Finally, we come across an argument that suggests that adolescent sexuality is a problem itself. In other words, the proponents might argue that there is something inherently wrong with adolescent sexuality. However, I argue there is nothing inherently wrong with adolescent sexuality, rather the problem is socially and culturally informed; it is not in the nature of adolescent sexuality as proponents claim.
Looking at three countries specifically (the Netherlands, Germany, and France), researchers found that these countries looked at adolescent sexuality from a health angle rather than as a moral issue.63 These other countries also saw adolescents as responsible
61 Cf. Earmans and Black, 31. For a list of studies, see 246n102. 62 Erdmans and Black, 31-32. My emphasis.
63 Debbie Mabray and Bill J. Labauve. “A Multidimensional Approach to Sex Education.” Sex
Education Vol. 2, No. 1 (2002): 32. Moreover, comparing adolescent pregnancies in the US with other
countries, studies show that the US teenage pregnancy rate is much higher than in Great Britain, France, Germany, the Netherlands, or Japan. The lower rates suggest that not only do these other countries give a better outlook of sex education, but they do not view adolescent sexuality as a problem to be solved.
56
and expected adolescents to behave responsibly, that is, adults viewed these adolescents not as overgrown children, but as emerging adults who are expected to take on more responsibilities as they mature.64 They are empowered to have information about
sexuality to make better decisions. Thus, these other countries view adolescent sexuality as part of life, not as a problem.
If we look at the Netherlands specifically, sociologist Amy T. Schalet provides a cross-cultural study between American and Dutch adolescents. The common narrative surrounding American adolescents is that adolescent sexuality is seen as hormonal, impulsive, and irrational where there is a noted external peer pressure, especially from males to females. This discourse is not the case in Dutch culture. The Dutch culture emphasizes that sexuality is normal—gewoon, a Dutch word that means “normal”
“ordinary,” “acceptable,” and especially in the context of sexuality, without any notion of shame or discomfort. Instead of sexuality being seen as impulsive and hormone-filled, the Dutch culture sees adolescent sexuality as a result of a romantic connection, where
adolescent sexuality is already relationship-based. Americans, by contrast, are typically skeptical of adolescents falling in love because the construction of the adolescent is seen as “dangerous, conflicted, and deeply polarized.”65
Finally, American adults typically do not see others—especially adolescents—as proper sexual beings unless they are fully autonomous, meaning having less parental control and being mature, which would also entail having less parental control in the first place.66 Autonomy, therefore, entails that one is legitimately sexual. The more authority
one has over an adolescent, the less autonomy—and therefore, the less sexuality—the
64 Ibid. 65 Schalet, 77. 66 Cf. Schalet, 82-84.
57
adolescent has. Since adolescents are not legitimately sexual, their sexuality is regulated by the parents. The Dutch culture, however, sees adolescents as self-regulating sexual actors. Dutch adolescents engage in sexual activity when they feel that they are ready and that they are aware of potential risks and taking precautions to mitigate those risks. Thus, Dutch culture emphasizes sexual self-knowledge through sex education, and give
adolescents the opportunity to plan ahead and to be responsible. The culture encourages adolescents to be prepared by offering them readily stigma-free contraception and encouraging them to visit their family doctors, who also provides contraception to adolescents.67
From what was stated above, the problem of how one treats adolescent sexuality is cultural. There really is no a priori “problem” with adolescents; the problem is how one views adolescents, which suggests that the narrative of impulsive sexuality is a cultural phenomenon and not simply a biological explanation. The hormonal discourse makes parents and schools restrict adolescent sexuality rather than acknowledge or normalize adolescent sexuality. With this discourse comes the idea that adolescents may engage in sex out of irrational desire or external pressure. In situations where one treats adolescents as having no full competence or autonomy, where one sees adolescents as inferior in order to have an unfair advantage over them, such a view is what Flasher has termed “adultism.”68 Adultism is the view that because adults have authority over
children, their power gives them an unfair advantage, which results in the adults considering themselves superior in skills, virtues, and talents. Any minor is seen as inferior until she reaches adult age and not as a unique, competent being. Typically,
67 Cf. Schalet, 39-40.
58
adultist behavior results in overprotecting the adolescent where the adolescent is not encouraged to think, act, or talk on her own. If adolescents are seen as more autonomous and in control of their own sexuality, then a culture is produced where adolescent
sexuality is something that is a given and not a problem to be solved. The comparison of American and Dutch culture point out the idea, as Schalet points out, that “teenage sexuality…is the product of our cultural constructs and institutions.”69 Of course,
adultism can take many modes.
PSE discourses deny access and information to youths about contraception, sexual diversity, or sexual pleasure and they are replaced with inaccuracies.70 If they cannot
have access to sexual information, they may not be able to think critically in an informed way, or they may be taken advantage of.
When it comes to sexuality, the PSE position looks questionable as I have shown throughout this chapter. If, however, proponents still support PSE but cannot offer any justification for it, I suggest they are being adultist with regards to adolescent sexual behavior and will not allow the adolescent to gain autonomy as they develop. “While they [the adults] might best constructively help a child modify his or her potentials and directions when indicated, it is adultist when they use that extra power to mold a child
69 Schalet, 3.
70 Some of the examples of the inaccuracies taken from Laurie Mintz. “Abstinence-Only Sex Ed: Harmful? Unethical?” Psychology Today. September 5, 2017. (Accessed February 14, 2019.)
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/stress-and-sex/201709/abstinence-only-sex-ed-harmful- unethical:
● Programs are scientifically flawed.
● Programs are ineffective in achieving their goals.
● There is little public and professional support for these programs. ● The programs harm sexual minority youth.
● The programs reinforce gender stereotypes such as female passivity and male aggression. ● The programs ignore adolescents who are already sexually active.
59
with whom they come into contact in their own image.”71 This argument is not saying
that adults should not take charge over children; rather, adults should not abuse their power even if they take charge. There is a difference between being authoritative and being authoritarian. The former means to take charge and to direct, yet allowing those being charged to have responsibilities and duties for self-direction (what I would call “thin” paternalism); the latter means to have full charge and direction where those being charged have no say in the matter (what I could call “thick” paternalism). In other words, the adultist is authoritarian by abusing their power. PSE, in the way I have defined it, has an authoritarian streak. But to teach adolescents properly, the adults in charge of the class must be authoritative in that they must correct the students on misinformation, but the adults should not withhold information.
To put a limit on a really strict, authoritarian style, we would have to show some reasons why strict, authoritarian parenting could inhibit the children. One study shows children who have parents that are authoritative, meaning that they have certain
guidelines but these are communicated to the children and the children are able to give input with the decision-making process, reported more positive outcomes through their adolescence than if parents were authoritarian. If the parents have a more authoritarian style of parenting, meaning that the parents set strict rules and boundaries without any input or negotiation from the children, then this leads to more developmental problems for the children, including risky sex.72
How adults treat their children could be seen in the different cultural views between the US and Europe. Even if parents still have authority over the adolescents, the
71 Flasher, 518. 72 Young, et. al., 364.
60
adolescents have the right to be heard if they feel that the parents do not have good justification for their paternalism. Both parents and adolescents will benefit by listening to each other and understanding what interests the other has.