Comments of Passion

I love that term -- it pretty much captures the reasons for flaming, sexting, and other regretful internet sharing moments. I read this phrase in a post by Margarita Tartakovsky, where she pretty much shares the work of Dr. Tristan Gorrindo.

The overall message: Think before you post something that might not be so smart to have forever captured in cyberspace. What should a person think about is summed up in the acronym "WAIT" -- for Wide audience (who and how many might read this?), Affect (what emotions am I feeling right now and am I able to make a rational decision?), Intent (will I be understood properly?), and Today (Can this wait a day?).

While I see the benefits to this brief series of considerations, some don't seem to fit. The main one being "today." The answer to the question "Can this wait a day?", for the most part, will always be "no." The internet and social networking are so immediate, that waiting a day to post a comment is akin to saying something in an empty room -- no one, including the immediate recipient of the comment -- will ever see it. While I am all for thinking about the consequences of posting something before actually doing it, perhaps the "T" should really be for "Tomorrow" as in "How will I feel tomorrow after everyone reads my post?"

And I totally agree with Tartakovsky's statement that adults can benefit from following these steps just as much as youth. In my own Facebook account, I have read posts about drunken vomiting, pubic hair, and baby poop. Wonder how many of those posts I would have read if someone WAITed before they broadcast those news items?

Fandom + internet = new lows

Here's another example that supports my belief that the internet does not really offer up anything new when it comes to youth expressing their sexuality, instead simply repackages old phenomena -- albeit sometimes in an amplified format:

Teens in Mexico are allegedly auctioning off their virginity in order to score Justin Bieber tickets. This horrifies me in many ways. The obvious one: Justin Bieber. Really? The second one: the concept that sex is seen primarily as a commodity. Auctioning off one's virginity is not a new idea, but what I don't like is that there are so many messages nowadays that stress sex as a product more than an experience people share with each other. This concept can be seen in both the abstinence-until-marriage movement as well as the "pornification" of youth today. The third one: That the news would choose to cover this idea, which in and of itself glamorizes the situation. I guess I'm to blame now, too, since I am calling attention to it by writing about it. My bad.

Do Teens Trust the Internet or Not?

No sooner do I post the results of a study that state most teens are "wary" of the sexual health information they find online, than a new study from north of the border comes out that states 40% of teens find the internet a more useful source than their parents. But beware, parents! Also from Canada is this finding -- that 45% of respondents to an online survey consider their parents to be their sexuality role model compare to 32% who looked to their friends and 15% who use celebrities (at least we can take solace in that statistic!).

About 25% of respondents say the internet is a better source of information than their sex ed classes.

These studies may not be that contradictory, however. Both highlight the strong trust youth have in their school-based sex ed programs, and both do ultimately point to skepticism about the helpfulness and trustworthiness of the sexual health information found online. And the commonalities don't end there -- both report on relatively small sample sizes (though one is from the US and one from Canada).

As more evidence appears the picture may become less foggy.

Who can you trust?

A study of 58 teens found that about a third of them look up information about contraception online, and "most"  were "wary" of the accuracy of the information. Incidentally, these teens also said they get a lot of information about contraception from friends, but they are just as unreliable a source.

In contrast, teens said that they felt the information they received at school could be trusted. This is too bad, because many abstinence until marriage sex ed programs contain inaccurate information about condoms. And while parents are often cited as a source teens want to hear from, conversations between parents and their children can be awkward, few, and far-between. Also, it's not really safe to assume parents have the information -- after all, their parents probably did a poor job of talking to them and that ignorance is passed down from generation to generation.

So, where do we turn as parents or youth? Oh yeah, to the internet. It has all the information one needs. Or, you could always ask a friend.

The internet just "is"

Nice summary of research by academics Patti M. Valkenburg and Jochen Pete, who have written numerous articles about youth online. In their current research, these two scholars conducted a review of all research done to date on teens online and concluded that the Internet isn't necessarily a positive or negative influence. It is just a tool to use -- for good or evil. They write ""Instant messaging can help them exchange intimate information with their close friends, thereby stimulating the quality of these friendships. However, it is also widely used for cyberbullying and online harassment. Likewise, online social support groups can help adolescents with social or health problems, but at the same time they can also result in dangerous interactions with strangers."

"Nuff said. As I and many others have been positing for years, we cannot portray the internet as this scary world from which we need to protect our youth. Instead, we need to work with our youth to provide them with positive environments and good role models so that they are more prone to use technology (and their lives) to promote themselves and others, not bring each other down.

"Possession is Nine-Tenths of the Law"

An interesting case here in Oregon sheds light on the concept as to how the internet is completely disrupting the ways in which pornography is defined by law. Earlier this month, the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that it is not illegal to look at child pornography online, as long as those images are not downloaded, printed, or paid for. In other words, if you do not actually take some sort of action to "own" the images, you are not in possession of the material, and therefore cannot be punished for simply looking at it. Quoting the article in the Oregonian:

“Looking for something on the Internet is like walking into a museum to look at pictures — the pictures are where the person expected them to be, and he can look at them, but that does not in any sense give him possession of them.” -- Justice Michael Gillette.

Clearly, this protects people who stumble across images they did not intend to view (though for child pornography, how likely is this, really?). However, child pornography laws were first created in the 1970s for the distinct purpose of protecting the actual children (defined as anyone under 18 in 1984 through that year's Child Protection Act) involved in making the materials. It wasn't until 1990, in the case Osborne v. Ohio, that the high courts ruled a state could punish someone for "possessing" the images. The justification of this law was that making it illegal to possess images would decrease the market for them, and thus protect children.

However, as the internet became more established, it was clear that the laws related to child pornography were by no means designed to deal with images distributed electronically. Additionally, there have been several legal battles to define what child pornography actually is. Since earlier laws were written to protect children, what if a person created an image that only looked like a child engaging in sexual acts (using computerized image construction), but in reality no child was actually used in creating the image? With all the programs out there, this is a pretty easy thing to accomplish.

Currently, the courts go back and forth as to whether creating images of child pornography without actually using children is legal. To my knowledge, the legality of childless child pornography is "winning" in most cases, thanks to a Supreme Court ruling in 2002.

Other problems arise in the enforcement of child pornography laws. With the international accessibility of the internet, the United States needs to acknowledge that not all countries have child pornography laws, and even those that do have varying ages of consent and definitions of a "minor." In fact, according to this study, most countries have NO child pornography laws. How can the US uphold its rules about making and possessing child pornography now if it (A) can be made legally in many other countries -- or virtually through computer-generated images, and (B) be accessed online without penalty, as long as the images are not saved or purchased? It's a surprising dilemma.

What hurts the case for restricting child pornography is that there is essentially no research on the effects of its viewers. Such taboo topics need to be examined -- no matter how difficult it is to do so -- if laws restricting access to and viewing of images are to be upheld. Because right now, child pornographers are finding legitimate legal loopholes which allow them to view images. Just so long as they don't store them anywhere.

Teens view sex information with a critical eye

A new report from Guttmacher staff (summarized here) finds that teens do not consider the internet to be a main source of sexual health information. However, I do want to point out that the sample only consisted of 58 youth, some of whom came from New York, where arguably the access to information from other venues (health clinics, sex ed classrooms, community centers) may be higher than in more remote areas.

Nevertheless, the fact seems to remain that teens prefer more personal sources for information about sex. These include family members (voted number one again as has been found in previous research), school, medical professionals, and friends. While I commend youth for reaching out to more human resources, this fact does concern me because both in the literature and in the community, I have found time and again that the adults mentioned in this previous list are extremely hesitant to talk about sex -- which leaves youth to rely on each other for information. Many parents, doctors, teachers, and other trusted adults express discomfort at the very idea of having "the talk" with youth in their care (note: the idea of "the talk" is not really accurate, as a sex conversation is hardly a one-time thing, but more of a process over many years!).

How can we best reach adults and support them so that they are more comfortable to talk about sex? What resources do they need? I don't fault adults for not starting conversations -- many of them were raised in ignorance and didn't have role models of adults whom spoke openly with them. Adults can't simply start talking about something without guidance -- especially something so value-ridden and complicated as sexual relationships and health.

So the question becomes -- who teaches the teachers? Maybe there are some good online resources...

Actually, there are a few places that have some good basic tips:
Mayo Clinic
Families Are Talking
Children Now

International POV on sex education and the internet

I often complain about the lack of quality, accurate sex education in the US, but at least there is some sex ed here. This article out of India notes that teens get most of their information about sex education from media sources, including the internet compared to only o.5% from their parents and 4.5% from teachers.

Wow

Causing Panic Down Under

An uninspiring "study" out of Australia states that more than half of teens lie about their age online. As if teens trying to pass as older than they really are is some new phenomenon (C'mon, readers, when did you get your first fake ID?).

What I find especially disconcerting about this newspaper article is the lead: "TEENS are using the internet to lead double lives..." it states. I mean really -- you read the rest of the article and it simply states that teens lie about their age and use pictures to make them selves look better and more "cool." Is this really something to get in a panic about? I think not.


Interesting note: The study was conducted by a "skin products manufacturer." And we wonder why teens struggle to look better all the time...

Internet and Health

A new way to think about how the internet impacts teen health by Red Orbit:

"Teens that text, drink too much caffeine, play games and surf the internet all night are experiencing difficulty staying alert and functioning the next day."

Although caffeine seems to be the real culprit here, it is interesting to see how the internet not only impacts relationships, school work, and everything else we can think of it also alters/challenges our ways of dealing with time!

Internet: Friend or Foe?

A brief editorial Coming of Age on the Internet by the Association for Psychological Science challenges the still-prevalent notion that the internet is more about isolation than connection. It looks back into the internet dark ages (read: mid to late 90s) to recall how initial studies on the phenomenon focused on how spending time online detracted from "real" relationships and sent our youth into cyber isolation.

Has our mindset changed 10-15 years later? Given that in the United States, online communication among young persons is pretty much universal (up to 97% according to Pew), researchers might have been forced into doing so, but are indeed looking more at the positives. According to the editorial, more recent research findings indicate that online networking is associated with greater happiness and well-being; surfing alone does not have such benefits, and may be related to some psychological risks. This finding isn't any different than face-to-face findings which show that socially connected people are happier.

Is this just evidence that the internet doesn't create problems, but is simply an example of how current human interactions work?

Frivolous electrical conversation

irdImage via WikipediaI truly believe that most teens know what they're doing when they begin playing online. They don't get into a chat room, end up on a pornographic site, or visit with strangers without knowing they've done it. However, the media explosion of shows like To Catch A Predator and news headlines reading "Man has sex with girl he met on MySpace" has made it seem as though teens use the internet without knowing what they could get into. After 23 pages of "High Tech or High Risk: Moral Panics about Girls Online" (authors Justine Cassell & Meg Cramer from Northwestern University's Center for Technology and Social Behavior), I wanted to go and hug these women. Finally a well-written, easy-too-read article that I agreed with!

First, some general statements from Cassel & Cramer that I think always need repeating:
- "... family members and friends ... are still the most frequent perpetrators of child sexual abuse."

- "... offenses against children ... numbers have been diminishing ... since the advent of the internet."

- "... the majority of these sexual solicitations ... were not from adult predators, but instead came from other youth."

- "Often, children who do begin online relationships with an abuser fit a particular profile ... 'a greater tendency for conflict or lack of communication with their parents; high levels of delinquency, including committing assault, vandalism or theft; have a troubled personality due to depression, peer victimization, or a distressing life event.'"


Second, some statements regarding the history of "moral panic" with "the compromised virtue of young girls"

- "... the panic over young girls at risk from communication technologies is not new rhetoric in America. There has been a recurring moral panic throughout history, not just over real threats of technological danger, but also over the compromised virtue of young girls, parental loss of control in the face of a seductive machine, and the debate over whether women can ever be high tech without being in jeopardy."

- This is later addressed as the scares the telegraph (yes, the telegraph was apparently scary) created; "Media critics of the time desicribed the telegraph as used by 'talkative women' who had 'frivolous electrical conversations' about inconsequential personal subjects.'" Stories written during telegraph-time were morality tales expressing the opinion that "women's use of men's technology would come to no good end."

- Even the telephone was lambasted for it's use. "Despite companies' efforts to direct how th telephone was used, women nevertheless cultivated their own purposes or 'delinquent activities' as they were thought of - primarily social interaction."

- "... the politics of both the Victorian era and the early twentieth century - of rapid modernization and technical advancements - has many parallels with today's societal response to the advent of the internet."

- With regards to the definition of moral panic "the media relies on bias, exaggeration and distortion to manufacture news." If you read the first four quotes I pulled from the article, you can see how the media exaggerates what studies actually say.

Third, tomorrow: "What girls do online."

Gender Role Reversal

I can't find much on this story from the Shreveport Times (Louisiana), but a 39-year-old female teacher has been arrested on cyberstalking charges for posing as a 14-year-old girl and harassing a 14-year-old boy through MySpace. According to the brief article, there is no evidence that the teacher and boy ever met face-to-face.

I think this is worth noting because we spend so much time worrying about girls as victims that we need reminders that boys can also be subject to such things. Outside of the extremely bizarre case of Mary Kay Letourneau and her former student and now husband, Vili Fualaau, this issue has been a completely non-issue but remains a lingering question: "Is a sexual relationship with a young male and significantly older female harmful?" There is all sorts of research on the negative effects of younger females partnering with older males (higher rates of pregnancy, sexual coercion, drug use...) but there is NOTHING on the opposite. I've looked. And wondered as a result. Which means that I am challenged by my own stereotypes and assumptions. I think that this large an age gap at this developmental time cannot be healthy. But is there evidence? That remains to be seen.

The dangers of MySpace

Last weekend, I traveled four hours in a mom-van to Wildhorse Canyon, to participate in a young adult church retreat. Over lunch on Saturday, the table of eight talked about what we were doing in school (most of the 320 people that went were students), and what we eventually wanted to do. Since I am in school, am an intern (Hi Dr. Kris!) and am working part-time, I had a lot to say. As I mentioned that I work with how the internet is affecting teens’ sexuality, faces around the table began to turn inside out. As a member of one of the many left-leaning Christian churches in our gorgeous Pacific Northwest city, I was surprised by the reaction of a girl directly across the table from me.

Breathlessly, she almost shouted “the church doesn’t approve of the use of MySpace … by anyone!” and I couldn’t help but laugh. I played devil’s advocate (while at church camp! Oh no!) and asked her to show me in the Bible where that was mentioned “we are a Bible-based church, aren’t we?” I didn’t really mean to embarrass her, but I did, and she didn’t say too much to me the rest of lunch. Oops! Not the way to get conversations going, Sarah.

Another girl eventually started talking to me (while no one was watching … she couldn’t be associated with one of those* girls) about why she believed MySpace was dangerous. “You have a profile on there, and then perverts can find you and stalk you!” I was a little more tactful in explaining to her that you can have a private account; set up controls, keep strangers out (know my last name? only then can we be friends) and that you don’t have to branch out from your main circle of friends if you don’t want to. I think I know 95% of my friends list from in-person relationships.

I was able to talk to another guy at the table about how MySpace is creating positive opportunities for non-profit outreaches. He didn’t realize the positivity that could come from responsible MySpace use, and I felt really great being able to explain this stuff to these kids**. I offered not only the Virtual Mystery Tour’s MySpace address to them, but also my personal address as starting points if any of them ever got over their fear of "all the perverts". And we’ll see if they ever make eye contact with me at church again.

Really though, I was surprised to see such a different reaction to MySpace from people somewhat near my age group. Rather than experimenting with the internet, these 18- and 19-year-old students were acting like my mom; afraid that a misspelled word in Google would yield such wild pornography she'd never be the same. It makes me wonder whether the media is being “effective” in their campaign to scare the younger generation away from the internet. Time will tell. Until then I’ll be searching Leviticus for “If thine daughter maketh a MySpace account, sell her to the Canaanites.”



*aka – one who not only has a personal MySpace account, but also accesses another for school credit
**I later found out my table was mostly college Freshmen … almost a decade younger than me.

I told you to clean your room!

Taking risky opportunities in youthful content: teenagers’ use of social networking sites for intimacy, privacy and self-expression from New Media & Society (2008 SAGE Publications) has finally "scientifically" addressed my 4-year-old statement; "MySpaces are the virtual dirty bedroom of today's online teenagers."

Interviews of 16 teenagers (high school sophomore, juniors & seniors) conducted resulted in clarifications like "I think layouts really show like who you are. So look at the rainbow in that. I think that would make you sound very, like bubbly … I like to have different ones ... it’s different likes, different fashion, different feelings on that day." Like changing outfits, changing MySpace backgrounds shows a sense of who the owner may be; however teenagers are aware that profiles can be "just a front."

Interviews brought about an interesting discussion regarding the social differences between MySpace and Facebook. The elaborate layouts available on MySpace seem to be geared towards a younger crowd, while the older social networkers are drawn to the clean, white, everyone-has-the-same layout of Facebook. "This isn’t to show off my personality. I’m not trying to say, oh, I love purple or I love hearts … It’s more just like talking to three friends and, seeing as my friends know me, there’s no real need for me to advertise my personality."

Another interesting point Livingstone brings up is that idea that younger teens use their MySpace pages to create an elaborate identity with hundreds, sometimes even thousands of friends and classmates while older teens are using their pages to make authentic friendships and solid relationships. "Adult onlookers have been puzzled by youthful peer practices," states Sonia Livingstone (author of the article Dr. Kris sent me), and I’d love to sit down and talk with her, because I’m starting to be puzzled by these "youthful peer practices." However, this isn’t a new phenomenon.

My Grandpa Lloyd couldn’t (and still doesn't) understand why my dad had to have "The Long Hair." ("Girls wear rubber bands in their hair! Why do you want to go out with hair like that?") My Dad doesn’t get why I added seven extra earring holes to my body. ("If God had meant for you to have a ring in your nose, don't you think you'd have been born that way?") I don’t understand how teenagers can share so much information on their hot pink & green, flashing hearts & flowers MySpace page. Call me an old lady, but I’d be happier if teens kept more of their personal information private and cleaned up those dirty bedrooms!

Classroom Surfing

Slightly OT, but highly relevant to my career and generally related to this board. A recent NY Times blog post about college students surfing the net during class caught my eye. Written by Yale law professor Ian Ayres, it addresses the issue as to whether students should be allowed to browse online while in a lecture class. It's a tough topic, but one that I have been forced to think about and form opinions on, as it is relevant to my own classroom experiences.

Personally, I allow internet browsing, under certain circumstances. I see it as identical to sleeping, doing the crossword puzzle, or day dreaming in class. No, the student is not going to learn as much if they are not paying attention, but that is not my responsibility. It's theirs. If they want a good grade, surfing is not going to get them one.

Here is where I start to put limits on the surfing: if it is distracting other students. In the same way I ask students to stop talking during lecture, or when I wake up a student who is snoring, I do ask students to stop playing on their computers if what they are doing is distracting either other students or, frankly, me. And I tell them why I am asking. I literally stop lecture and ask them to cut it out because it is distracting. They usually do and often come down and apologize after class. And I accept the gesture.

This has not really been an issue yet, but I would also tell students I do not want them to surf in a seminar-type class where participation is crucial and respect for fellow students comes first. Surf all you want when I am talking. I am getting paid to do this, and I have enough tough skin to not take the behavior personally. But when a student is brave enough to express an opinion, that person deserves attention and respect. Blow me off all you want -- your grade will suffer, and that is the consequence. Do not blow off your colleagues. That is not OK. Ever.

Sometimes, however, a computer in the classroom is a good thing. People ask questions I can't answer (gasp!). Then there is some research-data-computer-addicted person there to save the day (see this Doonesbury comic also referenced by Ayres). We all just need to make sure that the answer provided is from a reliable source. I use this teachable moment to talk about why we would trust the answer being provided by the site. Students don't think about the quality of their references often enough. This helps them think about polishing that skill.

Bottom line is that students have always come to class and then never paid attention. If you can't deal with that fact -- don't teach. But we also need to consider how the method of not paying attention is affecting the rest of the students. Because they are who comes first. Build rules around that and I bet your classroom environment will be conducive to learning. Just not everyone will take you up on it.

A rose by any other name

When you visit sex education sites, do you expect to get that "warm-fuzzy" feeling? Planned Parenthood Columbia Willamette wants teenagers to feel just that, so they've started a new campaign: Take Care Down There. With skits & songs ranging from I didn't spew ("you can get a sexually transmitted infection ... even if you don't spew!") to Threesome ("you two have been makin' some intercourse, haven't you?") to the Down There Song, Planned Parenthood Columbia Willamette hopes to warmly welcome teenagers to their website to learn about sexual education. The Down There Song even surprised me - there were names for sexual organs that I had never heard of.

While I was entertained by the videos, I was plagued with the question; "will teens think this is too cheesy?" and "Is this as ridiculous as it seems to me?" and we want to know what you think about the site! Take a look at the videos, listen to the song, and let us know what you think? Beware though, the song is catchy and you may find yourself humming the tune all day long! Very few other bloggers have written about this new campaign, so we want to know what YOU think! Is this site TOO immature for teens? Share your honest opinion with us - we really want to know!



Another Planned Parenthood entry by the Virtual Mystery Tour can be found here.

Sexiest Grandma Retiring

AP wires report that Sue Johanson, the 70-something host of "Talk Sex with Sue Johanson," is going to retire. Her last show will air this Sunday on Oxygen, after six full seasons of frank, unabashed information about sexual positions, desire, technique, and fantasy. Sigh. We will miss you, Sue!

The good news is -- older broadcasts will be made available on Oxygen's web site.

Thank goddess for the internet.

Interesting (scary?) Thought

I was chatting with a student who is also a mother of a 4-year-old. As we were walking to the bus, she commented on how she was nervous about the role the internet is going to play in her child's life. After all, she didn't have computers growing up. What should she expect?

Then, she said something that I found very powerful. She said that there was no sense in her prohibiting computer use once he gets a little older because "by the time he is old enough to surf unsupervised, he will be able to hold his computer in his hand. I can't see what he will be doing!"

Wow. She's probably right. We have no idea where technology is going to take us. I mean, iPhones and other devices already have internet capabilities. It's going to be mainstream in no time.

Bottom line is, we can't focus on restricting access. We need to focus on teaching young persons how to use technology smartly and respectfully. Integrating this education into schools is going to be essential.

To emphasize or de-emphasize danger?

In a battle of the experts, Dr. Amy Tiemann takes issue with David Pogue's New York Times article How Dangerous is the Internet for Children? His answer: not very. Her answer: there are still risks! Of course, both are right. But I still side with Pogue.

Pogue may have gone overboard by writing "I could not find a single example of a preteen getting abducted and murdered by an Internet predator," because Tiemann rebuts with an example of a 13-year-old who was abducted and killed, balking at the idea of an arbitrary age cutoff. Still going to her tragic example's memory page, one still cannot determine the important factor: Did this young girl willingly go off with this man? Sure, the parents state that they knew their daughter would never go off with a man she didn't know and without telling her family, but, do we really know that was the case? Of course this young girl did not ask to be murdered. She wanted only good to come out of her online friendship. But I hesitate to say that a child will ALWAYS tell their parents EVERYTHING.

A horrible story? Yes. But again, we need to ask: How typical is it? The answer, by investigating news stories and research remains the same -- highly unlikely. As Pogue states "The tales of pedophiles luring children out of their homes are like plane crashes: they happen extremely rarely, but when they do, they make headlines everywhere."

It's the nature of the beast: media cover sensational stories and we respond viscerally to them. But the same way I still plan to get on an airplane tomorrow, so should parents allow their children to explore the internet. Should we use precautions? Heck yes. I fasten my seatbelt, fly on professional airlines, and listen to the safety warnings. Internet users can benefit from similar safety precautions. But let's not prevent the journeys they will take from happening at all.