How much sexting? It all depends on who you ask

A recent study published in the esteemed journal Pediatrics reports that 9.6% of young people have sent a nude or semi-nude picture of themselves. This percentage is half of the often-reported statistic of 20% that was generated by The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy. So, what gives? Which number is closer to the truth? CORRECTION: In the Pediatrics study, the number of young people who report having actually sent a picture is only 2.5% -- the other 7.1% received an image! Thanks to Larry Magid for pointing out the correction! Additional corrections will appear in bold.

Sampling gives some clue. The Pediatrics figure was generated from a sample of over 1500 10-17 year-old internet users, using random-digit dialing. They tried to get a good proportion of cellphone users only, but instead ended up relying disproportionately on land-line users. The Campaign figure was generated from a sample of 650+ 13-19 year-olds that come from a base of survey takers through an online marketing group. Results from the Campaign were weighted according to US Census numbers. The Pediatrics study did not weight data, though it attempted to create a representative sample. A quick look at the data shows that Hispanic and African-American youth are slightly over-represented. The two studies essentially asked the same question, so I don't think the methodology is to blame for the difference.

So, an easy spot to see differences is in age. The Pediatrics study surveyed younger participants, so it makes sense that their percentage of sexters is going to be lower. And indeed, looking at the older ages in Pediatrics reveals that 2 of the 10-12 year-olds said they had sent or received a sext (constituting less than 1% of this subgroup), 11% of 13-14 year-olds have, and the number of 15, 16, and 17 year-olds who report sending or receiving sexts -- 17%, 28%, and 21%, respectively (Note: The Campaign does not provide a specific breakdown of behavior by age). Now the data are starting to look similar, no?

There are other possibilities for the differences -- a closer look at the racial composition of the surveys, for example, but that may lend itself to predicting slightly higher numbers for the Pediatrics study, as it appears Hispanic youth are more likely to sext than the other racial/ethinc groups (I would love to know more about this, but it doesn't look as though there is enough detail to better understand this finding). The use of a group of teens willing to partake in online surveys may also skew the numbers of The Campaign findings higher -- it's easier to hide responses from parents, get permission to respond to the survey, etc.

But I think the first thing to do is focus on this age issue. Combining the results from these two surveys gives us an important message that we can act on. Going by the numbers from BOTH surveys, it looks like age 13 is when we should start to be concerned about sexting, and serious alarm bells should go off by the time the young person reaches 16. So, from a prevention mindset, we should start talking about sexting two years before it occurs. Health educators and prevention experts state that discussions about behaviors should begin at least two years before the behavior begins in order to get a healthy message across effectively and on time. Therefore, true prevention folks would target 11-year-olds in their anti-sexting messages. More tentative people better start the conversation by age 13 or 14, but even then that approach misses a lot of youth.

Curriculum designers take note! Sexting conversations should start around the 5th grade, and most certainly by 6th (the start of middle school). Parents be mindful! Sexting conversations can be woven into conversations about other sexual matters, or even be the springboard for conversations about healthy and unhealthy relationships. I hope more studies are done, but I love the fact that these two seemingly similar findings (despite media coverage stating the opposite), give us a solid direction and course of action towards better understanding this phenomenon that simply did not exist when I was younger.

More on Child Pornography Laws Gone Wrong

This story has been getting a lot of press: As in so many other instances mentioned in this blog and elsewhere, a teen-aged girl takes naked pictures of herself and sends them to her friends (or whomever). Then, she gets caught and prosecutors wonder what to charge her with -- after all, she did send sexual pictures of a minor (that is, herself), which is a form of child pornography. The reason this particular case is getting a lot of attention is because in Ohio, if found guilty of distribution of child pornography, this girl could be required to register as a sex offender for at least 20 years. However, the judge has discretion as to whether this is the best punishment, given the accused's age (if she were 16, however, she would automatically be subject to adult penalties -- scary). Let's hope that, if found guilty, the judge shows some semblance of reason and does not force this girl to register just to "teach her a lesson." I think she gets the picture.

The other interesting issue coming up is how to charge the recipients of this self-created child porn. In this case, an 8th-grade boy was sent to juvenile detention on child pornography charges because a girl in his class sent him (and others) a naked picture of herself. Why this boy was targeted in particular is unclear. But, it brings up an important question: Are these children at fault if a classmate decides to send, unsolicited, an illegal photo of themselves? One day, you -- a middle school kid -- are at home/on a bus/waiting for class to start, and you check your text messages: Up pops a picture of someone you know, a classmate, naked. You are now in possession of felony material. You had no idea it was coming. What do you do?

This is a very real situation today and we need to talk to our kids about how to address the situation. Clearly, the worst thing these kids can do is forward the picture around or post it anywhere. That can only get them in more trouble. But, if we keep punishing those who do receive the pictures as well as take them, I believe we will decrease the likelihood that any of these young people will tell an adult about them. And that will drive the situation underground and may even increase the market for these pictures so that adults will get their hands on them more easily. And that, we can probably all agree, is something we don't want to happen.

Sniff sniff

This is sort of creepy. The London Times reports on a new Facebook/mobile phone application that gives people an electronic map showing the location of their friends. Called Sniff, for Social Network Integrated Friend Finder, it works by having the registered phone send a signal to nearby base stations. Then "positioning software performs a triangulation calculation on the information from the base stations and converts it into a geographical location." Just like on Without a Trace!

Although in the article Useful Networks, the American company behind Sniff, swears that only people who give active permission could be electronically tracked by the service, I remain unconvinced. Parents with power over their children, partners with abusive relationships, can all use this technology to stalk or harass. I am especially concerned about teens in unhealthy relationships all too easily succumbing to this.

On a lighter note, this sentence cracks me up: "Users can specify who can and can not sniff them, or whether they are open to be sniffed by anyone on the network."

Sounds like a good day at the park for my dog.

Children "harming" themselves

Another story about youth sending naked pictures of themselves to each other through their cell phones. This one is a little different because it involves middle school students (6th and 7th graders) instead of the usual "barely legal" kids that are getting caught. The charge against them was also interesting; each of the four youth (two boys, two girls) were charged with possessing "material harmful to minors," a misdemeanor. Though much better than slapping these young persons with child pornography charges (a felony subject to resulting in sex offender registration), the phrasing of the law is rather striking here. Images of their bodies are harmful to themselves? Or, taken in a more adolescent egocentric way "a picture of my body can cause harm to my friend? I didn't think I looked that bad..."

I understand when laws are in place to prevent such picture sharing when the goal is to protect youth from the potential mass distribution of a photo they only meant their current sweetie/crush/lust object to see. But to charge them with possessing a picture that would harm them in some way? That to me seems a bit odd, disconcerting, and potentially backfiring:
"Why was I arrested, officer?"
"Because you had in your possession some pictures that can cause you harm."
"But that's a picture of my girlfriend. I think she is beautiful. I dig her."
OR
"You mean that a picture of me naked might mess someone up?"

You can see where unhealthy lessons about sexuality and body image can easily be the take home messages here.

Crimes against "children" by "children"

Another news feature on youth distributing racy pictures of themselves that are legally considered pornography. This story is based out of Southwest Florida, where Lieutenant Tom Smith of Collier County's Child Sex Crime Unity is quoted as saying: "We've had 5-6 cases in the past six months where kids have been taking photos of themselves or friends engaged in sexual activity."

As with all these stories, the solution seems to be to talk with your kids about the ramifications of doing this. More superficial advice comes from the expert on teen internet use, Dr. Russ Sabella: "Consider giving them a cell phone with limited capabilities. Why do they need video recording capabilities on their cell phones anyway?" He also states that motivations for sending these pictures include wanting to mimic celebrity sex tapes.

I think getting behind youth motivation to send these pictures is key. If it is to imitate the celebs, then warning them about mass distribution of the photos would be a bad strategy (instead, it might be wiser to talk about the criminality of the act). If the goal for taking the picture is to impress a crush, better relationship education may be in order. If the reason is to get back at someone, we need to think about netiquette, cyberbullying prevention efforts, and empathy raising. But we won't know until we ask.

Hockey!

I am a huge hockey fan, so the fact that I can justify writing about something related to the sport is pretty damn cool in my eyes. Poor Jiri Tlusty; he's just a 19-year-old youth -- who happens to be a forward for the Toronto Maple Leafs (think being a Yankee for the same level of publicity and scrutiny). He posted some "racy" photos of himself on his Facebook page, and one of them made it to the front page of the Toronto Sun (think NY Daily News). I had to get this story from ABC because The Sun wants $15 for the story online and I'm cheap.

The pictures were apparently taken using his cell phone while he was home in the Czech Republic.

"Lads in Pubs," or Kids in the Cafeteria?

A press release by Juniper Research predicts that: "The mobile adult content market is forecast
to grow from its 2006 level of $1.4 billion to over $3.3 billion by 2011." However, the majority of that share is going to come from Europe and Asia, where the more "well-developed" markets reside.

According to Bruce Gibson, Research Director at Juniper Research: " The mobile channel will provide a different way of presenting adult content to traditional delivery channels and will reach new audiences. Mobile is about fun and instant gratification. I think the biggest opportunity is at the casual and "softer" end of the adult market - lads in pubs sharing a video clip after a few pints and people looking for a bit of fun when they have spare time to kill."

Hmmm. "New audiences?" "Spare time to kill?" If that doesn't scream teenager, I don't know what does.