This article discusses suicide and the online sexual exploitation of minors.
The messages often begin with a compliment, a follow request, or a conversation that appears harmless. The person on the other side seems young, attractive, and genuinely interested. They may send an intimate image first, creating the impression that sharing something in return is safe.
Then the conversation changes.
Within seconds, affection becomes intimidation. The victim is shown a list of relatives, classmates, teammates, or coworkers. The stranger threatens to send the image to everyone unless money is paid immediately. Messages arrive faster than the frightened person can process them. Every attempt to negotiate leads to another demand.
This is not an embarrassing online misunderstanding. It is sextortion: a form of sexual exploitation and blackmail designed to create panic, shame, and the belief that asking for help would make everything worse.
Jordan DeMay, Gavin Guffey, and James Woods were all 17 when they were caught in schemes like this. They were loved, active teenagers with families, friends, plans, and futures. Yet in the space of a few hours, criminals convinced each of them that one private image had erased everything else.
Their stories carry a message every child needs to hear before such a crisis begins: no photograph can define an entire life, and no threat is worth dying over.
How sextortion turns trust into a weapon
Sextortion occurs when someone threatens to publish intimate images, videos, or information unless the victim pays money, provides more sexual material, agrees to sexual activity, or meets another demand.
Financial sextortion frequently involves organized criminals operating multiple fake identities. They may steal photographs from real accounts, imitate the language teenagers use, move conversations onto private messaging services, and research a target’s social connections before making contact.
Once they obtain an image, they deliberately create urgency. They may send screenshots of the victim’s followers, claim the material has already been prepared for distribution, or impose an impossible deadline. Some continue calling and messaging for hours so that the victim has no opportunity to step away, regain perspective, or speak to someone trustworthy.
The shame is not an accidental consequence of the crime. It is one of the criminal’s main tools.
Jordan DeMay had only hours to understand what was happening
Jordan DeMay was a 17-year-old student and athlete from Marquette, Michigan. During the night of March 24, 2022, he began exchanging Instagram messages with someone he believed was a girl.
The account was controlled by men operating from Nigeria.
After persuading Jordan to send an intimate photograph, they demanded $1,000 and threatened to expose him to his family and friends. Jordan sent $300, but payment did not end the ordeal. The criminals simply demanded more.
Only a few hours after the conversation began, Jordan died by suicide on March 25.
The investigation later revealed that the scheme had targeted more than 100 people, including at least 11 minors. Samuel and Samson Ogoshi were extradited from Nigeria to the United States, pleaded guilty to conspiring to sexually exploit minors, and were each sentenced in September 2024 to 210 months in federal prison, followed by five years of supervised release. The sentences and the scale of the operation were confirmed by the U.S. Department of Justice.
Jordan could not see what the investigation would eventually establish: he was not a disgraced teenager who had ruined his future. He was the victim of an international criminal operation. The people claiming to control his entire life could be identified, extradited, prosecuted, and imprisoned.
Gavin Guffey gave the blackmailer every dollar he had
Four months later, another 17-year-old was targeted in Rock Hill, South Carolina.
Gavin Guffey had recently returned from a Christian youth camp. In one of his final Instagram posts, he wrote about his renewed faith and his connection with God. On the night of July 26, 2022, he received a message from an account that appeared to belong to a young woman.
After Gavin shared an intimate image, the threats began.
He sent the blackmailer the $25 available in his account and pleaded for additional time. The demands continued. Within a very short period, Gavin was made to believe that his reputation and future could not be saved. He died by suicide in the early hours of July 27.
Federal authorities allege that Hassanbunhussein Abolore Lawal posed as a young woman, coerced Gavin into providing compromising material, and threatened to expose him unless he paid. Lawal was extradited from Nigeria to the United States in January 2025 to face prosecution. The allegations remain subject to determination in court, as explained by the U.S. Department of Justice.
Gavin’s father, Brandon Guffey, later became a state lawmaker and helped advance legislation known as Gavin’s Law. The South Carolina law established sextortion as a specific criminal offense and introduced stronger consequences in cases involving minors or serious harm.
James Woods received more than 200 messages in less than a day
James Woods was the only child of Tim and Tamia Woods. He was a high school senior in Streetsboro, Ohio, and a year-round track athlete. Those who knew him described him as sociable, ambitious, and full of energy.
In November 2022, James was contacted on Instagram by someone he believed was a 19-year-old woman. Once intimate material had been exchanged, the person behind the account began demanding money.
According to his parents, the initial demand was $6,000. Over approximately 19 and a half hours, James received more than 200 calls and messages threatening to expose the images to his family, friends, and classmates.
James died by suicide on November 19, 2022.
His parents later created the Do It For James Foundation to educate families and schools about sextortion, online exploitation, and suicide prevention. Their advocacy was formally recognized by FBI Cleveland.
In March 2026, the Woods family also filed a lawsuit against Meta, alleging that Instagram’s design and safety systems failed to protect their son. Those claims are allegations in ongoing civil proceedings and do not, by themselves, establish the company’s legal liability.
Why teenage boys are frequently targeted
Anyone can become a victim of sextortion, but financially motivated schemes frequently target adolescent boys.
Criminals exploit curiosity, attraction, impulsive decision-making, and the intense importance teenagers may place on peer approval. They understand that an adolescent can experience possible exposure to classmates not as a temporary embarrassment but as the apparent collapse of his entire social world.
In 2022, U.S. law enforcement agencies received more than 7,000 reports concerning the online sextortion of minors, involving at least 3,000 identified victims, primarily boys. The National Center for Missing & Exploited Children later received approximately 27,000 reports of financial sextortion in 2023. By 2024, reports were arriving at a rate of nearly 100 per day.
The real number of victims is likely higher. Many remain silent because they expect anger, ridicule, punishment, or the loss of their devices and online independence.
That is why warning children never to send intimate images, although important, cannot be the family’s entire safety plan. A child must also know what to do after an image has already been sent.
Love does not demand proof that places someone at risk
Children need to understand that a person who cares about them will not pressure them to create sexual material. They will not demand a photograph as proof of affection, continue after hearing “no,” or insist that the relationship must remain secret from every trusted adult.
“If you loved me, you would send it” is not an expression of love. It is emotional pressure.
No digital platform can make an intimate image completely risk-free. Accounts can be hacked, disappearing messages can be captured, relationships can change, and a person who seems trustworthy may not be who they claim to be.
But prevention must never become victim-blaming. Sending an image may have been an unsafe decision, yet it does not make the victim responsible for another person’s blackmail, threats, or abuse.
Trusting the wrong person is not the same as committing a crime.
A private image is not an entire identity
Parents should give children the most important reassurance before it is ever needed:
“You can come to me regardless of what you sent. I may be frightened by the situation, but I will not stop loving you, abandon you, or leave you to handle it alone.”
An intimate photograph does not erase a child’s character, achievements, family, or future. Even if an image is shared, the resulting embarrassment can be survived. Accounts can be reported. Distribution can be interrupted. Evidence can be preserved. Law enforcement can investigate.
The blackmailer wants the victim to believe that the next few minutes represent the rest of their life. They do not.
An image is one event. It is not a person’s identity, and it is never more valuable than a human life.
A parent’s first reaction can change what happens next
When a child reveals sextortion, the first response should not be shouting, punishment, or the question, “How could you do this?”
The child already knows the situation is serious. They may be overwhelmed by fear and convinced that they have disappointed everyone who loves them. Immediate threats to confiscate the phone or expose the incident to the entire family can reinforce the criminal’s claim that seeking help will only make things worse.
The first priority is safety. The child needs to hear that they are believed, loved, and not alone. Discussions about online rules can happen later, after the immediate danger has passed.
A parent should calmly ask whether the child has considered harming themselves or feels unable to stay safe. Asking directly about suicide does not plant the idea in someone’s mind. It can create the opening needed for an honest answer and urgent intervention.
If there is any immediate danger, the child should not be left alone. Families should contact their local emergency service or crisis support line immediately.
What to do when the threats begin
Do not send additional money or images. Payment rarely guarantees deletion and may show the offender that the victim can be pressured again.
Preserve evidence before blocking the account. Save screenshots of the threats, profile names, URLs, phone numbers, payment instructions, transaction details, and dates. Avoid unnecessarily downloading or forwarding the intimate image itself, particularly when a minor is depicted.
Report the account to the platform and contact local law enforcement. In the United States, reports can also be submitted to the FBI or to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children’s CyberTipline.
For images taken when the person was under 18, NCMEC’s free Take It Down service can generate a digital fingerprint on the user’s device. The image itself is not uploaded. Participating platforms can use that fingerprint to detect and limit the circulation of matching material.
Adults facing non-consensual intimate-image abuse can use StopNCII.org, which employs a similar hash-based system with participating companies.
A victim should also be cautious of businesses that promise to make the problem disappear in exchange for large fees. The FBI specifically warns that distressed families can be targeted again by companies seeking to profit from their fear.
Sextortion can happen to adults too
The cases of Jordan, Gavin, and James involved minors, but sextortion is not exclusively a crime against children.
Adults may be targeted through social media, dating platforms, video calls, hacked accounts, or former relationships. An offender may threaten to send private material to a spouse, employer, relatives, or professional contacts unless the victim pays, provides more content, agrees to sexual activity, or remains in a relationship.
The central rule remains the same: agreeing to share an image privately with one person is not permission for that person to show or distribute it to anyone else.
In the United States, criminal charges can arise under federal or state laws depending on the victim’s age, the demands made, how the image was obtained, and whether it crossed state or national borders. Sextortion cases may involve offenses related to extortion, cyberstalking, sexual exploitation of minors, child sexual abuse material, or threats.
State laws vary, but non-consensual intimate-image distribution is criminalized in many jurisdictions. Victims may also pursue civil claims for financial losses, emotional harm, invasion of privacy, or other damages.
The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act, signed into law in May 2025, addresses the intentional publication of non-consensual intimate imagery, including certain digitally created or altered images. Since May 2026, covered online platforms have also been required to provide a removal process and take down qualifying images, along with known identical copies, within 48 hours of a valid request. The Federal Trade Commission is responsible for enforcing those platform obligations.
Across the European Union, national criminal laws already provide varying protections against blackmail, child sexual exploitation, privacy violations, and the non-consensual sharing of intimate material. EU Directive 2024/1385 also requires member states to criminalize specified forms of non-consensual intimate-image sharing and related cyberviolence. Because directives must be implemented through national law, the precise offense, procedure, and penalty continue to depend on the country and its transposition measures.
The legal wording may differ across borders, but the practical warning is universal: a private screen does not place an offender beyond identification, investigation, or prosecution.
Children must also be taught not to become offenders
Online-safety education often focuses entirely on avoiding victimization. That leaves out an equally important lesson: children must never become the person who pressures, threatens, distributes, or encourages the abuse of someone else.
If someone sends you an intimate image, they have not given you permission to share it.
Pressuring another person for sexual content is not harmless flirting. Threatening to expose that material in exchange for money, more images, sexual favors, silence, or control can constitute extortion and sexual exploitation.
When a sexually explicit image depicts a minor, saving, requesting, forwarding, or distributing it may trigger serious child sexual abuse material laws. The fact that the minor originally created or voluntarily sent the image does not give classmates, partners, or strangers the right to keep circulating it.
Young offenders may be handled differently from adults under juvenile justice systems, but being under 18 does not make the conduct harmless or consequence-free. Police, schools, child-protection services, courts, and parents may all become involved.
Forwarding the image to a group chat is not passive curiosity. Every person who downloads it, displays it, jokes about it, or sends it onward extends the original violation.
Nor is it harmless to cheer on the blackmailer, mock the victim, or treat someone’s panic as entertainment. A bystander who amplifies the humiliation becomes part of the mechanism causing harm.
When an intimate image arrives, a young person faces a real moral choice: protect someone who is vulnerable or participate in their abuse.
Character is not demonstrated by gaining attention through another person’s humiliation. It is demonstrated by refusing to share the material, stopping its spread, and helping the victim reach a trustworthy adult.
If you are being blackmailed, you are not the person who should hide
Sextortion works by reversing the roles. The offender commits the abuse but persuades the victim to feel like the guilty party.
That reversal must be challenged directly.
If someone is threatening you, the messages, profiles, payment requests, and transaction records may become evidence. The offender is the one taking the legal risk. Asking for help does not give the criminal more power; it begins taking that power away.
A poor decision, misplaced trust, or private sexual moment does not authorize another person to control and terrorize you.
The conversation families should have before a crisis
Parents do not need to wait for warning signs. This discussion can begin without an interrogation and without threatening to remove every device after the first mistake.
Children should know that profiles can be fabricated, images can be captured even when an app claims they disappear, and a live video call does not always prove that the person is trustworthy.
More importantly, they should know what their family will do if prevention fails.
Jordan DeMay, Gavin Guffey, and James Woods were not unintelligent, weak, or “bad” children. They were subjected to concentrated fear, manipulation, and humiliation designed to destroy perspective and prevent disclosure.
The most important promise a parent can make is therefore not simply, “Never send an intimate image.”
It is this:
“If you already sent it, come to me. The photograph is not the emergency. You are what matters, and we will face the problem together.”