Young Love "Locked Down": Adolescent and Young Adult Perspectives on Sexting During the Covid-19 Pandemic in England.

There were limited opportunities for in-person social, intimate, and sexual interactions in England during 2020-2021, due to restrictions imposed by the UK government in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. While previous studies examined the effects of lockdown on intimate relationships, there is less qualitative research regarding young people's perspectives on and experiences of digitally mediated intimacy (sexting) during the period. This paper discusses findings from focus groups with 80 adolescents and interviews with 38 young adults that explored the topic. Analysis identified a normalization of non-consensual distribution of intimate images within adolescent peer culture and a reluctance to report or intervene in response to incidents of non-consensual distribution that are witnessed or experienced. The adolescent girls and young adult women also described other forms of unwanted and invasive image-sharing and requests for images. Young adults held various perspectives on sexting during lockdown, with some describing sexting as unfulfilling and/or "risky" and others sharing experiences of using sexting to generate intimacy and, among some, engaging in unwanted sexting with partners. By considering both adolescent and young adult perspectives obtained through focus groups and interviews, the study highlighted how group-level norms and meanings surrounding the risks and rewards of sexting may be reproduced or reworked as individuals transition from adolescence to young adulthood. The study underscores the need to support adolescents and young adults in cultivating healthy digital sexual cultures and interpersonal relationships.

Department for Education Statutory Guidance for Relationships and Sex Education in England: A Rights-Based Approach?

In England, the Children and Social Work Act (HMSO, 2017) bestowed compulsory status on relationships and sex education (RSE), which means that young people's right to receive RSE has been codified in law. This paper analyzes how this right is upheld and enacted within the Department for Education (DfE) (2019) statutory guidance on RSE for schools in England. The analysis suggests that the guidance features contradictory discourses in which young people's rights are ostensibly advanced, but remain structured by adult-centric, heteronormative understandings of sex and relationships. It upholds a decontextualized and legalistic approach to rights, responsibilities, informed choice, and decision making. A narrow conception of rights is particularly evident regarding young people's digital sexual cultures, which are predominantly framed in terms of risk and harm. We argue that scholars should investigate how educators are designing and delivering RSE in light of the guidance, and the opportunities for and obstacles to a genuinely "rights-based" approach to RSE. While the policy discussed in this article is specific to England, the discussion has wider relevance for practitioners and policymakers across cultural and geographic contexts as it draws upon a model for analyzing how young people's sexuality is presented and addressed in legislative and curricular documentation.

Inter-observer reliability of three feline pain scales used in clinical practice.

OBJECTIVES: The present study aimed to evaluate the inter-observer reliability of three feline pain scales commonly used in clinical practice. METHODS: Twenty cats undergoing elective neutering surgery were assessed both pre- and postoperatively by three independent assessors (a board-certified anaesthetist, a veterinary anaesthesia nurse and a final-year veterinary student) using three different pain scales: the Glasgow Feline Composite Measure Pain Scale (CMPS - Feline), the Colorado State University Feline Acute Pain Scale (CSU - FAPS) and the Feline Grimace Scale (FGS). Reliability statistics was used to evaluate the level of agreement between assessors. RESULTS: Twenty-seven groups of paired observations were evaluated, of which 16 (59%) showed fair agreement, eight (30%) showed none to slight agreement and the remaining three (11%) showed moderate agreement based on Cohen's weighted kappa statistics. Based on Cronbach's alpha statistics, 12 (44%) of the 27 groups of observations showed moderate reliability, 12 (44%) showed poor reliability and the remaining three (11%) showed good reliability. No scale was superior to the others in terms of inter-rater reliability (P = 0.179); however, the pair composed of the final-year veterinary student and anaesthesia nurse showed better agreement than the two other pairs of assessors, both of which included the board-certified anaesthetist (P = 0.015). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Despite the usefulness of behavioural pain scales as clinical tools, their users should bear in mind their limitations, particularly the intrinsic subjectivity and potential variability of outcome between assessors with different backgrounds and level of expertise.