Studies Examine Risky Teen Disclosures on MySpace

Can There Be Such a Thing As Healthy Sex Talk From Teens?

Two studies published in the January issue of Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine attempt to dig a little deeper into the kinds of sex related information teens display on social networking sites and how health professionals can support teens in taking more care about what they say, and to whom. Both studies are important and both raise fundamental questions about teen sexual expression that need to be further explored. Unfortunately the coverage thus far is anything but inspiring.

The first study was a content analysis of 500 MySpace profiles of users who self-identified as being 18 years old. The researchers wanted to see how common references to sex, drug use, and violence were. They also looked at associations between these references and other content (specifically involvement in church/religious groups and involvement in a hobby or sports). Among the findings of the first study were:

• 24% of the profiles displayed reference to sex
• 3.6% included a self-disclosure about sexual activity
• Females were more likely than males to display references to sexual behaviors

The second study was designed to test the theory that a single email, sent from a doctor, could have an effect on the kind of information a MySpace user might reveal on their profile. In this study the researchers chose 190 publicly available MySpace profiles from a geographic locale considered to be higher risk (self reported ages 18-20) and evaluated them for references to sex and drug use . They then sent half of the profiles an email from “Dr. Meg” (which I describe in more detail below). After three months they went back to the profiles to look at if, and how, the profiles had been changed in terms of the number of drug or sex references and how many people had changed their profile from public to private. Among the findings of this study were:

• References to sex decreased to zero on 13.7 percent of profiles in the group that received the e-mail and 5.3 percent in those that did not
• A total of 10.5 percent of intervention profiles and 7.4 percent of control profiles were set to "private" at the three-month follow-up.

In explaining the importance of this research in supporting youth, the researchers identify at least four negative outcomes for youth who display sexually suggestive information on their profiles. These include:

1. The potential of increased risk of online victimization (actually, they say it does increase the risks, but I find it hard to believe they have causal evidence of that).
2. Sexual content may negatively effect future education and employment opportunities as more employers and universities use online information in evaluating applications.
3. Normalizing sexual content can create added pressure for peers to engage in sexual activities.
4. Such content may influence the ways that friends and potential partners interact with the youth and create a cycle of reinforcing risky behaviors.

All of these sound like good things to avoid. What’s less clear to me is what, if anything, can be said about people who have “sexually suggestive” content on their profiles. And what defines “sexually suggestive” in the first place? Here’s how the researchers describe their criteria:

Examples of material considered sexually suggestive included completion and display of a “sex survey,” describing personal sexual preferences, self-disclosures of sexual experiences, pictures of profile owner in undergarments, and downloaded sexually suggestive icons such as Playboy bunnies. Examples of material we did not include as sexually suggestive included gay pride flags or pictures of couples embracing.

I find this criteria too broad. Does writing “I don’t give head” mean the same thing as including a half-naked picture of yourself on your profile? And what about the person who uses Playboy icons ironically versus the person who uses them seriously? While I’m glad they didn’t conflate orientation with behavior (and thus excluded gay pride flags) I don’t see why couples embracing aren’t considered sexual. Of course the piece that’s missing in all this is the intent of the poster, the youth. This is the voice that is most missing in this research, and it’s the voice that’s most missing in conversations parents have with professionals and each other about keeping their kids safe.

What was most surprising to me about the second study was the content of the intervention email sent to youth. In it the sender (identified as “Dr. Meg” and linked to a MySpace profile of one of the researchers) questions the choice of including some information in the profile. Dr. Meg writes “I noticed something on your MySpace profile that concerned me. You seemed to be quite open about sexual issues or other behaviors such as drinking or smoking. Are you sure that’s a good idea?” And later she writes “I’m also concerned that you are at risk for a sexually transmitted disease, or STD (like chlamydia or gonorrhea). Anyone who has had sex could have an STD.”

While the researchers don’t suggest in their write up that including sexually suggestive material in your MySpace profile is associated with increased risk of STDs, they seem to be suggesting a link exists to the youth. This is a problem because there isn’t any evidence that such a link exists. Writing about sex in a public forum can cause all sorts of problems, but it won’t give you an STD. I was also a bit put off by the language which I feel is bordering on fear mongering (that one line, “are you sure that’s a good idea?” sent me reeling back to my teen years in a very unpleasant way).

All that said I don’t work with youth and something that sounds patronizing to me may not be read that way by anyone else. And their inclusion of great resources, and the offer to provide a personalized response, are great and worth acknowledging.

Both pieces of research are doing a good job of slowly catching up with what youth are doing online and how professionals can support keeping them safe and healthy. While I have those minor questions about their methodology the larger question and concern I have is about their premise that including sexual content in a profile constitutes a sign of health risk.

If sexual innuendo or any sexual disclosure constitutes risk behavior, is there any sexual expression a teen can have in public that could be conceived of as healthy? The answer to this question cannot be no. Whether we like it or not, healthy sexual development requires an element of public (or pseudo public) interaction. This is one of the ways we all learn to sexually socialize. If we label everything teens do along these lines as potentially harmful we’re doing them and our research enterprises a disservice.

This research is so important, but I think as we look at the ways to protect youth and support their healthy sexual development, we need to talk at least a little bit about their sexuality in a healthy way.

Read more – Newsday.com: MySpace is research place for busybody 'Dr. Meg'