Data Clarifies “Sexting” Panic

Posted on 13/12/2011 | 0 Comments

Almost every week I hear stories in the media about “sexting”. For those who have been vacationing on mars for the last five years “sexting” is a word describing sexual images that people (often the finger is pointed to teenagers) send to their friends – often these images are of themselves. Given the media coverage it is not a wonder that many parents have been asking me about the “sexting epidemic” (note: their words – not mine.)
 
So now a study has been reported on the USA prevalence of this behavior: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-magid/with-new-data-we-can-stop_b_1131612.html
 
It turns out that “sexting” is not an epidemic after all. A nationally representative sample found that less than 1.5% of teens reported that they had sent or created an image of themselves that showed breasts, genitals or someone's bottom. Now some would say that is quite a high number, but others would wonder what happened before electronic tools enabled such material to be widely distributed. What was the proportion of teens a couple of decades ago who took photographs of themselves and gave them to a boyfriend or girlfriend? Or before that, who drew a picture of themselves and gave that to a boyfriend or girlfriend? We have no idea. Maybe it was the same number, maybe more, maybe fewer. 
 
In any case, this is likely not a new behavior. This is likely not a behavior that has been created by newly available technology. It is also not a signal that is showing that our youth are falling apart under the pressures of modern adolescence. 
 
However, “sexting” can lead to problems. Once an image is available electronically, it can be made available to everyone. This is something that our young people need to understand.  In addition, unlike a traditional photography, it can be passed quickly and widely to many --  that is the issue. We need to help young people understand the consequences of their behaviors in the electronic world. 
 
New technologies may not only create new human behaviors but they can make longstanding human behaviors more apparent. So, while the sky may not be falling, in terms of “sexting”, we need to make sure that we help young people understand that in the age of instant electronic communication that sometimes a private act can become a public spectacle.

--Stan

Be the first to leave a comment

What do you think?


Filter by category

Filter by date

Recent Comment

This is a great set of comments and rings very true. 

I totally agree that scientists (just like everyone else) have their biases and foibles.  After all, scientists are human beings too!  But science is different than scientists. 

The scientific method is the most objective frame that we have by which to evaluate and predict.  Science is not about finding truth.  It is only about being less wrong most of the time.  The scientific method (experimental design and mathematics) gives us the ability to test what we believe.  The scientific method is not used to prove something is correct, on the contrary, the scientific method is designed to prove that something is not correct!  It is designed to test what is called the “null hypothesis”.  It takes ideas that come out of left field (or wherever else they come from) and puts those ideas to an independent test.

t does not drive our beliefs.  It does however challenge our beliefs.  In that way it is self-correcting. Of course scientific inquiry and understanding lives within a wider social context.  That is one of the great features of science. 

But gravity is gravity, social context notwithstanding.  And thus it is nasty, brutish and long.  As Brecht said, (something like this) - the purpose of science is to save us from everlasting error.

By Christina Carew on May 11th

You can find us here too!

  • image
  • image
  • image

We would like to say thanks...

Without their help this initiative would not be possible. Thanks for you help.

  • image
  • image
  • image