fbpx
Articles

How to talk to your kids about the problem of sexting

An interview with the CEO of a parental control app

/
July 6, 2022

Children today encounter an online world unlike anything experienced by prior generations. They are introduced to devices early and often, and families increasingly accept them as a normal fixture of everyday life.  Over 50% of American kids have their own smartphone by age 11, and on average, 13-year-olds now devote more than seven hours a day to non-school-related screen time.

This rapid and widespread adoption of personal devices has changed adolescent life in America in many ways, both positive and negative. While the benefits are widely acknowledged, such as convenience and communication among family members, many of the downsides are not yet fully appreciated, especially by parents. One of the most troubling trends associated with our ubiquitous devices is the increased exposure to inappropriate content and the rapid rise of sexting. Sexting is when people send sexually explicit or revealing pictures or texts.

The statistics on this trend are devastating. Two out of every 3 girls ages 12-18 have been asked to take and share a nude image. One study found that 14% of teens have sent a nude photo or video of themselves, and 24% of teens have admitted to receiving photos. Alarmingly, 1 in 8 teens has said that they have had their photos shared without their consent to others.  Given the growing prevalence of this phenomenon, parents need to address the uncomfortable topic of sexting.  As awkward as the conversation may be, it is preferable that children learn about this issue from their parents, rather than an anonymous stranger online or from their peers. Parents should help their children understand in an age-appropriate way that the power and freedom afforded by these devices must come with the responsibility to use them well. 

Conversations should ideally take place before your child receives his or her first phone in order to guard against the risk that they send a sext, and to prepare them for the possibility that they might receive one. But no matter the situation, parents should talk to their children early and often about such issues. But how do we begin such difficult conversations? 

Sean Clifford, CEO of Canopy, a parental control app that can deter sexting, answers questions below about this dangerous trend. He emphasizes the importance of making wise digital choices and provides advice for parents on how to address the topic of sexting with their children. 

Jill Waggoner: What are digital footprints, and why are they important? 

Sean Clifford: The choices we make online can follow us forever. They exist in the form of digital footprints, which are invisible trails of data that every internet-connected device leaves behind during normal use. Even when a photo, for example, is posted and later deleted, there is no guarantee that it is truly gone for good—some trace of it may be left somewhere. 

In addition, there are numerous ways other individuals can capture a digital image or video without permission, even if it’s only up for a moment. Some apps, like Snapchat, automatically delete content after a certain period of time, providing the false security that whatever is sent is fleeting and will soon disappear. However, even on such apps there are easy ways for others to save the content, such as taking a screenshot or recording the screen from another device.

JW: What are the potential consequences of sending a sext? 

SC: The consequences for sharing inappropriate photos can be significant. What may seem harmless, rebellious, or impermanent, often can result in painful, embarrassing, and unhealthy outcomes. Such consequences include: 

JW: Sometimes children do not know where to draw the line when taking or posting pictures of themselves. How can parents guide their children in creating appropriate boundaries for their digital choices? 

SC: We know that digital is forever, so we encourage kids to ask if they would be comfortable sending the photo in question to their parent or teacher or having it posted in a public forum accessible to the whole school. It’s a simple but powerful question: if they aren’t comfortable with a parent seeing an image or video they intend to post or share, they probably shouldn’t send it at all. Most children would be rightfully horrified if their mom or dad saw an inappropriate picture of them. Asking a question like this makes them think twice about the pictures or messages they are willing to send and reinforces that what they do online far outlives the moment. This approach also opens the door for parents to help their kids understand what type of photos are acceptable when it comes to taking pictures of themselves. 

It also can be helpful to listen to the first-hand experiences of teenagers who have had personal images go viral. The stories are heartbreaking and can help illustrate the potential consequences as shared from someone in a similar stage of life. Kids will often respond to parental advice that ‘life is different’ and ‘parents just don’t understand’, and in some cases, they are right! Introducing voices of their peers can help make the case.

JW: As you mentioned, digital choices can affect the future. How should parents approach this in conversation with their children? 

SC: Parents should encourage them to think seriously about the following two questions:

  1. Who do you want to be?
  2. How do you want to be known? 

These questions place an emphasis on the future, rather than the present. As we discussed previously, digital choices stick with us forever, potentially even years after something was posted or sent. Help your child understand that sending or posting pictures might seem harmless now, but it can impact their future and their reputation. Regrettably, the cost of making a mistake today, if captured digitally, is simply higher than it used to be. As much as we may wish this weren’t the case, it is a reality of our new digital age. 

JW: How can parents prepare their children for situations where they are asked to send a sext? 

SC: First, help your children understand that it’s not only acceptable, but a good thing, to say no. Often, kids take part in sexting due to the fear of peer pressure, being judged, or made fun of for abstaining. Frame the request as a form of manipulation, which it is. As any parent of a teen can attest, they hate the idea of being manipulated to act against their own will.

This leads me to my second point, which is preparation. It is vital to proactively prepare your children and equip them with the reasons—and hopefully the confidence—say no when the moment arises. Give them some ideas for how to respond to a text that is asking for inappropriate photos and what they should do if they receive one on their device. For instance, they could respond with, “My parents put an app on my phone that will alert them if I send a photo like that.” Finally, it is important for them to know they should never apologize for not sending a sext. Saying no and standing up for oneself is a decision they can be proud of—now and in the years to come.

Conclusion 

Parenting in our digital age can be frightening. It has always been challenging to help our children protect their purity, but it seems almost impossible to guard their hearts and minds from technology’s pull toward the illicit. Yes, it is important to equip our kids with practical ways to avoid these temptations. But most importantly, as Christians, we must call them to the One who has the power to change their very desires. Jesus alone can give our children new hearts that want to walk in purity and find their satisfaction in him. And ultimately, as we seek to parent well in all the complexities of our society, we entrust them to the God who can lead them in paths of righteousness for the sake of his name (Ps. 23: 3).

Jill Waggoner

Jill Waggoner serves as a communications and PR strategist, writing and developing content for the organization’s online and print resources. She has served the ERLC since 2005, including as brand manager for Global Hunger Relief from 2014-2018. A graduate of Union University, she and her family reside in Lebanon, Tennessee. Read More

Article 12: The Future of AI

We affirm that AI will continue to be developed in ways that we cannot currently imagine or understand, including AI that will far surpass many human abilities. God alone has the power to create life, and no future advancements in AI will usurp Him as the Creator of life. The church has a unique role in proclaiming human dignity for all and calling for the humane use of AI in all aspects of society.

We deny that AI will make us more or less human, or that AI will ever obtain a coequal level of worth, dignity, or value to image-bearers. Future advancements in AI will not ultimately fulfill our longings for a perfect world. While we are not able to comprehend or know the future, we do not fear what is to come because we know that God is omniscient and that nothing we create will be able to thwart His redemptive plan for creation or to supplant humanity as His image-bearers.

Genesis 1; Isaiah 42:8; Romans 1:20-21; 5:2; Ephesians 1:4-6; 2 Timothy 1:7-9; Revelation 5:9-10

Article 11: Public Policy

We affirm that the fundamental purposes of government are to protect human beings from harm, punish those who do evil, uphold civil liberties, and to commend those who do good. The public has a role in shaping and crafting policies concerning the use of AI in society, and these decisions should not be left to those who develop these technologies or to governments to set norms.

We deny that AI should be used by governments, corporations, or any entity to infringe upon God-given human rights. AI, even in a highly advanced state, should never be delegated the governing authority that has been granted by an all-sovereign God to human beings alone. 

Romans 13:1-7; Acts 10:35; 1 Peter 2:13-14

Article 10: War

We affirm that the use of AI in warfare should be governed by love of neighbor and the principles of just war. The use of AI may mitigate the loss of human life, provide greater protection of non-combatants, and inform better policymaking. Any lethal action conducted or substantially enabled by AI must employ 5 human oversight or review. All defense-related AI applications, such as underlying data and decision-making processes, must be subject to continual review by legitimate authorities. When these systems are deployed, human agents bear full moral responsibility for any actions taken by the system.

We deny that human agency or moral culpability in war can be delegated to AI. No nation or group has the right to use AI to carry out genocide, terrorism, torture, or other war crimes.

Genesis 4:10; Isaiah 1:16-17; Psalm 37:28; Matthew 5:44; 22:37-39; Romans 13:4

Article 9: Security

We affirm that AI has legitimate applications in policing, intelligence, surveillance, investigation, and other uses supporting the government’s responsibility to respect human rights, to protect and preserve human life, and to pursue justice in a flourishing society.

We deny that AI should be employed for safety and security applications in ways that seek to dehumanize, depersonalize, or harm our fellow human beings. We condemn the use of AI to suppress free expression or other basic human rights granted by God to all human beings.

Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-14

Article 8: Data & Privacy

We affirm that privacy and personal property are intertwined individual rights and choices that should not be violated by governments, corporations, nation-states, and other groups, even in the pursuit of the common good. While God knows all things, it is neither wise nor obligatory to have every detail of one’s life open to society.

We deny the manipulative and coercive uses of data and AI in ways that are inconsistent with the love of God and love of neighbor. Data collection practices should conform to ethical guidelines that uphold the dignity of all people. We further deny that consent, even informed consent, although requisite, is the only necessary ethical standard for the collection, manipulation, or exploitation of personal data—individually or in the aggregate. AI should not be employed in ways that distort truth through the use of generative applications. Data should not be mishandled, misused, or abused for sinful purposes to reinforce bias, strengthen the powerful, or demean the weak.

Exodus 20:15, Psalm 147:5; Isaiah 40:13-14; Matthew 10:16 Galatians 6:2; Hebrews 4:12-13; 1 John 1:7 

Article 7: Work

We affirm that work is part of God’s plan for human beings participating in the cultivation and stewardship of creation. The divine pattern is one of labor and rest in healthy proportion to each other. Our view of work should not be confined to commercial activity; it must also include the many ways that human beings serve each other through their efforts. AI can be used in ways that aid our work or allow us to make fuller use of our gifts. The church has a Spirit-empowered responsibility to help care for those who lose jobs and to encourage individuals, communities, employers, and governments to find ways to invest in the development of human beings and continue making vocational contributions to our lives together.

We deny that human worth and dignity is reducible to an individual’s economic contributions to society alone. Humanity should not use AI and other technological innovations as a reason to move toward lives of pure leisure even if greater social wealth creates such possibilities.

Genesis 1:27; 2:5; 2:15; Isaiah 65:21-24; Romans 12:6-8; Ephesians 4:11-16

Article 6: Sexuality

We affirm the goodness of God’s design for human sexuality which prescribes the sexual union to be an exclusive relationship between a man and a woman in the lifelong covenant of marriage.

We deny that the pursuit of sexual pleasure is a justification for the development or use of AI, and we condemn the objectification of humans that results from employing AI for sexual purposes. AI should not intrude upon or substitute for the biblical expression of sexuality between a husband and wife according to God’s design for human marriage.

Genesis 1:26-29; 2:18-25; Matthew 5:27-30; 1 Thess 4:3-4

Article 5: Bias

We affirm that, as a tool created by humans, AI will be inherently subject to bias and that these biases must be accounted for, minimized, or removed through continual human oversight and discretion. AI should be designed and used in such ways that treat all human beings as having equal worth and dignity. AI should be utilized as a tool to identify and eliminate bias inherent in human decision-making.

We deny that AI should be designed or used in ways that violate the fundamental principle of human dignity for all people. Neither should AI be used in ways that reinforce or further any ideology or agenda, seeking to subjugate human autonomy under the power of the state.

Micah 6:8; John 13:34; Galatians 3:28-29; 5:13-14; Philippians 2:3-4; Romans 12:10

Article 4: Medicine

We affirm that AI-related advances in medical technologies are expressions of God’s common grace through and for people created in His image and that these advances will increase our capacity to provide enhanced medical diagnostics and therapeutic interventions as we seek to care for all people. These advances should be guided by basic principles of medical ethics, including beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice, which are all consistent with the biblical principle of loving our neighbor.

We deny that death and disease—effects of the Fall—can ultimately be eradicated apart from Jesus Christ. Utilitarian applications regarding healthcare distribution should not override the dignity of human life. Fur- 3 thermore, we reject the materialist and consequentialist worldview that understands medical applications of AI as a means of improving, changing, or completing human beings.

Matthew 5:45; John 11:25-26; 1 Corinthians 15:55-57; Galatians 6:2; Philippians 2:4

Article 3: Relationship of AI & Humanity

We affirm the use of AI to inform and aid human reasoning and moral decision-making because it is a tool that excels at processing data and making determinations, which often mimics or exceeds human ability. While AI excels in data-based computation, technology is incapable of possessing the capacity for moral agency or responsibility.

We deny that humans can or should cede our moral accountability or responsibilities to any form of AI that will ever be created. Only humanity will be judged by God on the basis of our actions and that of the tools we create. While technology can be created with a moral use in view, it is not a moral agent. Humans alone bear the responsibility for moral decision making.

Romans 2:6-8; Galatians 5:19-21; 2 Peter 1:5-8; 1 John 2:1

Article 2: AI as Technology

We affirm that the development of AI is a demonstration of the unique creative abilities of human beings. When AI is employed in accordance with God’s moral will, it is an example of man’s obedience to the divine command to steward creation and to honor Him. We believe in innovation for the glory of God, the sake of human flourishing, and the love of neighbor. While we acknowledge the reality of the Fall and its consequences on human nature and human innovation, technology can be used in society to uphold human dignity. As a part of our God-given creative nature, human beings should develop and harness technology in ways that lead to greater flourishing and the alleviation of human suffering.

We deny that the use of AI is morally neutral. It is not worthy of man’s hope, worship, or love. Since the Lord Jesus alone can atone for sin and reconcile humanity to its Creator, technology such as AI cannot fulfill humanity’s ultimate needs. We further deny the goodness and benefit of any application of AI that devalues or degrades the dignity and worth of another human being. 

Genesis 2:25; Exodus 20:3; 31:1-11; Proverbs 16:4; Matthew 22:37-40; Romans 3:23

Article 1: Image of God

We affirm that God created each human being in His image with intrinsic and equal worth, dignity, and moral agency, distinct from all creation, and that humanity’s creativity is intended to reflect God’s creative pattern.

We deny that any part of creation, including any form of technology, should ever be used to usurp or subvert the dominion and stewardship which has been entrusted solely to humanity by God; nor should technology be assigned a level of human identity, worth, dignity, or moral agency.

Genesis 1:26-28; 5:1-2; Isaiah 43:6-7; Jeremiah 1:5; John 13:34; Colossians 1:16; 3:10; Ephesians 4:24