was that social pressure manifests easily in digital spaces.
But what happens when the pressure occurs in person, and digital spaces are used as reassurance? Teens can recognize red flags. Regardless, digital communication can simulate emotional safety so effectively that it overrides real-life warning signs.
The Illusion of Digital Trust
While many teen relationships may not begin online, digital modes of communication play a large role in maintaining connections. Many times, online conversations serve as the primary thread of conversation. I see this often in younger teen relationships. My little brother, for example, hangs out with his girlfriend only about once a week, but the pair texts daily.
Revealing personal information to a greater extent and speed creates feelings of closeness, and the certainty that is conveyed through digital messages constructs an idea of mutual knowingness.
Online, teens can curate more polished, thoughtful messages, which contrast with the way communication occurs in person. The removal of face-to-face components leads to more openness, in which individuals may share more about themselves online than they might in-person. Revealing personal information to a greater extent and speed creates feelings of closeness, and the certainty that is conveyed through digital messages constructs an idea of mutual knowingness.
Online Behavior vs. Real-Life Action
Given that online communication gives a sense of closeness, it can be disorienting when real-life action does not quite match. Teens can understand that the information they collect about the way someone portrays themselves online may differ from in person, but it is difficult to translate that information into decision. For some teens, “talking stages” exist entirely on online platforms like Instagram, where individuals interact with mutuals digitally to assess compatibility, before ever meeting face-to-face.
In my specific relationship that I outlined, when we conversed in person, I felt a deep disconnect. Early on, when our online conversations occurred more often than in-person ones, the online interaction felt more familiar. After confusing in-person meet-ups where I felt misalignment, I would find comfort in texting debriefs. These patterns became solidified, and conflict was handled digitally, creating a problematic precedent. Zooming out, this reflects a situation where pressure occurred in person, but not online.
The opposite can occur in which a situation may be digitally pressuring, but not in a face-to-face scenario. Therefore, while it may be assumed that in-person action should be considered more heavily than online action, doing so invalidates coercion experienced online; both circumstances matter. The main emphasis instead should be on the implications of variance between the two, and when and how it may be unsafe, avoiding generalizations.
Consent Is Not A Receipt
Many teens know that consent is reversible; however, when mixed with digital communication, this idea can become less clear. Sending sexually explicit messages or photos can create a sense of expectation for both parties. The sender may feel they need to uphold the content of what they conveyed online in-person, and the receiver may misconstrue what was said online as definitive in-person boundaries.
In my opinion, it is important to educate teens on how online interactions may not reflect present in-person desires, and that prior sexual conduct engaged online should not be characterized as a “receipt” for in-person activities.
I recently read a Reddit post in which an older teen expressed confusion and disappointment. In the post, the teen explained that both parties enjoyed engaging in the sending of sexually explicit messaging; however, when the setting manifested in-person, the other teen was extremely reluctant and did not want to “follow through,” leading to frustration. This post stuck out to me because the teen’s frustration could have potentially harmed the other individual; this negative effect would not have been intentional but rather rooted in a lack of awareness of how digital and in-person boundaries may differ, a nuance that is harder for inexperienced teens to grasp.
The overarching point is that it can be more difficult to reverse consent when it appears to be pre-given online, but not in-person. For one teen, there may be a clear distinction between the two, and for another, their communication may blend, leading to covert pressure. In my opinion, it is important to educate teens on how online interactions may not reflect present in-person desires, and that prior sexual conduct engaged online should not be characterized as a “receipt” for in-person activities.
This notion of ‘receipts’ is amplified by social media platforms’ discourse regarding “sex positivity.” Many teens are influenced by hyper-sexual content specifically geared towards young people, which glamorizes sexuality; consent is implied, but not explained.
The conversation is arguably important as it encourages important dialogue and deconstructs strict, traditional ideas, outlining different desires as normal. However, for some teens, this might mean they misinterpret the importance of consent in specific instances by making generalized assumptions propagated by media consumption. This also looks like teens feeling like they need to embody “sex positivity” and engage in practices that they are not fully comfortable with and/or informed about.
Ambiguities In Digital Relationship Literacy
The digital relationship literacy that I received was framed in a black-and-white way that did not always reflect the level of complexity teens may encounter.
Digital literacy in teen relationships should be more inclusive of the spectrum of gray areas, focusing less on purely villainizing the coercive individual, instead unpacking misconduct, intentions, and what teens should or should not tolerate.
I have faint memories of educational videos in which teens explain how their partner in their relationship pressured them into intimacy; the partner created a facade of consent that didn’t align with their hidden coercive values. Notably, in this content, there is an acknowledgment of nuance, explaining that the coercive person may have been nice in other contexts, but that this was a performative attitude used solely as manipulation for sexual gain.
Situations like that occur often, are dangerous, and should be addressed. And, in many teen relationships, the nuance may be deeper. Perhaps some teens don’t understand aspects of consent or have incorrect perceptions due to pornography. Similarly, teens may have partners who don’t intend to be coercive or do not believe they are coercive. Both instances are problematic and do not erase coercive behavior, but it does add a layer of uncertainty that teens must navigate.
Digital literacy in teen relationships should be more inclusive of the spectrum of gray areas, focusing less on purely villainizing the coercive individual, instead unpacking misconduct, intentions, and what teens should or should not tolerate.
This gap becomes even clearer when looking at how and when these conversations are introduced.
One opportunity to make an impact through combating the “Red Zone,” a period at the beginning of the year on college campuses when sexual assault is most likely to occur. Colleges and universities should double down on educating the student population on consent.
In a digital world, these conversations are more complicated, and education about consent should be more readily available earlier for teens, who may be having their first sexual experiences and are therefore developing a precedent for consent.
Ayanna J. is a member of the Digital Wellness Lab’s 2025-2026 Student Advisory Council, and is currently a high school senior in Oklahoma City, OK.
The author of this article is a young person who has been engaging with the Digital Wellness Lab about topics of young people’s safety and wellbeing within digital environments. Here at the Lab, we welcome different viewpoints and perspectives. However, the opinions and ideas expressed here do not necessarily represent the views, research, or recommendations of the Digital Wellness Lab, Boston Children’s Hospital, or affiliates.