Sizzle a mistake

So yes, I get angry when I see parents encouraged to serve alcohol to minors or see (sexting) apps, like Snapchat or the new Sizzle, developed and then presented as 'harm minimization' approaches to 'inevitable' teen issues.

This approach lulls teens (and their carers) into a false sense of security and exploits those already vulnerable. It is not harm minimization; it is normalisation of risk-taking behaviours.

Just to be clear, I am not for one minute suggesting that young people are empty-headed little vessels, lacking the capacity for critical thought processes. However, consistent scientific research tells us that children do not developmentally, emotionally or behaviourally function at the level of (most of) the adults in their lives.

The costs are real and destructive.

Studies are clear that rather than functioning as an alternative to 'real world' sexual behavior, sexting appears to be part of a cluster of risky sexual behaviors among adolescents and was statistically significantly associated with sexual activity. It showed a near-significant trend with reports of unsafe sex.

Kids Helpline recently stated that, 'In a three-month period, around 500 counselling sessions were offered to kids who called with sexting-related concerns'.

Hence, making it easier for teens to binge drink, smoke pot or send nudes, is not going to make it safer. Rather, it leads to the exploitation of young people's vulnerabilities for someone else's profit.

I find it laughable that the critics cry 'moral panic', when it is in fact they who frantically determine all teens in need of snake oil harm-minimisation remedies. This is despite the evidence that suggests most teens are not out participating in sex-crazed drunken orgies. Why is this? Gasp! – Could it be that many are actually taking into account, the guidance offered by adults, encouraging them into becoming fully functioning, responsible, future leaders?

So next time you hear someone cry 'moral panics', recognize it for what it is - A lazy attempt at an argument, with little proof behind the claim. Then go off and find out more about the other view expressed, because something there is possibly closer to the truth.