Lee (striver) wrote in blog_sociology,
The buzzword of the day is 'sexting'.

This is nothing new. It is the same old phone-sex people, young and old, have been engaging in almost since the invention of the telephone. But now you can send pictures of the action. In fact a recent study shows that one in five kids have used their phones to send sexy or nude pictures of themselves.

This new twist can have consequences including charges of distributing child pornography as in the recent case of a 15-year-old girl in Ohio

There have been cases of this here on LJ as well. Teen girls can get a friend list of hundreds before the journal is discovered and deleted. But aside from such short term consequences, those pictures will outlast the Internet.

I don't think the Internet itself is causing this behavior. There is, of course, the element of peer validation as I have mentioned before. But for the most part it just seems that the Internet has made private lives a LOT more public. Another recent study shows more than half of teens reveal risky behavior online
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Comments allowed for members only

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 4 comments

frecklestars

January 7 2009, 02:40:06 UTC 5 years ago

I can't focus on much else beside the fact that a 15 year old may have to register as a sex offender for photographing herself. That is so beyond stupidity that I have a headache.

Hopefully I'll have a more coherent comment later.

striver

January 7 2009, 02:48:07 UTC 5 years ago

I really don't blame you on that one. that is just beyond all sense to me as well. This isn't what the sex offender registry is for. Yeah...can't really respond to something that far out of touch with reality.

a semi-coherent response

frecklestars

January 7 2009, 02:55:17 UTC 5 years ago

Ok, so I do agree with you about the Internet having made our private lives more public. (I actually dislike using the word private there, because what precisely denotes it as private? Should it be?) What is the difference between telling someone you're (say) a self-injurer versus writing about it in your blog because you treat it as a journal? The only difference I can see is that what formally were private diaries locked and kept under beds are now publicly available.

This reminds me of something that was said to me recently actually. Someone said that websites are an iffy source, because they're private information. I just do not understand this logic (and if you could explain it, please - I'd be grateful); if it's on the Internet, it's public. Period. It does not matter what the content of the information is, it's public. You consent when you click the "publish" button (or equivalent thereof).

Sorry, got a little off topic I guess. If I'm not incoherent with rage and other peoples' stupidity, I'm off topic. Oops? ;)

Re: a semi-coherent response

striver

January 7 2009, 03:07:41 UTC 5 years ago

Well...saying Internet info is 'iffy' because it is 'private' seems to imply to me that they mean it is from a 'private' source as opposed to mainstream media so not as reliable. Which is a slightly different issue.

But aside from that you are kinda touching on an ancient philosophical question that online journals have made even more relevant, "is it better to be hated for who you are or loved for who you are not?" There are soooo many issues tangled into that question.