Talk:Sexting

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 March 2019 and 8 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): TT in NYU.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Representing a Global View

RE: ADDING GLOBAL VIEW MAINTENANCE TAG

Currently this article does not represent a global view of this matter apart from few references quoting studies from British Sources. It would be good to see some further content showing the view points and legal prospectives from other countries other than the United States in which seems to be over-mentioned in this article. It would be good to include the following view points with respect to other countries: [a] Legal Proceedings, [b] Moral aspects, [c] Law Regarding Sexting in other countries. --Olowe2011 (talk) 13:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

This article is still incredibly biased towards the legal and social situation in the anglosphere with other countries having minimal representation. As an example, In Sweden it's legal to produce, posses and distribute pornographic images depicting "minors who have completed puberty" (which could be below the "age-of-consent") yet are under the "age-of-majority" (18) as long as said images or any accompanying material (DVD covers, etc) do not mention that they are underage. Hence why it's rare for people to be prosecuted for "child pornography" offenses where the "victim" is above the "age-of-consent". This includes cases where said images were taken and/or distributed without the minors consent. In that case they are usually prosecuted for "defamation" or "taking defamatory images" instead.

Because of this i add the global bias tag. 95.155.235.73 (talk) 23:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

NPOV

This article smacks of NPOV. Where's the other side of the story? Just because people are excited about the prospect of nubile teenagers indiscriminately sending sexy photos of themselves and every gets all up in arms. What about the forty-year-old men who have been doing this since the dawn of cell-phone technology? Should we stand idly by why our youth are morally corrupted by unlimited technological access without any supervision or restraint? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.15.139.229 (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The addition of MySpace in 'Popular Culture' is a violation of the notability requirements for web sources. Since MySpace is not a moderated source medium, it does not qualify. (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(web)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.59.87.106 (talk) 13:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The above anonymous complaint that the article lacks a NPOV cites no specific examples from the article and appears itself to be little more than an opinionated rant. If the anonymous speaker wishes to improve the article by adding further information about the perceived dangers of sexting, nothing is stopping them. Suggest the neutrality dispute tag be removed. Brianwc (talk) 06:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I second that. It doesn't mention anything specific that it takes umbrage at, and reading carefully through the article, I see nothing that lacks NPOV. I'm removing the tag until a better case for it is made. The article seems to meet all normal wikipedia standards I can think of.mjlissner (talk) 07:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Now hold on here -- I'm not the one who filed the NPOV complaint, but I do see an imbalance in this article. The article emphasizes lawsuits, abuse of sexting, and unwanted sexual advances via phones. Let's redefine it for a moment. Sexting is flirting via cell phone SMS and MMS messages. Is there any harm in sexting within a committed relationship? What about any of those new GPS-based flirting services? Between consenting adults, it can improve marriages, decrease depression, and increase libido. Just as welcomed sexting is flirting, unwelcome sexting is sexual harrassment, right? So both points of view should be represented. Cputrdoc (talk) 17:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The second paragraph under Background contains an erroneous statement: The survey was not done by WCAX as the first sentence states and as the the ref itself reveals. This sentence is then "balanced" in the second sentence by a statement of mere "belief," based on "original research" that, on its face, was not conducted using scientific sampling. Taken as a whole, this paragraph raises questions about the article's neutrality.

Legal cases

My particular concern is the lack of balance in the "Legal Cases" section. Almost everything there is from the POV that the legal status of "sexting" is cut and dried. At very least, readers should be alerted to the fact that, in 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court said "speech that records no crime and creates no victims by its production" is protected by the U.S. Constitution. Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002). Reporting an established rule of law and "giving legal advice" are two different things.

To report that court case in this article as you have tried to do twice would be to imply that it directly relates to sexting, which would be giving legal advice. I am not saying it does or does not apply; I'm saying that if we want to write about that case as if it applies to this topic, we need citations from reliable sources that say so.  Frank  |  talk  21:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

My proposed statement about the Ashcroft case implies that the case relates to "child pornography," which it does. The case says that some kinds of child pornography are "protected" speech under the Constitution. It is therefore misleading to imply that all child pornography, including sexting, can be ipso facto legally banned. This is especially so in the absence of any post-Ashcroft case to that effect. At very least, there is an open question, which the article in its present form does not, on balance, reflect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.105.45.123 (talk) 18:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

If you are referring to these two attempts to tie this case to Ashcroft, there are two major problems: 1) Use of the term therefore absolutely draws a conclusion that is not supported by any reference; even a direct link to the case would not be sufficient because it is WP:OR to say that a particular ruling applies to this topic; and 2) It implies that the Ashcroft decision encompasses sexting, which is highly questionable, given that the ruling may well predate the practice itself.

There is already an article on that court case (Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition), and this article is not a place to bring in links to that one simply via original research. If the two are linked, we should be able to find citations from reliable sources that say so, in which case I would fully support inclusion of some text which says so (although still without the "therefore" construct). Without citations, it isn't appropriate.  Frank  |  talk  13:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I would dispute your claim of it being "highly questionable"; the conclusion of the court was quite clear, that no speech which "records no crime and creates no victim" may be exempted from the first amendment under a statute which prohibits speech on the basis of the criminal and abusive actions involved in its creation. This pretty much damns any serious attempts at criminalizing this practice, because it leaves a court with two options: they can either claim that the defendant is the victim and have the case dismissed on the grounds that a victim cannot be tried for a crime against themselves, even as an accomplice, or (more likely) conclude that there is no victim, and therefore the expression is protected under the first amendment.

I'd also argue that judging by the public outcry to such prosecutions, any case that actually made it to a ruling would be at significant risk of being nullified by the jury on the grounds that it is (in most people's eyes) a blatant misuse of a law.

I do agree with you that any such speculation clearly falls under WP:OR, however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcooper877 (talk • contribs) 02:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Definition

This article makes no differentiation between explicit text messages & explicit photos/videos sent over phones. In recent media stories, the term sexting has been used to specifically mean only photos or videos, NOT text. Obviously the legal implications are different regarding text & images, so I think it would be helpful to make clear when it's talking about images or when it's just text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.6.113 (talk) 22:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

One additional aspect: I believe the portmanteau refers to sex and posting, not texting. Anybody disagree? RobertoRMola (talk) 17:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I disagree, and I also disagree with the assertions of 76.105.6.113 Dlabtot (talk) 17:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, but why you disagree? I mean, do you have any reference for "texting" instead of "posting"? RobertoRMola (talk) 16:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree for the obvious reason: 'sexting' refers to a 'text', not to a 'post'. If we were talking about 'posts' than to think that 'sexting' is a portmanteau of 'sex' and 'posting' might make sense.

Since we aren't, it doesn't. Dlabtot (talk) 16:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

So, define posting... Better: compare text and post(ing). RobertoRMola (talk) 00:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The photo being used here

It is very generic and does not really illustrate the subject, just shows intent of it.

Perhaps a picture of a sexually explicit message written to someone on a phone is more illustrative? JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 05:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Rep. Weiner's sext might be a good photo. It's not so explicit, but it's sexting. 66.188.228.180 (talk) 08:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I've used an appropriate photograph from Wikimedia Commons. kencf0618 (talk) 06:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The photo is laughable as it adds absolutely nothing to the article! Everyone knows what a cell phone screen with texts and photos looks like. No illustration is necessary. P123cat1 (talk) 19:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree with you on that. I think a photo helps the page both in appearance and helpfulness. However, the current one is no way improving the page and is "laughable" haha to say the least. Meatsgains (talk) 20:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I vote for keeping this image until, or if, a better one is found. This photograph is better than no photograph, and the caption for it is good. The reason that the sexual images are blurred is likely due to the WP:BLP policy. Every time I see that hand, though, I think it's a male teenager's hand (because of how especially popular sexting is among teenagers), which would make the sexual images even more of a no-no if that teenager is underage and/or the images the teenager is viewing are of an underage person (or people). If it's simply written text between two adults, then, depending on what is stated, WP:BLP still applies. Flyer22 (talk) 20:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The current image is certainly worse than no picture at all. It depicts nothing but a hand holding a smartphone. Whatever the phone did show is so thoroughly blurred you can't even make out its supposed contents. Is it a picture? Is it text? It illustrates nothing and explains nothing. In fact, it only creates confusion and raises the question "what does that pic do here?".

Looking at the picture's details add nothing to this equation. The only hint it is even connected to the subject is the picture name. The rest is in chinese. It is quite telling the image caption needs to describe the picture, explaining in words what the picture should have made apparent.

Your assumptions, Flyer22, are wholly OR. That's all I'm going to say on that subject unless you ask me to explain further.

Let me also state I am in no way suggesting any picture of ours needs to be sexually explicit. The picture isn't bad because it doesn't show skin. It is bad because it shows or explains nothing at all. If we were to have a picture illustrating the "sending a text possibly with images" it absolutely needs to meet the minimum requirements: making the viewer understand that what is being done is what the article is about. It needs to illustrate the article subject. A picture can do this and still meet even Asian levels of decency (I note the pic is used by asian wikis) by being text-only, or with small images. Individual bits of naughtiness like words or genitals can be blurred, fine. But the context needs to be there or the image is worthless.

I'm sorry but this pic needs to go. It is a fail on all levels, and a good candidate for a speedy delete. I vote for immediate removal, and I vote for having no picture until a suitable one is found. CapnZapp (talk) 05:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Like the WP:OR policy states, "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages." So, no, nothing I stated above is WP:OR. And nothing you have stated above convinces me that we should not use the aforementioned image to illustrate the point of sexting in the Sexting article, which is why I reverted you. If you want the picture out of the article so badly, which you clearly do, start a WP:RfC about that or go ahead and see if you can get it speedily deleted. Flyer22 (talk) 05:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Not at all. First you ask me to bring it to the talk page, which I did. Then you tell me I need a RfC... Le sigh.

In reality, what is needed is for us to reach a consensus as a group of participating editors. That consensus does not require your approval, meaning I do not need to convince you of anything. Perhaps I should make clear that any arguments I made against the picture isn't about you, it's about the picture. My arguments aren't personal. Like the other editors participating in this discussion, I genuinely think the picture is objectively bad and that the article will be substantially improved by its removal. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 10:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Regarding my characterization of your arguments, my bad. I apologize. Let me rephrase. The argument "the caption for it is good" is very weak - either the picture is good, or it isn't. A good caption does not make a bad picture better. Regarding "The reason that the sexual images are blurred is likely due to the WP:BLP policy" I find that wholly irrelevant - the critisism is that the picture is blurred into uselessness. Please keep BLP out of this. The argument "I think it's a male teenager's hand" I won't even respond to. "if that teenager is underage": pure speculation - and remember, WHY the image was blurred is utterly irrelevant, the fact is that it IS blurred, and more to the point, that the blurring completely negates any utility of the picture for the purposes of illustrating this article's subject! "If it's simply written text between two adults", well, if you could see that, then the image would meet its purpose. Any BLP details (such as names) could still easily be blurred out, and does not excuse the excessive blurring as a whole. Thanks, CapnZapp (talk) 10:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I did not use WP:BLP or my personal commentary of thinking of the hand as a male teenager's hand (because of how popular sexting is among teenagers) as my argument for keeping or removing that image. I was commenting on my personal belief as to why the image may be blurred, and I was especially referring to minors when it comes to WP:BLP, though I can see how my post leaves room to think that I was referring to non-minors as well. I wasn't especially focusing on them, considering that sex imagery of adults is all over Wikipedia without any hint that the people in those photographs gave their consent for those photographs to appear on Wikipedia (a matter that has been extensively debated on Wikipedia). And, yes, when it comes to minors, if a sexual image is of underage people, the WP:BLP and/or child pornography-card has certainly been used; such cards being pulled is not unheard of on Wikipedia.

As for use of the image, I still disagree with the removal. Images help to brighten up an article, make an article more welcoming (Wikipedia has had some of its readers state that), and I still feel that it's better to have that image than no image at all. Flyer22 (talk) 10:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

And as for getting my approval for the image, I never stated or implied that you needed it. However, there is just the two us of here now debating this image matter. We both disagree, and that does call for an outside opinion, unless one of us relents. Flyer22 (talk) 10:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

And I never stated that your comments are personal. Flyer22 (talk) 10:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry it took a while. I'm back now. First, let's establish whether you propose to keep precisely this picture, or if your position is to have a picture, any picture. This will enable us to focus on either discussing the qualities of the current picture, or the quality of "having pictures in articles". CapnZapp (talk) 20:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

No, LOL, I don't have a preference for that picture. I stated above that, to me, it's better than no picture. If WP:Consensus is to remove it, though, I won't object to that consensus. Flyer22 (talk) 19:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

So, the reason you reverted the picture removal is solely because the article would be left without one otherwise. Okay, then, then I think we can come into agreement. My sole beef is with that particular picture; in no way am I arguing that the article should have fewer pictures. As long as that particular picture goes away, I'm done here. And now it appears we don't have to discuss its merits, or lack thereof. Thankfully. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 19:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that was my issue. I'm fine with the picture you traded in for the other one. Flyer22 (talk) 19:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Wait, what makes the current picture better or more accurate than the previous? Meatsgains (talk) 19:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Considering that I didn't (still don't) have a problem with the previous image, that is a question for CapnZapp. By "that was my issue," I agreeing to why I objected to removal of the image, not to CapnZapp's problem with the image. Flyer22 (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Both images are equally mediocre. I have no preference on which one to keep either. Meatsgains (talk) 20:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The Botticelli picture is pretty daft and should be changed. Irishpolitical (talk) 17:17, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I second this. This is not sexting. Simulating a conversation for the sake of the article and being child-friendly is pathetic. It should be deleted or replaced. It also takes away the caption "Sexting" on Commons, which is misleading and doesn't adhere to the policy. --2001:16B8:3151:1000:113B:E0B2:7AE:FB47 (talk) 23:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Dictionaries

Have any dictionaries accepted this neologism yet? It would help raise this article beyond WP:NEOLOGISM but I'm skeptical this article belongs anywhere beside Wiktionary. -- Horkana (talk) 01:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

In popular culture

The section "In popular culture" is very poorly referenced and unclear. The television shows mentioned are not all properly verified with some kind of a link showing they actually exist for starters and with enough secondary information to be sure the neologism "Sexting" was actually used, for all we know the episode may have been about explicit messages but without ever using the word "Sexting".

Secondly the items in that section have not been shown to be notable (which in most cases would also WP:VERIFY they actually exist) and ideally any items mentioned would include reviews of the shows that specifically take note of "Sexting" in the episode. -- Horkana (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The Inspiration for Sexters reference to the web 2.0 crowd-sourcing platform has been taken down twice. What would be the way to go about this? It is no doubt relevant to the sexting article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MasterJohnTheGeek (talk • contribs) 02:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC) why do they say it like only surten people do it but really any one can, i mean who cant stick a cell down there pants and take a pic :l —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.135.129.129 (talk) 03:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

npr

is npr an rs? Jake1993811 (talk) 00:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

sexting/cheating?

Is sexting cheating. Many men and woman who are married do this everydat but not with their actual partners, but with contacts of some socail network. And how wil this affect relationships? In my opinion, yes it is. Not only will the partner feel neglected because their husbands or wifes is online with someone else, being satisfied by someone else but he/she is not being satisfied by their partners, since their partners is to busy to give them any attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.26.87.2 (talk) 10:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree Pleasure cougar (talk) 16:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Study

Results suggested that moderate and high use of sexting could be a risk factor for some problematic behaviors such as dating violence, even if there is not a relationship with anxiety and depression symptoms. Keywords: Sexting, dating violence, psychological distress, adolescence, young adult — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lic.claudia (talk • contribs) 05:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Here is a new study that focuses on pre-High school students in the U.S.: [1] --v/r - TP 16:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Issues in "Background" section

The current "Background" section contains a debate between competing studies as to the prevalence of sexting. Such a debate may not be appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Is there perhaps a source that gives the current consensus view of those in a relevant profession (e.g. child psychologists?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.122.159 (talk) 16:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Which debate are you alluding to? Each poll included in the 'Background' section is independent from each other and performed in a different year. This shows the continual change in percentages of those partaking in "sexting." Best, Meatsgains (talk) 21:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

New content to add

I stumbled upon this article thinking it may deserve a home on this page. Though the actual word "sexting" is not detailed in the article, it does give a historical brief overview about Georgia's law on sending nude images. It is a real scenario that recently happened and I think it will improve the page. If other users agree with adding the content, I'll go ahead and move forward and add it in. Otherwise, the article may stand as only entertainment :) Let me know your thoughts. Meatsgains (talk) 17:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Original research bad phrasing

The following paragraph was in the "Risks" section and I have moved it from the article to here for evaluation and possible repair. It literally says that the mere consideration of "possible long-term results of sexting" will compromise ones mental health.(It should say that the sexting has the bad result not the consideration of it) It makes the unqualified statement without citing a ref, that bullying will inevitably occur as a result. It talks about photos "solicited to others" which is not typical English usage and again without ref states that they will "undoubtedly put emotional stress" on the sender. Finally as in the beginning it literally says that if one "considers" individuals getting or sending texts. one may have "emotional vulnerabilities and legal obligations." I could edit it into better English, but it seems to be unreferenced POV scare claims, which do not belong in an article. Some of it repeats what is said earlier in the section. (Edited to add: the "solicited to" comes from a Psychology Today article used elsewhere in the article as a ref but Psychology Today is a popular magazine and does niot qualify as a reliable source for medical issues).

Mental stability is also compromised when considering the possible long-term results of sexting. With sexts, such as pictures or videos being so accessible, it is inevitable that forms of bullying will occur in some way. Photos that have been solicited to others will undoubtedly put emotional distress on an individual who sent the particular picture or sext. In the same University of Utah study that was stated in the above paragraph, 25% of individuals who received a sext, forwarded it to other individuals.<ref name="Lohmann"/> Emotional vulnerabilities and legal obligations can arise when considering individuals receiving or sending a sext.

Edison (talk) 21:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Issues with style

It's bad stylistic habits to start a sentence with a figure after a full stop. Figures at the beginning of a sentence need to be spelled out instead. If there is coordination (as in "n to m percent) both figures should be spelled out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.147.178.228 (talk) 13:06, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Adding Balance

My group proposes to add to the existing Wikipedia article on sexting. This article currently includes information about the legal history of sexting with special attention paid to child pornography legislation as well as the role of sexting in hindering intimacy in romantic relationships, causing depression, and encouraging sexual behavior in young adults, which is framed as inherently problematic. Much of the information currently available in this article is negative and paints sexting as a social problem, with teens and young adults most at risk of the “dangers” of sexting. In order to contribute to a more balanced, thoughtful view of sexting on Wikipedia, our group will summarize research on how sexting has been portrayed positively or negatively in society, using its role in reinforcing and/or challenging the status quo as a guiding question as we add our findings to the article. By examining how people have responded to the rise of sexting in both American and international cultures and giving attention to the meaning that sexting has in people’s lives, we will attempt to answer the question of whether or not sexting can be considered queer in our contribution. Our addition to the article will challenge readers to conceptualize sexting not only as a social problem and a danger to youth, as it is currently depicted in the article, but as a phenomenon with many possible meanings and roles. Our research will therefore encourage readers to expand their views on sexting rather than limiting them, queering the public knowledge of sexting by making it easier for people to consider the potential for sexting to be both problematic and positive across different contexts.Ayoung40 (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)Ayoung40

Ayoung40 (talk · contribs), per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Giving "equal validity" can create a false balance, make sure that you are not adding false balance. Also make sure that you add WP:Reliable sources. Flyer22 (talk) 04:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Here is a draft of some proposed edits for feedback! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ayoung40/sandbox — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayoung40 (talk • contribs) 07:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Suggestive?

What do you guys think of this edit? Do you support or oppose the change? 79.67.68.206 (talk) 13:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• Question How do reliable sources define the word? — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 11:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
• Both suggestive and explicit per yr given source's definition: "‘Sexting’ is a term widely used to describe emails, text messages and other forms of electronic communication that contain sexual material, such as a suggestive or provocative text, or images of people who are nude, nearly nude or that are sexually explicit (Ringrose et al 2012)." (Source with downloadable PDF) Also per this definition: "Sexting is generally defined as the digital recording of sexually suggestive or explicit images and distribution by mobile phone messaging or through the Internet on social networking sites, such as Facebook, Instagram and YouTube. However, commentary often extends the definition to the sending of sexually suggestive texts." (source) EvergreenFir (talk) 05:20, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Sexting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151121032733/http://www.teensafe.com/blog/teen-sexting-part-iii-sexting-social-media/ to http://www.teensafe.com/blog/teen-sexting-part-iii-sexting-social-media/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150722213003/http://www.visuality.org/genderedcyborgs/wmst320_readings/sexting_mediaproduction.pdf to http://www.visuality.org/genderedcyborgs/wmst320_readings/sexting_mediaproduction.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151103192826/http://news.vawnet.org/2013/06/sexting/ to http://news.vawnet.org/2013/06/sexting/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110902123953/http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2009/02/20/sexting_teens to http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2009/02/20/sexting_teens

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:43, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Snapchat (15021193310).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:21, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2022

Research mentioned in this wiki is dated. After this sentence:

The study included 420 participants who were between the ages of 12 and 14 years old. The children were pulled from five urban public middle schools in Rhode Island between 2009 and 2012. Seventeen percent of the children tested claimed they had sent a sexually explicit text message in the past six months. Another five percent admitted to sending sexually explicit text messages and nude or semi-nude photos

I suggest adding something like this:

A more recent study by Justin Patchin and Sameer Hinduja involving approximately 5,500 US middle and high schoolers identified that while 13% had sent a sext and 18.5% had received a sext, one-third did it only one time (citation: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31309428/). Windsurfer19 (talk) 19:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Never formally marked as not done, and a triplicate (which is apparently a word) of #Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2022 (3). ^Clyde!_Franklin! 22:57, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2022 (2)

After this paragraph:

While mainstream media outlets, parents, and educators are rightfully worried about the negative legal, social, and emotional ramifications of teen sexting, much less is said about the issue of sexual consent. According to a 2012 study conducted by professors at the University of New South Wales,[59] due to child pornography laws that prohibit any minor from consenting to sexual activity, issues of consent among adolescent teens is seldom discussed. Much like the discourse surrounding "abstinence-only" education, the prevailing attitude towards sexting is how to prevent it from occurring rather than accepting its inevitability and channeling it in healthier ways. According to the study, instead of criminalizing teens who participate in sexting, the law should account for whether the images are shared consensually. This would mean adopting an "ethics" approach, one that teaches and guides teens on how to respect bodily autonomy and privacy.

I suggest adding something like:

A 2019 Journal of Adolescent Health article authored by scholars Justin Patchin and Sameer Hinduja entitled “It’s Time to Teach Safe Sexting" offers specific, actionable strategies towards this end within a harm reduction framework (citation: https://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(19)30509-9/fulltext). Windsurfer19 (talk) 19:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Never formally marked as not done, and a triplicate (which is apparently a word) of #Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2022 (3). ^Clyde!_Franklin! 22:59, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2022 (3)

After this sentence: The body of academic literature on sexting has been growing rapidly since the early 2000s.

Consider adding the following:

In 2022, a meta-analysis from the Journal of Adolescent Health involving over 48,000 youth across 38 studies since 2016 identified that approximately 19% had sent a sext, 34% had received a sext, and 14.5% had sent a sext without consent. Based on this review and the fact that these rates aligned with those found in previous meta-analyses, Camille Mori and the rest of the research team identified that youth sexting rates have probably plateaued. Windsurfer19 (talk) 20:37, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details.

You seem to already be an autoconfirmed user feel free to be bold and make the edits yourself. IntoTheNightSky (talk) 21:56, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

References