I think the idea is that poor mental health outcomes would be a proxy for a large fraction of the wide range of issues phones could cause.
That’s a huge if and not substantiated by what they measured in this study. It’s like saying “so what if they were sexually assaulted, she’s fine now.
The harm a pre-teen suffers from sending nudes to internet strangers is likely substantial trauma for the rest of their life.
Was that ever researched? Or is it something that adults just find reasonable?
From my experience people are fairly good as adults, with dealing with memories of their own youth voluntary stupidity especially if it didn't result in damage to their bodies or didn't alter their life in significant manner.
This by no way excuses the behavior of a person that misled a kid into something like that, but I think one can abhor somebody doing something that has potential horrible consequences while at the same time observing that damage they managed to inflict in that case was actually minimal.
There probably isn’t a lot of research wrt OP’s example since it’s such a new(ish) phenomenon.
I was never groomed but I managed to screw up my perception of romantic relationships all by myself with little help of same aged friends as I grew up.
It’s good to survive and thrive. It’s another thing to say that traumatic events in childhood shouldn’t be avoided. And perpetrators of those crimes shouldn’t be punished.
Adults soliciting nudes from minors seems pretty bad to me. The fact that most victims don’t have dire outcomes doesn’t convince me that adults soliciting nudes from minors is ok.
My point was that if they have substantial trauma, that should show up in e.g. higher rates of depression
I can’t find a study of people with depression to see who was sexually groomed as an adolescent vs who wasn’t.
It would be a different story if she got blackmailed or something, but it seems like she was just exploring her sexuality. That's healthy, right?
What are teenagers supposed to do during a pandemic?
They are bored so go ahead and send pictures to a pedophile? What?
- With growing compromises, anything sent on the internet today is likely to be found and linked back someday.
- We have no idea what risks will happen in 20 years.
- Even today, it can lead to stalky / groomy / etc. things
Those sorts of rare events won't be captured well in metrics. Usually, it's not that 100% of people are harmed, but that 1% suffers extreme harm.
So as much as I agree with the logic, I disagree with the conclusion.
(you're the other way around: your conclusion is right, but your logic is missing, and replaced by outrage)
Would you prefer them to just not explore their sexuality?
Or explore it online with people they know, like their classmates?
Everyone matures at different rates, but I think it’s pretty universal that no 13 year old is mature enough to consent to nude photos sent to strangers who are likely adults. Not to mention it’s criminal.
What this means in the grand scheme of things though I'm not sure.
What is the alternative though? Trying to shelter kids from the internet with filters which are guaranteed to be either overbearing or easily bypassed? Deny them a phone which many of their peers will have (in all likelyhood the photos will just get taken on someone else's phone)? Try to treat them as intelligent young people and explain the realities.
The "best" solution in my mind, is probably filtering internet access until they hit puberty, then have the talk. What goes in the talk, idk (probably what catfishing is, promoting neck-down nudes only, sex-positivity, and maybe one or two other things).
The sex-positivity feels like the most important part though, and what I was getting at originally. So many parents (including my own) only focus on what not to do, that kids don't know what to do. So many keep doing the same things in secret and just feel guilty about it.
Is there a future where it's the norm to promote safe sex amongst teens? Or are we too much of prudes to ever touch the topic?