Reflect

Warning: Spoiler alert! The series opens dramatically: 13-year-old Jamie is arrested for a devastating crime - the murder of a girl he attended school with. Instead of the familiar “whodunnit” narrative, viewers are confronted with a deeply unsettling and poignant question: why did this happen?

Despite coming from a seemingly stable, caring home, Jamie has been silently struggling under the pressure of toxic masculinity narratives, peer bullying, online shaming, and harmful digital content. At 13, Jamie is shamed by peers for being a virgin - labelled an "incel" and subjected to humiliation that eventually leads him to commit an act of violence. What is unsettling for viewers is the fact that Jamie seemed like an ordinary, lovely little boy, who had a strong, close family unit; his parents and sister loved him, and they appeared to get along well. He lived in a nice neighbourhood, in a cosy home where he had his own room decorated with planets and stars wallpaper.

Down at the police station, after his arrest, Jamie’s Dad asks his son outright if he did it. Jamie looks him directly in the eye and says, ‘No, I had nothing to do with it’, and claims the whole thing has been a terrible mistake. When the police enter the room, his dad views the available footage of the incident and his face drops. He can see that his son isn’t quite who he thought he was and may have done something that was beyond his worst imagination. He is torn between parental protection, unbearable rage, regret and pain. He can’t believe what is happening.

When I was undertaking my doctorate, I spent several years interviewing young men in prisons in the UK and in the US, and regularly came across characters like Jamie. I have sat across the table with baby-faced killers who looked and sounded like they wouldn’t hurt a fly. I have met young men whose passion for violence was clear, yet they would come across as thoughtful and kind. I have met numerous grown men who have murdered, assaulted, raped and violently injured partners, children and other men. Despite the crimes they had perpetrated, they could be friendly, polite and helpful.

Criminologists are used to such dichotomies and understand that humans are complex, but also that the root causes of criminality are over-lapping and intersectional; many factors contribute to a young man partaking in violence. However, to date, most criminological research relates to an era when boys were not online, before they had a free pass to any person, ideology or community, anywhere on the planet via any digital device they can get their hands on.

Jamie’s parents thought he was ‘safe’ upstairs in his bedroom (not getting into trouble out on the street). They thought they were being good parents by letting him stay up gaming or being online. They didn’t have a clue what was going on in his life, or the fact that Katie was teasing him online and lots of other students were ‘piling in’ by way of symbolic emojis and comments. They weren’t aware that his close friendship group had been isolated and was subject to bullying. They didn’t monitor, explore or engage him in discussion about his digital life. They didn’t know Jamie had been exposed to harmful, pernicious algorithms that fed him a narrative about women and which fuelled violent misogyny. One might imagine that harmful algorithms were likely ignited by Jamie searching for simple answers to common teen conundrums: “How can I get a girl to like me?” or, “Why are girls always mean to me?”. One can imagine these questions being fed into apps like Instagram, Discord, Reddit, 4Chan or Telegram.

In 2025, such innocuous questions, when typed into such spaces, can connect boys to ideologies authored by some of the most marginalised, dysfunctional and disturbed people in the world. This is something many organisations have been trying to raise awareness about for some time. Often, such content is disguised within humorous posts or self-help content.

Children who are vulnerable offline are much more likely to be psychologically vulnerable online and particularly susceptible to a diet of content that invites comparison and which can fuel low self-esteem. The language that Jamie uses and the frightening personality ‘switch’ he displays when being interviewed by the female psychologist when in custody indicated that his mind had been affected/infected by harmful views. His insights chimed with the views of incels; those who refer to themselves as ‘involuntary celibates’, with women to blame for this unwanted status. Boys are exposed to concepts such as the “80/20 rule”, which suggests that women are inherently shallow and only choose the most attractive men. Such ideas are often reinforced through viral memes, pseudoscientific “data,” and influencers who use slick production and motivational language to package misogyny as truth.

The influence of individuals like Andrew Tate, very much a mainstream misogynist when added to a boy’s digital diet can reinforce misogynistic views of women or ‘bitches’ (Tate’s term), and promote the idea that men need manipulative strategies to get women to submit to their will. People like Tate put forward a view of masculinity that is devoid of emotional vulnerability and where stoicism, material wealth and control matter most. Tate represents the tip of an enormous, disturbing ‘manosphere’, devoted to promoting ideologies that dehumanise and objectify women whilst promoting a view of masculinity that is the antithesis of what young boys really need and frankly, deserve.

Motivate

The internet is currently awash with urgent requests and demands to schools to show Jamie’s story to all pupils everywhere. Disturbingly, some people appear to want to show it to primary-aged children (despite the fact the programme is rated 15). By ignoring the age rating, we are already doing what has undoubtedly fuelled inappropriate internet access in millions of homes; giving children access to content that is not designed for their level of maturity. We need to start respecting age ratings, they exist for a reason. We need to be sensitive about raising too much awareness of some of the themes raised by this programme with younger children. Hearing parents talk about this programme might spark a curious interest in some of the themes raised and some unsupervised internet-searching! Some parents have said after watching the programme, they are taking phones off their teens and not allowing them on social media. I am afraid the genie is well and truly out of the bottle there. Although that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t gently enquire as to what they know or have heard about the programme and what their thoughts are on it. It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t ‘lean in’ and ask them who they follow online and why. It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be having rich dialogues about our core values and how algorithms can lead us all down digital rabbit-holes that can potentially affect our thinking, attitudes and behaviour.

Many parents have reflected on the importance of delaying smartphone acquisition after viewing Adolescence, but the same parents must be mindful that toxic content and exposure is still possible via other digital devices. Lastly, many parents have been weighing up scrutinising their child’s digital diet versus a young teen’s right to privacy. Jamie’s parents chose to allow him to ‘get on with it’ upstairs with zero scrutiny (a fact they tearfully reflect on towards the conclusion of the programme) and trusted him to navigate his digital life without parental guidance. They also appear to have left him the freedom to turn the lights out himself each night rather than have an agreed bedtime. Research repeatedly points to the fact that being authoritative about phones, phone use, bedtimes and having warm, transparent, consistent dialogues with children are all protective factors that can help build a young people’s digital resilience over time.

After watching the series or reading this, you might be tempted to burst into your son’s room demanding if he has ever seen harmful content online (chances are he has) and be tempted to tell him not to watch it. We know that such an approach might consolidate views rather than challenge them. Instead, if you do discover you have a son who is readily digesting toxic influencers or inhabiting digital spaces where violence against women and girls is normalised (such as the world of pornography), try to call them ‘in’ rather than ‘out’. Find out what they think and why they think it. Take your time. Challenge problematic views by using sentence openers such as: ‘I would be interested in your view on this’… or, ‘I am keen to find out your perspective’. Try to respond to any rigid thinking on their part with some gentle challenging comments that promote flexibility. “I wonder if there is another way of looking at this” or, “Would you have the same view of Tate if he was talking about your sister?”

I would also suggest that you take a family approach to digital device use. As parents, we tend to pay for phone contracts, laptops and iPads, so in my view we are entitled to know that they are being used responsibly and safely! Don’t be afraid to tell them that they are representing themselves, their family and their school online! Don’t be afraid to talk about what you consider to be unacceptable/acceptable behaviour online and reassure them that you are there for them if/when things go awry.

There are other, important parenting takeaways for all of us. Jamie’s dad movingly reflects on the type of boy he wanted his son to be (one that loved and enjoyed football) and feels ashamed that Jamie detected his paternal disappointment that he had ‘ended up in goal’. The version of masculinity that Jamie’s dad appeared to value was in some contrast to who Jamie really was (we are told he loved to draw and was artistic). As parents, we need to attune to who our children are, rather than who we want them to be. We can also ensure that we don’t promote harmful gender stereotypes in our family life. We might do so unwittingly through the language we use, the expectations we have, or even the toys and activities we give our children access to.

Interestingly, if Jamie’s Dad had nurtured his son’s artistic talent, perhaps things might have turned out differently? According to neuroscientist, Dr Leor Zmigrod, creative activities can introduce a wonderful sensitivity to different perspectives, viewpoints and help cultivate the kind of empathetic thinking that’s so helpful in supporting young men to resist the attraction of extreme ideologies of any kind.

Support

Social media algorithms are engineered to captivate attention by exploiting insecurities and anxieties. We can start early by teaching children explicitly about how algorithms operate and how to be mindful of them. As they grow older and are steeped in the world of social media, can they be encouraged to ‘curate’ their social media feeds? And to mute, unfollow, archive or block anything that doesn’t make them feel good about themselves? Can we talk to our children not about what bodies look like, but about what they can do for us? Can we watch how we talk about our own bodies in front of our children and express joy in movement of all kinds, not because it helps us ‘lose weight’, but because it helps us feel happier in ourselves? Can we ensure that our children are given ‘words for feelings’ from an early age and that we always talk through ups and downs of friendships and relationships in general? It is normal to feel sad and disappointed or a pang of loss when someone doesn’t want to play or be with you, but you want to be with them. Parents are there to listen, guide and gently listen. In developing our children’s emotional literacy, we invest in both their mental health, wellbeing and resilience.

Jamie’s story touches upon many themes, but particularly to the wider issue of violence against women and girls. We know that rejection is the biggest trigger for domestic violence. We need to support our boys to handle rejection, loss and disappointment healthily. How can we normalise it as a natural and universal experience that doesn't define our personal worth?

By equipping ourselves with knowledge, resources and practical strategies, we can proactively engage with the challenges our wonderful boys face, providing them with the resilience, emotional intelligence and critical thinking skills to navigate adolescence safely and happily.

Let's commit to understanding, guiding and empowering boys - helping them define their identities not by harmful digital cultures, but by authenticity, respect and emotional intelligence. This commitment will create not only happier, healthier boys but also a more compassionate, equitable and empathetic society.