Incorporating human sexuality content into a positive youth development framework: Implications for community prevention

Abstract

As approaches to positive youth development (PYD) gain momentum, the issue of sexuality – a critical component of human development – is being subsumed by ideological debates. In the current political climate, sexuality education is often relegated to biological and/or values-based approaches, neglecting essential relational and collective aspects of sexuality. Through the explication of sexuality as an important component of youth's social ecology, this paper provides a conceptual link between the goals of the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States' (SIECUS) Guidelines for comprehensive sexuality education and those of PYD. We argue that sexuality, as a normative part of human development, culture, identity, and relationships, be approached from an asset-based perspective, rather than a deficit-based perspective. We propose a framework that illustrates how aspects of sexuality are embedded within PYD contexts, and demonstrates how a sexuality education program rooted in SIECUS guidelines can further PYD goals across community contexts.

Introduction

Reproductive health among adolescents and youth in the U.S remains a major priority in public health, with responsible sexual behavior being a leading health indicator (U.S. Public Health Service, 2008). According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) 2007 Youth Risk Behavior Survey, 64.6% of students in the twelfth grade report that they have engaged in sexual intercourse (Eaton et al., 2008). Almost one half of the 19 million annual new cases of the reportable sexually transmitted diseases (chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis combined) occur among 15–24 year olds (Weinstock, Berman, & Cates, 2004). Additionally, one out of three girls will become pregnant before age 20 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2008).

Although teen pregnancy and birth rates have declined since 1991, birth rates increased in 2006 (Centers for Disease Control, 2008). To address the issue of adolescent sexual behavior, many schools and some youth serving agencies have implemented abstinence education programs. These programs are often funded in part through the federal Abstinence Education Grant Program, which provides funds to States for providing local programs in schools and communities (Administration for Families and Children, 2008). Local grantee organizations are therefore obligated through the language of the law to constrain discussion of human sexuality to risk prevention through abstinence from sexual activity outside of marriage (H.R. Rep. No. 104-193, 1996). Consequently, the complex and overarching effects of sexuality on many aspects of adolescent development are often neglected. Numerous authors have explored the ineffectiveness of abstinence-only interventions (Kirby, 2001, Perrin and DeJoy, 2003, Santelli et al., 2006, Trenholm et al., 2007), suggesting that alternate preventative measures be explored.

Sexuality is an essential part of human development, and is not limited to sexual intercourse, but covers a wide range of behaviors, personal expression and communication (Arnett, 2001, Savin-Williams and Diamond, 2004, Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States [SIECUS]. National Guidelines Task Force, 2004). During adolescence, sexual development accelerates, with rapid changes to adolescents' bodies (Arnett, 2001). Although sexuality education courses may discuss these physical developmental changes with adolescents, they often overlook the ways in which these changes affect interpersonal and cultural experiences throughout young people's lives. Beyond the youth's physical experience of a changing body, sexuality and gender identity and their expression affect youth's intrapersonal, relational, and societal interactions. The disconnect between the lived sexual experiences of youth and the restricted and acontextual content of the messages sent in many programs can make it difficult for young people to internalize and practice what they learn. For these reasons, it is necessary to address the role of sexual development across contexts, and to address sexuality education from a comprehensive standpoint. Although many comprehensive sexuality education programs do not address all of the aspects of sexuality mentioned here, a plethora of literature has advocated more comprehensive sexuality education as an alternative to abstinence-only education (Fine, 1988, Fine and McClelland, 2006, Kirby, 2001, Kirby, 2002, Kotchick et al., 2001, Lasser, 1996, Santelli et al., 2006).

As authors have argued for the necessity of including relational and contextual factors in sexuality education, many have begun to draw parallels between effective sexuality education and youth development interventions (Flay, 2002, Gallagher et al., 2005, Greenberg et al., 2003, Kirby and Coyle, 1997, Perlman et al., 2004). Youth Development programs are designed to foster a set of guiding “desired outcomes” often referred to as “The Five Cs”: confidence, character, connection, competence, and contributions (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2008, Pittman et al., 2001). These outcomes are characteristic of positive youth development (PYD) programs, which focus on building relationships among youth and adults, empowering youth to advocate for themselves, focusing on strengths and assets rather than deficits, and including the youth's social context in the intervention (Hamilton, Hamilton, & Pittman, 2004). These PYD program goals contrast with problem focused “deficit model” initiatives by facilitating positive socialization and prosocial competencies among youth (Roth & Brooks-Gunn, 2003). This paper will provide a brief review of the strategies and concepts related to positive youth development and comprehensive sexuality education, and relate adolescent sexuality to a holistic “wellness” paradigm as developed by Prilleltensky, a notable education scholar and community psychologist (Evans and Prilleltensky, 2007, Prilleltensky and Fox, 2007, Prilleltensky, 2008). Finally, aspects of PYD will be presented in an integrative framework for comprehensive sexuality education. We will argue that inherent limitations of abstinence only approaches can be addressed in community settings outside of schools – and further, that promotion of healthy sexuality as part of youth development needs to be addressed across all contexts where adolescents live and interact.