Image via Toronto Sun
Recently, a federal study has been approved has already cost $42,676 to discover if sexting increases risky sexual behavior of college girls. As a student getting in-state tuition at CALS, this would cover my entire year’s education here at Cornell, including room and board.
The study will track women of college age finding out information through participants’ self-reported data, diary entries, and text messages.
Even though in theory there might be a correlation between the two, this study is a blatant misuse of taxpayer money. True, sexting in itself is risky behavior because the sext’s recipient can show them to his/her friends or worse, post them online. Therefore, if a girl is sexting she is already engaging in a risky sexual act, which might make her more likely to partake in other risky sexual acts. This study aimed at finding a possible correlation between one risky sexual behavior and others is the same as doing a study to determine whether a person who drinks beer also drinks cocktails—a study whose finding anyone could determine.
Still, this all depends on the definition of a risky sexual behavior. Risky sexual behavior are acts that can result in the contraction of a sexually transmitted infection or unwanted pregnancy. Within this framework, there was actually already a study completed by the University of Texas Medical Branch, which found no link between sexting and risky sexual behaviors in teens over time.
Nicole Cember ‘16 said she does not believe the study is pointless, but agreed with my main point that the study should not be at the cost of the taxpayer.
“I think it is a good study, but I don’t know about using federal money to do it,” said Cember.
The results of this study are unlikely to yield any real benefits. It is yet another example of the government misusing taxpayer money, and it’s doubtful that the study will stop people from sexting, which has become a staple of today’s adolescent and young adult culture.
Does a person who drinks beer also drink cocktails? My guess, based on a limited study, is that some do and some don’t. (I drink beer but not cocktails. My brothers will drink anything)
Don’t know about the “sexting” study since that is way beyond my scope of educational attainment. But I wonder? If a girls sexts with the wrong guy can her phone contract a computer virus?
Sexting is sending sexual images/texts via instant messaging. So, no, contracting computer viruses isn’t a concern here (unless you’re exchanging messages on some sketchy website or something).
The first point here is that it’s a useless study. Suppose the researchers found a strong correlation between sexting and other sexually risky behavior, then what? This is probably the case anyways, but “proving” it via official research is pointless. It’s not going to make anyone who does it stop. If you are a good parent, you will tell your sons and daughters (especially if they are underage) not to sext, and if you have common sense, you won’t. You don’t need an academic study to re-affirm common sense.
The second point is why is the federal government concerned with this at all? Aren’t national security, immigration policy, foreign policy, federal tax code reform, etc. more pressing concerns? As a conservative, I would rather see that money go back into the people’s pockets, and as a liberal, I would surmise you would rather see that money go to something else–expanded government benefits, for example. I think we can both agree throwing money down the drain to fund this asinine study is wrong from all angles.
Casey..the computer virus comment was supposed to be a joke (you know, like getting vd due to unprotected sexual activity).
In regards to the study. I don’t know if it was an actual government study or an educational study funded by the government. On the surface it does not sound very worthwhile. It would be interesting to see the exact proposal. I remember reading about a study of some bug in Texas a few years ago. It was for millions of dollars and people criticized it. But on further research I found that it was an insect that was causing millions of dollars of damage to certain crops. They were trying to figure out how to contain or destroy it without doing even more harm. Helping Texas farmers survive.
My point is that sometimes people can make things sound stupid when they may actually have some important issues to look into.It would be interesting to see the actual name of the study , etc.
I am not saying all studies are worthwhile, but I am not going to judge this one without more details.
As a liberal also would like to see more money in my own pocket, to be sure. I like money as much as the next guy. But I also think there areas where we need to spend money to invest in the infrastructure and in the future. I think money for education is usually well spent. Money for police protection is essential. Medical research and the space program come to mind as areas in which the government should be involved. The internet that we are using today has come about because US taxpayer dollars were used to finance it’s origins.
Certainly, as long as we have unemployment (which a capitalist-style economy needs in order to be flexible and grow) I think we do need to help people who are temporarily unemployed. And children.
So, yes. We can certainly disagree on how best to spend resources and the level of taxation that is appropriate.
(by the way, if you ever desire a liberal point of view you can checkout my spoutings on http://www.josephurban.wordpress.com)
Only 40k? The government’s getting frugal these days…
Sign of better things to come?
As a conservative, I believe very strongly in American exceptionalism, especially so in the realm of academic research. It is because of this that the US is still the greatest country in the world to come to for higher education. We as a country spend about 70 billion of federal dollars on non-defense research, which accounts for about 1% of our federal budget. Rather than criticizing the use $40K on this study, I applaud the the efficiency of our government to fund the study of a relevant sociological phenomenon with only a measly $40K.
There is no way you can argue sexting is a “relevant sociological phenomenon.” What’s next? Twerking?
If government wants to fund a study/research on something, I think the aim of that research should relate to something government is directly involved in. For example, studying traffic flow patterns because government is involved in road-building, or funding research into military technology since the government runs the U.S. military.
Now, you might say that the government has a vested interest in sexting because it is a crime if done when underage and, as the study seeks to determine, it could lead to other sexual assault crimes. You could argue government, because it operates the criminal justice system, has an interest in reducing crime. But will this study reduce crime? As I wrote in a previous comment, if this study found a correlation between sexting and other risky sexual behavior, then what? Nothing would come of it.
Whether or not you like sexting, twerking, etc., these phenomena are pervasive in our culture, and it is important from a sociological standpoint to understand them. That’s the job of a sociologist, to explore social behavior and analyze it.
From what I understand, your issue with the study is its utility. However, the United States of America has a long-standing tradition of funding research and other activities that involves intellectual pursuit, regardless of its utility to society. For example, the National Endowment for the Humanities spends about $150 million of taxpayer money, and (for the benefit of the doubt) I speculate that the majority of their research will never be applicable to “something the government is directly involved in”.
We, as a country, spend a MINUSCULE amount of our tax dollars on intellectual pursuits because it is inherently part of our traditional American values. To divorce such research, even it if it is for something as obscure “Nonconformist 19th century British literature” (a real study funded by the NEH), from our federal spending on the sole grounds of utility is to effectively dissolve the American culture and experience that we as conservatives hold so dear to our hearts.
As I think I said in an earlier post. I would like to see the actual proposal, in context. It is very easy to take things out of context and make them seem silly or not worthwhile. I am not necessarily supporting the study, but does anyone have the actual title, names of researchers, written proposal, etc.? I just don’t trust other people’s claims on these matters.