Australia is in the midst of a national reckoning on coercive control. But while much of the public conversation has centred on adult intimate relationships — particularly between men and women — the voices of young people have often been missing. That is beginning to change.
New data released by Kids Helpline, and highlighted by ANROWS in Coercive control, gaslighting and the digital lives of young people: what we need to hear, offers an urgent and unsettling insight: young people are not only experiencing coercive control, but they are naming it. And they are naming it in places many adults have not yet thought to look — inside friendships, peer groups, and the online worlds in which much of their social life unfolds.
This shift challenges many of our long-held assumptions about what coercive control looks like, who uses it, and what kinds of relationships can be sites of harm. But more importantly, it challenges us — parents, educators, policymakers, service providers — to listen differently.
The article published by ANROWS offers a critical starting point for this conversation. And if we pay close attention, young people are not only telling us that something is wrong — they are offering clues about how to build safer systems, schools and communities.
A New Reality: Young People Are Naming the Harm
Kids Helpline received over 1,000 contacts between January 2024 and July 2025 where young people described coercive-control-type behaviours occurring in their peer relationships.
Not romantic relationships — friendships.
For years, coercive control has been framed primarily as a pattern of domination within intimate partnerships, usually perpetrated by men against women. That framing remains important, especially as governments move towards criminalisation.
But young people are now using the language of coercive control and gaslighting to describe behaviours like:
- being tracked through Snap Maps
- being pressured to constantly share their location
- being punished for not responding fast enough
- being isolated from peer groups
- being punished for asserting boundaries
- experiencing verbal manipulation or emotional degradation
These experiences don’t always fit neatly within adult-centric definitions of coercive control. Yet, as ANROWS points out, the harm is still real. And what’s especially significant is that young people are identifying these patterns early.
Recognition is not a trivial milestone — it is the first and often hardest step in breaking a cycle of abuse. Young people realising that “something feels wrong” is a profound cultural shift, and one that should not be dismissed as overreaction or social-media-fuelled hyperbole.
As Dr Tessa Boyd-Caine, CEO of ANROWS, says:
“When young people say something feels wrong, we should take that seriously.”
Coercive Control: More Than a Buzzword
Coercive control refers to a sustained pattern of behaviour designed to restrict the freedom, autonomy or safety of another person. It may include intimidation, isolation, monitoring, micromanagement, or threats.
Importantly, the article reminds us that coercive control is about patterns, not incidents. This is vital when thinking about teenage relationships — romantic or otherwise — where harms can be minimised or misinterpreted as “drama”, “friendship issues”, or “normal teenage behaviour”.
But when patterns of:
- surveillance,
- isolation,
- emotional manipulation,
- punishment,
- withdrawal of affection, or
- constant monitoring
start appearing, young people are now naming them for what they are.
That linguistic shift — from “my friend is being weird” to “my friend is controlling me” — is an enormous cultural moment.
It represents a shift towards agency, literacy, and self-advocacy. And it reflects broader national trends, such as those captured in the National Community Attitudes towards Violence against Women Survey (NCAS), showing improved understanding among young people about the dynamics of abuse.
This movement is not emerging in a vacuum. It is growing in the fertile soil of public conversations about domestic and family violence, high-profile cases of coercive control, and increased media coverage of manipulative behaviours in relationships.
Young people are absorbing that language — and applying it to their world.
Digital Space: A New Frontier for Control
One of the starkest themes in the ANROWS article is technology’s dual role:
a lifeline for connection and a vehicle for harm.
Platforms such as Snap Maps, Find My Friends, and other location-sharing features are described by eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman-Grant as “baked in” to young people’s digital lives . What begins as convenience or care can easily be twisted into surveillance.
For many adults, these behaviours still fly under the radar.
For young people, they can be suffocating.
Technology-facilitated coercion includes:
- demanding passwords
- expecting constant proof of whereabouts
- tracking movements
- reading messages
- controlling who someone talks to
- monitoring social interactions
- punishing lack of responsiveness
Kids Helpline reports reveal that young people are more likely than older groups to see tech-monitoring as normal — even acceptable .
That’s a frightening reality.
Where Do They Learn This?
The article makes a subtle but powerful point:
children who grow up in a home where coercive control is normalised may replicate those behaviours with peers.
This is the intergenerational transmission of harm — not through genetics, but through culture.
Equally, surveillance between parents and children — even when well-meaning — can set expectations that monitoring is a sign of care.
As Dr Boyd-Caine notes:
“Young people are always watching. The way adults use technology is important as it influences future behaviour.”
If children see adults weaponise technology, they learn that surveillance equals safety, or worse, love.
Is Coercive Control Among Young People Gendered?
The majority of Kids Helpline contacts came from girls and young women .
This aligns with research showing that girls are:
- more likely to recognise tech-facilitated abuse,
- more likely to feel its impact as invasive, and
- more likely to identify these harms as unacceptable.
Girls and young women also disproportionately bear the burden of emotional labour in friendships and relationships — another factor that can heighten their vulnerability to manipulation.
But the article rightly emphasises that boys and young men are not immune to harm, though they may be:
- less likely to name it,
- less likely to recognise it,
- less likely to seek support.
The gender breakdown highlights an urgent need to strengthen education for boys as well — not only to prevent perpetration, but to ensure they understand when they are the ones being controlled.
Understanding harm is a universal safety skill.
Why Adults Need to Pay Attention: The Danger of Dismissing “Teen Issues”
Adults can be quick to minimise teenage conflict, chalking it up to immaturity, friendship drama, or normal developmental turbulence.
But the article issues a clear warning:
early patterns of harm can shape future relationships.
If coercive control — even in its early or subtle forms — is normalised, young people may:
- carry those expectations into adulthood,
- enter unhealthy intimate relationships later,
- or become desensitised to patterns of abuse.
Conversely, those who identify coercive control early may be better equipped to recognise red flags later.
Listening to young people now is an investment in long-term safety.
The Myth of “Overreaction”
One of the most powerful statements in the article is this:
“These are not just buzzwords. When young people use terms like coercive control and gaslighting, they’re telling us what they’re experiencing. We owe it to them to listen.”
— Dr Tessa Boyd-Caine
It’s easy — too easy — for adults to dismiss the language young people use as trendy or exaggerated.
But this attitude misses two critical points:
- Young people are becoming more literate about harm, thanks to public conversations, online education, and social networks.
- Their emotional reality is real, even if the situation doesn’t align perfectly with legal definitions.
We cannot ask young people to recognise abuse while simultaneously dismissing them when they do.
Language evolves, and young people are often the first to adopt language that reflects lived experience. Their use of terms like “coercive control” or “gaslighting” is a sign of increasing emotional intelligence, not hysteria.
Why Coercive Control in Friendships Matters
Coercive control between peers is not a watered-down version of domestic violence — it is its own phenomenon.
Friendships are foundational to young people’s:
- identity formation,
- sense of belonging,
- emotional regulation,
- self-esteem,
- socialisation,
- and understanding of healthy relationships.
When friendships become coercive, the damage can be profound.
Young people experiencing these dynamics may:
- withdraw from school or social activities,
- experience anxiety or depression,
- lose confidence in setting boundaries,
- struggle with trust later in life,
- or become isolated from support networks.
Importantly, peer coercion can also create group-based dynamics, where:
- one child dominates and others comply,
- bystanding turns into complicity,
- social power is weaponised, and
- group chats become sites of exclusion or surveillance.
This is not the typical “bullying” paradigm — it’s relational abuse.
And young people are telling us this, clearly.
“Tech-facilitated Abuse Is Not a Teen Problem. It’s a Design Problem.”
One of the most important insights from the article is that adults often respond to digital abuse by telling young people to “be more careful”.
But as Professor Leah Bromfield told the South Australian DFSV Royal Commission:
over-regulating children without holding tech companies accountable is like telling women not to walk alone at night.
In other words:
- The problem is not that young people are using technology.
- The problem is that technology is designed without adequate safety considerations, accountability mechanisms, or guardrails.
We cannot expect children or teenagers to struggle against systems designed by billion-dollar companies whose business models rely on engagement, not safety.
Safety must be built in, not bolted on.
What Needs to Change: Building Systems That Actually Protect Young People
The article identifies several essential responses:
1. Respectful relationships education that includes peer relationships
Not just romantic partnerships. Young people need to understand the early signs of control or manipulation among friends, classmates, teammates and online communities.
2. Digital literacy that goes beyond cyber-safety slogans
Young people need:
- tools to identify tech-facilitated abuse,
- strategies to maintain privacy,
- confidence to set boundaries,
- and skills to navigate surveillance features.
3. Services equipped to support tech-facilitated abuse
Too many youth and family services still lack:
- training in online harms,
- understanding of digital coercion,
- or processes for digital evidence and safety planning.
4. A regulatory system that holds tech companies accountable
Safety by design is not optional.
It must be enforced through:
- stronger regulation,
- clearer standards,
- and consequences for platforms that ignore harm.
5. Listening to young people as experts in their own experiences
This is the foundational point.
Every reform, policy or intervention must begin with what young people are telling us — clearly, consistently, and courageously.
The Role of Adults: How We Accidentally Normalise Harm
The article subtly but importantly highlights how adults may be inadvertently modelling coercive or surveillance-based behaviours:
- parents tracking children excessively
- partners checking each other’s locations
- schools using invasive monitoring systems
- adults minimising digital intrusion as “normal”
Young people observe all of this.
And they take cues from it.
If adults use surveillance as care, young people may do the same.
If adults brush off controlling behaviour, young people may ignore red flags.
If adults treat privacy as optional, young people will struggle to assert it.
We cannot build a culture of non-violence by modelling control.
Listening as Prevention: Why Early Intervention Matters
If we truly want to end domestic, family and sexual violence, we must understand that the roots of harm are planted early.
Patterns that emerge:
- in group chats,
- in school settings,
- in digital interactions,
- in friendship networks,
- or in family dynamics
can shape:
- how young people see themselves,
- how they form relationships,
- how they understand boundaries,
- and how they respond to early red flags.
This is why ANROWS’ message is so clear:
We need to recognise harm early and build systems that respond.
Not wait until it becomes intimate partner violence in adulthood.
Not wait until the damage is deep.
Not wait until the patterns are entrenched.
Listening is prevention.
Support is prevention.
Education is prevention.
Regulation is prevention.
Young People Are Not the Problem. They’re the Early Warning System.
The dominant narrative often frames young people as overly sensitive, overly online, overly dramatic.
But the article flips that narrative.
Young people are, in fact:
- alert,
- articulate,
- emotionally intelligent,
- critically aware,
- and socially engaged.
They are noticing patterns many adults overlook.
They are naming behaviours adults struggle to identify.
They are reaching out for help in unprecedented numbers.
Young people are not sounding an alarm about their future —
they’re sounding it about right now.
The question is whether we will hear it.
Conclusion: What We Need to Hear — And Do
The ANROWS article calls us to a simple but profound action: listen.
Listen deeply.
Listen without minimising.
Listen without adult-splaining.
Listen without defensiveness.
Because when young people use terms like coercive control or gaslighting, they are not misusing language —they are telling us where today’s harms are happening.
And if we pay attention, we can intervene early, reshape systems, strengthen education, regulate technology, and support young people before the patterns harden into adult cycles of violence.
The national conversation about coercive control cannot be confined to adult relationships.
It must include:
- children,
- teenagers,
- peer relationships,
- online environments,
- and the social ecosystems that shape how young people understand boundaries and care.
Young people are already leading the way by naming the harm.
Now, the responsibility sits with us — to respond, to redesign, and to create a world where safety is the norm, not the exception.
