Discourses of Exclusion: Sexuality Education's Silencing of Sexual Others

Elia, John P.; Eliason, Michèle J.

doi:10.1080/19361650903507791

Cited by 87 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…LGBT youth are marginalized in sex education curricula that privilege heterosexuality and maintain raced, gendered, classed, and sexual inequalities (Connell 2009;Elia and Eliason 2010;Garcia 2009). This lack of education provides the backdrop for contemporary teen sexual practices in which sexually active teens in the USA are less likely to use safer sex methods than are their peers in other developed countries (Guttmacher Institute 2006).…”

Section: Gender and Sexuality Informationmentioning

confidence: 98%

Resource and Risk: Youth Sexuality and New Media Use

Pascoe

2011

Sex Res Soc Policy

109

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Some contemporary moral panics orbit around youth sexuality and new media use. This article addresses those moral panics by investigating teenagers' practices regarding new media and sexuality. New media technologies are central parts of young people's social, romantic, and sexual lives. These communication technologies are important in their practices of meeting, dating, and breaking up. New media technologies also provide important resources about sexual health and identities. However, these informational and relational resources are not equally available to all young people. Indeed use and access to new media technologies often mirrors the contemporary ordering of economic, racialized, and gendered power. Additionally, while youth are aware of online safety practices, some youth are more vulnerable to online risks than others.

show abstract

Section: Gender and Sexuality Informationmentioning

confidence: 98%

Resource and Risk: Youth Sexuality and New Media Use

Pascoe

2011

Sex Res Soc Policy

109

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Also, they note the silences created by this approach are filled by inaccurate, unofficial "hidden sexuality curriculum" (Haffner, 1992, p. viii). Such alternative sources have alternately been evaluated as inaccurate, inadequate, and noninclusive (Allen, 2007;Elia & Eliason, 2010;Haffner, 1992;Shryock, 1951a;Swain et al, 2004).…”

Section: None/nonapproachmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Methods range from parent-child talks, parent nights, lectures, and sermons through to mass public virginity pledges. Critique of this discourse looks at its unrealistic aims for some groups of sexually developing youth (Lichenstein, 2000), its negative construction of sexuality (Ashcraft, 2006;Haffner, 1992), and noninclusive content (Elia, 2005;Elia & Eliason, 2010;Haffner, 1992). Some evaluations have found that theory-based abstinence education can be as effective as a comprehensive sex education and more effective than sexual risk in reducing students' self-reported sexual involvement (Jemmott, Jemmott, & Fong, 2010).…”

Section: Abstinence-only-until-marriage Educationmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Sexuality Education Discourses Framework: Conservative, Liberal, Critical, and Postmodern

Jones

2011

American Journal of Sexuality Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sexuality education debates are layered with discourses based on markedly different constructions of sexuality. Rather than seeing these discourses as purely oppositional, this article frames them as complex and varied. It provides a new framework for understanding sexuality education which differentiates 28 discourses by orientation to education, whether conservative, liberal, critical, or postmodern. Their key assumptions, school-based approaches, sexuality frameworks, authorities, and methods are detailed. The article argues the value of considering multiple approaches and postmodern perspectives. This framework provides an introduction to sexuality education for those new to it and a fresh (re)conceptualisation of the field for other readers.

show abstract

“…Because sex education is intended to help facilitate the healthy development of all youth, and sex education classrooms are often the only school-based arenas where discussion of sex or sexuality are deemed acceptable topics, educators and researchers concerned with the well-being of LGB students are beginning to examine how sex education might potentially be an effective and appropriate arena to address the specific health needs of sexual minority youth (Elia and Eliason 2010;McCarty-Caplan 2013). However, this process has repeatedly revealed that contemporary and historic sex education policies and programs implemented in US schools are heteronormative and stigmatizing of LGB people (Elliott 2014;McClelland and Fine 2008;McNeill 2013;Mustanski et al 2014).…”

Section: Why Focus On Lgb Families?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Sex Education and Support of LGB Families: a Family Impact Analysis of the Personal Responsibility Education Program

McCarty-Caplan

2015

Sex Res Soc Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The authorization of the Personal Responsibility Education Program (PREP) represents a significant legislative shift in how social policy in the United States implements school-based sexual health education to address concerns for youth health. In contrast to its abstinence-based predecessors, this federally funded program provides a more comprehensive approach to sex education that includes content on contraception, is evidence-based, and emphasizes diversity and service to vulnerable populations. Yet, despite these improvements to how sex education policy facilitates the healthy development of youth, the design and implementation of PREP do not provide substantial support of lesbian, bisexual, and gay (LGB) populations. This paper applies a family impact analysis framework to further explore this policy limitation and demonstrates how PREP perpetuates the heteronormative legacy of sex education in a way that continues to marginalize and harm LGB families.

show abstract

Discourses of Exclusion: Sexuality Education's Silencing of Sexual Others

Cited by 87 publications

References 12 publications

Resource and Risk: Youth Sexuality and New Media Use

Resource and Risk: Youth Sexuality and New Media Use

A Sexuality Education Discourses Framework: Conservative, Liberal, Critical, and Postmodern

Sex Education and Support of LGB Families: a Family Impact Analysis of the Personal Responsibility Education Program

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About