A Youth's Voice Rings True

Thanks to my Google News Alert, I was notified of this wonderful post by Layla Smith, a HS youth in Maryland. Her article, "Parents Just Don't Understand," is about how technology has changed the way teens live. And, if my interpretation is correct, she seems to believe that her generation is faster, more immediate, and as a result, she feels less in control of her life.

Her opening paragraph sums it up quite well:
"Today, we live in a generation where everything is not what it used to be. Today’s teens want things bigger, better, and faster, with a constant need to be entertained and fascinated. If these criteria aren’t met, it just seems wrong.  With this fast-paced generation out there one question comes to mind:  Do parents really understand what it’s like to be a teenager during these rapid changing times?"

The rest of her article goes on to somewhat blame adults for a youth's need to have everything right here and right now. To some extent, I can perceive this as "typical" adolescence, where a somewhat developmentally egocentric mind feels that her problems are larger than life, and not her fault. But, then again, Ms. Smith has a point -- as she writes, teens did not make all this new technology: adults did. And, most of the marketing and hype that has been generated around all these new gadgets is the product of adult minds whose primary goal is to sell things to teenagers by convincing them that it's essential to participate and purchase in this new technological world.  And, given that teens are socialized to believe that fitting in and looking good matter ...is it their fault that they buy into the madness? Smith states, "As teens, we can’t control everything around us, and sometimes we have no other choice but to follow what is happening around us...This generation, Generation Z, seems to be completely unsheltered; everything is pushed in our faces and the only choice is to accept it." 

While I am still pondering whether or not teens have a real "choice" as to whether to accept or reject all this technology and its related promotions, I do know that if the thoughts of this teen ring true with many of her peers, then we as adults need to find out how we can best serve these youth by telling them it's OK to step back, slow down, and ask themselves how this technology can best meet their needs and support their lives.

"The Right to be Forgotten"

This Forbes article is a great premise for some sort of psychological thriller movie or Grisham novel -- but it's grounded in some semblance of reality. It highlights the idea -- bandied about by policymakers and advocacy groups such as Common Sense Media -- of allowing us to "erase" our internet histories. Wish you hadn't posted that unflattering 3rd grade school picture? Poof -- take it down. What were you thinking when you wrote all about your ex in that blog? No worries -- just erase the whole thing. And that YouTube clip of you trying to re-enact the entire season finale of Lost after a few too many? Fear no longer....

Sure we can already take down the stuff we posted on our own, without any laws or protections needed. But what if that blog post goes viral? What if your wild high school buddy lacks any filters when deciding to post those keg party moments? What if someone shares a video of you again, and again, and again? "Right to be Forgotten" laws would allow for the deletion of ALL references to material about you not needed for "legitimate purposes" (so forget about fantasizing about getting rid of your online billing or credit score..).

On some level, this makes sense. After all, if I don't like something publicly available, and it's about me, I should be able to get rid of it. Especially if I posted it in the first place. Don't I have the right to retract? However, as writer Adam Thierer states, such actions would be a huge violation of freedom of speech. Not to mention technologically impossible (as of now).

But the law does have some appealing applications. All those posts written by cyberbullies could be gone just like that. And easily erased if re-posted, thus discouraging future attempts. If someone is trying to change after being afflicted by addiction, or involved in a gang, they can remove that social networking history to avoid stigmatization.

Bottom line is, though, that there is no such law and probably will never will be. And people DO have the right to express themselves (within certain limits) and we have the right to access information, no matter how unsavory. So, we should think about every post we make before putting them up there for everyone to see. And share. Because, once it's up there, you lose control over its future, and to some extent, your past.

Not all sexting is the same

Love this! A recent report from the Crimes Against Children Research Center in New Hampshire does something sensible and useful (not an easy feat in the research world). Using data from several sources, it delineates between two types of sexting -- (1) "experimental," in which a young person takes a picture of themselves willingly for the purpose of pursuing romance or for sexual experimentation -- both of which are considered normative, and (2) "aggravated," in which there is either adult involvement and/or "intent to harm" whether through force, malice, and/or bullying.

Why is this so important? Because it helps law makers determine which instances of sexting should be prosecuted! Only those considered "aggravated" would be considered to result in any legal recourse. "Experimental" sexting would not be considered legally (though educators/parents/trusted adults may want to intervene as a teachable moment).

While I may be oversimplifying this, I think it's a great start to determining how to protect -- not punish -- youth who are simply using tools available to them to establish and maintain romantic and sexual relationships. And what teen doesn't want to do that?

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.

The Internet May Reach Those Who Others Simply Can't

I Want the Kit, a website that offers free chlamydia tests is only available in a few select areas (Alaska, Denver, CO, Maryland, West Virginia, Philadelphia, PA, Washington, DC and parts of Illinois), but it seems to make a big impact. About half its users are under 23 -- not surprising since this is the demographic that is most at-risk for STIs, most likely to go online, and most likely to lack access to insurance and have no other place to go for health care.

A study out of Johns Hopkins found that women who sent tests into I Want the Kit had infection rates between 4-15% -- positive tests mostly came from those who rarely get health check-ups and have limited or no health insurance. For comparison, 3-6% of women who get tested at family planning clinics test positive for Chlamydia infections. So, rates are higher for those who choose the online test. But that simply could be due to the age bracket -- or is it something else?

Another study out of UCLA looked at the internet habits of homeless youth. They were surprised to find that almost 80% of these young people use social networking at least weekly. The potential downside of this usage is that over 20% percent of sexually active participants reported having found a sex partner online in the past  three months, and more than 10% engaged in "exchange sex" — trading sex for food, drugs or a place to stay.

However, those who used social networking to meet sexual partners were also more likely to discuss safer sex practices. And homeless youth who used social networking in general were more likely to have been tested for HIV and STIs.

So, maybe there is something else about the people who go online to get information about sexual health. They might simply be the people who know they need resources, but aren't sure where else to go to get them. And that's not such a bad finding after all.

Defining "Vulnerable" Children

A report from EU Kids Online (a research group which studies the online behaviors of youth from 25 different European countries) finds that about half of 11-16 year olds at least somewhat agree with the idea that it is easier to be oneself online than it is in a face-to-face environment; 12% say the statement is "very true."

This finding is interesting in and of itself, though in some sense not that surprising. Behind a screen, it can be easier to share feelings, disclose information about oneself -- the computer provides somewhat of a protective shield (at least temporarily) from the potentially negative reactions of peers. In a nutshell, this is what the disinhibition effect of social psychology is all about. In the long term, however, with the prevalence of cyberbullying (and online communication in general), this apparent protection can break down quite easily as one's disclosures in the form of posts, texts, and pictures can more easily and quickly be spread, making a secret public knowledge in no time.

The study's researchers frame their findings in a somewhat fear-based framework. They state that the 12% who more strongly believe they can be themselves online are:

• "more likely to have problems with their peers, suggesting that they are seeking online relationships to compensate for offline ones;
• more likely to look for new friends online, to‘add’ people or send personal information to people that they haven’t met face to face, or to pretend to be a different kind of person."

What is not known, however, is why those youth have difficulty with their peers in the first place, which I believe is the key to all of this. And the researchers acknowledge their own uncertainties:
"Is it because they have personal or social difficulties in relating to people face-to-face, so the internet compensates in some way? Or is it because they spend a lot of time online and this leads them to feel more at home in an online environment?"

My own hunches lean me towards the former possibility -- there is something about their social environments that drives them to seek acceptance online. After all, it isn't hard to believe that 12% of youth find it difficult to be accepted in the social circles they encounter on a regular basis. In fact, that number might even be low if we are simply looking at feeling included as a youth, possibly demonstrating the resilience of young people.

Yet, this publication makes the assumption that stronger connections online are not to be desired and tries to further examine what is special about the youth who are more comfortable being themselves online than offline. Age and gender aren't huge factors. But peer problems are -- those youth who report more problems with peers are more likely to "find it easier to be myself on the internet."

Solutions? None that are easy. Promoting acceptance of all youth regardless of their attractiveness, "coolness," sexual orientation, gender identity, mental and/or physical challenges, would be ideal. But is it possible? As much as I want to say "yes," I fear the immediate answer is "no." But that should not stop us from working towards that goal -- ever. In the meantime, let's not assume that youth who find it easier to express their true selves online as opposed to offline are "vulnerable." Perhaps, given their social environments, they are being resilient and finding communities and persons who welcome them as they are with open arms and monitors.

Note: To access the report, look for the link on "Risky Communication Online" published 2/8/11.

Sexting Laws Abound

The uproar over sexting continues -- this time policy makers try to take a stab at curbing the practice of minors sending sexually explicit photos of each other.

1. In Kelso, WA the school board approved a policy that allows for school administrators to confiscate and search a student's phone if there is "reasonable cause" to suspect that the sexting took place at school. Students can face suspension or expulsion if found guilty. I fear that this sort of policy is a slippery slope that can be used to target certain teens; the ACLU is already fighting this as an invasion of privacy -- could these school administrators be charged with the viewing of child pornography (or at the very least, accused of being voyeuristic?) if they keep confiscating phones and having a peek?

2. According to the Huffington Post the New York Department of Education is also trying to ban sexting and students could get in trouble for sending photos from home as well as school.

3. In Texas there is a bill under consideration that would lessen the penalty for youth found guilty of sexting to being found guilty of a Class C misdemeanor for first offenders (currently they might be charged with distribution of child pornography and possibly have to register as a sex offender). While that sounds reasonable, the bill also stipulates that youth and their parents would both have to take educational classes about the "harmful consequences" of sexting. Two things about this seem odd: (1) from a research standpoint, we don't really know what the harmful consequences of sexting are. So, not sure where they are going to get course content from. (2) And what are the parents going to learn? Is the implication here that parents somehow were supportive of the sexting and also need to be told it isn't a great idea? I doubt it. But someone over at The Stir already beat me to making fun of this sort of logic.

This is only the beginning, folks. Look for many new sexting laws and policies being proposed and adopted at the school, state, and possibly even federal level.

Give Them Credit, Give Them Support

A recent article in the New York Times appears to uncover how the internet is impacting middle school romances. Through interviews with some young New Yorkers (note the limited representation), it attempts to reveal how sexting and easy access to porn are shaping how these youth relate to each other, their bodies, and their friends.

I always find these articles fascinating, and usually respect their content -- the Times often tackles an issue related to youth development more in-depth and responsibly than most other news outlets. And for that I am grateful.

However, this time the article goes a little too far in the alarmist direction for my taste. First, let's take the illustrations. Though clearly meant to show what girls are doing these days, they do little more than glamorize the very pictures is admonishes. Second, the article quotes the "statistic" that the average age of first exposure to online porn is 11 -- and doesn't cite the source. Probably because that statistic has long ago been criticized as being total bunk by highly reputable sources.

But mostly, this article bothers me because it simply presents problems (scandals, even) without offering any solutions. Yes, it may be true (we don't have evidence, but it does make sense to believe) that higher access to pornography might create an inaccurate sense of what actual sex is supposed to be like -- but what should we do about it? Can we have intelligent conversations with girls AND boys about how pornography depicts unrealistic expectations of sex in a classroom? At an after school program? Among family members? And yes -- oftentimes the content of cyberbullying focuses on sexual rumor (just like gossip and bathroom wall graffiti in earlier times) -- so why can't we incorporate lessons on cyberbullying in a sex education classroom? And where is the dialog about healthy relationships? It's missing from most of our lives.

To the author's credit, the article does portray girls as having common sense to assess what is right and wrong to do both online and with a boyfriend, and as having a great deal of strength to fight the pressure they feel to sexualize themselves in ways they do not feel comfortable. So, let's give these savvy youth a chance to educate themselves further and critically analyze today's influences on their sex lives so that they embody healthy messages about their own sexual expression and relationships, and pass them on to their peers and partners.

CORRECTION: I misattributed this article to the NYT -- It's actually from New York Magazine. Big difference, and I apologize for the error. It does help explain the tone of the article, though!

"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.

School-based Social Workers Unsure about Dealing with Cyberbullying

A recent study reports that almost half of school-based social workers do not feel prepared to handle cases of cyberbullying, even though they recognize it as a problem.

I read this, and felt sad -- mostly because dealing with cases of cyberbullying should not be all that different from dealing with cases of face-to-face bullying. Sure, technology-based bullying may be harder to discover because it's not overhead in the hallways, but the interventions should be the same -- support the youth being bullied, identify perpetrators and decide on adequate consequences for their actions (interesting idea coming out of the UK -- have bullied students help decide punishment). But maybe the fact that 20% of the respondents believed that their school's policy on cyberbullying was inadequate had something to do with them feeling ill-prepared? I honestly don't know how much school personnel rely on policy to back up their actions. Anyone out there want to speak out on that?

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

California Law Targets Cyberbullying

Happy New Year to All!

'Tis the season for all things new --resolutions, calendars, and laws! In California, there is a new law on the books that makes it illegal to create a fake social networking profile "to harm others." Violation of the law can result in a year jail time and/or up to a $1000 fine.

Will be interesting to see if something like this makes a difference -- probably not until it is tested in courts and people become more aware of it.

CA schools could possibly take advantage of this by connecting it to safe school policies to strengthen those. It's difficult to enforce a bullying policy if the actual bullying takes place either off campus and/or through the use of personal devices such as computers or cell phones. But, perhaps, with this impersonation law, schools can demonstrate that the bullying of students is still against school regulations even if it happens after the bell rings. I'm no lawyer (though I do love me some SVU!), but perhaps this logic will help build a case against a serious offender?

Cyber self-harm?

This recent post by internet relationship extraordinaire danah boyd has attracted a lot of attention -- and with good reason. There has been extensive media coverage on cyberbulling these days; just a quick search on google news brought me stories from Montana, New York, and even Spain posted in just the last few hours. But what boyd and online quiz builder Formspring have uncovered (or at least made public) is something alarming, but perhaps not that surprising:

There are teens out there that bullying themselves online.

boyd as dubbed this "digital self-harm" but comments from readers criticize this term because physical self-harm is often motivated by the relief that follows after experiencing actual pain, clearly not happening online. But, no matter the term used, people are starting to come up with motivations/rationales as to why such behavior would occur. boyd's reasons from her article include a cry for help, to be cool, and to trigger compliments. Anne Collier, in her most recent issue of Net Family News appears to support the "cry for help" theory more strongly than the others.

However, to me, this behavior is somewhat parallel to some of the behaviors found in some persons who deal with borderline personality disorder, or some other personality disorder. These conditions affect approximately 2% of US adults, typically young women, according to the National Institute of Mental Health. Such mental health conditions are characterized by unstable, volatile social relationships, and impulsiveness. My Mayo Clinic introduces personality disorders with this explanation:

"A personality disorder is a type of mental illness in which you have trouble perceiving and relating to situations and to people — including yourself."

To me, there is a lot of commonality between someone with personality disorder and someone who would post negative comments about herself and await either verification or contradiction.

Now, I am not saying that all persons who engage in "digital self harm" have personality disorder, or any mental health diagnosis for that matter. But, what I do want to bring to light is that this phenomenon might not be the representation of something new, but instead a new way for someone with a certain mental health issue to express herself. Why the need to differentiate? Because it may shape the way we approach this problem (and I do see it as a problem, no matter its cause) and its solutions.

Whatever comes of this issue, you can be sure that this might be the first, but it certainly is not the last, time we will come across this.

Texting or stalking?

OK, after a REALLY long break, I am trying to start writing again. I still care a lot about this issue, but so many others have been grabbing my attention, that it has been difficult to get back into the swing of things. I shall do my best, but perhaps I will be expanding what I write about, as different things related to youth catch my eye...

That said, I have had this story open on my desktop for some time. This Washington Post article addresses "textual harassment," to harass or stalk someone through text messages. Texting, frankly, makes it easier to experience abuse in a relationship. A person can constantly write messages -- threatening or not -- to their "significant other" to the point of where they are constantly reminded of the relationship. A person can feel controlled, followed, or lose their individuality if enough messages come through their phone on a daily basis (some of the stories featured allude to more than 100 a day).

This is one of the ways that technology has changed relationships for the worse. Before texting, it would have been nearly impossible to stay in such close touch with someone without physically being there. Now, with just a few button pushes, a person can infiltrate someone else's life constantly.

Understandably, little has been done to more thoroughly investigate the repercussions of such behavior. But the perspective of the stalker has been examined even less. Given the young ages of these textual harassers, do they really realize what they are doing? Is it possible that their lack of perspective really doesn't allow them to see how much is "too much?" While not wanting to defend their behavior, it would be interesting to see how the harassers themselves explain their actions.

Teachers in need of instruction?

Thanks Jeff for pointing out this story about a teacher who somehow thought it was a good idea to send naked photos of herself to a 15-year-old student!

I find this incident very hard to wrap my head around. Outside of the obvious inappropriateness of the act, did the teacher honestly think that a teenage boy would keep naked pictures of a teacher a secret? Imagine being in high school and getting a hold of some compromising pics of a teacher. Imagine your classmates getting their hands on them. What percentage of them would just keep those photos to themselves as opposed to having some sort of "fun" with them?

That's what I thought.

I was in Teacher Education for a while, and I don't recall ever covering the inappropriateness of sexual relationships with students. I am sure it was covered elsewhere, but not in the classes I taught. Perhaps during those ethics classes (or wherever they talk about such issues) we need to address the fact that sexting counts as acting inappropriately? Show news stories such as this to scare the heck out of those even tempted to do so? Again, I find it odd that it would even be necessary, but given the viral nature of texts and other digital communication, perhaps it wouldn't hurt to offer these gentle reminders to instructors.

Update on blog management

Hi folks! Just so you know, I have now defaulted to moderating all comments in order to block spamming, which has gotten out of control. Mind you, I WILL post all comments that are sincere, even if they are just to say you liked the post or want to say "hi."

I also implemented a mandatory typing of a word to avoid macros as spam.

Thanks to all of you for your patience in this matter. Now, on to our regularly scheduled programming :-).

Still struggling with SPAM

Hello out there in Reader Land!

I am working on the best way to deal with all the SPAM responses to this blog. I think some solutions I have developed are going to be good ones. One is that, unfortunately, I deleted a post that seemed to attract most of the junk. I am also working on other strategies.

Thank you for your patience! Not monitoring this blog is a sign of disrespect to you all -- something I do not want to convey.

Internet communities: Strengthening the global or local?

I found this post (please excuse the numerous editing issues, as recognized in its own disclaimer) extremely interesting in the way it challenged how young people use the internet to form community. I have read quite a bit speculating (there is so little research and not much anecdotal information either) on how sexual and gender minority are reaching out online to form community. Most of this information discovers how these youth use the internet to reach out of their isolated communities to find others "like them" in other places.

This is not the case here.

Mary Gray, of the Communication and Culture dept. at Indiana University, gives an example of how rural youth use the internet to strengthen their LOCAL community of LGBTQ youth. It's a neat case study that makes me wonder how widespread it is.

Another point I appreciate: the fact that these youth feel safer in public venues rather than hidden in their own identities, or online. To me, a supporter of these youth, it is reassuring that they are trying to make themselves visible and part of the community.

Huge increases in media use reported

A recent article in the New York Times highlights that teens are spending more time with media than ever before -- an average of 7.5 hours a day. And, given that they can use several different types of media at once (listen to music while playing a video game or posting on Facebook), teens actually manage to bend time and get in nearly 11 hours of media content into that seven and a half hours.

Heavy media use (defined as more than 16 hours a day!) was found to be associated with several negatives, including behavior problems and lower grades. So, the increase in media, at least in its extreme, may be cause for concern.

The study was conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation, who has a strong history of researching media use and content. KFF is also known for its thorough analysis of the sexual content on television (the Sex on TV series). Major findings there include that the amount of sexual content on TV continues to increase, and that references to safer sex or sexual risks and responsibilities are rare (about 14% of sexual content alludes to them). The last Sex on TV report I could find was from 2005.

But maybe KFF realizes that those studies are outdated, and it's time to look more closely at the sexual content of the digital media teens consume instead. I look forward to it!

A look at adult priorities on dating sites

Nerd alert: This blog posting by the staff at OKCupid is full of statistics, but ultimately interesting. It demonstrates how much looks (i.e., your photo) matters when it comes to getting any hits on your online dating post. In fact, they determine that your picture matters more than anything else you post on the site.

What is sort of interesting, however, is how men and women respond to the attractiveness of the photo. Men will judge most women to be of "average" attractiveness -- very few will be found to be decidedly unattractive and, likewise, few will be seen as extremely attractive. In somewhat surprising contrast, women are MUCH more likely to rate men as unattractive to average attractiveness.

However -- how men and women react to that information differs. Men, despite there only being (in their eyes) very few attractive women will only write to those women. Women, who perhaps because they know there are so few (in their eyes) prime men, are more likely to write to those they find less attractive. The result? A highly attractive woman gets 5 times as many messages as an average woman and 28 times as many messages as an unattractive woman. These differences aren't as great the other way around where the most attractive guys get 11 times the messages the least attractive do.

Just another way to point out that even though we discourage our youth to post pictures of themselves that will gain "this sort of attention" we have to be honest with ourselves -- this sort of attention works in the adult world, too.