This document summarizes a study presented at the American Public Health Association on sexual behaviors associated with meeting sexual partners online in adolescence. The study found that 11% or fewer of adolescents, including LGB adolescents, reported meeting a sexual partner online. Meeting partners online was not associated with riskier sexual behaviors like decreased condom use or more concurrent partners. Overall rates of risky sexual behaviors were concerning across all groups studied. The study concludes online partner meeting should not be overemphasized in sex education for adolescents but that more needs to be done to promote preventive sexual behaviors.

1. American Public Health Association
Boston, MA
Tuesday, November 5, 2013
Sexual behaviors associated with meeting
sexual partners online in adolescence
Michele L. Ybarra MPH PhD, Center for Innovative
Public Health Research
Kimberly J. Mitchell PhD, Crimes against Children
Research Center, University of New Hampshire

2. Disclosure
The authors have no conflicts to declare.

3. Acknowledgements
The project described was supported by Award Number
R01 HD057191 from the National Institute of Child
Health and Human Development. The content is solely
the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily
represent the official views of the National Institute of Child
Health and Human Development or the National Institutes
of Health.
We would like to thank the entire Study team from the
Center for Innovative Public Health Research, the
University of New Hampshire, the Gay Lesbian Straight
Education Network (GLSEN), Latrobe University, and
Harris Interactive, who contributed to the planning and
implementation of the study. We thank the study
participants for their time and willingness to participate in
this study.

4. Study Motivation
 Given the ubiquity of youth Internet use, it
seems likely that the Internet is a tool used by
young people to explore their sexuality.
 Previous research has noted that the Internet is
used by some teens to explore their sexuality
(Subrahmanyam, Greenfield, Tynes, 2004). More recently,
“sexting” has been of interest (Rice, Rhoades, Winetrobe,
et al., 2012; Temple, Paul, van den Berg, et al., 2012).
 What is noticeably absent from this discussion is
whether and how young people are using the
Internet to find sexual partners. Examining this
by sexual orientation identity is important
because of differential risk for HIV and other
STIs.

5. Teen Health and Technology
survey methodology
Fielded August 4, 2010 - January 17, 2011
IRB approval from CIRBI , UNH IRB, and GLSEN
IRB
 Parental permission waived
 Eligibility criteria:


◦ 13-18 years of age
◦ Living in the United States
◦ Informed assent
Participants identified through Harris Poll Online
(n=3,989) and GLSEN outreach efforts (emails,
FB ads; n=1,918)
 The survey was self-completed online
 The median survey length was 23 minutes for
HPOL respondents and 34 minutes for GLSEN


6. Research questions
1.
How many adolescents 13-18 years of age
have met someone online that they
subsequently had sex with offline?
2.
Is meeting an online sexual partner associated
with risky sexual behavior (condom use,
concurrent sexual partners) or other indicators
of concern (partner ever having an STI)?

7. Measures: Sexual behavior
“Have you ever had oral sex (we mean
stimulating the vagina or penis with the mouth or
tongue) when you wanted to?”
 “Have you ever had sex with another person that
involved a finger or sex toy going into the vagina
or anus when you wanted to?”
 “Have you ever, when you wanted to, had sex
where a penis went into a vagina?”
 “Have you ever, when you wanted to, had sex
where someone's penis went into your anus?”
and “Have you ever, when you wanted to, had
sex where your penis went into someone's
anus?”


8. Measures: Sexual orientation
“Below is a list of terms that people often use to
describe their sexuality or sexual orientation.
How would you describe your sexuality or sexual
orientation? Please select all that apply.”
 Response options included: Gay, Lesbian,
Bisexual, Straight/heterosexual, Questioning,
Queer, Other, or Not Sure.
 Youth who endorsed “straight/heterosexual”
exclusively, were compared to youth who
endorsed any other sexual orientation identity


9. Teen Health and Technology survey
sample characteristics (n=5,680)
Male nonLGB
(n=1506)
Female
non-LGB
(n=1887)
Male GB
(n=889)
Female LG
(n=1398)
Age (M: SE)
15.4 (0.5)
15.7 (0.04)
16.1 (0.1)
15.8 (0.08)
White race
73%
66%
62%
65%
Hispanic
ethnicity
17%
19%
29%
17%
Lower than
average
income
27%
27%
32%
32%
Small town /
rural setting
40%
44%
29%
36%

10. Meeting a partner online (among all
youth)
95%
Female LG
5%
89%
Male GB
11%
Female non-LGB
98%
2%
Male non-LGB
99%
2%
0%
10%
20%
30%
No
Design-based F(2.64, 14592.17)= 25.9418
40%
50%
Yes
P = 0.0000
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%

11. Meeting a partner online (among
youth who have had sex)
Female LG
89%
Male GB
11%
86%
14%
Female non-LGB
91%
9%
Male non-LGB
93%
7%
0%
20%
40%
No
Design-based F(2.65, 4642.94)=
6.8262
Yes
P = 0.0003
60%
80%
100%

12. Condom use at last vaginal / anal
sex
100%
85%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
72%
77%
60%
53%
45%
45%
45%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Most
Most
Most
Most
Most
Most
Most
Most
recent recent recent recent recent recent recent recent
partner partner partner partner partner partner partner partner
not met
met
not met
met
not met
met
not met
met
online online online online online online online online
(n=410) (n=103) (n=542) (n=51) (n=265) (n=14) (n=346) (n=27)
LGB Males
LGB Females
Non-LGB Males *
Non-LGB
Females

13. Concurrent sexual partners
35%
31%
30%
25%
21%
20%
15%
11%
10%
9%
10%
10%
7%
6%
5%
0%
Most
Most
Most
Most
Most
Most
Most
Most
recent recent recent recent recent recent recent recent
partner partner partner partner partner partner partner partner
not met
met
not met
met
not met
met
not met
met
online
online
online
online
online
online
online
online
(n=410) (n=103) (n=542) (n=51) (n=265) (n=14) (n=346) (n=27)
LGB Males *
LGB Females
Non-LGB Males Non-LGB Females

14. Non-LGB
Females
Most recent partner met online (n=27)
Non-LGB
Males
Most recent partner met online (n=14) 7%
Most recent partner not met online
(n=265)
25%
73%
2%
LGB
Females
Most recent partner met online (n=51)
27%
73%
1%
Most recent partner not met online
(n=542)
22%
LGB Males
Partner has had an STI (ever)
Most recent partner met online
(n=103)
27%
70%
4%
Most recent partner not met online
(n=346)
25%
70%
5%
34%
Most recent partner not met online
(n=410)
40%
0%
Don't know
93%
No
0%
75%
53%
57%
3%
12%
3%
20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Yes

15. Limitations



As with all self-report measures, some youth
respondents may not have accurately disclosed
sensitive topics.
The representativeness of the sample is based
upon the weighting. Findings should be replicated.
Measures of sexual risk refer to the most recent
partner, whereas indication of meeting a partner
online includes the two most recent partners.
Indicators are therefore proxies of sexual behavior
rather than one-to-one measures of risk for online
versus offline partners.

16. Conclusions

Although meeting partners online is somewhat
more common for LGB youth, it is still reported
by 11% or fewer youth.
◦ Sexual health education should integrate online
scenarios but not necessarily over-emphasize this as a
way to meet partners, even for LGB youth.

Findings do not support a hypothesis of risky sex
associated with meeting partners online.
◦ The rates of risky sexual behaviors are concerning
across all sexual orientation identities. More needs to
be done to invigorate preventive behavior.

17. Thank you
Michele@InnovativePublicHealth.org
http://eurout.org/2010/03/24/studying-lesbians-being-ignored-and-excluded-non-targeted-research