Safe Sexting, Sexual Orientation, and Gender: Risky Sexting in a Community Sample

IF 2.9 2区 社会学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL Archives of Sexual Behavior Pub Date : 2024-12-28 DOI:10.1007/s10508-024-03050-w
Emma J. Holmes, Kelly M. Babchishin
{"title":"Safe Sexting, Sexual Orientation, and Gender: Risky Sexting in a Community Sample","authors":"Emma J. Holmes,&nbsp;Kelly M. Babchishin","doi":"10.1007/s10508-024-03050-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Among young adults, engaging in sexting (i.e., sharing sexually explicit materials of oneself with others) can be a healthy and normative sexual experience. However, there is risk associated with some types of sexting. The present study examined the rates and characteristics of high-risk sexting in a community sample of emerging adults (i.e., aged 18–30 years; <i>N</i> = 3,022). High-risk sexting was defined as participating in at least three of the following behaviors: showing one’s face in a sext, sexting someone met online, sexting before the age of 16, sexting while intoxicated, or posting one’s sext to a website. Over a quarter of participants had ever sent a high-risk sext (28%). Cisgender LGBPA+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, pansexual, asexual, and other non-straight sexual orientations; 38%, 462/1,220) and transgender (34%; 106/309) participants were significantly more likely to have sent a high-risk sext than heterosexual cisgender participants (18%; 271/1,493). When examining the strength of the relationship between impulsivity, susceptibility to peer pressure, perceptions of sexting, and sexual history with high-risk sexting, we found that the effect sizes overlapped across all three groups, meaning that the relationship between each of the correlates and high-risk sexting was not significantly different across the three groups. We suggest that peer pressure, perceptions of sexting, and impulsivity could be promising targets to inform effective sexual education content, regardless of sexual orientation or gender.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":8327,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Sexual Behavior","volume":"54 8","pages":"2921 - 2931"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Sexual Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-024-03050-w","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Among young adults, engaging in sexting (i.e., sharing sexually explicit materials of oneself with others) can be a healthy and normative sexual experience. However, there is risk associated with some types of sexting. The present study examined the rates and characteristics of high-risk sexting in a community sample of emerging adults (i.e., aged 18–30 years; N = 3,022). High-risk sexting was defined as participating in at least three of the following behaviors: showing one’s face in a sext, sexting someone met online, sexting before the age of 16, sexting while intoxicated, or posting one’s sext to a website. Over a quarter of participants had ever sent a high-risk sext (28%). Cisgender LGBPA+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, pansexual, asexual, and other non-straight sexual orientations; 38%, 462/1,220) and transgender (34%; 106/309) participants were significantly more likely to have sent a high-risk sext than heterosexual cisgender participants (18%; 271/1,493). When examining the strength of the relationship between impulsivity, susceptibility to peer pressure, perceptions of sexting, and sexual history with high-risk sexting, we found that the effect sizes overlapped across all three groups, meaning that the relationship between each of the correlates and high-risk sexting was not significantly different across the three groups. We suggest that peer pressure, perceptions of sexting, and impulsivity could be promising targets to inform effective sexual education content, regardless of sexual orientation or gender.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
安全的性短信、性取向和性别:社区样本中的危险性短信
在年轻人中,发送色情短信(即与他人分享自己的色情内容)可能是一种健康和规范的性体验。然而,某些类型的色情短信存在风险。本研究调查了社区初成人样本(即18-30岁;n = 3022)。高风险性短信被定义为至少参与以下三种行为:在色情短信中露出自己的脸,给网上认识的人发色情短信,16岁之前发色情短信,醉酒时发色情短信,或者在网站上发布色情短信。超过四分之一的参与者曾经发送过高风险的性短信(28%)。顺性LGBPA+(女同性恋、男同性恋、双性恋、泛性恋、无性恋和其他非直性取向);38%(462/ 1220)和变性人(34%;106/309)的参与者比异性恋的异性恋参与者更有可能发送高风险的性短信(18%;271/1,493)。当检查冲动、对同伴压力的易感性、对性短信的感知以及与高风险性短信的性史之间的关系时,我们发现效应量在所有三组中都是重叠的,这意味着每个相关因素与高风险性短信之间的关系在三组中没有显著差异。我们建议同伴压力、对性短信的认知和冲动可能是有效的性教育内容的有希望的目标,而不考虑性取向或性别。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
13.20%
发文量
299
期刊介绍: The official publication of the International Academy of Sex Research, the journal is dedicated to the dissemination of information in the field of sexual science, broadly defined. Contributions consist of empirical research (both quantitative and qualitative), theoretical reviews and essays, clinical case reports, letters to the editor, and book reviews.
期刊最新文献
The Psychometric Properties of the Ukrainian Version of the Revised Sociosexual Orientation Questionnaire. Correction: Experiences with AI-Generated Pornography: A Quantitative Content Analysis of Reddit Posts A Current Approach to Logistic Regression Analysis of Birth Order and Sexual Orientation. Premature Ejaculation in Western Medical History. Cisgender Women Navigating Genital Insecurities: Coping, Genital Cosmetic Surgery, and the Role of Medical Encounters.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1