This article was downloaded by: [Masarykova Univerzita v Brne]
On: 12 March 2014, At: 08:11
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
American Journal of Sexuality Education
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wajs20
A Sexuality Education Discourses
Framework: Conservative, Liberal,
Critical, and Postmodern
Tiffany Jones
a
a
Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society , La Trobe
University , Melbourne , Australia
Published online: 10 Jun 2011.
To cite this article: Tiffany Jones (2011) A Sexuality Education Discourses Framework: Conservative,
Liberal, Critical, and Postmodern, American Journal of Sexuality Education, 6:2, 133-175, DOI:
10.1080/15546128.2011.571935
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15546128.2011.571935
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
American Journal of Sexuality Education, 6:133–175, 2011
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1554-6128 print / 1554-6136 online
DOI: 10.1080/15546128.2011.571935
A Sexuality Education Discourses Framework:
Conservative, Liberal, Critical, and Postmodern
TIFFANY JONES
Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society, La Trobe University,
Melbourne, Australia
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.
KEYWORDS Sexuality, education, discourses, conservative, liberal,
critical, postmodern
“Sexuality” is a discursively specific term (Foucault, 1976; Halperin, 1995).
Thus, “sexuality education” is a debatable concept. It can be used, for example,
in a limited manner as referring to school-based lessons on reproduction
or moral lectures on abstinence from the school chaplain. On the
other hand, it may be broadened to include the learning that occurs during
physical sexual interactions, casual conversations, or while catching beads
at a Mardi-gras parade (to pick a few arbitrary examples). It is, therefore,
unsurprising that speakers, papers, and books addressing sexuality education
seem to be talking about entirely different topics and using completely
different vocabularies—they often are.
Address correspondence to Tiffany Jones, Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health
and Society, La Trobe University, 215 Franklin Street, Melbourne, 3000, Australia. E-mail:
tiffany.jones@latrobe.edu.au
133
Downloadedby[MasarykovaUniverzitavBrne]at08:1112March2014
134 T. Jones
This article maps the key sexuality education discourses at work in
American and international school-based sexuality education. It uses sexuality
to include anything obliquely related to constructions of sexed and
gendered bodies, identities, and behaviors; sexual feelings, desires, and acts;
and sexual knowledge, skills, and information. Thus, sexuality education
can be used as an umbrella term under which subtypes such as sex education,
relationship education, and other related pedagogies fall. The decision
has been made here to focus on official school-based discourses, that is,
sets of ideological belief frameworks that directly inform practice in schools,
education policies, and the debates surrounding them, rather than other sexual
learning experiences. These are easier to qualify and more immediately
useful in the initial planning of sexuality education lessons, programs, curriculum,
policy, and school-based research. It is these particular approaches
to (and retreats from) sexuality education that must first be outlined clearly if
the field is to be clarified and its debates more easily understood by sexuality
educators and researchers alike.
LIMITS OF EXISTING EXEMPLARS
Sexuality education literature offers varying “exemplars” (frameworks for categorization)
of sexuality education approaches. At times, these are placed
within a binary opposition, on a scale, or contextualized by time and place.
Lamentably, the politics of the particular researcher often narrow these exemplars
or archetypes. For example, many researchers describe a dichotomy
between conservative sexuality education and a more liberal approach based
more on scientific facts (Blair & Monk, 2009; Lennerhed, 2009; Swain, Warne,
& Hillel, 2004). In such descriptions, the focus is on showing the “improvements”
in factual knowledge over time. Similarly, Irvine (2002) and McLaren
(1992, pp. ix–xiv) simplify the discursive field to three main discourses in
their haste to identify “good” (nonhomophobic) and “bad” (homophobic)
discourses. Other researchers uncover more variety but with little detail.
Haffner and Carlson suggest four approaches (Carlson, 1992, pp. 34–58;
Haffner, 1992, pp. vii–viii), with little description of classroom methods. Elia
provides the broadest offering of eight approaches (Elia, 2005, pp. 785–789).
However, little information about these discourses is provided (sometimes
barely a line). Also, Elia mainly considered approaches in the United States
and Sweden, with a bias toward Comprehensive Sexuality Education (other
countries are considered in terms of their lack of this approach, not the
alternatives they offer).
This article’s wider review of the literature contributes a new Sexuality
Education Discourse Exemplar with a more international breadth (see
Table 1). It can be used in discursive analysis, planning and practice, reflection
and debate, research and development, teacher education, sociology,
Downloadedby[MasarykovaUniverzitavBrne]at08:1112March2014
Sexuality Education Discourses Framework 135
TABLE 1 Sexuality Education Discourse Exemplar
Orientation Sexuality Education Discourses
Conservative 1. Storks and Fairies
Transmitting dominant sexualities 2. None/Nonapproach
3. Physical Hygiene
4. Sexual Morality
5. Birds and Bees
6. Biological Science/Biological Essentialism
7. Abstinence-only-until-marriage Education
8. Christian/Ex-gay Redemption
Liberal 9. Sexual Liberationist
Teaching sexuality skills and
knowledge for personal
choice/development
10. Comprehensive Sex Education
11. Sexual Risk
12. Sexual Readiness
13. Effective Relationships/Relationships Ed
14. Controversial Issues/Values Clarification
15. Liberal Feminist
Critical 16. State Socialist/Sexual-Politics
Facilitating integrated student
action based on alternative
sexuality principles. Redressing
marginalized sexualities
17. Sexual Revolutionary Socialist/Radical Freudian
18. Radical Feminist
19. Anti-discrimination/Anti-harassment
20. Inclusive/Social Justice
21. Safe and Supportive Spaces/Caring Communities
22. Gay Liberationist
23. Postcolonial
Postmodern 24. Poststructuralist
Theoretically exploring sex, 25. Postidentity Feminist
gender and sexuality 26. Multicultural Education
frameworks and positions 27. Diversity Education
28. Queer
and so forth. It is the result of a literature review that drew on discourses
from more than 300 (American and international1
) sexuality education policy
and curriculum documents; sexuality education pamphlets, books, and curriculum
materials (including diagrams and CD ROMs); existing frameworks
in journals and books; and historical information and taxonomies across the
fields of sexuality education, sexology, and sociology. Criteria used to distinguish
an official “sexuality education discourse” are that it manifests in
primary sources such as education policies, curriculum or educative materials
as part of a systematic or theorized approach to sexuality education in
America or internationally. It must also be linked to legitimate, recognized
sexuality education practices and not simply constitute unofficial learning
(students viewing sexual graffiti on toilet doors) or a more general sexuality
discourse in social phenomena (such as “Cougars and Toy-boys” discourse).
This framework is unique in that it uncovers 28 separate sexuality education
discourses. Each discourse encompasses a distinct combination of
assumptions about sexuality and sexuality education; the child; gay, lesbian,
intersex, transgender, and queer people; and who the authorities are on
Downloadedby[MasarykovaUniverzitavBrne]at08:1112March2014
136 T. Jones
sexuality and appropriate school and pedagogical approaches. It differentiates
these 28 discourses by their orientation to education and their key
beliefs about the point of schooling on sexuality generally (see Table 1,
first column). The exemplar applies the researcher’s own revised version of
Kemmis, Cole, and Suggett’s (1983) model of education orientations categorizing
the discourses as either conservative, liberal, critical, or postmodern
(the “postmodern” orientation was included in Jones, 2007, 2009). This is the
most essential and consistent defining feature throughout the discourses and
draws together key differentiating factors in a new yet cohesive framework.
The exemplar is expanded on below, and the discourses are numbered
purely for ease of navigation. Description begins with the researcher’s own
analytical summary of an orientation (starting with “conservative”) and is followed
by descriptions of the discourses “within” that orientation (following
the order they appear in the exemplar, Table 1). Where available, example
programs are noted along with evaluations and critique for each discourse.
EXPANDING ON THE EXEMPLAR: APPROACHES & RETREATS
Conservative
The conservative orientation to education emerged throughout the late 1800s
and the mid-1900s (although its influence continues), with schools and teachers
taking an authoritative approach and inculcating students with the dominant
values, beliefs, and practices of the time, and students seen as passive
recipients of this knowledge (Jones, 2009). Education is understood as
preparation for work (Kemmis et al., 1983), and discourses stemming from
this orientation focus on preparing students to fit or follow the conventions
of the social, civic, religious, or local community.
Precise sexuality education approaches vary, but all can be seen to
transmit dominant sexualities. They can be based on religious or secular
conceptions of sexuality, for example. However, sexuality frameworks are
always predetermined by an exterior force—an authority—whether derived
from the natural order of the universe, an omnipotent creator, or politically
or culturally determined. The “sexuality problem” educated against is
the perceived threat(s) to this privileged sexuality ideal. Authority figures
are institutions and individuals from the status quo; religious organizations,
schools, and academics; medical bodies and professionals; scientific institutions
and psychiatrists; and parents or mothers.
Sex, gender, and sexuality exist in a fixed bi-polar opposition (one
is either a feminine heterosexual female or masculine heterosexual male).
Diversity beyond this model is negated: rendered invisible, pathologized, demonized,
or declared a fallacy or a mistaken choice. Sexuality models vary,
but legitimized sexual expression is always procreative and occurs within the
Downloadedby[MasarykovaUniverzitavBrne]at08:1112March2014
Sexuality Education Discourses Framework 137
context of an established heterosexual marriage. Pedagogical methods are
authority-centered and do not allow student agency. They range from censorship
and rules, to lectures/sermons and storytelling, to use of hell houses
and camps/clinics. Sexuality education discourses manifesting this orientation
include: Storks and Fairies, None/Nonapproach, Physical Hygiene, Sexual
Morality, Birds and Bees, Biological Science, Abstinence Education, and
Christian/Ex-Gay Redemption.
STORKS AND FAIRIES
Stemming from Teutonic Germany and later general European folklore, this
discourse has emerged in broader Western texts since the 1900s. Children are
asexual and to be protected from sexual information, which is substituted
with a pleasant fiction. A stork, fairy, or mythical occurrence brings fully
formed babies to established family homes (e.g., pops it down the couple’s
chimney or leaves it on their doorstep). Pemberton (1948) links the specific
use of the stork to its status as a good-luck symbol for superstitious farmers
in Teutonic Germany (p. 3). As storks and babies were seen as lucky, and
they nest near chimneys, births were linked to the favor of birds on top
for the family below. Happy parents told children “the stork had brought
them.”
However, this discourse’s use of storks is not essential; it can be replaced
with any mystical account drawing on popular mythologies (e.g., fairies,
cabbage patches). For example, in 1915 New Zealand children’s author and
teacher Howes combined this discourse with notions of fairies supervising
reproduction in a magic garden in The Cradle Ship (Howes, 1915). The
key indicator is the intentional replacement of the agreed hegemonic sexual
“truths” of the time/culture with a mystifying fictional account. This discourse
functions to abate childhood curiosity about reproduction.
Sexuality is invisible. However, this discourse frames the mystified reproduction
and thus is a form of representational (hetero) sexuality, in a
positive and idealized manner. It is literally a mystical gift or moral reward.
It occurs only in two-parent established family settings and is always positive.
Parents and local culture are the key authorities. Pedagogical methods
include storytelling, viewing texts, and question-answer. Critique of this discourse
has been fairly consistent over the century, denouncing the way it
conflates innocence with ignorance and overlooks the consequences of sexual
acts (Pemberton, 1948; Shryock, 1951a; Swain et al., 2004). Social puritan
feminists have been concerned with the way it leaves girls unprepared for,
and thus unprotected from, the possibility of rape or impregnation (Swain
et al., 2004). Options of termination, not having children or other choices
are obfuscated.
Downloadedby[MasarykovaUniverzitavBrne]at08:1112March2014
138 T. Jones
NONE/NONAPPROACH
Mobilized since before modern history throughout Europe, and popular since
the 1800s to this day in some locations, this discourse sees sexuality content
as the domain of an exterior authority (i.e., parents/the church) and as developmentally,
socially, or morally inappropriate for schools to disseminate.
Proponents in 1980s America included educational historian Diane Ravitch
and anti-abortion activist James H. Ford (Moran, 2000, p. 204). While some
concerned parent groups promote the nonapproach, Moran argues that “the
public” or “community of parents” sex education opponents claim to represent
are “more a rhetorical creation” (p. 195).
This discourse functions to officially negate sexuality outside the confines
of heterosexual marriage (Haffner, 1992, pp. vii–viii; Irvine, 2002, p. 7).
Irvine argues that this is the oppositional rhetorical mode through which the
Christian right engages in sex education debates. Silencing sexual discussion
is seen as the best way to preserve youth morality. Confining verbal sexualities
in this way also creates a framework in which sexual vocabulary is
limited to an institution controlled by governing and religious bodies (marriage),
further cementing their role in the public and personal lives of all.
Alternative sexual expressions must be erased or punished.
These discursive processes translate into an anti-education involving
censorship of the materials, texts, activities, speech, and language used in
schools. It may manifest in a school’s rules and regulations, ranging from
bans on sexual contact to specific requirements regarding the distance to
be kept between students of the “opposite sex.” It may be reflected in
architectural structures that segregate the sexes. Critics argue conservatives
speak more about sex while trying to restrict it (Irvine, 2002, p. 12). 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).
PHYSICAL HYGIENE
Most official school-based sexuality instruction in the early 1900s focused on
the physical hygiene aspects of sexual functioning, initiated in part by educational
theorist G. Stanley Hall (Elia, 2005, p. 786). Other proponents include
the American Society of Sanitary and Moral Prophylaxia in 1905 (Carlson,
1992, pp. 36–40) and a range of vested Western companies promoting deodorants,
douches, tampons, and napkins during the 1940s–1990s (M. H.
Martin, 2004). Aspects of this discourse also operate in puberty programs
such as Growing Together (Girls Incorporated, 2001a).
Downloadedby[MasarykovaUniverzitavBrne]at08:1112March2014
Sexuality Education Discourses Framework 139
A core concept is that (hetero)sexual sublimation beyond marital sex is
necessary to maintain hygiene; deviation leads to loss of masculine power,
female hysteria, disease, and degeneration. Unhygienic deviation includes
masturbation, solicitation, prostitution, homosexuality, promiscuity, premarital
sex, excessive sex, sex with the diseased or “feeble minded,” having
unclean friends, not taking “precautions” in public toilets, and engaging in
alternative sexualities (Carlson, 1992). Martin argues that this discourse promotes
the child as having a dirty, unpredictable body that should be a source
of secrecy, shame, and management through products (M. H. Martin, 2004,
pp. 135–154); vaginas are unclean and odorous, and penises could erupt
at any time. Disease is cast as moral punishment (Carlson, 1992); modern
permeations use AIDS in this way.
Part of the ideological project is to eliminate erotic content from courses,
books, and general schooling. Authorities are mothers, churches, psychology,
and private hygiene-related companies. Information is transmitted directly
to segregated sexes and sends the message that sexual matters are
shameful, sexed body/gender-specific, and should be kept secret in a conspiratorial
manner from the “opposite sex” (Pearce, 2004). Puberty education
(particularly on menstruation for girls) is a key theme. Pedagogy mainly involves
parent-child talks, school- or church-based “parent-student nights,”
lectures, dissemination of pamphlets, and products from private companies.
Carlson attacks this discourse as limiting female sexuality and STD prevention
efforts (1992). It is also problematic due to its homophobic, body-phobic,
and consumerist messages.
SEXUAL MORALITY
Carlson sees this discourse of sexual sin as dominant in the early decades
of the 20th century (Carlson, 1992, pp. 36–40). Foucault amalgamated this
ideology with “Victorian Puritanism” (Foucault, 1976, p. 22), although it is
by no means purely historic; it is active in some U.S. schools where teachers
are forbidden from even uttering the word “homosexual” (Earls, Fraser, &
Sumpter, 1992; Elia, 2005). Advocates include some key leadership within the
Judeo-Christian Faith, Islam, and conservative activists such as John Cowan
(Carlson, 1992). Yet it is important to note that political conservatives and
religious people take a range of positions on sexuality and may not endorse
this approach. It is combined with the Nonapproach in Directives for Christian
Education in Sexuality (Catholic Education Office Melbourne, 2001).
The core precepts in this discourse uphold a moralistic conception of
sexuality and sin rooted in dogma, combined with modern scientific and
economic perspectives supporting sexual Puritanism. It endorses asceticism
(self-disciplined renunciation of bodily pleasures) based on body-mind and
flesh-spirit dichotomies. The body is seen as corrupt and tempting the spirit
Downloadedby[MasarykovaUniverzitavBrne]at08:1112March2014
140 T. Jones
from its “true path,” while the mind is seen as guarding the spirit for eternal
life. Sexual activity is affirmed only within the context of marriage for
childbearing; nonprocreative sex is negated (as “adultery,” “sodomy,” etc.).
Patriarchal structures such as the church and the family are seen as “under
threat” from “modern influences”; a return to clearly defined gender roles is
called for (males as dominant leaders and providers, females as subservient
homemakers).
Alternative sexual and gender expressions represent temptations of the
body, to be controlled by the mind for the purity of the spirit. Such acts or
identities constitute sinful choices and are not innate. They will be punished
in the afterlife. Religious institutions and texts become the privileged experts
on sexuality, and an entire Christian sexuality industry exists with books,
videos, tapes, pamphlets, therapy sessions, and seminars throughout America
(Irvine, 2002, p. 12). Pedagogy includes viewing religious texts, sermons,
religious services, parent-child talks, parent nights, lectures, virginity pledges,
hell houses, school rules, and regulations. Irvine (2002) critiques the irony
of this highly commercialized approach to sexuality education (considering
the way it denounces material pleasures) and its promotion of shame. Vojak
(2006) evaluated this approach as leading to a lack of knowledge about
contraceptives and other topics in the “child’s interests.”
BIRDS AND BEES
This discourse arose in Western countries such as Australia, New Zealand, the
United Kingdom, and United States from the late 1800s to the early 1900s
onwards. Proponents include Australian Maybanke Anderson in her 1895
columns in the Australian journal Woman’s Voice (Swain et al., 2004), New
Zealand naturalist Howes (1915), and a variety of American naturalists. Sexual
interaction is considered natural. A key premise is that natural reproductive
metaphors protect childhood purity but satisfy curiosity. Thus, if youth are
taught about the reproduction of birds, flowers, and bees (the most popular
examples, although other flora and fauna may be used), they can understand
human sexuality without being exposed to any explicit information.
In this discourse sexuality is seen as similar to the contact of bees with
flower pollen and cross-pollination processes, or the fertilization of bird eggs
(Swain et al., 2004). Sex is a technical, reproductive process, yet it may be
embedded in awe over “natural miracles.” There is a focus on the mother
animal and its care, although parenting in general is important and seen as an
innate urge and role. Sex, if named at all, is called “mating.” This exclusionary
construction of sex as reproduction overlooks all nonreproductive sexuality
and suggests it as unnatural. Homosexuality and gender diversity can be
understood here as a misfired or failed reproductive aim. For example, in
Howe’s The Cradle Ship (1915), the metaphor is expressed as Bees entering
Downloadedby[MasarykovaUniverzitavBrne]at08:1112March2014
Sexuality Education Discourses Framework 141
“the back door” of flowers, in such a manner as to incorrectly pollinate the
flower, leading to destruction and corruption of the garden/flower species.
Authorities can include nature, parents, naturalists, and scientists. Pedagogy
includes lectures, discussion, private reflection, and texts, with an
emphasis on the use of sustained natural metaphors and similes. Criticism of
this approach focuses on the way in which the natural metaphors used (particularly
floral reproduction) can be valueless as information about human
sexualities, particularly nonreproductive expressions (Pemberton, 1948). It
also ignores the range of (nonreproductive, nonheterosexual) sexual expressions
among animals.
BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE/BIOLOGICAL ESSENTIALISM
In the United States, this approach prevailed in the mid-1900s (Elia, 2005)
and has subsequently affected a variety of Western sexuality education and
policies, such as Britain and Wales (Blair & Monk, 2009). It derived from
the work of G. Stanley Hall, Max Exner, and Thomas Galloway and also
has Darwinian roots (Moran, 2000). Moran states that Hall and his contemporaries
created “adolescence” and argued about the “sex instinct,” and
were thus “bound to manage” these (p. 22). There was an initial sense that
this discourse resulted in “control of sensuality found in “primitive races,”
and less polygamy, promiscuity, and incest (Moran, 2000, p. 14). It is still
strongly aligned with conservative scientific understandings of biological reproduction
of the human species, with distinct foci on reproductive anatomy,
physiology, and disease prevention (Elia, 2005, p. 786). Education for Sexuality
(Burt & Brower Meeks, 1987) provides examples of programs using
this approach.
The main precept in this discourse is the teaching of scientific “facts”
about how sexual intercourse leads to the reproduction of human life to
promote understanding about the “correct” functioning of the body (such as
in De Schweinitz, 1939). This may be embedded in broader study of bodily
systems, human life cycles, animal reproduction, or genetics. A focus on
scientific “sperm and egg” detail, research findings and systematic inquiry
distinguishes this approach from the mystification or “awe” regarding nature
in Birds and Bees Discourse. There is an attempt to separate notions of
eroticism from biological descriptions of sex acts.
The sexuality framework is essentialist; people are assumed to be an
innately masculine male or feminine female with a predestined social and
reproductive role based on their “corresponding” genitalia (and, more recently,
chromosomes; although combinations beyond “xx” or “xy” are viewed
as medical disorders rather than legitimate variations). Some texts drawing
on biological science (amongst other discourses) used theories of sexual development
to portray homosexuality as an expression of thwarted hormonal
Downloadedby[MasarykovaUniverzitavBrne]at08:1112March2014
142 T. Jones
development or frustrated (hetero) sexuality (perhaps due to a traumatic
event such as rape) (Pemberton, 1948; Shryock, 1951a, 1951b). Authorities
include approved scientific bodies and school science text books. Pedagogical
methods may include lectures, viewing of texts, study and labelling of
anatomical diagrams and props and use of academic tests. It is critiqued as
“sex negative,” heterosexist, and essentialist (Elia, 2005, p. 786).
ABSTINENCE-ONLY-UNTIL-MARRIAGE EDUCATION
Abstinence has been promoted throughout modern history. In Australia this
discourse particularly surged in 1950s sex education manuals, during and
after the Second World War (Pearce, 2004). In America it is linked to the
1981 Adolescent Family Life Act (AFLA) federal law which came to be known
as the Chastity Act, denying funding to most programs or projects around
abortion and mandating abstinence education and units promoting “selfdiscipline
and responsibility in human sexuality” in the pedagogy it did fund
(Moran, 2000, p. 204). It is a notorious mainstay in middle and southern
states. An example of a program manifesting this discourse is Managing
Pressures Before Marriage (Howard & Mitchell, 2003).
This discourse calls for students to be officially taught to abstain from
sexual activity until marriage and that prior sexual activity results in harm.
This harm may include depression, shame, guilt, sexually transmitted infections,
and loss of relationships (Elia, 2005, p. 787). Other contraceptive and
abortive options are negated on varying bases, if covered. Some basics about
the physiology of heterosexual genital intercourse, within the context of marriage
and procreation, may be imparted. Overall, however, the framework
for sexuality is that it involves impulses that in most contexts are harmful on
multiple levels and should thus be controlled.
Authorities include religious and state bodies. 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). Others have found abstinence-only programs have no significant effect
on sexual behavior (Kirby, 2007; Kohler, 2008). Furthermore, other evaluations
found students receiving a strong abstinence message are slightly more
likely to divorce, have reduced educations and lower incomes or reduced
knowledge of contraception and disease transmission (Elias, 2007; Vojak,
2006).
Downloadedby[MasarykovaUniverzitavBrne]at08:1112March2014
Sexuality Education Discourses Framework 143
CHRISTIAN/EX-GAY REDEMPTION
This discourse is one of the most recent within the conservative orientation to
gain momentum, launched in the early 1970s but manifesting more in current
decades (Cloud, 2005; Hardisty, 1999; Irvine, 2002). The ex-gay movement
in America involves both a significant network in the Christian Right’s infrastructure
and grass-roots ministry. There have been smaller offshoots within
Australia, England, and other countries. Advocates include ministries such
as Exodus International (Scott Davis and Exodus Youth), Inqueery, HOPE
Ministries, P-Fox, and Love in Action. The programs, speakers, and materials
promoted through Exodus Youth (www.exodusyouth.net) and P-Fox
(www.pfox.org) propound this discourse.
In this discourse, there is an objective of making Christianity more appealing
to gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender youth so as not to “lose”
them through judgment—of couching ideas in discursively rich terms such as
“pride” to initially appear more accommodating toward them (Cloud, 2005).
Such youth are slowly encouraged to renounce their lifestyle and attractions
and become “ex-gay” identified (APA Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic
Responses to Sexual Orientation, 2009; Beckstead & Morrow, 2004).
Conversion processes help manage what are termed “the most annoying and
discouraging aspects of homosexuality”; these entail a convoluted lifestyle
overhaul including “gender-appropriate clothes, appearance, talk and behaviour”
(Consiglio, 1991, p. 87). The assumption here is that gay people
exhibit sex-role confusion and require sexual “reorientation.”
Specific sexual frameworks vary; sexual preference can be represented
as fixed with sexual action seen as a choice (so that the “cure” mimics
the case of nonpracticing alcoholics), or as changeable through exertion of
willpower and the control of environmental influences, or as innately heterosexual.
All frames portray the Christian God as privileging and rewarding
heterosexual practice, marriage, and reproduction. Alternate sexualities, gender
expressions, and sexual acts are “not part of God’s plan.” Authority is thus
ascribed to God, Christian texts, the particular church or ministry, and specific
Christian therapists. Educational techniques include lectures, sermons,
residential clinics and youth programs, counseling sessions, and exposure
to testimonies by “successful” converts. There is much critique of the effect
of this discourse on youth and evaluations by the American Psychological
Association (APA), and others denounce the safety and effectiveness of
conversion attempts (APA Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses
to Sexual Orientation, 2009; Arriola, 1998; Beckstead & Morrow, 2004;
Molnar, 1997).
Liberal
Popularized in the 1960s, the liberal orientation involves teachers acting as
facilitators in students’ development of knowledge and skills, particularly
Downloadedby[MasarykovaUniverzitavBrne]at08:1112March2014
144 T. Jones
relating to inquiry and decision making (Jones, 2007, 2009). This orientation
looks at the “whole” student in preparation for “life rather than work”
(Kemmis et al., 1983) and promotes sexuality skills and knowledge for personal
choice and development. The “sexuality problem” educated against is
the individual’s lack of the perceived requisite knowledge and skills essential
in protecting their self-interests (e.g., bodily, medically, socially, emotionally).
Authority shifts more to the individual, who is informed and influenced
by teachings within sexology, science, medicine, education, and
cultural/political theory but nevertheless makes their own choices.
Sex, gender, and sexuality primarily exist in a fixed bi-polar opposition,
but diversity beyond this model does exist. Such alternatives do not disrupt
the model altogether; they are simply choices that show a more fluid understanding
of the relations in the model (regarding sexual experimentation,
gender roles, and sexual desire). Sexual orientation is seen as fixed, but
behavior and roles are more optional. What is “best” for the individual may
pertain to issues of pleasure, personal preference, safety, readiness, equality,
engagement in relationships, or values. Ideals are understood as developmentally
progressive with increasing choice available at different stages in
an individual’s maturity.
The various approaches share an emphasis on students understanding
the impact of sexuality on the self, in relation to their own personal agency
and individual constructions of knowledge and valuing processes. The affective
domain is engaged along with the cognitive domain, students can openly
express diverse opinions and active curiosity. While some positions regarding
sexuality are implicitly placed above others (such as the dominance of
heterosexuality, or the idea of sex as potentially harmful), individual choice is
crucial. This is because, in these approaches, sexuality is part of the process
of self-actualization; the aim is the weighing of values, possible outcomes,
and responsibilities so as to encourage the development of a consistent code
of personal sexuality. Where social issues and structures are critiqued (such
as marriage, abortion, and same-sex relationship status), such consideration
reflects an individualistic rather than a social process.
Common features of schools include the establishment of more democratic
settings, and teachers acting as facilitators. Pedagogical methods privilege
democratic models in which an authority outlines possibilities from
which individuals choose. For example, information may come from teacherled
lectures, guest speakers, media texts or films/pamphlets, or consideration
of personal experiences and opinions. Classroom methods include individual
and group work, discussion, debates, demonstrations, role-plays, question
and answer sessions, and self-analysis. There is use of the instrumentalist
pedagogy with testing of knowledge, skills, and outcomes. Liberal sexuality
education discourses include Sexual Liberationist, Comprehensive Sex Education,
Sexual Risk/Progressive, Sexual Readiness, Effective Relationships,
Controversial Issues/Values Clarification, and Liberal Feminist.
Downloadedby[MasarykovaUniverzitavBrne]at08:1112March2014
Sexuality Education Discourses Framework 145
SEXUAL LIBERATIONIST
This approach first became popular in some American college courses in
the 1960s, as these institutions responded to new findings in social science
and sexology. The work of researchers such as Magnus Hirschfield,
Alfred Kinsey William Masters, and Virginia Johnson were influential (Kinsey,
Pomeroy, & Martin, 1948; Kinsey, Pomeroy, Martin, & Gebhard, 1953;
Masters & Johnson, 1966, 1970). Their research revealed much more diverse
ranges of sexualities, acts, and expressions than the morality of the
time demanded (Elia, 2005). It was in these reports that the terms sexual
“outlets” and “frequency” emerged (Moran, 2000, p. 156). Thus, sexuality
becomes quantitatively framed. Approaches assume sexual knowledge can
and should be created and expanded through research, both empirical and
personal/experimental. The Sex & Ethics Program (Carmody, 2009) in the
Australian States of NSW and QLD is an example.
This discourse rejects framings of sexuality as existing in binary oppositions
of vice and virtue. Key concepts include a libertarian ideology
of sexual diversity and individual sexual rights, with individuals deciding
what is right for their own behavior (Carlson, 1992, pp. 50–55). There is a
sense of “freeing” of sexuality from social utilitarianism or political purpose
and celebrating it. This sexual framework privileges an ethics of reciprocity
and consensuality: the freedoms one demands, one must give. Pleasure is
emphasised, alongside fun, choice and negotiation skills.
Yet sweeping or cohesive social change is not (directly) the aim. Instead,
the real goal is for more understanding, individualized satisfaction,
and self-care, and in this sense social science, sexologists, and (through selfknowledge)
the individual are the primary authorities. Pedagogical methods
include the use of some research and measures to aid students in personal
exploration, choice, and discovery. Pedagogy that aims at decreasing
guilt about sexual matters can involve increasing students’ comfort with
sexual vocabulary (Halstead & Reiss, 2003, pp. 140–142). Students may
learn to negotiate sexual experiences and interpret other people’s body language
or discomfort. Evaluation has found that small group discussions in
combination with lectures can reduce students’ sexual guilt and encourage
more tolerant sexual attitudes (Wanlass, Kiimann, Beila, & Tarnowski, 1983).
Yet even proponents such as Carlson (1992) admit the individualist focus
deflects attention from broader social activism.
COMPREHENSIVE SEX EDUCATION
Comprehensive sex education is traced to educators and parents who wished
to “get troubling concepts into the open” in the 1960s (Irvine, 2002, p. 6). For
example, the state of New Jersey is noted for having early support of the comprehensive
sex education approach in response to a perceived “epidemic” of
Downloadedby[MasarykovaUniverzitavBrne]at08:1112March2014
146 T. Jones
teenage pregnancies (Moran, 2000, p. 209). It manifested more widely in the
United States until the 1980s and had a strong influence in Sweden, Canada,
France, Great Britain, and some African countries (Elia, 2005; Irvine, 2002).
The Sexuality Information Education Council of the United States (SIECUS),
founded in 1964 by Dr. Mary S. Calderone, is its key institutional voice. It
aims to combat the lack of “accurate” sexuality education for both young
people and adults that Calderone witnessed during her tenure as the Medical
Director for the Planned Parenthood Federation (SIECUS, 2008). Key
examples are SIECUS’s guidelines (2005) and Streetwise to Sex-Wise (Brown
& Taverner, 2001).
This approach provides wide-ranging information on sex: sexual
anatomy and physiology, reproduction, contraception and abstinence, sexually
transmitted infections, sexual communication, relationship development
and maintenance, masturbation, and homosexuality may be covered (Elia,
2005; Haffner, 1992; Irvine, 2002). The concept of “age-appropriate information”
is part of its vocabulary (Irvine, 2002), implying that the possession of
certain sexual knowledge and skills is not only acceptable but also necessary
for overall maturation. Thus, core topics may be introduced in a basic
manner for students at a lower level and expanded upon in increasing detail
at higher levels (in a “spiral” model).
Sexuality is framed as positive and healthy and yet developmentally
staged—its ideal expression is within “less fraught” behaviors early on (such
as solitary masturbation or kissing). A heteronormative model of the sexes
is favored. Initially, authorities include sex experts and family planning clinics,
etc., yet the increasingly informed individual incrementally becomes the
authority. Pedagogy includes lectures, parent-child nights, general classes,
guest speakers and experts, demonstrations of paraphernalia (such as “condoms
on bananas”), question and answer sessions, and so forth. Approaches
are evaluated as effective in reducing the students’ number of sexual partners
and teen pregnancy and encouraging condom use (Jemmott et al., 2010;
Kirby, 2007; Kohler, 2008). Failure to redress social issues such as homophobia
can be an issue (Elia, 2005).
SEXUAL RISK
Sexual risk has arisen at various points in time where institutional needs
to manage sexual dangers have increased due to disease or pregnancy epidemics.
One example is the 1930s–40s war on venereal disease in the West
(Carlson, 1992; Moran, 2000). Another example is during the 1970s, when
progressives and proponents such as SIECUS aimed to combat teen pregnancy
(Moran, 2000, p. 200). It gained further impetus in many countries
in the 1980s in response to AIDS epidemics (Moran, 2000, p. 205). Proponents
include public health officials and the Centers for Disease Control.
Downloadedby[MasarykovaUniverzitavBrne]at08:1112March2014
Sexuality Education Discourses Framework 147
The United Nations’ international sexuality education framework International
Technical Guidance on Sexuality Education: An evidence-informed
approach for schools, teachers and health educators (UNESCO, 2009) strongly
features this discourse.
Sexual risk is primarily concerned with the dangers of sex: disease transmission,
infection and infestation, impregnation of women, and to a lesser
extent emotional/psychosocial risks (e.g., heartbreak, exclusion, regret). All
risks are portrayed negatively, including teen pregnancy. Development is
seen as “open” and prone to maladjustment if not guided. This provides a
powerful rationale for policy and mandating sexuality education (Carlson,
1992, p. 41). Privileged topics include disease characteristics, contraceptive,
and protective options.
The sexuality framework dichotomises all aspects of sexuality in terms
of risk or safety. Key concepts include “safe sex” and “safer sex.” There can
be research-based associations made between assorted sexual acts and disease
transmission risks, classification of sexual behaviors according to risk
(e.g., frequency, number of partners), and association of identities with risk
increase, particularly for homosexual males. Authorities include researchers
in health and social science, government bodies, and informed individuals.
Methods include general classes, guest speakers, research projects, condom
demonstrations, parenting deterrents, viewing data, and knowledge tests.
Studies have found that knowledge of sexual risks can be increased through
education but that lessons on sexually transmitted diseases also need “most
development with regard to effectiveness of knowledge change” (Song,
Pruitt, McNamara, & Colwell, 2000, p. 416). This discourse is critiqued for
emphasising conformity to sexual norms (Carlson, 1992), portraying sexuality
negatively (Haffner, 1992), and creating anxiety about protecting “innocent
victims” in a manner that creates a dual notion of “guilty victims” (Patton,
1996). Also, certain sexual identities can be overlooked (e.g., lesbians) or
burdened with risk in this approach (e.g., gay men).
SEXUAL READINESS
This discourse has its origins in the 1960s when the developmental psychology
of Piaget, Vygotsky, and others became popularized. Such theorists posit
that children develop in stages and yet in individualized ways (Piaget, 1969;
Vygotsky, 1978; Woolfolk, 2005). The belief that sexual “readiness” mimics
such individualized staged models has become increasingly pervasive in
the West, and Ashcraft describes the implementation of this type of curricula
in modern classrooms (Ashcraft, 2006). Will Power/Won’t Power (Girls
Incorporated, 2001b) lessons promote this discourse.
In this discourse, sexuality educators do not aim to directly tell students
when to have sex but rather to give them the skills and information to determine
when they are ready themselves, “no matter when that is” (Ashcraft,
Downloadedby[MasarykovaUniverzitavBrne]at08:1112March2014
148 T. Jones
2006, p. 334). Being “ready” or “not ready” for sex shapes all understandings
of sex. However, there is a greater focus on what is “not readiness.”
Readiness cannot be defined by another individual or group (particularly
peers) or, for girls, their boyfriends. All virginity is mystified in the approach,
especially female virginity (Ashcraft, 2006; Lichenstein, 2000). It should be
exchanged for an ideal relationship.
Unready individuals reap negative consequences from the complexities
of sex. Sexual mistakes, maltreatment, or even the end of sexual relationships
are all seen as issues of “not being ready,” rather than relational, social, or
cultural problems. Yet there is an assumption that negative consequences will
not happen to the “ready” individual. Readiness involves but is not limited to
almost incommunicable aspects (private feelings), relational aspects (“who to
be with”), technical aspects (getting tested for diseases, using birth control),
and socio-political barriers (parents, funding).
Individuals are the authorities on their own sexuality. Thus, most of the
pedagogy focuses on technicalities. There is use of storytelling and guest
speakers who suffered the consequences from being sexually unready; selfdoubt,
regret, relationship breakdown, and so forth. Lichenstein (2000) argues
this discourse ignores how socio-cultural conditions limit girls’ sexual
choices, regardless of “readiness.” Ashcraft (2006) rejects the mystification of
a “ready” state, such as its correlation with an ability to correctly anticipate
a sexual partner’s continuing affections (which can be fluid, subjective, and
unknowable).
EFFECTIVE RELATIONSHIPS
Alternately known as effective relationships, marriage education, relationship
education, or couple education, this discourse derives from family and
relationship psychology (Markman & Halford, 2005). America has been one
of the more active countries in pursuing pro-marriage education policies
(Markman & Halford, 2005). The state of Florida most strongly promoted
this discourse since 1998, when then-Governor Jeb Bush passed the Marriage
Preparation and Preservation Act, mandating relationship skills courses
for all students (Halpern-Meekin, 2008). The function of this discourse is to
challenge high incidence of divorce and single-parent families. The National
Extension Relationship & Marriage Education Network (NERMAN) is a key
proponent. Relationship Smarts (Pearson, 2007) is a program example.
The discourse assumes most people desire to be in a happy marriage
(Markman & Halford, 2005), which may be linked to evolutionary imperatives.
The goal is to teach individuals the skills and principles that research
and theory associate with satisfying, supportive, and stable relationships
(Markman & Halford, 2005). In this approach’s sexuality framework, sexuality
is essentially a relational tool. Its use is in communicating affection,
Downloadedby[MasarykovaUniverzitavBrne]at08:1112March2014
Sexuality Education Discourses Framework 149
desire, appreciation, and love. It is thus best expressed in the context of
a stable and monogamous romantic relationship, ideally marriage. Alternative
contexts (e.g., single life, single parenting, divorce, dating widely, one
night stands, polygamy) are possible. However, such choices are implicitly
devalued.
Authority is initially held by relationships experts (i.e., psychologists,
researchers, therapists) but in part transferred to the “up-skilled” individual.
However, the experts may potentially be (re)turned to if the individual
or (future) couple “fails” in practice. Typical pedagogical methods include
skill surveys, role-play, and group work where communication and negotiation
skills are practiced, paired problem solving, discussing relationship
hypotheticals, and case studies. In the United Kingdom, an evaluative study
found that coverage of relationships as a general topic occurred more, while
homosexuality and the negotiation of relationships and sexual encounters
were rarely covered (Strange, Forrest, Oakley, & Stephenson, 2006). Another
issue is that the idealization of relationships could cast being unmarried or
divorced as “failure.”
CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES/VALUES CLARIFICATION
This discourse arose in the 1960s, with advocates such as Sally Williams,
Paul Cook and the Anaheim school’s Family Life and Sex Education Model
in America. It can be found in educational policy that deals with the handling
of “controversial issues” particularly in Australia (Northern Territory Government,
1998; NSW Government, 1983) yet has its roots in specific values
clarification approaches and programs developed primarily by Raths, Simon,
Howe, and Kirschenbaum (Halstead, 1996). The aim is to provide students
with the skills and opportunities for rational thinking (Dune, 1997; Jones,
2009; Mikulics, 1998) and to protect schools from lawsuits by foregrounding
student choice (Dewhurst, 1992).
Schools are not seen as arenas for student recruitment into partisan
groups. They are places where students are preparing for informed and reasoned
involvement in community life, including its politics, by calm study of
social issues. Discussion of controversial or values-laden issues, particularly
sexual ones, is acceptable only when it clearly serves the educative purpose
and is consistent with curriculum goals (Dewhurst, 1992). There is an emphasis
on gaining parental permission to avoid trouble. Educators occupy a
privileged position and must be objective to avoid distorting discussions.
The sexuality framework for this discourse considers the sexual in terms
of levels of controversy. The more controversial a matter is, the less likely
it is to be covered without parental permission. Abortion, gay marriage, and
transgender issues are often framed in this way. The individual student is
cast as the primary authority, and their opinions on sexual matters must
Downloadedby[MasarykovaUniverzitavBrne]at08:1112March2014
150 T. Jones
not be directly negated. The approach calls for use of staged values clarification
processes from particular models, student presentations of a variety
of arguments on an issue, debates, and argumentative essays. Early proponents
have admitted that approaches can be implemented erratically, in a
superficial manner (Kirschenbaum, 1992). If executed poorly, approaches
can suggest that any stance on a sexual issue may be taken arbitrarily. Also,
the most vocal students’ views may be privileged.
LIBERAL FEMINIST
The best-known type of feminism, this discourse grew out of the liberalism
that originated in the 18th century in the West (Tuttle, 1986, p. 182). Mary
Wollstonecraft and John Stuart Mill were key early proponents, and the promotion
of more education for women was an initial focus. The introduction
of the contraceptive pill in the 1960s allowed women greater freedom in their
sexuality. By the 1970s social conditions had changed enough in the West
so that the focus shifted to the curriculum and its replication of traditional
sex roles (Moran, 2000, p. 196). Family and Reproductive Rights Education
Program (Victorian Department of Human Services, 2003) for populations of
girls at risk of genital mutilation uses this discourse.
At the heart of this discourse is the belief that a woman is first a human
being and then a female. Her opportunities, experiences, and treatment
should reflect this. Discrimination against a woman is understood as judgment
based on sexual stereotypes rather than assessment according to the
individual’s merits. The basic concern of this discourse is ending such discrimination.
Changes are made within systems and institutions as opposed
to abandonment of these structures.
The sex of the body is seen as biologically determined. However, the
related gender role—masculinity or femininity—is seen as “learned.” The
pathological nature of society’s traditional sex roles are emphasized, which
push women into passivity and underachievement (Moran, 2000, p. 196).
The “corrective” strategy used is to promote more “neutral” gender roles
for women. By becoming the (gender) neutral, a woman can be liberated
from her body in theory and practice and no longer destined solely for
reproduction, child rearing, and a secondary position in relation to a man. A
woman can, with contraceptive options, enjoy sex as much as a man and in
the same ways without inequitable consequences. Lesbians are tolerated but
generally invisible. There is discomfort around transsexuals, who are tolerated
as mutilated victims of patriarchy, but not recognized as their desired
sex (Tuttle, 1986, p. 326). Women have the right to partake in or refuse
sexual acts; the individual is the authority.
Pedagogy ensures women’s issues are incorporated into all subjects,
treats female students equally, presents positive images of women, promotes
Downloadedby[MasarykovaUniverzitavBrne]at08:1112March2014
Sexuality Education Discourses Framework 151
equitable employment for women, and recognizes and endorses female sexual
pleasure and desire (Moran, 2000; Tuttle, 1986). Second-wave feminists
critique the neutral, disembodied ideal as a poor copy of a male original
(Hekman, 1999). Other critics such as Hoff Sommers (2008) attack what they
term the “myth of short-changed girls” as causing educational disadvantage
for boys.
Critical
The critical orientation propounds facilitating integrated student action based
on alternative principles. It came into education movements in the 1970s and
is linked to the rise a host of other reform pushes such as feminism, gay liberation,
and postcolonialism, aiming to engage students more actively in
social issues and action (Kemmis et al., 1983, p. 129). This educational framing
allows students to actively respond to society’s privileging of particular
sexualities and sexual identities; students identify and question values and
practices that are unjust or inequitable and undertake actions to lead to a
more equitable society. The “sexuality problem” education meets is social
inequity and the perceived repression or marginalization of nondominant
groups. Student-centered, action-based curricula are favored, with teachers
and community members acting as facilitators of this action (Jones, 2009).
Traditional accounts of sexuality are not privileged; instead they are either
actively critiqued and supplemented or challenged by an alternative account
focused on a formerly marginalized group(s). Whole-school bodies, teachers,
and particular education action groups may model, train in, or seek to
embody and promote these equity concerns. Methodologies include greater
opportunities for participation in real-world community processes and structures
and interaction with community members and organizations.
There can be an interest in the repressive qualities of power in the
forms of sexism, heterosexism, and homophobia or in empowerment possibilities.
The particular power dynamic explored varies among models and
may pertain to class, sex and gender, ability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity.
The aspect of so-called “difference” may be understood as innate
or as socially determined but also tends to form an integral part of identity
and identity politics, and exists in perpetual relation to a traditional
“norm.” Education is for, about, or against the privileging of the “difference”
(Kumashiro, 2002). Sex, gender and sexuality primarily exist in a fixed bipolar
opposition, but particular aspects of diversity beyond this model are
actively supported depending on the discourse. Such alternatives are seen as
equal to the traditional model, and as requiring extra educational investment
to ensure equitable treatment. Sexuality models rethink the body. It is not
solely a source for procreation or traditional intercourse, or envisioned in
spiritual or puritan terms. The body is political, and its desires, pleasures,
Downloadedby[MasarykovaUniverzitavBrne]at08:1112March2014
152 T. Jones
activities, and relations exist within a power dynamic. Having sex for different
reasons and in different ways can affect social conditions and group
positions in the power dynamic. The personal is political.
Pedagogical methods may include viewing of alternative texts, lectures,
and guest speakers from marginalized groups, activisms within and beyond
the school (e.g., creation of posters, plays, speeches), through to camps and
ceremonies. Discourses manifesting this orientation are State Socialist/SexualPolitics,
Sexual Revolutionary Socialist/Radical Freudian, Radical Feminist,
Anti-Discrimination/Anti-Harassment/Equity, Inclusive/Social Justice, Safe
and Supportive Spaces/Caring Communities, Gay Liberationist, and Post-
colonial.
STATE SOCIALIST/SEXUAL POLITICS
The “Sex-Pol” movement occurred in 1930s Germany and Soviet Russia (Carlson,
1992; Rabinbach, 1973; Sauerteig & Davidson, 2009), and its key concepts
can also manifest in Italy and France (Caplan, 1979). Key theorists
are Wilhelm Reich and Herbert Marcuse. Reich draws on Freud to argue that
sexual and neurotic disturbances result from rigid adherence to conventional
morality. He posits that repressed sexual energy is channeled into supporting
political subordination (Reich, 1931, 1945, 1971). He concludes that the
“natural morality” of matriarchal clans in which people had “sexual freedom
based on gratification” is superior to repressive patriarchal capitalist structures
that demand compulsory monogamy (Carlson, 1992, pp. 146–147).
Therefore, in this socialist view sexuality should become less repressed.
Reich’s 1932 text The Sexual Struggle of Youth (in Reich, 1972) and his programs
in Vienna and Germany (Grossman, 1997; Livingstone Smith, 1999)
are key examples.
Monogamy is seen as an “unnatural” structure that maintains class hierarchy
by ensuring that men can identify their offspring, and thus leave their
wealth to their children (and no-one else’s) (Reich, 1971, p. 147). Therefore,
this “revolutionary” sexual education idealizes a society in which wealth,
child-rearing, and sexual pleasures are shared. It accepts adolescent sexuality,
nonmonogamy, and bearing children out of wedlock. It is believed
where such “natural” sexualities are repressed, social tensions and repressive
class structures arise. Desire then takes aberrant forms; the rigidly armored
personality or homosexuality. Thus, in this framework homosexuality is a
“tolerated perversion,” seen as “unnecessary,” where nonmonogamy is supported.
Students are openly informed about procreation, contraception, and
abortions. “Genital gratification” and sex equality are emphasized.
There is an inherent authorisation of political theorists. There is an attempt
to move authority from the dominant classes to the working people in
this discourse through the reclaiming of sexuality. Pedagogy involves frank
Downloadedby[MasarykovaUniverzitavBrne]at08:1112March2014
Sexuality Education Discourses Framework 153
discussion of sexual issues and processes, and students theorizing their own
sexual practices. Educators are to express “explicit and unmistakable affirmation
of infantile love life,” to counter damage to student ego structures from
sex-negative rhetoric (Reich, 1971, p. 7). This theory of class as affecting and
affected by sexuality is useful yet crudely done (e.g., it presupposes a universal
polyamorous heterosexual desire). Some proponents call for greater
attention to the role of women (Macciocchi, 1979).
SEXUAL REVOLUTIONARY SOCIALIST/RADICAL FREUDIAN
A later radical Freudian ideology of nonrepressive sexuality and postcapitalist
society also influenced 1960s and 1970s schooling in the West, reframing the
concepts of class and pleasure from Sex-Pol (Carlson, 1992, pp. 46–50). In
particular, Marcuse’s work was more attuned to American counterculture in
the 1960s and 1970s and the New Left. However, it has had less impact
on specific school programs despite the encouragement from key sexuality
education researchers (Fields & Tolman, 2006; Fine & McClelland, 2006) and
greater impact on students and teachers, college courses, free-love cultures,
and communal home-schooling movements (Allyn, 2001).
Marcuse (1966) reappropriates Freud’s pleasure principle, arguing that
a good deal of repression and sublimation has been previously necessary
to build “civilization” to its “current advanced level.” However, this previous
repression has led to the preconditions for the gradual abolition of repression
supported by free society (rather than won by a struggle or revolution as
such). New technologies and automated production prevent the need for
drudgery. The body, no longer dominated by labor, can be resexualized
in a “resurgence of pregenital polymorphous sexuality and a decline of
genital supremacy” (Marcuse, 1966, p. 201). Alternatives to traditional family
structures can be explored.
The sexuality framework at the heart of this discourse allows for a diversity
of relations, experiences and embodied desires in all of their forms
(Fields & Tolman, 2006; Fine & McClelland, 2006). These can be pansexual,
genitally, or otherwise focused—as with fetishes or sado-masochism
(Marcuse, 1966, p. 202). The uniting aim is pleasure and freedom. However,
this aim is collective rather than individual. Rather than just the working
class, it also aims at liberating all people. Sexual acts are understood in
terms of their potential to liberate the collective consciousness and promote
peace. Thus, more experimental or group acts are “more liberating.” Sexual
learning is based on experimentation and communal reflection. There is
frank discussion of sexual theories and experiences. This ad hoc approach
has not attracted structured evaluation. A key criticism is the impracticality
of its eroticism and anti-establishment flavor for schools. It can be seen as
attacking institutionalised power (Carlson, 1992). Yet Fine and McClelland
Downloadedby[MasarykovaUniverzitavBrne]at08:1112March2014
154 T. Jones
(2006, p. 327) argue that youth report that school is precisely the place they
wish to learn about desire.
RADICAL FEMINIST/CULTURAL FEMINIST
Radical feminism grew out of the women’s liberation movement of the 1960s
and 1970s in the West (Tuttle, 1986). In education, proponents include some
teachers, women’s education groups and associations, rape crisis centres,
date rape education networks, and academics. Radical, cultural, or secondwave
feminism aims to “valorise the general category “woman”” (Hekman,
1999, p. 17). Information on typical programs and lessons is found in Learning
Our Way (Bunch & Pollack, 1983).
Reforms in the public sphere are seen as surface equality, leaving deeper
oppression unaffected. Thus, radical feminists declare the “personal is political”
and critique “the way human reproduction is controlled and socialized
through such institutions as marriage, compulsory heterosexuality and motherhood”
(Tuttle, 1986, p. 267). The aim is to overhaul social structures and
create an entirely new social system that caters to female and feminine bodies,
pleasures, knowledge, skills, arts, spirituality, goals, and cultures. There
is an emphasis on shared female power and grass roots, contextually specific
approaches. Stereotypes about female desire and sexual behavior are challenged,
and there is advocacy for women’s reproductive rights (Elia, 2005,
p. 788). In this framework, the ability of women to live and gain sexual
pleasure autonomously from men is emphasized: whether as self-fulfilling
individuals, within lesbian relations, or through more equitable models of
sexual partnering with men where they retain their personal power.
Methods include critical analysis, discussions, textual analysis, analytical
essays, research projects, group work, and critical rape education where
gender is deconstructed. School-, Internet-, and community-based activisms
may occur such as raising the profile of feminine crafts, skills, and interests;
creating girls-only “safe” spaces or rooms; or creating posters that challenge
sexisms. An evaluation found that as both girls and boys are affected by
rape myths and gender socialization, both need to take responsibility for
victimization of women (Feltey, Ainslie, & Geib, 1991). Conservative groups
can find the rejection of heterosexuality and sex roles alarming. Essentialist
understandings of femaleness can rely heavily on sex binaries in ways that are
exclusionary to transgender people and further entrench sex determinism.
Postmodern feminists reject this binary view of sexuality (Baber & Murray,
2001; Hekman, 1999).
ANTI-DISCRIMINATION/ANTI-HARASSMENT/EQUITY
This discourse has its early roots in civil rights movements, and it retains a
vocabulary of citizenship and human rights. It is also affected by movements
for people with disabilities and Goffmann’s work on stigma and disability in
Downloadedby[MasarykovaUniverzitavBrne]at08:1112March2014
Sexuality Education Discourses Framework 155
the early 1960s (Goffmann, 1963). The United Nations is a key proponent,
with its convention of 1969 against discrimination on the basis of a variety
of grounds. This is being extended to include sexual orientation and gender
identity (Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2008). Specific
anti-discrimination laws have also emerged in the United States, the United
Kingdom, Australia France, Canada, New Zealand, and China. The GLSEN
Lunchbox (GLSEN, 2005) incorporates this discourse, among others.
Discrimination is a social, economic, political, or legal distinction made
between individuals or groups such that one has the power to treat the
other unfavorably. In this discourse, it is understood as intrinsically negative
and based on stereotyping. It occurs against some minorities and sometimes
majorities. It can be direct or indirect (Lunt & Thornton, 1994, p. 228). The
focus is not on an individual’s negative experiences but rather on social
issues (e.g., sexism, homophobia, transphobia). The sexuality framework is
one of social equity: All people are assumed to possess fixed definable sexual
identity traits (e.g., sex, gender identity, orientation), and the variation in
these traits is seen as nonhierarchical and irrelevant to one’s “social value.”
Thus, a person’s sex, gender identity, or sexual orientation should not have
an impact on how they are treated, their access to services or institutions or
physical locations, and their economic or occupational opportunities. Furthermore,
all people have the innate human right to express their sexuality,
sex and gender identity freely.
Authorities in this discourse are “natural law,” the declared law, and the
critical society itself. Pedagogy tends to be student-centered and involves
exploring sexuality discrimination, legislation, anti-bias activities, or facilitated
activisms (such as Web site campaigns, petitions, or poster creation).
This approach can focus too much on top-down control of social issues.
Requirements of sexual tolerance can send the message there is “something
to be tolerated” about a sexuality/gender identity without examining the
system that made it appear intolerable. Therefore, while anti-discrimination
policies can protect students from anti-gay peer harassment (D’Augelli, 1998;
Lipkin, 1994; Macgillivray & Jennings, 2008) and prevent lawsuits (Buckel,
2000), they cannot ensure students are warmly included. Further, theories of
multiple discrimination need to go beyond “simplistic additive models”
(Sayce, 1998, p. 337).
INCLUSIVE EDUCATION
In most Western Organization for Economic Co-ordination and Development
(OECD) countries, including Australia, England, the United States, and
New Zealand, education policies based on the notion of “inclusion” are in
place (OECD, 2003). The aim is to supply equitable provision for diverse
students. The major impetus for inclusive education was the 1994 World
Downloadedby[MasarykovaUniverzitavBrne]at08:1112March2014
156 T. Jones
Conference on Special Needs Education in Salamanca (Magrab, 2003). This
discourse maintains that to be excluded is to be disempowered and constituted
as “abnormal” (Barton, 1997, p. 233). Canadian Guidelines (Public
Health Agency of Canada, 2008) and parts of the Christian curriculum Our
Whole Lives (Casparian, Goldfarb, Kimball, Sprung, & Wilson, 1999) feature
this discourse.
There is a belief that segregated schooling should not exist, including
special schools that deal with physical or mental disabilities, or schools such
as “Harvey Milk High” that cater specifically for sexually diverse students.
Such schools are seen as furthering stereotyping, creating divisions, and preventing
democratic participation. In this discourse, sexually diverse students
and gender diverse students are seen as “at risk of educational failure” if
their needs are not met in the regular classroom (McWhirter, McWhirter,
McWhirter, & McWhirter, 1998). These needs may involve greater representation
in class materials, minimisation of homophobia in the classroom,
counselling, social inclusion, and so forth (Elia & Eliason, 2010). The sexuality
framework incorporates sexual “others” to prevent these others becoming
“at risk,” such as representing diverse families in early childhood (Robinson,
2002, p. 428).
Authority in this discourse is spread among a variety of stakeholders
from inclusion training providers through to students and their families. Pedagogy
should be adapted to the needs of specific student groups so those
students feel included. Thus, an educator may aim to cover sexual issues
relevant to specific students with particular disabilities or orientations in a
sex education talk, choose a film featuring a bisexual historical figure in
class materials, or actively work to ensure a transgender student has some
friends to sit with at lunch. Invitations to school proms or parent dinners may
be worded to include same-sex couples. Inclusion is critiqued as stressful
for regular teachers (Forlin, 2001; Forlin, Hattie, & Douglas, 1996). Also, as
student sexualities can be “invisible,” educators may not grasp the need to
include them.
SAFE AND SUPPORTIVE SPACES/CARING COMMUNITY
This discourse emerged in some American and Australian education polity
in the 1990s. It derives from the work of Noddings, Mayeroff, Buber,
and Gilligan on “Caring Communities” (Noddings, 1984). Proponents include
the California Safe Schools Coalition and various levels of Australian
Government. It emphasizes the ethic of care. Caring Communities (or safe
and supportive spaces/environments) constitute integrated, whole school
family-style models. Nurturing and supportive relationships are considered
essential to students’ development. The influence of school staff and teachers
stems from their caring relationships with students. Policy examples include
Safe Schools are Effective Schools (VIC Government, 2006) and proposed
Downloadedby[MasarykovaUniverzitavBrne]at08:1112March2014
Sexuality Education Discourses Framework 157
requirements for anti-bullying education on sexual orientation and gender
identity under the Safe Schools Improvement Act (OpenCongress, 2010).
School is seen as a potentially dangerous environment for youth. Measures
need to be taken to make it physically, psychologically, and emotionally
a safe space. Dangers include verbal, physical, emotional and sexual
abuse, and discrimination. Agreed definitions of bullying, harassment, and
suitable consequences are created. Students are empowered to identify and
report sexual abuse or discrimination against themselves or others. Bullying
is seen as stemming from a lack of compassion. Thus, students are not rewarded
for “empathic actions”; these instead become the classroom culture’s
“norm” (Joseph & Elfron, 2005; J. R. Martin, 1992).
Sexuality is framed as an identity aspect that can increase a group’s risk
of abuse due to sexual difference (particularly sexual orientation). It is also a
potential field of abuse for all youth generally. These potential sexual abuses
and problems must be minimized by protections in the schools system for
dealing with staff and reporting processes. Overall, the aim is to make school
a place where all students are safe from any kind of problematic or negative
treatment of their sexuality.
Authority includes the law and the school community. Key pedagogical
methods are student-centered rule-setting sessions, lectures on recognizing
and reporting sexual abuse, sexual bullying intervention role-play, facilitated
student action on sexual bullying and homophobia (e.g., speeches, peer support,
posters), and empathy-building activities. Evaluation has found links
between same sex attracted youth’s perception of their school climate and
academic achievement (Mikulsky, 2005). In critique, there is a negative framing
of sexuality as generally related to abuse. Another problem is that a space
“safe” for one type of student can necessitate silencing the views of another
(making them feel “unsafe”) (Holley & Steiner, 2005).
GAY LIBERATIONIST
This discourse gathered strength throughout the late 1960s and the 1970s and
has made impact particularly in Canada; U.S. states such as Massachusetts and
California; and parts of Australia, Sweden, Denmark, and Britain (Angelides,
2008; Cloud, 2005; Moran, 2000). American gay activism gathered a new
militancy triggered by the 1969 “Stonewall rebellion” in New York City,
when for the first time various patrons at a gay bar fought back against
police harassment and started a series of street protests (Moran, 2000). Cloud
(2005) aligns gay liberation discourse in America with “Gay Straight Alliances”
(GSAs) and the Point Foundation. In Australia, the Melbourne Gay Teachers
and Students Group’s 1978 publication Young Gay and Proud is a prime
early textual example of this approach (Angelides, 2008).
Downloadedby[MasarykovaUniverzitavBrne]at08:1112March2014
158 T. Jones
Gay and lesbian people are seen as a marginalized group within society
that need to be acknowledged, protected, and supported. This marginalization
is seen as stemming from systemic and social homophobia; a fear,
hatred, and denial of homosexuality. This discourse emphasises the right to
free expression and enjoyment of same-sex attraction and gender diversity. It
privileges the idea that organized efforts could eventually liberate this group
from oppression. Youth versions of this discourse are more complex and
inclusive of straight students and mainstream culture.
Sexuality is framed as biologically determined, such that no pedagogy
can change it (Moran, 2000). It has an “orientation” towards a sexual object
(e.g., male, female, both) and is construed as an identity trait like race or sex.
This may be innately known to the individual or may be discovered. Repressing
it is considered harmful. Sexual acts are framed around self-affirmation
and mutual pleasure (Angelides, 2008) rather than reproduction. Authority
lies in the social “knowledge” of alternative communities. Pedagogy includes
the act of “coming out” by education workers, anti-homophobia education or
a focus on representing marginalized sexualities in curricula, and rules or activisms
against homophobic slurs. There is critique from conservative groups
who accuse advocates of attempting to “convert” children (Angelides, 2008).
Further, Cloud (2005) suggests the movement encourages gay students to
focus on their experiences of rejection and being marginalized instead of
resilience.
POSTCOLONIAL/CULTURAL HERITAGE/INDIGENIST SEX EDUCATION
Postcolonial discourse has been recently mobilized within American Indian
and Alaskan Native (AIAN) tribes and urban communities for HIV/AIDS
prevention programs and sexuality education (Duran & Walters, 2004); in
some Australian Aboriginal values education (Jones, 2009); in New Zealand’s
cultural education programs and elsewhere. It is based on postcolonial
studies—an interdisciplinary field that examines the “global impact of European
colonialism, from its beginnings in the 15th century up to the
present” (Leitch et al., 2001, p. 25). Key polity includes the 1975 American
Indian Self-Determination and Educational Assistance Act and other countryspecific
documents. A program example is We are all Related: Relationships
in Perspective—A Guide for Native American Youth (Paulson, 2001).
The postcolonialist view understands the historical and socio-cultural
colonization of a country from the perspective of its original inhabitants. In
sexuality education, the aim is to change negative stereotyping and reclaim
indigenous sexuality knowledge (Bhabha, 1983; Duran & Walters, 2004; Spivak,
1990). Parents, elders, and cultural leaders educate children within and
beyond school, promoting a deep understanding of and participation in
cultural arts and ceremonies. These models thus foster an integrated approach
to identity, morality, and sexuality.
Downloadedby[MasarykovaUniverzitavBrne]at08:1112March2014
Sexuality Education Discourses Framework 159
The sexual framework stems from the particular indigenous culture being
explored. The authorities promoted by this discourse include contextually
specific elders, indigenous groups, communities, and teachings. Pedagogical
methods may include use of oral histories, storytelling, camps and excursions,
guest speakers, engaging in traditional activities or other ceremonies.
Duran and Walters (2004) argue that there is yet not enough literature and
evaluative research on these approaches. They also point out that “the truth”
has to be carefully negotiated when considering conflicting Western and
native concepts of sexual health.
Postmodern
The postmodern orientation is the most recent, and involves analysis of concepts
of truth, authority, and reality (Jones, 2009). Various sex, gender, and
sexuality frameworks and positions are explored. Students can deconstruct
and co-construct these but also must be self-reflexive. Multiple perspectives
on issues and knowledge are taught, and a critical deconstructive approach
is taken such that the hegemony or discursive truths/assumptions of any
given time or culture are revealed. The “sexuality problem” educated against
is the perceived trap of hegemonic cultural truths. Authorized accounts and
positions are questioned.
Teachers may “play devil’s advocate” in relation to the student, acting
as a “deconstructor, not a mere supporter in the traditional sense of the
word” (Morton & Zavarzadeh, 1991, p. 11). In doing so they hope to develop
in students a critical oppositional position in relation to the dominant
order such that the partisan subject self-reflexively acknowledges their own
partiality, in the spirit of what Morton and Zavarzadeh term “both incompleteness
and committedness” (1991, p. 12). In acknowledging their split or
partial nature, the denaturalized student sees themselves as constituted by
a set of incoherent subject positions produced by cultural discourses, and
makes visible the arbitrariness of all seemingly natural meanings and cultural
organizations (Jones, 2009). Although a sense of essential or secure identity
is erased, the space of culture is opened up for reorganization and creative
change. Teachers facilitate study, debate, and individual and group exploration
of frameworks, supporting diverse students and creating a sense of
equality without basing this on an ideal “original” model (that other models
must relate to).
Pedagogical methods may include the teacher playing conceptual tricks
on students/deconstructing them, student engagement in a range of theoretical
and historio-cultural perspectives on an issue, class theorizing, vocabulary
invention and conceptual play, exploring multiple cultural activities,
and dress coding. Guest speakers and excursions offer insight into one of
the many theoretical or cultural perspectives being explored. The difficulty of
Downloadedby[MasarykovaUniverzitavBrne]at08:1112March2014
160 T. Jones
intellectual challenge in these approaches can be a factor for consideration;
however, they confront, rather than dismiss, the complex and multifarious
nature of sexuality. They further allow opportunities for an interesting and
evolved study of other approaches and knowledge types presented in the
exemplar and embrace conceptual play. They include Poststructuralist, Postidentity
Feminist, Multicultural Education, Diversity Education, and Queer
Theory.
POSTSTRUCTURALIST
Originally a vanguard movement of French literary intellectuals and philosophers
who were critical of structuralism and came into prominence during
the 1960s and 1970s, poststructuralism quickly spread to intellectuals around
the globe and became the leading edge of postmodernism (Carlson, 2005,
p. 635; Leitch et al., 2001, p. 21). It began affecting sexuality curricula in
disparate parts of the West during the 1990s and at the turn of the millennium,
sometimes relying on individual teachers’ interests and capabilities.
Central theorists drawn upon include Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Paul
de Man, Roland Barthes, Ernesto Laclau, and Slavoj Zizek. Paulsen (1999)
provides an example of this approach for dealing with masculinity.
Poststructuralist discourse views social reality as constituted or produced
by discourses or the language we use to “name” the world (Carlson, 2005,
p. 636). It is linked to French structuralism’s concern with language or discourse
and the way one inhabits language (langue) to engage in a speech
act/utterance (parole) (Carlson, 2005). Unlike structuralism, however, it problematizes
linguistic referentiality. As language cannot escape socio-historical
context or the general archive of culture, meaning in general is understood
as sliding, abyssal, and unknowable. This leaves the “truth” or “reality” of a
text, concept, or experience under question.
McLaren (1992) encourages teachers to explore the terrain of contemporary
theories of sexuality and gender, the possibility of multiple subjectivities
as opposed to unitary identity, and whether sexuality is preexisting
or postlanguage. One key process is the analytic procedure of deconstruction
developed by Derrida, a historian of philosophy (Leitch et al., 2001).
A second key process is renaming. McLaren (1992) promotes the process
of renaming sexuality and gender as a way to destabilize their current
descriptive features and “open their patriarchal and heterosexist anchor
points to hegemonic rearticulations” (p. x).
The sexuality framework applies the deconstruction process to expose
binary oppositions within (various) hegemonic understandings of sexuality,
desire, the body, sex, and gender. The hegemonies under investigation may
come from contemporary popular cultures (as reported through reflection on
experiences or through their emergence in texts) or other historio-cultural
Downloadedby[MasarykovaUniverzitavBrne]at08:1112March2014
Sexuality Education Discourses Framework 161
contexts (through study of primary and secondary sources). One inherent
or “true” model of desire, sex, or gender is thus not offered as such; rather,
preexisting models are called into “crisis” (Kumashiro, 2002). However, it
is important to note that such models are not entirely rejected; they are
uncovered neither as true nor false but as one of many possible perspectives
on “lived experience.” They are instead deemed more or less compelling,
productive, or useful.
Poststructuralist accounts trouble notions of “authority.” Pedagogy requires
educators to recognize how language constructs reality (Giroux, 1993;
McLaren, 1992). Methods include categorization games, analysis of texts,
deconstructive essays, debates, and group reflection. Poststructuralist approaches
are useful for extending students but may also be too difficult for
some groups. They can be too theoretical or overlook affective and physical
aspects of sexuality (McLaren, 1992).
POSTIDENTITY FEMINIST
Postidentity feminist discourse combines the reaction against second-wave
feminist constructions of “woman” and identity politics with postmodernist
and poststructuralist concerns (Hekman, 1999, p. 18). While it emerged
within education theory and research in the 1980s and 1990s, its impact
on sexuality curricula appears to be in discrete parts of the West during the
1990s and at the turn of the millennium, mainly via individual teachers. It is
based on the work of feminist theorists such as Wendy Brown, Iris Young,
Judith Butler, Susan Hekman, and Julia Kristeva. Proponents include education
theorists Debian Marty and Mary Margaret Fonow. Baber and Murray
(2001) provide guidelines and examples for this type of program.
A key belief is that identity is malleable, unfixed, and episodic (Baber &
Murray, 2001). Essentialist understandings of identity are questioned (Ussher,
1994) and its constructed nature revealed or brought to the fore if a particular
identity is asserted or discussed. This can be achieved through the
use of inverted commas or through discussing identity “construct/ion/s” or
“version/s,” or using other vocabulary that questions “truth.” The sexuality
framework sees sex and gender as social and historical constructs (Fonow
& Marty, 1992; Laumann & Gagnon, 1995; Laws, 1980). Students are encouraged
to explore exactly what these constructs entail and how they occur so
that they can move beyond such limitations. Sex, gender identity, orientation,
culture, race, and class cannot consistently explain any individual or group
(Harding, 1998). To foreground multiplicity, the concept of “sexualities” can
replace “sexuality” (Baber & Murray, 2001; Daniluk, 1998). Physical arousal
is assumed “real,” but the meanings attributed to sexual desire, objects,
relationship dynamics, and experiences are seen as wrought by culture
(Baber & Murray, 2001; Dworkin, 1987).
Downloadedby[MasarykovaUniverzitavBrne]at08:1112March2014
162 T. Jones
Authorities within the discourse include the feminist theorists studied
and at times the students in their critique of various constructs. Pedagogical
methods include discussion of texts about socialization, deconstruction of the
normalization of heterosexuality in popular culture, and use of lesbian and
heterosexual community panels (Fonow & Marty, 1992). Baber and Murray
(2001) suggest exercises for older students to interrogate the “prevailing
sexual scripts” for men and women in their culture. There is the risk of
overlooking those experiential aspects of identity and self-discovery central
to both teenagers’ and feminists’ understanding of sexuality (Hekman, 1999;
McLaren, 1992).
MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION
Multicultural education discourse grew out of the U.S. civil rights movements
of the 1950s and 1960s and the ethnic revivals of the 1970s (Mayo, 2005).
Parents and youth of color insisted that programs of study more accurately
corresponded to their various cultural backgrounds. Thus, this discourse generally
functions to ensure schooling equitably educates diverse populations
(Mayo, 2005, p. 561). Yet according to Moran, the move towards a focus
on sexuality within this discourse since the 1980s also functions as another
response to the AIDS epidemic in the United States, with rising incidence
among African American teens (Moran, 2000, p. 210). Unlike in postcolonial
discourse, all students (regardless of a nonindigenous background) are assumed
to gain from being educated about multiple sexual cultures. Compton
gives some guides and examples for programs of this kind (Compton, 1989).
A central belief is that multiple cultures can co-exist peaceably, with
people experiencing the world through different frames of understanding.
There is a theoretical and practical relinquishing of monoculture (Grant & Lei,
2001; Grant & Sleeter, 2002). A range of sexual traditions, sexual lifestyles,
and cultural views on sex are seen as equally valid. This approach’s sexuality
framework recognizes multiple cultural understandings of sexuality that
students may be subject to and operate within. These intersect in differing
ways for individual students. Factors such as race and cultural beliefs are
understood to shape one’s sexual “choices” or ability to be “assertive” in
exercising them (Lichenstein, 2000). Gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender
(GLBT)-inclusive multiculturalism usually looks at the issue of “family
structure” such as adoptive families and single-parent families, or examines
framings of homosexuality and gender identity across many cultures (Mayo,
2005, p. 562).
Authorities are relative to different cultures. Pedagogical approaches
include educating the students about their group, culture, or gender’s history
to fill in absences in traditional curriculum; emphasising inter-group relations
and cultural exchange; and exploring diverse student backgrounds through
Downloadedby[MasarykovaUniverzitavBrne]at08:1112March2014
Sexuality Education Discourses Framework 163
food fairs, cultural stories, and histories. Teaching may occur in multiple
languages or multiple modes. There is an effort to educate students about
sexuality using perspectives they are familiar with, as well as those they may
come across within a multicultural society.
This approach is critiqued on the basis that the versions of group or
culture identity represented within it can sometimes be simplistic, neglecting
the complexity of identity and the influence of subcultures (Mayo, 2005,
p. 562).
DIVERSITY EDUCATION/CELEBRATING DIVERSITY
Blackmore (2006) broadly links discourses of diversity in “most Anglophone
nation states” in recent decades to attempts at capitalizing on diversity within
the corporate world. This outlook celebrates the opportunity to capitalize on
and gain from a context of differentiation. Diversity is conceived as one broad
outlook covering all variation (O’Malleya, Hoyt, & Slattery, 2009), based on
the theoretically endless possible differentiation of identity aspects. There is,
as in other postmodern permeations, no assumed “norm.” However, all variation
is regarded as less stable than, for example, multicultural education’s
version of ethnicity. This is because inconsistency in identities and within
identities is highlighted. Thus, diversity is concerned with the ever-present
potential for differentiation and multiplicity rather than a specific range of differences
or groups. Aspects of this discourse appear in Celebrating Diversity
in Schools (Gay and Lesbian Youth Project, 2009).
Experience of differentiation among students, staff, and leaders is seen
as beneficial for all, leading to creativity, open-mindedness, decreased bullying,
and social cohesion (Covich, 2003; Gay and Lesbian Youth Project, 2009).
It is thus to be celebrated. Differences are of interest and value whether or not
they manifest within a particular student body. Indeed, diversity becomes its
own assumption; the student body is treated as if it contains, could contain, or
may benefit from considering a broader range of perspectives (Covich, 2003;
Gay and Lesbian Youth Project, 2009). Moreover, this approach can conceptually
investigate issues of racism, sexism, and homophobia without the reliance
on identities, portraying these as harmful to everyone rather than simply
harmful to one section of society (Gay and Lesbian Youth Project, 2009).
The sexuality framework at the heart of this model stresses multiplicity.
Sexuality is externally diverse in that it involves many types of bodies, sexes,
genders, and attraction types. Also, there may be inconsistencies or changes
in an individual’s attractions throughout time—sexuality is thus also internally
diverse. Because of this, a variety of relationship types, family structures,
and individual expressions are valued (O’Malleya et al., 2009). Reproduction
is also conceived in varying ways; it may result from male-female sexual
intercourse, from fertilization treatments, adoption processes, and so forth.
Downloadedby[MasarykovaUniverzitavBrne]at08:1112March2014
164 T. Jones
The emphasis is ideally on promoting the range of conceptual and practical
possibility rather than on promoting any one lifestyle model.
Empirical research on diversity is given authority. In classroom pedagogy,
teachers expose students to a broad range of relationship and family
types, subject possibilities, lifestyle, and sexual concepts through a combination
of theories, pop culture, viewing of texts, and analysis of “real world” experiences/phenomena.
Homophobic, transphobic, heterosexist, racist, sexist,
and other culturally limiting assumptions and vocabulary are challenged. The
intention here is to encourage students to start playing devil’s advocate or
simply pick up on such assumptions in their own lives and social circles.
Students are encouraged to explore conflicting and fluid aspects of identity
in their own experiences and in texts. Practitioners claim better results
from class atmospheres where diverse autobiographies and a multiplicity of
viewpoints are affirmed, but warn of less success when sexuality terms are
not clarified and religious or personal conflicts are allowed to erupt without
resolution (O’Malleya et al., 2009). There can be conservative critique of the
celebration of diverse sexualities and tolerance of lifestyles deemed immoral
by various religions (Shornack & Shornack, 1982).
QUEER THEORY
Queer most strongly emerged in Western academia during the early 1990s
and the turn of the millennium. It stems from poststructuralist theoretical
perspectives and reinforces the notion that identities are not fixed or stable
but rather are shifting, contradictory, dynamic, and constructed (Jagose,
1996; Robinson, 2005). Significant theorists are Michel Foucault, Judith Butler,
and Eve Kosofsky Sedgewick. Key education texts include Pinar (2005),
Duggan (1992), Britzman (1995), Bryson and De Castell (1993), and Talburt
and Steinberg (2000). These discuss approaches to “queer pedagogy,” the
“queerying” of education or teaching queer theory as a subject.
Queer is concerned with exposing the historic policing of what Butler
(1990) termed the “heterosexual matrix,” that is, the (re)production of
heterosexuality through (re)presentation of bipolarized oppositions of sex,
gender, and sexuality as “the norm” (feminine female heterosexuality and
masculine male heterosexuality). It also dramatizes incoherencies in these
(re)productions. Thus, queer theorists “. . . investigate the historical developments
of such categories as (. . .) woman and man, stressing (their) socially
constructed character” (Leitch et al., 2001, p. 25). A key queer perspective
upholds that all identities are performative (Butler, 1990), a complex interaction
among performance, cultural (re)citation, and embodiment.
However ironically, queer also offers the assertion of a particular identity
or sexuality framework. “Queer” identity includes all nonheteronormative
conceptions of identity (including those who see themselves as heterosexual
Downloadedby[MasarykovaUniverzitavBrne]at08:1112March2014
Sexuality Education Discourses Framework 165
in an “untraditional” way). To claim a consistent heterosexual, gay, male,
or female identity is highly problematic. It requires impossible erasures of
contradictory elements and potentials across cultures, iterations, and perceptions.
To even claim a male-to-female transsexual identity (or vice versa)
could also be problematic, as the locations that have apparently been travelled
across are not stable positions anyway. Queer is the least problematic
identity in that it “owns” its unqualifiable and limitless nature.
Queer pedagogy, informed by queer theory, thus undertakes to critically
examine what is considered to be the natural order of things in terms
of gender and sexuality. It is primarily about disrupting and destabilizing the
cultural binaries (such as “male-female” and “heterosexual-homosexual”) in
these normalizing discourses that operate to constitute and perpetuate artificial
hierarchical relations of power between their constructed polarized
opposites (Robinson, 2005, pp. 25–26).
Queer is often mistaken as purely deconstructive, but it offers coconstructive
projects that are useful for students. Butler (1990) offers three
key queer projects: overplay, transference, and erasure. Overplaying the
gendered and sexed norms of the heterosexual matrix to the point of ridiculousness
reveals how constructed, fake or forced they are. This strategy offers
fun possibilities to students—creative writers may create male characters as
ridiculously butch and unfeeling supermen, actors in the class could dramatize
females as completely unable to open doors for themselves, and so forth.
Transferring the production of femininity or masculinity onto untraditional
bodies also disrupts the sense that gender is “natural”/innate, and this is why
some classroom practices include drag shows and dress-up games. Finally,
erasing any definitions or words associated with sexuality, gender or sex can
be useful for creating new perspectives. . . asking students to consider other
ways of looking at sexuality that do not rely on being male or female offers
creative possibilities.
Queer theorists offer starting points, but even their own “authority”
is questioned (Kumashiro, 2002, p. 200). Structured “evaluations” of this
approach are not available (or in keeping with its paradigm). However,
the potential for student and teacher decisions and interactions to alter the
course of the curriculum has been affirmed through case vignettes (Jim´enez,
2009; Kumashiro, 2002). A key critique of queer is that it can be, and is in
some ways, purposely irritating for teenagers. On the other hand, queer can
appeal to their rebellious side. They may find it intensely liberating, funny,
and exciting to challenge all accepted notions of sexuality, subvert social
and literary traditions, and be given the conceptual freedom to speak about
sexuality in new ways. The approach’s inherent subversiveness can make
it entirely unpalatable to more conservative educators, yet educators from
a gay liberationist frame can equally resist Queer’s relinquishing of binaries
and labels (Bacon, 2006).
Downloadedby[MasarykovaUniverzitavBrne]at08:1112March2014
166 T. Jones
CRITIQUES AND CONCLUSIONS
A key point about sexuality education that comes through in exploring the
discourse exemplar is that it occurs in many different areas, not just in
specifically allocated “sexuality education lessons.” School policies, structures,
staffing, rules, uniforms, approaches to bullying, and morality education
are all discursive sites where messages about sexuality are imbued. The
posters a school displays (or does not), the books in its library (or those
banned from it), the essay questions used to examine a text in English can
all be implicated. The discourses activated in these areas have varied over
time yet remain active in contemporary education (to varying degrees). The
importance of being aware of (and naming) the discourses being drawn
upon, and the messages being sent in such approaches, cannot be underlined
enough.
Each discourse has contributed to the richness of vocabulary and possibility
within sexuality education. Yet, as noted throughout, there is critique
for each. There is certainly no flawless, universal sexuality education that
would suit every student and context. However, there are approaches that
are more or less damaging to particular students and social groups. The
potential for Christian/ex-gay redemption discourse to damage gay, lesbian,
bisexual, transgender, intersex, and queer students, for example, is alarming.
Yet postmodern sexuality educations could certainly be used to engage
with diverse sexualities in academically valid and interesting ways. They
also reposition students as more empowered and active participants, such
that the insights they might have to offer are not overlooked. However, such
discourses may be too “complex” for some students (and many educators).
Clearly, some education orientations (particularly critical and postmodern)
are underrepresented in education and research. Others (particularly
conservative) are perhaps overly represented. Abstinence-only education,
comprehensive education, and sexual risk have been more dominant in
America compared to more academic and diversity-endorsing approaches.
Yet the 28 approaches are not all mutually exclusive, and aspects of a few
discourses may be combined to avoid the pitfalls and inherent biases of being
limited to just one. For example, sexual risk discourse incorporates what
many educators would see as “essential” information for protecting students
and society in general from sexually transmitted diseases. Yet it provides
quite a negative view of sexuality that could (and should) be balanced by
other perspectives. Similarly, while diversity education offers quite an affirming
view of all students and their families, it needs to be balanced by more
practical sexual advice.
The key is being aware of the inherent flaws and limitations of taking
any one perspective and considering students’ needs from many angles.
Sexuality education is not, and should never be, cast as a simple field.
Like any subject (such as math or science) learning in this field should aim
Downloadedby[MasarykovaUniverzitavBrne]at08:1112March2014
Sexuality Education Discourses Framework 167
towards increasingly complex and varied learning rather than repetitive or
exclusionary content. Similarly, its different schools of thought must be made
explicit if they are to be properly debated. This needs to be achieved clearly
and concisely in the framing of research projects, theoretical arguments, and
policy and curriculum materials. It also can and should be achieved in the
framing of direct statements made by educators to students. For example: “I’ll
be talking to you about sexual acts from a sexual risk perspective today . . .”
or “This week we will consider a range of views on sexuality, including. . . .”
This equally qualifies the perspective drawn on, and acknowledges what is
“left out” in a way that respects both the field of sexuality education, and its
audience.
A final point: The aims of these discourses are so different that comparative
studies on their “effectiveness” can seem redundant. What approaches
aim to be effective at differs! Abstinence-only education has been repeatedly
compared to sexual risk and other approaches (as cited in its summary),
yet the former is concerned with preventing sexual contact before marriage
while the latter may be concerned with preventing a particular disease
epidemic. The differences between discourses are not minor or arbitrary.
Their conceptualizations of sexuality are worlds apart. Comparison is better
achieved through asking: Which aims and frames are superior? Which offer
relevance to particular school communities? Which will advance the field? Do
we accept current sexuality authorities and theories, or should we develop
new approaches? These questions suggest new directions for research and
practice alike.
NOTE
1. Including African and Asian countries, Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, New Zealand,
Norway, Russia, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and others, plus international policies from bodies such
as UNESCO.
REFERENCES
Allen, L. (2007). Examining dominant discourses of sexuality in sexuality education
research. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 17(1/2), 163–180.
Allyn, D. (2001). Make love, not war: The sexual revolution, an unfettered history.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Angelides, S. (2008). “The continuing homosexual offensive”: Sex education, gay
rights and homosexual recruitment. In S. Robinson (Ed.), Homophobia: An
Australian history (pp. 172–192). Sydney, Australia: The Federation Press.
APA Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation. (2009).
Report of the Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Arriola, E. R. (1998). The penalties for puppy love: Institutionalized violence against
lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth. The Journal of Gender, Race, and
Justice, 429, 1–43.
Downloadedby[MasarykovaUniverzitavBrne]at08:1112March2014
168 T. Jones
Ashcraft, C. (2006). Ready or not . . . ? Teen sexuality and the troubling discourse
of readiness. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 37(4), 328–
346.
Baber, K. M., & Murray, C. I. (2001). A postmodern feminist approach to teaching
human sexuality. Family Relations, 50(1), 23–33.
Bacon, J. (2006). Teaching queer theory at a normal school. Journal of Homosexuality,
52(1-2), 257–284.
Barton, L. (1997). Inclusive education: Romantic, subversive or realistic? International
Journal of Inclusive Education, 1(3), 231–242.
Beckstead, A. L., & Morrow, S. L. (2004). Mormon clients’ experiences of conversion
therapy: The need for a new treatment approach. The Counseling Psychologist,
32, 651–690.
Bhabha, H. (1983). The other question—the stereotype and colonial discourse.
Screen, 24(6), 18–36.
Blackmore, J. (2006). Deconstructing diversity discourses in the field of educational
management and leadership. Educational Management Administration Leadership,
34(2), 181–199.
Blair, A., & Monk, D. (2009). Sex education and the law in England and Wales:
The importance of legal narratives. In L. D. H. Sauerteig & R. Davidson (Eds.),
Shaping sexual knowledge: A cultural history of sex education in twentieth
century Europe. London, England, and New York, NY: Routledge.
Britzman, D. (1995). Is there a queer pedagogy? Or, stop reading straight. Educational
Theory, 45(2), 151–165.
Brown, S., & Taverner, B. (2001). Streetwise to sex-wise: Sexuality education for
high-risk youth. Morristown, NJ: Planned Parenthood of Greater Northern New
Jersey.
Bryson, M., & De Castell, S. (1993). Queer pedagogy: Praxis makes im/perfect.
Journal of Education, 18(3), 285–305.
Buckel, D. (2000). Legal perspective on ensuring a safe and nondiscriminatory school
environment for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered students. Education
and Urban Society, 32(3), 390–398.
Bunch, C., & Pollack, S. (Eds.). (1983). Learning our way: Essays in feminist education.
Trumansburg, NY: Crossing Press.
Burt, J., & Brower Meeks, L. (1987). Education for sexuality: Concepts and programs
for teaching (3rd ed.). Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown Publishing.
Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. London,
England: Routledge.
Caplan, J. (1979). Introduction to “female sexuality in fascist ideology.” Feminist
Review, 1(1), 59–66.
Carlson, D. L. (1992). Identity conflict and change. In J. T. Sears (Ed.), Sexuality and
the curriculum: The politics and practices of sexuality education (pp. 34–58).
New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Carlson, D. L. (2005). Poststructuralism. In J. T. Sears (Ed.), Youth, education, and
sexualities: An international encyclopedia (pp. 635–638). London, England:
Greenwood Press.
Carmody, M. (2009). Sex & ethics: The sexual ethics education program for young
people. Melbourne, Australia: Palgrave Macmillan.
Downloadedby[MasarykovaUniverzitavBrne]at08:1112March2014
Sexuality Education Discourses Framework 169
Casparian, E., Goldfarb, E., Kimball, R., Sprung, B., & Wilson, P. (1999). Our whole
lives sexuality education curricula series. Boston, MA: Unitarian Universalist
Association.
Catholic Education Office Melbourne. (2001). Directives for Christian education
in sexuality. Retrieved from http://web.ceo.melb.catholic.edu.au/
index.php?sectionid=10
Cloud, J. (2005, October 2). The battle over gay teens. Time Magazine. Retrieved
from http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1112856,00.html
Compton, A. Y. (1989). Multicultural perspectives on sex education. Sexual and
Relationship Therapy, 4(1), 75–85.
Consiglio, W. (1991). Homosexual no more. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.
Covich, S. (2003, Term 4). Safe schools: Celebrating diversity. New South Wales
Education Magazine, pp. 16–18.
D’Augelli, A. R. (1998). Developmental implications of victimization of lesbian, gay,
and bisexual youths. In G. M. Harek (Ed.), Stigma and sexual orientation: Understanding
prejudice against lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals (pp. 187–210).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Daniluk, J. C. (1998). Women’s sexuality across the life span: Challenging myths,
creating meanings. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
De Schweinitz, K. (1939). Growing up. The story of how a baby is born. Sydney,
Australia: Angus and Robertson.
Dewhurst, D. (1992). The teaching of controversial issues. Journal of Philosophy of
Education, 26(2), 153–163.
Duggan, L. (1992). Making it perfectly queer. Socialist Review, 22(1), 11–13.
Dune, J. (1997). A critique of research evaluating moral education interventions.
Pomona, CA: Polytechnic State University.
Duran, B., & Walters, K. L. (2004). HIV/AIDS prevention in “Indian country”: Current
practice, indigenist etiology models, and postcolonial approaches to change.
AIDS Education and Prevention, 16(3), 187–201.
Dworkin, A. (1987). Intercourse. New York, NY: Free Press.
Earls, R. F., Fraser, J., & Sumpter, B. (1992). Sexuality education—in whose interests?
In J. T. Sears (Ed.), Sexuality and the curriculum: The politics and practices
of sexuality education (pp. 300–324). New York, NY: Teachers College
Press.
Elia, J. P. (2005). Sexuality education. In J. T. Sears (Ed.), Youth, education, sexualities:
An international encyclopedia (pp. 785–789). London, England: Greenwood
Press.
Elia, J. P., & Eliason, M. (2010). Discourses of exclusion: Sexuality education’s silencing
of sexual others. Journal of LGBT Youth, 7(1), 29–48.
Elias, V. L. (2007). Long-term consequences of abstinence education. Unpublished
master’s thesis, Oklahoma State University.
Feltey, K. M., Ainslie, J. J., & Geib, A. (1991). Sexual coercion attitudes among high
school students: The influence of gender and rape education. Youth & Society,
23(2), 229–250.
Fields, J., & Tolman, D. (2006). Risky business: Sexuality education and research in
U.S. schools. Sexuality Research and Social Policy: Journal of NSRC, 3(4), 63–
76.
Downloadedby[MasarykovaUniverzitavBrne]at08:1112March2014
170 T. Jones
Fine, M., & McClelland, S. (2006). Sexuality education and desire: Still missing after
all these years. Harvard Educational Review, 76(3), 297–338.
Fonow, M. M., & Marty, D. (1992). Teaching college students about sexuality from
feminist perspectives. In J. T. Sears (Ed.), Sexuality and the curriculum: The
politics and practices of sexuality education (pp. 157–170). New York, NY:
Teachers College.
Forlin, C. (2001). Inclusion: Identifying potential stressors for regular class teachers.
Journal of Educational Research, 43(3), 235–245.
Forlin, C., Hattie, J., & Douglas, G. (1996). Inclusion: Is it stressful for teachers?
Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 21(3), 199–217.
Foucault, M. (1976). The history of sexuality: Volume one, the will to knowledge.
Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books.
Gay and Lesbian Youth Project. (2009). Celebrating diversity in schools [CD]. Melbourne,
Australia: Same Sex Attracted Eastern Action Group.
Girls Incorporated. (2001a). Growing together: A sexuality education program for
girls ages 9–11 and their parents. Indianapolis, IN: Girls Incorporated National
Resource Center.
Girls Incorporated. (2001b). Will power/won’t power: A sexuality education program
for girls ages 12–14. Indianapolis, IN: Girls Incorporated National Resource
Center.
Giroux, H. (1993). Border crossings: Cultural works and the politics of education.
New York, NY: Routledge.
GLSEN. (2005). The GLSEN lunchbox 2, revised edition: A comprehensive training
program for ending anti-LGBT bias in schools. New York, NY: Gay, Lesbian,
Straight Education Network.
Goffmann, E. (1963). Stigma: Some notes on the management of spoiled identity.
London, England: Penguin.
Grant, C. A., & Lei, J. L. (2001). Global construction of multicultural education:
Theories and realities. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Grant, C. A., & Sleeter, C. E. (2002). Making choices for multicultural education:
Five approaches to race, class, and gender. New York, NY: Wiley.
Grossman, A. (1997). Reforming sex: The German movement for birth control and
abortion reform, 1920–1950. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Haffner, D. W. (1992). Sexuality education in policy and practice. In J. T. Sears (Ed.),
Sexuality and the curriculum: The politics and practices of sexuality education
(pp. vii–viii). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Halperin, D. M. (1995). Saint = Foucault. Towards a gay hagiography. Oxford,
England: Oxford University Press.
Halpern-Meekin, S. (2008). School-based marriage education: An evaluation of
Florida’s high school relationship education requirement. Paper presented
at the American Sociological Association Annual Meeting. Retrieved from
http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p241808 index.html
Halstead, M. J. (1996). Values and values education in schools. In M. J. Halstead
& M. J. Taylor (Eds.), Values in education and education in values. London,
England: The Falmer Press.
Halstead, M. J., & Reiss, M. J. (2003). Values in sex education: From principles to
practice. London, England: Routledge Falmer.
Downloadedby[MasarykovaUniverzitavBrne]at08:1112March2014
Sexuality Education Discourses Framework 171
Harding, J. (1998). Sex acts: Practices of femininity and masculinity. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Hardisty, J. (1999). Mobilizing resentment. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Hekman, S. (1999). Identity crises: Identity, identity politics, and beyond. Critical
Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 2(1), 3–26.
Hoff Sommers, C. (2008). The war against boys: How misguided feminism is harming
our young men. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Holley, L. C., & Steiner, S. (2005). Safe space: Student perspectives on classroom
environment. Journal of Social Work Education, 41(1), 49–64.
Howard, M., & Mitchell, M. E. (2003). Managing pressures before marriage. Atlanta,
GA: Adolescent Reproductive Health Center Grady Health System.
Howes, E. (1915). The Cradle Ship. London, England: Cassell and Company Ltd.
Irvine, J. (2002). Talk about sex: The battles over sex education in the United States.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Jagose, A. (1996). Queer theory: An introduction. New York, NY: New York University
Press.
Jemmott, J. B., Jemmott, L. S., & Fong, G. T. (2010). Efficacy of a theory-based
abstinence-only intervention over 24 months: A randomized controlled trial
with young adolescents. ARCH Pediatrics Adolescent Medicine, 164(2), 152–
159.
Jim´enez, K. P. (2009). Queering classrooms, curricula, and care: Stories from those
who dare. Sex Education, 9(2), 169–179.
Jones, T. (2007). Framing the framework. In R. Brown, G. Finger, & C. Rushton
(Eds.), Education research: Who needs it? (pp. 47–70). Teneriffe, Australia: Post
Pressed.
Jones, T. (2009). Framing the framework: Discourses in Australia’s national values
education policy. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 8(1), 35–57.
Joseph, P. B., & Elfron, S. (2005). Seven worlds of moral education. Phi Delta
Kappan, 86(7), 525–534.
Kemmis, S., Cole, P., & & Suggett, D. (1983). Orientations to curriculum and transition:
Towards the socially critical school. Melbourne, Australia: Victorian Institute
of Secondary Education.
Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. R., & Martin, C. E. (1948). Sexual behavior in the human
male. Philadelphia, PA: W. B. Saunders.
Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. R., Martin, C. E., & Gebhard, P. H. (1953). Sexual behavior
in the human female. Philadelphia, PA: W. B. Saunders.
Kirby, D. (2007). Emerging answers 2007: Research findings on programs to reduce
teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. Paper presented at the The
National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, November,
Washington, DC.
Kirschenbaum, H. (1992). A comprehensive model for values education and moral
education. The Phi Delta Kappan, 73(10), 771–776.
Kohler, P. (2008). Abstinence-only and comprehensive sex education and the initiation
of sexual activity and teen pregnancy. Journal of Adolescent Health, 42(4),
344–351.
Kumashiro, K. (2002). Troubling education: Queer activism and anti-oppressive pedagogy.
New York, NY: Routledge Falmer.
Downloadedby[MasarykovaUniverzitavBrne]at08:1112March2014
172 T. Jones
Laumann, E. O., & Gagnon, J. H. (1995). A sociological perspective on sexual action.
In R. G. Parker & J. H. Gagnon (Eds.), Conceiving sexuality: Approaches to sex
research in a postmodern world (pp. 183–213). New York, NY: Routledge.
Laws, J. L. (1980). Female sexuality through the life span. In P. B. Baltes & G. Brim
(Eds.), Life-span development and behavior (Vol. 3, pp. 207–252). New York,
NY: Academic Press.
Leitch, V., Cain, W., Finke, L., Johnson, B., McGowan, J., & Williams, J. (2001). The
Norton anthology of theory and criticism. New York, NY: Norton.
Lennerhed, L. (2009). Taking the middle way: Sex education debates in Sweden in
the early twentieth century. In L. D. H. Sauerteig & R. Davidson (Eds.), Shaping
sexual knowledge: A cultural history of sex education in twentieth century Europe
(pp. 19–36). London, England, and New York, NY: Routledge.
Lichenstein, B. (2000). Virginity discourse in the AIDS era: A case analysis of sexual
initiation aftershock. NWSA Journal, 12(2), 52–69.
Lipkin, A. (1994). The case for a gay and lesbian curriculum. High School Journal,
77(1), 95–107.
Livingstone Smith, D. (1999). Approaching psychoanalysis. London, England: Karnac
Books.
Lunt, N., & Thornton, P. (1994). Disability and employment: Towards an understanding
of discourse and policy. Disability & Society, 9(2), 223–238.
Macciocchi, M.-A. (1979). Female sexuality in fascist ideology. Feminist Review, 1(1),
67–82.
Macgillivray, I., & Jennings, T. (2008). A content analysis exploring lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and transgender topics in foundations of education textbooks. Journal
of Teacher Education, 59(2), 170–188.
Magrab, P. (2003). UNESCO open file on inclusive education: Support materials for
managers and administrators. Paris, France: UNESCO.
Marcuse, H. (1966). Eros and civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud. Boston,
MA: Little, Brown.
Markman, H. J., & Halford, W. K. (2005). International perspectives on couple relationship
education. Family Process, 44(2), 139–146.
Martin, J. R. (1992). The schoolhome: Rethinking schools for changing families.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Martin, M. H. (2004). “No one will ever know your secret!” Commercial puberty
pamphlets for girls from the 1940s to the 1990s. In C. Nelson & M. H. Martin
(Eds.), Sexual pedagogies: Sex education in Britain, Australia, and America,
1879–2000 (pp. 135–154). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Masters, W. H., & Johnson, V. E. (1966). Human sexual response. Boston, MA:
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Publishers.
Masters, W. H., & Johnson, V. E. (1970). Human sexual inadequacy. Boston, MA:
Bantam Books.
Mayo, C. (2005). Multicultural education. In J. T. Sears (Ed.), Youth, education
and sexualities: An international encyclopedia (pp. 561–565). London, England:
Greenwood Press.
McLaren, P. (1992). Border anxiety and sexuality politics. In J. T. Sears (Ed.), Sexuality
and the curriculum: The politics and practices of sexuality education
(pp. ix–xiv). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Downloadedby[MasarykovaUniverzitavBrne]at08:1112March2014
Sexuality Education Discourses Framework 173
McWhirter, J. J., McWhirter, B. T., McWhirter, A. M., & McWhirter, E. H. (1998).
At-risk youth: A comprehensive response. Pacific Grove, CA: Brookes/Cole.
Mikulics, M. (1998). A systematic classification of approaches in values/ethics/moral/
character education. San Diego, CA: United States International University.
Mikulsky, M. J. (2005). Investigating the relationship between “school climate,” schoolrelated
outcomes and academic self-concept for Australian, secondary schoolaged
same-sex attracted youth (SSAY). Sydney, Australia: University of Sydney.
Molnar, B. E. (1997). Juveniles and psychiatric institutionalization: Toward better due
process and treatment review in the United States. Health and Human Rights,
2, 98–116.
Moran, J. P. (2000). Teaching sex: The shaping of adolescence in the 20th century.
London, England: Harvard University Press.
Morton, D., & Zavarzadeh, M. (1991). Theory pedagogy politics: The crisis of
“the subject” in the humanities. In D. Morton & M. Zavarzadeh (Eds.), Theory/pedagogy/politics:
Texts for change (pp. 1–32). Urbana and Chicago, IL:
University of Illinois Press.
Noddings, N. (1984). Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral education.
Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.
Northern Territory Government. (1998). Principles for dealing with controversial
issues in schools. Retrieved from http://www.det.nt.gov.au/corporate/policies/
schools policy handbook.shtml
NSW Government. (1983). Controversial issues in schools. Retrieved from www.det.
nsw.edu.au/policies/curriculum/schools/cont issue/PD20020045.shtml
O’Malleya, M., Hoyt, M., & Slattery, P. (2009). Teaching gender and sexuality diversity
in foundations of education courses in the United States. Teaching Education,
20(1), 95–110.
OECD. (2003). Diversity, inclusion and equity: Insights from special needs provision.
Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. (2008). Office of the high commissioner
for human rights 2008 report activities and results. Geneva, Switzerland:
United Nations.
OpenCongress. (Ed.). (2010). H.R.2262—safe schools improvement act of 2009. New
York, NY: Participatory Politics Foundation.
Patton, C. (1996). Fatal advice: How safe-sex went wrong. Durham, NC: Duke University
Press.
Paulsen, M. (1999). Deconstructing hegemonic masculinity: An approach for high
school students. Youth Studies Australia, 18(3), 12–17.
Paulson, S. (2001). We are all related: Relationships in perspective—a guide for Native
American youth. Bismarck, ND: Native American Training Institute.
Pearce, S. (2004). Molding the man: Sex-education manuals for Australian boys in
the 1950s. In C. Nelson & M. H. Martin (Eds.), Sexual pedagogies: Sex education
in Britain, Australia, and America, 1879–2000 (pp. 73–95). New York, NY:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Pearson, M. (2007). Relationship smarts PLUS. Berkeley, CA: The Dibble Institute for
Marriage Education.
Pemberton, L. (1948). The stork didn’t bring you. Sex education for teenagers (14th
ed.). New York, NY: Thomas Nelson & Sons.
Downloadedby[MasarykovaUniverzitavBrne]at08:1112March2014
174 T. Jones
Piaget, J. (1969). Science of education and the psychology of the child. New York,
NY: Viking.
Pinar, W. F. (2005). Queer and queer theory. In J. T. Sears (Ed.), Youth, education,
and sexualities: An international encyclopedia (pp. 673–675). London, England:
Greenwood Press.
Public Health Agency of Canada. (2008). Canadian guidelines for sexual health
education. Ottawa, Ontario: Infectious Disease and Emergency Preparedness
Branch, Public Health Agency of Canada.
Rabinbach, A. G. (1973). The politicization of Wilhelm Reich: An introduction to “the
sexual misery of the working masses and the difficulties of sexual reform.” New
German Critique, 1, 90–97.
Reich, W. (1931). Internationale Zeitschrift f¨ur Psychoanalyse. Wien: Internationaler
Psychoanalytischer Verlag.
Reich, W. (1945). Character-analysis: Principles and technique for psychoanalysts in
practice and in training. New York, NY: Orgone Institute Press.
Reich, W. (1971). The invasion of compulsory sex-morality. New York, NY: Farrar,
Straus and Giroux.
Reich, W. (1972). Sex-pol: Essays, 1929–1934. New York, NY: Random House.
Robinson, K. H. (2002). Making the invisible visible: Gay and lesbian issues in
early childhood education. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 3(2), 415–
434.
Robinson, K. H. (2005). “QUEERYING” GENDER: Heteronormativity in early childhood
education. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 30(2), 19–28.
Sauerteig, L. D. H., & Davidson, R. (Eds.). (2009). Shaping sexual knowledge: A
cultural history of sex education in twentieth century Europe. London, England,
and New York, NY: Routledge.
Sayce, L. (1998). Stigma, discrimination and social exclusion: What’s in a word?
Journal of Mental Health, 7(4), 331–343.
Shornack, L. L., & Shornack, E. M. (1982). The new sex education and the sexual
revolution: A critical view. Family Relations, 31(4), 531–544.
Shryock, H. (1951a). On becoming a man. A book for teenage boys. Warburton, MA:
Signs Publishing Company.
Shryock, H. (1951b). On Becoming a Woman. A Book for Teen-age Girls. Warburton,
Australia: Signs Publishing Company.
SIECUS. (2005). Guidelines for comprehensive sexuality education, kindergarten–
12th grade (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Sexuality Information and Education Council
of the United States (SIECUS).
SIECUS. (2008). History. Available from http://www.siecus.org/index.cfm?fuseaction
=Page.viewPage&pageId=493&parentID=472
Song, E. Y., Pruitt, B. E., McNamara, J., & Colwell, B. (2000). A meta-analysis examining
effects of school sexuality education programs on adolescents’ sexual
knowledge, 1960–1997. Journal of School Health, 70(10), 413–416.
Spivak, G. (1990). The postcolonial critic: Interviews, strategies, dialogue. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Strange, V., Forrest, S., Oakley, A., & Stephenson, J. (2006). Sex and relationship
education for 13–16 year olds: Evidence from England. Sex Education, 6(1),
31–46.
Downloadedby[MasarykovaUniverzitavBrne]at08:1112March2014
Sexuality Education Discourses Framework 175
Swain, S., Warne, E., & Hillel, M. (2004). Ignorance is not innocence: Sex education
in Australia, 1890–1939. In C. Nelson & M. Martin (Eds.), Sexual pedagogies: Sex
education in Britain, Australia, and America, 1879–2000 (pp. 33–52). New
York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Talburt, S., & Steinberg, S. (2000). Thinking queer: Sexuality, culture and education.
New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Tuttle, L. (1986). Encylopedia of feminism. London, England: Arrow Books.
UNESCO. (2009). International technical guidance on sexuality education: An
evidence-informed approach for schools, teachers and health educators. (Vol. 1).
Paris, France: UNESCO Section on HIV and AIDS, Division for the Coordination
of UN Priorities in Education, Education Sector.
Ussher, J. M. (1994). Theorizing female sexuality: Social constructionist and poststructuralist
accounts. In P. Choi & P. Nicolson (Eds.), Female sexuality (pp.
100–124). New York, NY: Harvester/Wheatsheaf.
VIC Government. (2006). Safe schools are effective schools: A resource
for developing safe and supportive school environments. Retrieved from
http://www.education.vic.gov.au/healthwellbeing/safety/bullying/default.htm
Victorian Department of Human Services. (2003). The family and reproductive rights
education program (FARREP). Melbourne, Australia: Victorian Department of
Human Services.
Vojak, C. (2006). Examining children’s interests in light of parent-centered trends in
education (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental process.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wanlass, R. L., Kiimann, P. R., Beila, B. S., & Tarnowski, K. J. (1983). Effects of sex
education on sexual guilt, anxiety, and attitudes: A comparison of instruction
formats. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 12(6), 487–502.
Woolfolk, A. (2005). Educational psychology: Active learning edition (9th ed.).
Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Downloadedby[MasarykovaUniverzitavBrne]at08:1112March2014