This article was downloaded by: [Michele J. Eliason]On: 27 October 2011, At: 09:49Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

American Journal of Sexuality EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wajs20

Dangerous Omissions: Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage School-Based SexualityEducation and the Betrayal of LGBTQYouthJohn P. Elia PhD a & Mickey J. Eliason PhD aa Department of Health Education, San Francisco State University,San Francisco, CA, USA

Available online: 13 Apr 2010

To cite this article: John P. Elia PhD & Mickey J. Eliason PhD (2010): Dangerous Omissions:Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage School-Based Sexuality Education and the Betrayal of LGBTQ Youth,American Journal of Sexuality Education, 5:1, 17-35

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15546121003748848

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

American Journal of Sexuality Education, 5:17–35, 2010Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1554-6128 print / 1554-6136 onlineDOI: 10.1080/15546121003748848

Dangerous Omissions:Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage School-Based

Sexuality Education and the Betrayal of LGBTQYouth

JOHN P. ELIA, PhD and MICKEY J. ELIASON, PhDDepartment of Health Education, San Francisco State University, San Francisco, CA, USA

To gain an understanding of how abstinence-only-until-marriageschool-based sexuality education has been exclusionary, it is im-portant to explore how heteronormativity has been endorsed, playedout, and reproduced ever since school-based sexuality educationhas been offered in the United States. Such an exploration re-veals glaring evidence that lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender,and queer (LGBTQ) issues and individuals have been left out. Itis likely that this has had negative repercussions on LGBTQ youthand heterosexually identified youth alike. The majority of this arti-cle deals with how sexuality education, particularly since so manyabstinence-only-until-marriage-until marriage programs have re-ceived federal funding since 1996, has discriminated against sex-ual others (those who do not identify as heterosexual). We providean analysis of school climate and the consequences of the lackof positive attention to LGBTQ issues and individuals in schools.While we point out that historically these preferential practices anddiscourses and their resulting negative consequences have alwaysbeen the case in U.S. schooling, they have been reified and repro-duced as a direct result of the federally backed abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. Among other issues, we discuss risk fac-tors LGBTQ youth face as well as the notion of resiliency, and thetension between these two perspectives when addressing the fall-out of exclusionary sexuality education. The entire school culturehas been, and continues to be, negatively affected by this kindof exclusion, and the situation is much more complicated than

Address correspondence to Dr. John P. Elia, Department of Health Education, SanFrancisco State University, 1600 Holloway Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94132-4161. E-mail:jpelia@sfsu.edu

17

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mic

hele

J. E

liaso

n] a

t 09:

49 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

011

18 J. P. Elia and M. J. Eliason

heterosexuals versus sexual and gender “minorities.” Ultimately,we provide ideas about how school-based sexuality education couldbe offered in a more just and responsible manner to make it moreequitable and safe for all students.

KEYWORDS Abstinence-only-until-marriage sexuality educa-tion, comprehensive sexuality education, heteronormativity,LGBTQ students, resiliency, risk factors, school climate

“Those who opposed classroom discussion of homosexuality contendedthat childhood sexuality is infinitely malleable, homosexuality is conta-gious [and dangerous], and the innocent child—who could and shouldbe heterosexual—was imperiled by lesbians and gay men preying in thepublic schools.”—Janice M. Irvine, 2002, p. 171

“Teaching about homosexuality [or other nonnormative sexualities]is justifiable on pragmatic grounds. To prepare for democracy studentsmust learn about gays and lesbians [and a plethora of sexual and genderexpressions] as a part of the American patchwork.”—Arthur Lipkin, 1999,p. 328

INTRODUCTION

School-based sexuality education in the United States has almost invariablyfocused on one particular form of heterosexuality and has mostly excluded,both in terms of the discourse and pedagogical practice, teaching about sex-ualities that have been traditionally marginalized or othered such as lesbian,gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) sexualities (Elia & Eliason,2010). In this article, we explore the history of school-based sexuality ed-ucation in the United States with a specific focus on how the discoursesand practices of sexuality education have reified and reproduced a specific,hegemonic form of white, middle-class heterosexuality. Next, we articulatethe current discourse of exclusion in sexuality education and school culturein terms of school climate. We then turn to an analysis of how such sexu-ality education is harmful to all school children no matter what their sexualidentities. Finally, we explore how sexuality education could be more justand equitable to students of all sexual preferences and gender identities.

THE LEGACY OF SEXUALITY EDUCATIONIN THE UNITED STATES

School-based sexuality education in the United States began in 1913 withthe founding of the American Social Hygiene Association, whose goal was

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mic

hele

J. E

liaso

n] a

t 09:

49 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

011

Dangerous Omissions 19

“wholesome” living and eradication of “social diseases.” The founders, earlywomen’s rights proponents, physicians, lawyers, and educators, launcheda broad campaign against sexually transmitted infections and prostitutionthrough the mechanism of “character building.” They were among the first tosuggest that public schools should be involved in sexuality education aimedat containing sexual contact within marriage. This viewpoint prevailed wellinto the 1960s, when changes in society forced some greater considerationof comprehensive sexuality education, which only lasted for a few decadesbefore a conservative backlash relegated this more inclusive and extensivesexuality education to the school closet.

Since the very beginning of sexuality education in schools in the early20th century, sexuality educators almost invariably favored a specific brandof reproductive heterosexuality at the exclusion of other forms of sexuali-ties (Elia, 2009). This is not surprising given the history of sexuality in theWestern world. The influential discourses generated and circulated by theinstitutions of organized religion (i.e., Judaism and Christianity), medicine(e.g., psychiatry), the law, and education along with the prominent back-drop of Victorian sexual prudery carried enormous power and influence(Moran, 2000), and ultimately pushed the value of traditional heterosexualitywith an emphasis on marriage and reproductive sexuality. In her seminalessay about sexual hierarchies and sex panic, Gayle Rubin (1993) stated that“modern Western societies appraise sex acts according to a hierarchical sys-tem of sexual value. Marital, reproductive heterosexuals are alone at the topof the erotic pyramid. Clamoring below are unmarried monogamous hetero-sexuals in couples followed by most other heterosexuals” (p. 11). Rubin callsour attention to the hierarchies and heterogeneity of heterosexuality. In fact,in our view, the term heterosexualities should be used to denote a multitudeof sexual activities and relationship styles that fall under the general rubric of“heterosexuality.” Rubin described what she calls the “charmed circle” and“outer limits.” In the charmed circle there exists hegemonic heterosexual-ity and its qualities, including marriage, monogamy, and procreation, withpartners of the same age and who engage in the missionary position forpenile-vaginal intercourse. This is the blessed, sacred, and socially approvedform of sexuality, according to Rubin. All other forms of sexual expressionfall into the “outer limits” and are socially disapproved of and, in some cases,even despised and punished. Rubin noted, however, that the closer sexualrelationships and acts approximate those qualities in the charmed circle, thecloser one gets to social acceptance. For example, oral sex among marriedor at least committed couples has inched its way into the circle. Rubin as-serts that “most homosexuality is still on the bad side of the line. But if itis coupled and monogamous, the society is beginning to recognize that itincludes the full range of human interaction” (Rubin, 1993, p. 15). Rubin’snotion of the “charmed circle” and “outer limits” provides a useful analyticframework for why school-based sexuality education has been centered on

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mic

hele

J. E

liaso

n] a

t 09:

49 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

011

20 J. P. Elia and M. J. Eliason

the culturally dominant form of heterosexuality and why it has been soexclusionary.

These institutional discourses and their manifestations, as Rubin so elo-quently points out, have shaped sexual values toward marital monogamywith a strong focus on reproduction. Returning to the history of sexuality ed-ucation, perhaps one of the main reasons why marriage was strongly—andeven desperately—emphasized was that it was on the decline during thefirst two decades of the 20th century. In fact, many people postponed get-ting married, some did not marry at all, and the divorce rate increased duringthis period (Luker, 2006). In addition, with the culmination of industrializa-tion in the United States during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, familysize decreased and thus also served to de-emphasize the importance of mar-riage along with relatively large families. Another important factor was thattraditional gender/sex roles were being challenged by some middle and up-per class women who turned their backs on marriage and pursued highereducation and careers of their own (Luker, 2006). In their influential workon the history of sexuality in America, Estelle Freedman and John D’Emilio(1988) note that “the growing autonomy of women opened up new possibil-ities for them to pursue the erotic; new conceptions of female sexuality bothreflected and encouraged this shift” (p. 234). However, this only applied toupper-class white women. Lower birth rates among white women fosteredracist panic and the need to curb birth rates of people of color and poorpeople, who were already viewed as promiscuous and immoral. Adding toan already long list of phenomena that seemingly threatened the viability andstability of marriage and reproductive sexuality in the early 20th century wasthe availability of information about, and dissemination of, birth control. Allof this created a moral panic of sorts among the more conservative factions ofsociety. Thus, sexuality education became focused on marital revitalizationalmost exclusively.

Marriages were no longer primarily based on economic reasons and thepossibilities for “companionate marriages” were gaining popularity (Moran,2000). Sexuality educators, taking the lead from medical authorities of thetime, “. . . no longer had to rely on worn-out moral or medical reasoningto condemn masturbation, promiscuity, or other sexual misbehaviors, forpsychiatry allowed them to indict those behaviors more relevantly as im-pediments to mental and emotional ‘adjustment’” (Moran, 2000, p. 94) thatwas supposedly achieved by marriage. Sexuality educators did not abandonthe idea that heterosexual married life was best and sexuality education ef-forts continued to extol the virtues of marriage. This was not such a difficulttask given the inertia of Victorian morality and the support of the medicalestablishment’s (e.g., particularly psychiatry) admonishing and condemningsexual expression that departed from marital sexuality. Medicine promotedthe idea that (heterosexual) marriage was linked to healthy adult develop-ment and emotional adjustment. Besides linking healthy sexual expression

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mic

hele

J. E

liaso

n] a

t 09:

49 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

011

Dangerous Omissions 21

to marriage, sexuality education often focused on disease prevention andthe harmful effects of sexually transgressive behaviors (mainly prostitution).

A major purpose of sexuality education has been to prevent the spreadof sexually transmitted diseases, viz., syphilis and gonorrhea, and to inculcateVictorian morality in school-aged youth (Brandt, 1987). This focus on thenegative aspects of sexuality (e.g., disease and morality) continues today.Historically, such instruction has been mostly limited to the factual aspectsof sexual anatomy and physiology related only to reproduction, not thoserelated to sexual pleasure. Human reproduction, coupled with the explicitmessage that sexual activity should be postponed until marriage, and that “. . .masturbation, homosexuality, and sex for a fulfilled lifestyle were all tabootopics” (Campos, 2002, p. 98). Not much has changed. Although there havealways been ideological conflicts over what ought to be taught, with somebrief periods in the 1970s during which more inclusive, comprehensive formsof sexuality education enjoyed some success, it is widely documented thatthe majority of sexual instruction has favored a conservative, sex negativeapproach (see, e.g., Brandt, 1987; Campos, 2002; D’Emilio & Freedman, 1988;Elia, 2000a, 2000b; Moran, 2000).

GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT IN SEXUALITY EDUCATION

Until the early 1980s, the federal government was not involved in sexual-ity education but left curricular decisions to local or state school officials.Now there are three separate federally funded sexuality education efforts.The first of these was the Adolescent Family Life Act (AFLA) passed in 1981.This bill was designed to prevent teen pregnancy through the use of strongabstinence-only-until-marriage messages. It received $11 million its first yearand funding has increased or stayed steady since, with $28.9 million infunding in fiscal year 2009 (U.S. Department of Health & Human Services,2010). The American Civil Liberties Union filed suit against AFLA in 1983charging violation of separation of church and state for AFLA’s explicit re-ligious messages. Finally, in 1993, an out-of-court settlement stipulated thatAFLA-funded programs must not include references to religion and must bemedically accurate and respect adolescents’ right to choose contraception. Arecent Government Accounting Office report suggested that many federallyfunded sexuality education programs continue to violate these stipulations(SIECUS, 2006).

In 1996, Title V of the Social Security Act channeled $50 million peryear for the first five years into states that agreed to provide abstinence-only-until-marriage sexuality education. The bill was re-authorized in 2001and 2006 (with an appropriation of $176 million in 2006). California was theonly state that declined such funding from the beginning, but in the pastfew years many other states withdrew from receiving federal funding for

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mic

hele

J. E

liaso

n] a

t 09:

49 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

011

22 J. P. Elia and M. J. Eliason

abstinence-only-until-marriage sexuality education (SIECUS, 2006) based, inpart, on results from evaluation studies showing the ineffectiveness of theseeducational efforts (see, e.g., Kay & Jackson, 2008, p. 9). The third feder-ally funded sexuality education program began in 2001. The Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) bill allocated $115 million in fiscal year2006, relying on scare tactics, homophobic views/messages, shaming, andno discussion of risk reduction to promote abstinence until marriage (Kay &Jackson, 2008). In total, $241.5 million in federal funding was earmarked tosupport abstinence-only-until-marriage sexuality education in 2007 (SIECUS,2007), fueled by the rise in power of the Christian Right. These three sexualityeducation programs focused on the primacy of heterosexual marriage.

In conclusion, sexuality education in the schools has a long history ofexclusion, and from its inception has reified only one form of heterosexualitycompatible with white middle class values. As Kevin Kumashiro (2001) notes,“. . . this same apparatus [normalizing and privileging whiteness] operatesin educational contexts. In these contexts . . . subjects are assumed to bewhite” (p. 96). The effect has been that heterosexual students are castigatedfor being sexual whereas LGBTQ students are castigated for being. Giventhat many states are no longer accepting the abstinence-only-until-marriagefederal funding, there exists the possibility that more inclusive sexualityeducation will be offered.

DISCOURSES OF EXCLUSION IN SCHOOL-BASED SEXUALITYEDUCATION AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

It is striking that given the widely broadcasted public discourse about suchissues as same-sex marriage and same-sex partners as adoptive parents notto mention the increase in LGBTQ representations in popular culture, thatthe majority of school administrators and teachers have been reluctant toinclude LGBTQ issues as a part of schooling. Often “. . . in many schoolcurricula and policies, gays seemingly do not exist. This omission contributesto homophobia. Heterosexual students are given no reasons not to hate gays,while GLBT students are given no reasons not to hate themselves” (Rienzo,Button, Shou, & Li, 2006, p. 93).

The overarching discourses about sexuality education that have survivedand thrived for over a century are exemplified by abstinence-only-until-marriage school-based sexuality education and have perpetuated heteronor-mativity, as well as privileges based on race, gender, religion, and class. Theabstinence-only-until-marriage approach has become a prominently featuredform of sexuality education, particularly since the enactment of the welfarereform bill in 1996. As indicated earlier, more than one billion federal dol-lars have been devoted to the abstinence-only-until-marriage approach, an

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mic

hele

J. E

liaso

n] a

t 09:

49 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

011

Dangerous Omissions 23

approach that has absolutely no research supporting its effectiveness onadolescent sexual behaviors. It has excluded the coverage of LGBTQ issuesand other aspects of sexuality, race, class, and gender that run counter tothe abstinence-only-until-marriage approach. Essentially, it requires that chil-dren and adolescents be taught that sexual abstinence be maintained untilmarriage. For many youth who do not feel that marriage is a viable option,whether a legal option or not, this message is irrelevant and/or potentiallydamaging. In terms of the climate that this has created for nonheterosexualyouth, the fallout has been alarming. The denial that sexual exploration isa normal part of adolescence is potentially harmful to all students but hashad a particularly devastating effect on LGBTQ youth by helping to foster ahostile school environment.

In 2005, the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (Harris In-teractive and GLSEN, 2005) conducted a survey of 1,732 students ranging inage from 13 to 20 from all 50 states about the climate at their high schools.They found that biased language was common in schools (“that’s so gay”being the most common with 89% reporting hearing it frequently or often).Almost one in five students heard a homophobic remark from school staff.When comments came from other students, 42% of the time they were madein the presence of school staff, but staff intervened only 16% of the time. Ofother negative events, 64% reported being verbally harassed, 13% physicallyharassed, and 18% physically assaulted because of sexual identity. Forty per-cent of respondents were not out at school, or only out to a few people, andmore than half said they could not be themselves at school. Whereas 47% ofthe schools had a gay-straight alliance, 25% of the respondents said they didnot attend its meetings (mostly out of fear of being identified as LGBTQ).LGBTQ content was often missing in the school curriculum and resources;42% said there was LGBTQ literature in the library, but only 19% reportedthat their textbooks mentioned LGBTQ issues, 18% said that LGBTQ issueswere mentioned in their classes (39% in a positive way; 46% in a some-what positive way, 15% in a negative way). In sexuality education curricula,69% of respondents reported that LGBTQ issues were never mentioned, 12%said they were mentioned in a negative manner, and 18% reported positivemention of LGBTQ issues.

What potential effects do these climate issues have on students? Verylittle attention has been paid to this question because the perception is thatthe LGBTQ student represents such a tiny minority of the secondary schoolpopulation. Some authors have proposed that sexual orientation and gen-der identity are not established until late adolescence or early adulthoodand others have narrowly focused on self-identity labels to define LGBTQstudents. Both ideas are flawed. Maguen, Floyd, Bakeman, and Armistead(2002) reported that the mean age of first awareness of same-sex attractionfor a sample of youth in the United States was 11, with first disclosure hap-pening 2–7 years later (D’Augelli & Hershberger, 1993; Savin-Williams, 1998).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mic

hele

J. E

liaso

n] a

t 09:

49 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

011

24 J. P. Elia and M. J. Eliason

TABLE 1 Sexual Identification Categories from the Ziyadeh et al. (2006) Study

Category Boys (n = 3914) Girls (n = 5817)

Heterosexual 3451 (88%) 5108 (88%)Mostly heterosexual 130 (3%) 359 (6%)Lesbian, gay, or bisexual 39 (<1%) 61 (1%)Unsure 64 (2%) 117 (2%)Did not respond 230 (6%) 172 (3%)

Therefore, a number of LGBTQ youth do not disclose while still in secondaryeducation or disclose to only a few trusted others. They are not counted instudies that report “out” LGBT students. Second, there is a wide diversity ofsexual behavior that is not always reflected in sexual identity labels. For ex-ample, Ziyaheh et al. (2006) examined the continuum of sexual identificationfor more than 5,800 girls and 4,000 boys followed from 1996–1999. Table 1shows the wide dispersion of responses to the sexual identification questionand points out that many more students are experimenting or questioningtheir sexuality than previously thought. Many recent studies are suggestingthat students who experience same-sex attractions or engage in same-sexbehaviors have many of the same risk factors as those who identify as gay,lesbian, or bisexual. In the Ziyadeh et al. study, if the analysis had only in-cluded the small number who identified as lesbian, gay, or bisexual (less than1% of the sample), the larger number of students with nonnormative expe-riences or questions about sexuality (12%) would have been subsumed intothe assumed heterosexual category. Most educators know that gay-straightalliances (GSAs) are populated largely by heterosexual allies, mostly girls,who have LGBTQ siblings, relatives, friends, and acquaintances. Countlessother students who fear belonging to GSAs have LGBTQ parents, relatives,and friends. The negative school climate may also negatively impact LGBTQteachers, staff members, school board members, and parents. The bottomline is that most students, staff members, faculties, and the communitiesthey live in have a stake in sexuality education that includes LGBTQ issues.When sexuality education is exclusionary, it sends a general message thatintolerance is endorsed within that school community.

POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE LACK OF POSITIVEATTENTION TO LGBTQ ISSUES IN SCHOOLS

LGBTQ youth can experience many forms of negative influence on theirschool and life success: one is from the oppression that comes from oth-ers in the form of homophobia/heterosexism, sexism, racism, classism, andother forms of oppression; and another from the psychological impact ofinternalizing this oppression into their self-concept, negatively affecting

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mic

hele

J. E

liaso

n] a

t 09:

49 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

011

Dangerous Omissions 25

self-esteem and self-acceptance. Most of the research on outcomes forLGBTQ youth has not attempted to distinguish between these forms of neg-ative impact, nor have studies explored the intersections of oppressions (byrace, sexuality, gender, class, ability, religion, etc.) or the idea that LGBTQyouth are not a homogeneous group. Another issue has been the emphasison risk factors rather than resilience. The reality is that most LGBTQ youthdo not suffer long-lasting negative consequences and instead view these ex-periences as obstacles or painful challenges to growing into their adulthood(Savin-Williams, 2005). A democratic and inclusive sexuality education bal-ances risk and resiliency and recognizes that they are on a continuum andare influenced by social and cultural factors in the environment.

The risk factors cannot be ignored because a significant minority ofLGBTQ youth suffer terribly and needlessly. Some of the research has indi-cated that the major negative consequences may include:

• Higher use of drugs and alcohol (Bontempo & D’Augelli, 2002; DuRant,Krowchuck, & Sinal, 1998; Eisenberg & Wechsler, 2003; Garofalo et al.,1998; Russell et al., 2002; Ziyadeh et al., 2006).

• Increased rates of depression with resulting higher rates of suicide ideationand attempts (D’Augelli, Hershberger, & Pilkington, 2001; Eisenberg &Ressnick, 2006; Fergusson et al., 1999; Garofalo et al., 1998; Remafediet al., 1998; Ziyadeh et al., 2006).

• Risky sexual behaviors (Garofalo et al., 1998; Rotheram-Borus, Rosario,Reid, & Koopman, 1995).

For some youth, the risk factors may be triggered by experiences ofvictimization at school. For example, Bontempo and D’Augelli (2002) an-alyzed Youth Risk Behavior Survey data from Vermont and Massachusettsfor 9,188 youth, 315 of whom identified as LGB. LGB youth who reportedat-school victimization had higher levels of substance abuse, suicidality, andsexual risk behaviors than heterosexual youth who reported victimization.LGB youth with low levels of victimization were comparable to heterosexualyouth with low rates of victimization on these variables. Over all, the percent-age of youth who reported ten or more experiences of victimization in thepast year included 1.1% of heterosexual females, 10.1% of lesbian/bisexualfemales, 2.7% of heterosexual males, and 24% of gay/bisexual males. In theGLSEN study (Harris Interactive & GLSEN, 2005), students who had beenharassed or assaulted were three times more likely to miss at least a dayof school because of feeling unsafe, and 59% never told school authoritiesabout the harassment or assaults. Those who were frequently or often ha-rassed reported a lower grade point average (GPA) (2.6) than those who hadnever or infrequently been harassed (GPA of 3.1).

The latter study that identified negative effect on GPA is an importantbut often overlooked risk factor. Whereas the emphasis has been on mental

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mic

hele

J. E

liaso

n] a

t 09:

49 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

011

26 J. P. Elia and M. J. Eliason

health, sexual risk behavior, and substance abuse, school success has mon-umental impact on later life. Those with higher educational attainment havebetter paying and more satisfying jobs, more extensive social networks, andbetter mental and physical health than those with lower educational attain-ment (Palles, 2000). There has been little research on the long-term impactof the negative school climate for LGBTQ individuals as they mature intoadulthood. Are they able to overcome the challenges, or do the negativeconsequences of secondary education carry into adulthood for some of theseindividuals?

Specifically regarding transgender youth, a topic often subsumed un-der the LGBTQ general category, schools have a long way to go to of-fer safety and justice. According to Marksamer and Vade of the Transgen-der Law Center, “There are very few transgender role models in schools.There are no books in school that teach about transgender and gen-der nonconforming people. Often schools reinforce stereotypical gendernorms” (undated). Not only is the school climate quite hostile to trans-gender students, as 90% of them face some sort of harassment in school(see GLSEN, 2009), but also abstinence-only-until-marriage sexuality educa-tion has nothing to offer transgender students. As with their LGBQ coun-terparts, transgender students are left with little if any relevant informa-tion about their own gender and sexual experiences. The risk factors theseyouth are likely to face due to curricular and social alienation in general areconcerning.

Research on LGBTQ youth has focused more on risk factors than onprotective factors or resilience for a good reason. Clearly, the risk factorscontribute to severe consequences for some LGBTQ youth. Generally, eitherLGBTQ youth are characterized in the literature as victims of societal disap-proval, which in term may manifest into negative outcomes (e.g., substanceabuse, school failure, poor mental health, sexually transmitted diseases) or,less often, they are portrayed as resilient individuals who surmount obsta-cles, survive, or even thrive in adverse situations. Resilience may characterizethe majority of LGBTQ youth who “. . . are healthy life-affirming individualscapable of effectively coping with the stresses of life, including those relatedto their sexuality” (Savin-Williams, 2005, p. 183). Talburt (2004) noted thatthe same behaviors some adults label as risky others might see as creative,inquisitive, or adaptive. She noted that LGBTQ youth “are complex, com-petent people whose lives, experiences, resources, and needs are no morepredictable than those of straight youth . . . And their goals and means ofcrafting identities and relations may not be recognizable according to therepresentations adults have of queer youth. This means that educators mustproceed without fixed recipes for action” (p. 121). All of this suggests thatrisk and resiliency may co-exist in the same individual and that risk is arelative term (for a more detailed treatment of risk factors and resiliency, seeFisher, 2009, pp. 71–74).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mic

hele

J. E

liaso

n] a

t 09:

49 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

011

Dangerous Omissions 27

Arguing whether researchers or policymakers should characterizeLGBTQ youth from a “risk factor” perspective or through the lens of re-siliency is an important question. At the same time, however, it is problem-atic as it lends itself not only to a binary way of looking at this issue butalso to an either/or way of seeking a solution or characterizing LGBTQ indi-viduals and their issues/strengths in educational contexts. The truth is that asynthesis of the risk factor and resilience perspectives needs to be explored.For example, teachers can highlight resilient LGBTQ teens when presentinglessons on sexual identity formation or LGBTQ civil rights and discuss thedevelopment of risk factors in their proper context, as consequences of theprocesses of oppression and stigma.

In any event, it is clear that excluding LGBTQ topics in sexuality ed-ucation is harmful and is effected primarily through a systematic erasureof any alternative to marital heterosexuality. Abstinence-only-until-marriagesexuality education has been a conservative move to foreclose any such dis-cussion and likely results in negative repercussions. Noting the challengesthat sexually nonnormative youth face, Fields (2008) writes that “sexuallynonconforming youth may struggle most immediately with the implicationsof institutionalized heteronormativity. Young people who are sexually activehear in abstinence-only education that their behaviors threaten the well-beingof self, family, and community” (p. 21). The potential negative emotionaloutcomes of internalizing these messages are likely to create psychologicaldistress and negative outcomes in general.

There is some evidence that even small interventions toward inclusioncan have a positive effect. For instance, Blake et al. (2001) compared schoolsin Massachusetts with and without gay-sensitive HIV instruction. Overall,LGB youth had higher rates of substance use, high risk sexual behaviors,suicide thoughts and attempts, and concerns for personal safety than didheterosexual youth. LGB youth in schools with gay-sensitive HIV instructionreported fewer sexual partners overall, less frequent recent sex, and lesssubstance use associated with sex than did LGB youth in schools withoutgay-sensitive instruction.

While LGBTQ students are most acutely at risk due to abstinence-only-until-marriage approaches to sexuality education, the entire student bodyis likely to suffer as a result of such exclusionary instruction, which over-looks LGBTQ issues and focuses on only one type of heterosexuality. Itfuels the long-standing sexual and racial prejudice in the United States (e.g.,homophobia/heterosexism as well as demonizing of single African Ameri-can mothers, for instance). One example of how homophobia and racismintersect is through the phenomenon called the “down low.” Much mediaattention has been directed toward African American men who have secre-tive sex with men while in relationships with women. In reality, the numberof men who engage in this behavior is quite small, and it is a behavior thatcan be found in men (and some women) of every racial/ethnic group. Why

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mic

hele

J. E

liaso

n] a

t 09:

49 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

011

28 J. P. Elia and M. J. Eliason

focus only on African American men? Some speculate that this is a way toscapegoat black MSM (i.e., men who have sex with men but who do notnecessarily identify as bisexual, gay, or queer) and blame them for the highrates of HIV/AIDS among African Americans, letting society “off the hook”for the real reasons for the high rates of HIV, which are poverty and racism(Eliason, Dibble, DeJoseph, & Chinn, 2009).

Exclusionary educational practices serve to disenfranchise those whoare sexually nonnormative and reduce the potential of experiencing re-warding interpersonal relationships between heterosexuals and sexual others(Blumenfeld, 1992). It allows the myths and stereotypes about LGBTQ peo-ple to go unexamined. It is divisive in a number of ways. It assumes that avery narrow type of heterosexuality is the best and most supreme, and notonly discourages various forms of heterosexualities but also excludes sexualpluralism in general. In fact, abstinence-only-until-marriage approaches havebeen challenged on both legal and ethical grounds. Simply put, such a sexu-ality education is unethical, uncaring, and undemocratic, not to mention outof touch with the realities of the lives of youth no matter what their sexual-ities. This review of sexuality education practices demonstrates that currentsexuality education programs based on the abstinence-only-until-marriageprinciple are:

• Unethical. They ignore and exclude the realities of sexual pluralism, el-evate and promote one form of sexuality (marital heterosexuality) overother sexualities, create stigmas and prejudice for nonnormative sexualexpressions, and violate principles of ethical codes (Wiley, 2002). Theydeny youth sexual agency by controlling information that is critical tohealth and well-being.

• Uncaring. They demonstrate a lack of an ethic of care for persons andideas that run counter to heteronormative standards. Exclusionary educa-tional processes that fail to represent and encompass the sexualities of allstudents are extraordinarily uncaring and dismissive, which in part createsand fuels sexual prejudice leading to violence, poor health outcomes,social dislocation, and academic difficulty. It maintains the “charmedcircle” of white middle-class married heterosexuals at the pinnacle ofcitizenry.

• Undemocratic. The abstinence-only-until-marriage approach is deeply ide-ological as it is based on fundamentalist Christian values and thus fore-closes such democratic ideals as critical deliberation, dissent, debate, andrepresentation (Elia, 2000b). Such a form of sexuality education does notentertain the notion of educating students about sexual diversity and plu-rality. It denies students the right to virtually any real education about theirsexuality, implying that all they need to know will magically appear ontheir wedding nights.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mic

hele

J. E

liaso

n] a

t 09:

49 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

011

Dangerous Omissions 29

WORKING TOWARD A MORE JUST AND RESPONSIBLESCHOOL-BASED SEXUALITY EDUCATION

Public schools are charged with the responsibility of preparing students tolive in a democratic society. Specifically speaking of sexual minorities, ArthurLipkin (1999) states: “To prepare for democracy, students must learn aboutgays and lesbians [bisexuals, transgenders, those with alternative heterosex-ual identities, queers, and gender queers] as part of the American patchwork.They will, if they have not already done so, eventually study, work, worship,or live beside openly gay and lesbian people” (p. 328). Through a liberaldemocratic framework, we must teach and support students to be respect-ful and care for each other, and insist on justice for all as a nonnegotiableissue.

It is critical that sexuality education involve freedom of belief and criticaldeliberation (McKay, 1999) if there is to be any hope of teaching about par-ticipatory democracy and social justice. A theoretical and pedagogical tool,or at least a potentially helpful lens through which to view and constructpossibilities for the classroom, is critical pedagogy, which in part can po-tentially galvanize students and teachers to make a difference and to beginto empower them within the very system that has rendered them passive,disempowered, and disenfranchised. It is a perspective that is not happywith status quo, hegemony, injustice, or complacency. Rigorous analyses oftexts and practices, action, dialogue, and self-reflexivity are hallmarks of crit-ical pedagogy. It has been extremely helpful in uncovering the deleteriouseffects of the hidden curriculum, in which ideas from dominant culture areconveyed as “normal” and often go unnoticed. Certainly, this hardly cap-tures the far-reaching complexity of critical pedagogy. Nevertheless, criticalpedagogy can be employed to help correct the social and educational injus-tices that have been perpetuated in school-based sexuality education sinceits inception nearly a century ago.

In teaching sexuality education, or any subject for that matter, educa-tors must be mindful of discourses and pedagogical practices of exclusion,and realize that “. . . our efforts to challenge one form of oppression of-ten unintentionally contribute to other forms of oppression, and our effortsto embrace one form of difference often exclude and silence others” (Ku-mashiro, 2001). Students need to learn about the various contexts of privilegeand oppression and work actively against the ways in which they partici-pate in oppressing others. In his recent book, Troubling Education: QueerActivism and Antioppressive Pedagogy (2002), scholar and activist Kevin Ku-mashiro draws readers’ attention to how to conceptualize and work againstoppression in schools. Essentially, he suggests examining “. . . education forthe Other, education about the Other, education that is critical of privileg-ing and Othering, and education that changes students and society” (p. 31).While Kumashiro’s discussion focuses on the “core subjects,” the notion of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mic

hele

J. E

liaso

n] a

t 09:

49 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

011

30 J. P. Elia and M. J. Eliason

Othering and his framework can be readily applied to sexuality education, asthere has been a plethora of sexual Othering and privileging, not to mentionthat Othering of all sorts is ubiquitous throughout the curriculum (Kumashiro,2001, 2002). Ultimately, he suggests that teachers acquaint themselves withpoststructuralist, feminist, and queer theories to be better equipped to un-derstand, combat, and attempt to eradicate oppression. Sexuality educatorscould also benefit enormously from such readings (see, Kumashiro, 2002,Ch. 2; for a thorough explication and examination of the intersectionality ofrace, class, gender and sexuality, see also Weber, 2001). This is difficult toaddress in schools, and to even approach these matters represents a radicaldeparture from business as usual. In the next section, we propose threeconcrete examples of how critical pedagogy can be employed to diversifysexuality education.

THREE EXAMPLES OF CRITICAL PEDAGOGYAND SEXUALITY EDUCATION

Same-Sex Marriage

In the current debates about legalizing same-sex marriage, teachers can userecent news reports as the foundation for discussing the historical and con-temporary purposes of marriage, the challenges that some groups have raisedabout marriage (e.g., feminist authors and activists who have revealed itspatriarchal roots and those who challenge monogamy). Why do so manyheterosexual marriages fail? Does that mean that the institution of marriageis a problem or do the problems lie elsewhere? What benefits are conferredby marriage? Students may be surprised to find out that marriage grantsmore than 1,000 state or federal benefits. Who is opposed to same-sex mar-riage and why? How much of the opposition of same-sex marriage is basedon stereotypes about LGBTQ people? Is marriage primarily a religious in-stitution or a legal institution? Students may be interested to find out thatmany religions, including the Catholic Church, conducted same-sex unionceremonies in the past (see Boswell, 1980). Who else, besides same-sexpartners, are currently excluded from getting married and why?

The Concept of Othering

This activity focuses on how in-groups and out-groups are established andcan focus on the students’ own communities or the school community itself.Figure 1 shows an example of how othering can be explored with evenquite young students. Have students identify who is in the in-group, andwho makes up the out-groups in their own school communities. The dis-cussion could end with the development of strategies to bring the out-groupmembers into the circle.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mic

hele

J. E

liaso

n] a

t 09:

49 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

011

Dangerous Omissions 31

Out

Out Out

Out

Out

In group

FIGURE 1 Who Makes Up Community?

The Concept of Relationships

Theories and models such as Robert Sternberg’s triangular theory/model oflove can be used to demonstrate all the varieties of relationships that peoplecan have, based on which of the elements the relationship contains. Thethree points of the triangle are passion, intimacy, and commitment. Studentscan be asked to generate examples of relationships that arise from differentcombinations of these points, such as passion alone (a crush), intimacy andcommitment (a family member relationship), intimacy only (a member ofa support group that will end at a designated time), and so on. LGBTQpeople can be included in all forms of relationships, as relationships arenot determined by the sex/gender of the other person, but by the pointson the triangle. This exercise can be used to challenge our use of genderedlanguage as well, such as maternal instinct.

CONCLUSIONS

From the very beginnings of school-based sexuality education in the UnitedStates, it is clear that a particular brand of sexuality education would beoffered to students. Abstinence-only-until-marriage sexuality education has

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mic

hele

J. E

liaso

n] a

t 09:

49 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

011

32 J. P. Elia and M. J. Eliason

helped to create and maintain the injustices perpetrated on LGBTQ peopleand others who violate the marital heterosexuality imperative. In addition,the focus on reproductive biology and negative health consequences (butwithout any real education on which to make informed decisions), has de-nied all students a balanced understanding of sexuality: pleasure and danger;intimacy and self-exploration; and the biology, culture, and psychology ofsexuality. If knowledge is power, then authors of the current abstinence-only-until-marriage sexuality education movement appear to want to keep youthignorant and powerless. It is imperative that teachers, students, administra-tors, and school staff members continue to make strides toward shifting theoverarching sexuality education paradigm to create a more inclusive, less op-pressive educational enterprise. As Cindy Patton (1996) so eloquently states,“. . . the national pedagogy [abstinence-only-until-marriage] has killed [sym-bolically] more people than it has saved” (p. 155). Educational discoursesand practices of inclusion rather than exclusion are desperately needed.There is much to be gained by taking seriously the important theoretical andpractical contributions of critical pedagogy. On the sexuality education front,advocates for comprehensive sexuality education must continue to push for amore just and socially responsible education for all students. This necessarilyinvolves interrogating the discourses and pedagogical practices of exclusionand the oppression that results. Finally, it may seem overly ambitious andeven hopelessly naı̈ve for us to make such recommendations about how tocreate better educational and social conditions for students. We could becriticized for being overly optimistic and even unrealistic about major schoolreform specifically regarding sexuality education; however, without push-ing the envelope, dreaming about possibilities for change, and advancingideas about the possibilities of a major shift in the way sexuality education isconceptualized and taught, then surely change for the better is impossible.

REFERENCES

Blake, S. M., Ledsky, R., Lehman, T., Goodenow, C., Sawyer, R., & Hack, T. (2001).Preventing sexual risk behaviors among gay, lesbian, and bisexual adolescents:The benefits of gay-sensitive HIV instruction in schools. American Journal ofPublic Health, 91(6), 940–946.

Blumenfeld, W. J. (Ed.). (1992). Homophobia: How we all pay the price. Boston:Beacon Press.

Bontempo, D. E., & D’Augelli, A. R. (2002). Effects of at-school victimization andsexual orientation on lesbian, gay, or bisexual youths’ health risk behavior.Journal of Adolescent Health, 20, 364–374.

Boswell, J. (1980). Christianity, social tolerance and homosexuality. Chicago: Uni-versity of Chicago Press.

Brandt, A. (1987). No magic bullet: A social history of venereal disease in the UnitedStates since 1880. New York: Oxford University Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mic

hele

J. E

liaso

n] a

t 09:

49 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

011

Dangerous Omissions 33

Campos, D. (2002). Sex, youth, and sex education: A reference handbook. SantaBarbara, CA: ABC-Clio.

Darroch, J. E., Landry, D. J., & Singh, S. (2000). Changing emphasis in sexualityeducation in U.S. public secondary schools, 1988–1999. Family Perspectives,32(5), 204–211, 265.

D’Augelli, A. R., & Herschberger, S. L. (1993). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth incommunity settings: Personal challenges and mental health problems. AmericanJournal of Community Psychology, 21, 421–448.

D’Augelli, A. R., Herschberger, S. L., and Pilkington, N. W. (2001). Suicidality patternsand sexual orientation-related factors among lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths.Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 3(3), 250–264.

D’Emilio, J., & Freedman, E. B. (1988). Intimate matters: A history of sexuality inAmerica. New York: Harper & Row.

DuRant, R. H., Krowchuk, D. P., & Sinal, S. H. (1998). Victimization, use of violence,and drug use at school among male adolescents who engage in same-sex sexualbehavior. Journal of Pediatrics, 132, 13–18.

Eisenberg, M. E., & Resnick, M. (2006). Suicidality among gay, lesbian, and bisexualyouth: The role of protective factors. Journal of Adolescent Health, 39, 662–668.

Elia, J. P. (2009). School-based sexuality education: A century of sexual and socialcontrol. In E. Schroeder & J. Kuriansky (Eds.), Sexuality education: Past, present,and future (pp. 33–57). New York: Praeger Publishers.

Elia, J. P. (2000a). The necessity of comprehensive sexuality education in the schools.The Educational Forum, 64(4), 340–347.

Elia, J. P. (2000b). Democratic sexuality education: A departure from sexual ideolo-gies and traditional schooling. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 25(2&3),122–129.

Elia, J. P., & Eliason, M. (2010). Discourses of exclusion: Sexuality education’s si-lencing of sexual others. Journal of LGBT Youth, 7(1), 29–48.

Eliason, M. J., Dibble, S. D., Dejoseph, J., & Chinn, P. (2009). LGBTQ cultures:What health professionals need to know about sexual and gender diversity.Philadelphia: Lippincott.

Fergusson, D. M. L., Horwood, J., & Beautrais, A. L. (1999). Is sexual orientationrelated to mental health problems and suicidality in young people? Archives ofGeneral Psychiatry, 56(10), 876–880.

Fields, J. (2008). Risky lessons: Sex education and social inequality. New Brunswick,NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Fisher, C. M. (2009). Queer youth experiences with abstinence-only-until-marriagesexuality education: “I can’t get married so where does that leave me?” Journalof LGBT Youth, 6(1), 61–79.

Garofalo, R., Wolf, C., Kessel, S., Palfrey, J., & DuRant, R. (1998). The associationbetween health risk behaviors and sexual orientation among a school-basedsample of adolescents. Pediatrics, 101(5), 895–902.

GLSEN. (2009). GLSEN study ‘harsh realities’ finds transgender youth face extremeharassment in school. Retrieved February 8, 2010, from http://www.prweb.com/releases/Transgender Students/LGBT Youth/prweb2242844.htm

Harris Interactive and GLSEN. (2005). From teasing to torment: School climate inAmerica. New York: GLSEN.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mic

hele

J. E

liaso

n] a

t 09:

49 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

011

34 J. P. Elia and M. J. Eliason

Irvine, J. (2002). Talk about sex: The battles over sex education in the United States.Berkeley: University of California Press.

Kay, J. F., & Jackson, A. (2008). Sex, lies & stereotypes: How abstinence-only programsharm women and girls. New York: Legal Momentum.

Kumashiro, K. K. (2001). Troubling intersections of race and sexuality: Queer studentsof color and anti-oppressive education. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Kumashiro, K. K. (2002). Troubling education: Queer activism and antioppressivepedagogy. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.

Lipkin, A. (1999). Understanding homosexuality, changing schools: A text for teach-ers, counselors, and administrators. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Luker, K. (2006). When sex goes to school: Warring views on sex and sex educationsince the sixties. New York: W.W. Norton.

Maguen, S., Floyd, F. J., Bakeman, R., & Armistead, L. (2002). Developmental mile-stones and disclosure of sexual orientation among gay, lesbian, and bisexualyouths. Applied Developmental Psychology, 23, 219–233.

Marksamer, J., & Vade, D. (n.d.). Transgender and gender nonconformingyouth: Recommendations for schools. Retrieved February 7, 2010, fromhttp://www.transgenderlaw.org/resources/tlcschools.htm

McKay, A. (1999). Sexual ideology and schooling: Towards democratic sexualityeducation. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Moran, J. P. (2000). Teaching sex: The shaping of adolescence in the 20th century.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Pallas, A. M. (2000). The effect of schooling on individual lives. In M. T. Hallinan(Ed.), The handbook of the sociology of education (pp. 499–525). New York:Kluwer/Plenum.

Patton, C. (1996). Fatal advice: How safe-sex education went wrong. Durham, NC:Duke University Press.

Remafedi, G., French, S., Story, M., Resnick, M., & Blum, R. (1998). The relation-ship between suicide risk and sexual orientation: Results of a population-basedstudy. American Journal of Public Health, 88(1), 57–60.

Rienzo, B. A., Button, J. W., Sheu, J., & Li, Y. (2006). The politics of sexual orientationissues in American schools. The Journal of School Health, 76(3), 93–97.

Rotheram-Borus, M. J., Rosario, M., Reid, H., & Koopman, C. (1995). Predicting pat-terns of sexual acts among homosexual and bisexual youths. American Journalof Psychiatry, 152, 588–595.

Rubin, G. S. (1993). Thinking sex: Notes for a radical theory of sexuality. In H.Abelove, M. Barale, & D. M. Halperin (Eds.), The lesbian and gay studies reader(pp. 3–44). New York: Routledge.

Savin-Williams, R. C. (2005). The gay teenager. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress.

Savin-Williams, R. C. (1998). The disclosure to families of same-sex attractions bylesbian, gay, and bisexual youths. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 8, 49–68.

SIECUS. (2006). Advocates for comprehensive sex education praise governor’s deci-sion to reject federal funding for abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. PressRelease, October 25.

Talburt, S. (2004). Constructions of LGBT youth: Opening up subject positions.Theory into Practice, 43(2), 116–121.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mic

hele

J. E

liaso

n] a

t 09:

49 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

011

Dangerous Omissions 35

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. (2010). Adolescent family life. Re-trieved February 5, 2010, from http://www.hhs.gov/opa/familylife/index.html

Weber, L. (2001). Understanding race, class, gender, and sexuality: A conceptualframework. Boston: McGraw Hill.

Wiley, D. C. (2002). The ethics of abstinence-only-until-marriage and abstinence-plussexuality education. Journal of School Health, 72(4), 164–167.

Ziyadeh, N. J., Prokop, L. A., Fisher, L. B., Rosario, M., Field, A. E., Camargo, C.A., & Austin, S. B. (2006). Sexual orientation, gender, and alcohol use in acohort study of U.S. adolescent girls and boys. Drug and Alcohol Dependence.doi:10.1016/j.drugslcodep.2006.08.004

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mic

hele

J. E

liaso

n] a

t 09:

49 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

011