At a recent youth sexual and reproductive health summit in Toronto, we asked participants a simple question through an anonymous live poll: “What makes it difficult to talk about sexual health?”
The answers came quickly.
“Stigma.”
“Fear of judgment.”
“Awkwardness.”
“Culture and family.”
“Embarrassment.”
“Not knowing what’s true online.”
Another question asked was where youth most often get information about sexual health. Social media and Google searches dominated the responses, far surpassing family conversations or health-care providers.
While many adults may find these findings alarming, for young people they simply reflect the realities of how information is accessed in this age of social media.
The bottom line is, youth are not avoiding conversations about sexual health. They are avoiding shame, silence and judgment.
Too often, parents assume their children are either uninterested in sexual health or too young to engage in meaningful discussions about it. Yet our experience at the summit suggested otherwise. Young people are curious, thoughtful and eager to learn. They are actively seeking information, asking important questions and trying to make sense of a complex world of relationships, identity and health. What many are struggling to find are spaces where they can do so safely. And in the absence of safe, trustworthy and inclusive spaces, social media fills the gap.
Adolescents are growing up in an environment in which information about sex, relationships, gender identity and reproductive health is available instantly and constantly. TikTok, Instagram, Reddit and YouTube have become default sources of information, not necessarily because youth trust them the most, but because they are accessible, anonymous and responsive. They can search sensitive questions privately without fear of embarrassment or dismissal.
However, the internet is a complicated place to learn about sexual and reproductive health. Alongside credible resources are influencers promoting misinformation, toxic relationship advice, unrealistic portrayals of sex and harmful stereotypes about gender and sexuality. Young people are expected to navigate these messages while simultaneously developing their own identities, values and relationships. It is not surprising that many feel confused, overwhelmed and uncertain about what information they can trust.
At our summit, youth participants shared that they wanted more honest and inclusive conversations about topics such as consent, pleasure, pornography, fertility, queer relationships, sexually transmitted infections, vaginismus and body image. Many expressed frustration that sexual health education often focuses narrowly on risk prevention for the white, cis, heterosexual individual while failing to address the emotional, relational and mental health dimensions of intimacy and identity.
These gaps matter. Sexual and reproductive health misinformation does not simply create confusion – it can shape mental health, relationships and self-worth. Misinformation – or the complete absence of inclusive information – about bodies, masculinity, contraception, sexually transmitted infections and LGBTQ2S+ identities can fuel anxiety, shame and isolation while increasing vulnerability to risky behaviours and unsafe situations. As a result, many are forced to navigate online spaces where harmful and fear-based messaging spread rapidly and often without context.
Misinformation does not affect all youth equally.
Importantly, misinformation does not affect all youth equally. Young people from racialized, newcomer and marginalized communities may face additional barriers accessing culturally safe and inclusive sexual health information. Some participants described growing up in environments where sexual health conversations were considered taboo, where discussing sex was associated with shame or where certain identities and experiences were ignored entirely. In these contexts, social media can become both a lifeline and a risk: a place where youth seek belonging and answers but also encounter misinformation and harmful narratives.
This lack of trust and comfort within traditional systems was the underlying theme that emerged most clearly from our conversations. Youth are actively seeking information and support, yet many do not feel safe accessing it within conventional systems.
For clinicians, this requires a shift in approach. Youth are highly attuned to judgment, assumptions and exclusionary language. Creating psychologically safe conversations about sexual health means normalizing these discussions routinely and approaching them with openness, curiosity and humility. Clinicians should use inclusive language that reflects the diversity of young people’s identities and relationships, including LGBTQ2S+, Indigenous, disabled and HIV-positive communities. Confidentiality should be clearly explained; most importantly, youth should feel empowered to ask questions without fear of shame or dismissal.
At the same time, clinicians cannot assume that simply providing accurate information will be enough to counter misinformation online. Young people are constantly navigating emotionally compelling and algorithmically amplified content ecosystems. Trusted health information must therefore also be culturally relevant, accessible and engaging. Meeting youth “where they are” means understanding the digital realities they navigate every day.
Policymakers and health systems also have an important role to play. Investing in youth co-designed and community-informed approaches to health communication is essential. One-size-fits-all public health messaging often fails to resonate with diverse communities. Youth from marginalized backgrounds should not simply be recipients of health information but active partners in creating it.
Young people understand the online environments their peers inhabit, the language they use, and the barriers they face. Their insights are critical for building health systems and educational approaches that are responsive, trustworthy and inclusive.
The reality is that youth are already talking about sexual health online every day. The question is whether trusted institutions are willing to meet them there – not with judgment, but with honesty, empathy and respect.
