From 'Friends with Benefits' to 'Sextortion:' A Nuanced Investigation of Adolescents' Online Sexual Risk Experiences
Abstract
Sexual exploration is a natural part of adolescent development; yet, unmediated internet access has enabled teens to engage in a wider variety of potentially riskier sexual interactions than previous generations, from normatively appropriate sexual interactions to sexually abusive situations. Teens have turned to online peer support platforms to disclose and seek support about these experiences. Therefore, we analyzed posts (N=45,955) made by adolescents (ages 13--17) on an online peer support platform to deeply examine their online sexual risk experiences. By applying a mixed methods approach, we 1) accurately (average of AUC = 0.90) identified posts that contained teen disclosures about online sexual risk experiences and classified the posts based on level of consent (i.e., consensual, non-consensual, sexual abuse) and relationship type (i.e., stranger, dating/friend, family) between the teen and the person in which they shared the sexual experience, 2) detected statistically significant differences in the proportions of posts based on these dimensions, and 3) further unpacked the nuance in how these online sexual risk experiences were typically characterized in the posts. Teens were significantly more likely to engage in consensual sexting with friends/dating partners; unwanted solicitations were more likely from strangers and sexual abuse was more likely when a family member was involved. We contribute to the HCI and CSCW literature around youth online sexual risk experiences by moving beyond the false dichotomy of "safe" versus "risky". Our work provides a deeper understanding of technology-mediated adolescent sexual behaviors from the perspectives of sexual well-being, risk detection, and the prevention of online sexual violence toward youth.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Teens most often encounter unwanted sexual solicitations from seemingly innocuous individuals they meet online or already know in person, rather than from overtly suspicious strangers.
“when in reality, teens most often encounter unwanted sexual solicitations from seemingly innocuous individuals they meet online [54, 92] or already know in person [13, 45, 75].”
From From Vulnerable to Resilient: Examining Parent and Teen Perceptions on How to Respond to Unwanted Cybergrooming Advances (2026) · cites this paper as [13]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 87 · Cited by 36
- Authors
- Alsoubai, A., Song, J., Razi, A., Naher, N., De Choudhury, M., & Wisniewski, P. J.
- Affiliations
- Vanderbilt University (US)
- University of Central Florida (US)
- Drexel University (US)
- Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA, USA
- Vanderbilt University, Nashville , TN, USA
- Venue
- Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
- Published
- 2022-11-07
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- CSCW2
- Pages
- 1-32
- ISSN
- 2573-0142 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4309618159
- Cited by
- 36
- References
- 87
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 7
- FWCI
- 8.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- U.S. National Science Foundation (IIP-1827700 and IIS-1844881)
- William T. Grant Foundation grant (187941)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Adolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Impact of Technology on Adolescents
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Sexuality, Behavior, and Technology
- Keywords
- adolescent sexual behavior, sexting, sextortion, online sexual abuse, consent, relationship type, risk detection, sexual well-being, family sexual abuse
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
