Hunt, Cynthia Michelle, Ma May 2021

HUNT, CYNTHIA MICHELLE, M.A. MAY 2021 SOCIOLOGY

“THEY WERE TRYING TO SCARE US”: COLLEGE STUDENTS’ RETROSPECTIVE

ACCOUNTS OF SCHOOL BASED SEX EDUCATION (57 pages)

Thesis Advisor: Clare L. Stacey

In order to gain an understanding of how students perceive the messages they receive in their

school-based sex education courses, it is imperative to go to the source and talk with students who have recently taken these courses. This paper explores the curricula, messaging, and

environments of middle and high school sex education courses in Ohio through twenty in-depth

interviews with undergraduate college students. Three main themes emerge from the data: (1)

sex negativity in the messages being communicated to students, (2) unique experiences of

LGBTQ+ students, and (3) missing pieces in the curricula that students must fill in on their own.

Additionally, fear, shame, and stereotype messaging were common in respondents’ courses,

suggesting a culture of sex negativity for developing adolescents. This reality was particularly

acute for LGBTQ+ students in the sample. Unable to glean information about sex from the

formal curriculum, student respondents sought out other sources of knowledge, such as social

media or friends. School-based sex education was found to impact the cultural norms of sex/sexuality which has an effect on students’ interpersonal and intrapsychic sexual scripts. The conclusion discusses the implications of students’ experiences and how policy change, particularly in Ohio, can move toward a more inclusive, sex positive, and thorough school-based sex education for the next generation of students and beyond.

“THEY WERE TRYING TO SCARE US”: COLLEGE STUDENTS’ RETROSPECTIVE

ACCOUNTS OF SCHOOL BASED SEX EDUCATION

A thesis submitted

To Kent State University in partial

Fulfillment of the requirements for the

Degree of Master of Arts

Cynthia Michelle Hunt

May 2021

Except for previously published material

Thesis written by

Cynthia Michelle Hunt

B.A., The University of Akron, 2018

M.A., Kent State University, 2021

Approved by

Clare Stacey, Advisor Clare Stacey Richard Adams, Chair, Department of Sociology Richard Adams Mandy Munro-Stasuik, Interim Dean, College of Arts and Sciences Mandy Munro-Stasiuk

TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………………………………………………………. iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS……………………………………………………………………… vi

I. INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………. 1

II. BACKGROUND…………………………………………………………………... 3

History of Sex Research…………………………………………………………… 3

History of Sex Ed………………………………………………………………….. 4

Funding……………………………………………………………………………. 4

SBSE Curricula……………………………………………………………………. 5

Sex Education in Ohio……………………………………………………………... 6

III. LITERATURE REVIEW………………………………………………………….. 8

Sexual Scripts………………………………………………………………………. 8

Young Adults and Sexual Socialization……………………………………………. 9

Neoliberalism in SBSE……………………………………………………...…….. 10

Inequality in SBSE………………………………………..……………………….. 12

Sex Negativity………………………………………………………..……………. 14

The Missing Pieces…………………………………………………………...…… 15

IV. METHODS………………………………………………………………………... 17

Research Topic and Justification for Methods……………………………………. 17

Recruitment……………………………………………………………………..… 17

Data Collection…………………………………………...……………………….. 19

Informed Consent, Privacy, and Confidentiality of Data………………………..... 19

Description of Sample…………………………………………………………..… 20

Data Analysis and an Abductive Approach……………………………………….. 20

Positionality……………………………………………………………………….. 22

V. FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS……………………………………………….…… 23

Sex Negativity…………………………………………………………………….. 23

LGBTQ+ Experiences…………………………………………………………..… 27

The Missing Pieces………………………………………………………………... 29

VI. DISCUSSION……………………………………………………………………... 35

Limitations………………………………………………………………………… 37

Future Directions………………………………………………………………….. 38

Conclusion………………………………………………………………………… 39

REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………………. 40

APPENDICES

A. Interview Guide……………………………………………………………………... 48

B. Participant Demographics (Self-Reported)………………………………………….. 50

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This thesis could not have come to be without the generosity, helpfulness, and patience of

so many others. I would like to first extend my deepest gratitude to my thesis committee: Dr. Chris

Dum and Dr. Molly Merryman, for your willingness to serve on the committee as well as the

incredible feedback and excellent energy your presence provided. A special thanks goes to my

thesis advisor, Dr. Clare Stacey, for whom I owe this Kent State graduate school experience to:

for reviewing an endless number of drafts, providing a wealth of knowledge, and for your belief

in a young undergraduate presenting at NEOUSS alone- thank you. Additionally, I would like to

thank my mentors, Dr. Susan Fisk and Dr. Greg Gibson, for their infinite positivity and

encouragement to get me through it all.

Another instrumental group of people that helped me get to this point is my cohort. I feel

an overwhelming amount of appreciation for the four others whom I started this journey with.

Though our first year was disrupted due to the pandemic, we have remained beacons of support,

laughter, and optimism for one another. Others in the department often joke that we are an odd

bunch because of our closeness, but I feel so lucky to have been randomly stuck with the most

motivated, intelligent, and persevering peers.

I would also like to thank my friends and family who humor me by letting me talk about

my research, schooling, and grad school happenings- for nodding and smiling even when I am making absolutely no sense. I truly could not have made it this far without their support. Lastly, an exuberant amount of gratefulness is directed towards my partner, Drew. Thank you for letting me practice presentations with you no matter the time of day, for always making me see the upside

to every situation, for pushing me to challenge myself, and for making this journey so fulfilling.

Thank you for it all and more.

vii

INTRODUCTION

Adolescence is a critical time in the development of one’s sexual self (Pearson 2018).

Schools are in a unique position in the development of students’ sexual selves as they provide an

environment for peer connection as well as being the provider of formal sex education (Smith

2012). However, in the United States, each state decides what type of information will be

presented in the courses; large portions of federal funding are directed towards abstinence-only

programs (Guttmacher Institute 2020; Elia and Eliason 2010; Donovan 2017). In some cases, the

messages that are being conveyed in school-based sex education (SBSE) courses are not always interpreted by students in the way that instructors anticipate, which can create misunderstanding and distrust (Unis 2020). Additionally, many SBSE courses are white- and cishet-centered, which can leave racial, gender, and sexual minorities to navigate their sexual lives with little to no guidance (Hall et al. 2019; Elliott 2014; Haley et al. 2019; Rousseau 2009; Whitten and

Sethna 2014). Furthermore, SBSE has the capacity to influence the development of students’ sexual scripts that may endure for years to come (Unis 2020; Smith 2012; Bogle 2008).

Research on sexual scripting has influenced social scientific understandings of sexual attitudes and behaviors since the mid-20th century (Simon and Gagnon 1973). Scripting theory

provides direction for those wishing to study sexual behavior in specific contexts, as well as how

culture and social position influence sexual behaviors and attitudes (Simon and Gagnon 1973;

Simon and Gagnon 1984; Garcia 2012; Berntson 2014). However, little research on sexual

scripting investigates how SBSE courses impact adolescents’ views of their sexual behaviors and

attitudes (Smith 2012). Existing scholarship focuses on the sexual behaviors of college and high

1 school students (Bogle 2008) without examining why they are engaging this way and which sources of information they draw upon to craft their sexual selves.

In order to better understand why adolescents and emerging adults engage in, or abstain from, certain sexual practices, we first need to understand how they interpret the information they received in their SBSE courses. This study asks: (1) What role does formal school-based sex education have in influencing the development of students’ sexual scripts, as understood by students themselves? and (2) How do students perceive the impact of their school-based sex education on their sexual behaviors and decisions?

BACKGROUND

History of Sex Research

During the turn of the 20th century, sex research was primarily the task of physicians.

While they were the presumed authority on the topic, the information they shared largely

concerned sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) (Bullough 1998). Midcentury became a

turbulent time for sex research and education as several sex-related research practices targeted

marginalized populations around the 1950s-70s including the Tuskegee Syphilis study and the sterilization of Puerto Rican and Indian women without their consent (Shah 2017; Whitten and

Sethna 2014; Rousseau 2009; Hill Collins 2005). Aside from these horrific studies, there were advancements in sex research between the 1940s-70s.

Alfred Kinsey founded the Institute for Research in Sex, Gender, and Reproduction in

1947 and conducted research on the still-taboo area of sex (Carter-Smith 2019). Though Kinsey was not the first non-physician to conduct sex research, his legacy has endured (Bancroft 2004).

He collected data via interviews with volunteers and opened public dialogue about sex (Carter-

Smith 2019; Bullough 1998). His studies, specifically his report, Sexual Behavior in the Human

Female (1953), encouraged further studies into female sexuality and helped integrate the conversation about sexuality into the women’s movement (Bullough 1998). His influence on the gay and lesbian movement mirrored this impact as well (Bancroft 2004). Though Kinsey and his team have faced some backlash in the decades since the Institute was founded, he remains a pioneer in removing sex stigma through scientifically backed, empirically grounded sex research

(Bullough 1998; Bancroft 2004). Despite the progress made in sex research in the U.S. through

3 midcentury, anti-sexuality rhetoric and practice persisted in the realm of sex education for decades.

History of Sex Ed

Formal sex education was introduced during World War I in the United States and it was primarily aimed at men in the form of disease prevention. However, there were reformers who tackled SE from a different position: one of sexual pleasure and expression in addition to disease prevention (Shah 2017). In the earliest incarnations of SE, the stage of adolescence was a new discovery and sex was flagged as being dangerous for this group (Elliott 2010). In the 1920s, SE curriculum was first introduced in schools, but the teachings were largely based on faulty biological (race and gender) differences, such as notions that white girls are pure, white boys are aggressive, and nonwhite children are promiscuous (Shah 2017; Hill Collins 2005).

In the 1940s, SE shifted to place emphasis on the science of sex. However, morality and values began to take center stage as certain scientific concepts like pleasure were only discussed within the institution of marriage (Lamb 2013). The Sexuality Information and Education

Council of the United States (SIECUS) originated in the 1960s with the mission to usher in a new era of SE through providing young people with accurate information about sexuality

(SIECUS 2020). SBSE evolved into a two-sided conversation between students and teachers in the classroom and gradually incorporated topics that were previously taboo (e.g., contraception and masturbation) (Lamb 2013). However, pushback from religious groups led to federally funded abstinence-only SBSE starting in the 1980s and continuing today (Lamb 2013; Kanter et al. 2008).

Funding

Abstinence-only1 programs began receiving federal funding in the 1980s and 1990s by

conservative politicians via the Adolescent Family Life Act (Shah 2017; Santelli et al. 2017; Elia

and Eliason 2010). As of 2017, more than $1 billion in federal funds has been given to

abstinence-only programs (Elia and Eliason 2010; Donovan 2017). While there is no federal

funding directed towards truly comprehensive2 sex education, there are federally funded

programs that lean more comprehensive. For example, in 2016, $75 million was directed towards

the Personal Responsibility Education Program (PREP) which teaches both abstinence and

contraception use (Donovan 2017). However, it is ultimately the discretion of each state to

decide what is required to be taught in SBSE courses (Guttmacher Institute 2020).

SBSE Curricula

Controversy is one of the main barriers when it comes to establishing best practices in

SBSE. Those in opposition to comprehensive SBSE view the approach as promoting sexual

behavior among children and teens. If SBSE must be taught, they believe it should be framed as

1 “…the term abstinence education means an educational or motivational program which: (A) has as its exclusive purpose teaching the social, psychological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity; (B) teaches abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage as the expected standard for all school-age children; (C) teaches that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other associated health problems; (D) teaches that a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of sexual activity; (E) teaches that sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects; (F) teaches that bearing children out-of-wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences for the child, the child's parents, and society; (G) teaches young people how to reject sexual advances and how alcohol and drug use increase vulnerability to sexual advances, and H teaches the importance of attaining self-sufficiency before engaging in sexual activity” (SSA 2019).

2 Addresses the socio-cultural, biological, psychological, and spiritual dimensions of sexuality by providing information; exploring feelings, values, and attitudes; and developing communication, decision-making, and critical-thinking skills. Such programs should be appropriate to the age, developmental level, and cultural background of students and respect the diversity of values and beliefs represented in the community (National Guidelines Task Force 2004).

an abstinence-only approach (Best and Bogle 2014; Clark and Stitzlein 2018). There is also

debate over when it is appropriate to teach children and adolescents about various sexual health

topics. Developmentally appropriate practices are the goal for SBSE. Such methods can motivate

adolescents to engage in healthy sexual behaviors and have more positive outcomes in their

sexual development (Marques et al. 2017).

Abstinence-only supporters challenge comprehensive SBSE with claims of ineffective contraception. Since there is no contraception that is 100% effective, 100% of the time, the

“safe-sex” teachings are said to be nothing but a fallacy (Best and Bogle 2014). Formal abstinence-only SE emphasizes abstinence as the only responsible choice which can leave adolescents unprepared to confront situations such as desire or unwanted advances (Kennett et al.

2012). By contrast, comprehensive SE includes topics such as intimate partner violence, consent, and refusal techniques, which have the potential to foster the development of safe and healthy sex lives for the young adults of future generations (Kennett et al. 2012).

Sex Education in Ohio

SIECUS released their 2020 annual report which indicated the current state of SBSE in

Ohio. Under Ohio law, the State Board of Education is prohibited from adopting Health

Education Standards, making it the only state in the US which does not have health education standards (State Board of Education of Ohio 2019; Planned Parenthood 2018). However, Ohio does require schools to “include health education and other related topics at various times throughout its K-12 curriculum” (State Board of Education of Ohio 2019). This lack of standardization can create confusion and inconsistencies regarding the material being presented to students between, and sometimes even within, school districts. While Ohio schools are required to teach SBSE, the curriculum must emphasize abstinence and there is an “opt-out”

6 policy where parents/guardians can excuse their child(ren) from participating in all, or some, of the SBSE courses. Additionally, Ohio does not have standards regarding the presentation of medically accurate SBSE (SIECUS 2020; Guttmacher Institute 2020). SBSE may include topics such as consent, refusal skills, personal boundaries, condom/contraception education, sexual decision-making, self-discipline, healthy relationships, and dating/sexual violence protection.

Ohio only requires the latter two subjects to be discussed within SBSE courses (Guttmacher

Institute 2020). Knowing all of this, it is apparent that Ohio is situated in a unique and critical position concerning Ohio youths’ sexual health education.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Sexual Scripts

William Simon and John Gagnon worked for the Institute for Sex Research (later: Kinsey

Institute) during the 1960s and the duo became the first sociologists to debate the idea that sexuality is solely determined by our genetics and innate drives (Simon and Gagnon 2003;

Fitzgerald and Grossman 2018). They questioned the long-held belief that biological motivation was at the core of sexual behavior (Laumann et al. 1994; Simon and Gagnon 2003). While they did not negate the fact that biology plays a role, they believed that social meanings and humans’ dependence on them play a larger part in our sexuality (Simon and Gagnon 1984; Smith 2012).

Their sexual scripting theory suggests that culture and society designate which behaviors are appropriate in a given context. We then use scripts to organize and understand the sexual aspects of life (Simon and Gagnon 1986; Garcia 2012).

The social construction of sexuality informs the concept of sexual scripts (Gagnon and

Simon 1973; Pearson 2018). Simon and Gagnon (1984) theorized that there are three levels of scripting: cultural scenarios, interpersonal scripts, and intrapsychic scripts. Cultural scenarios are institutional and have collective meaning. Interpersonal scripts are specific moments and face-to- face interactions. Lastly, intrapsychic scripts are personal feelings, thoughts, and desires (Simon and Gagnon 1984; Smith 2012). Scripting theory is also used to examine how religion, class, gender, race, and environment impact sexual interactions (Berntson 2014). Simon and Gagnon never intended this theory to become an exhaustive theory of human sexuality, rather it was

8 intended to provide a “conceptual apparatus” for examining patterns of behavior, specifically in the sexual arena (Simon and Gagnon 2003:496).

Social scientific understandings of how individuals become sexual beings has been informed by various social theories including feminist theories, critical theories, post- modernism, and constructionism (Smith 2012). Though sexual activity is most often seen as a private act, sexual encounters are remarkably social; before, during, and after the interaction itself (Simon and Gagnon 2003). Therefore, when studying scripts, one must examine the activities happening during the sexual encounter and in which order the activities happen

(Laumann et al. 1994). When people internalize sexual scripts through various social interactions, they are guided to interact with potential partners in specific ways (Bogle 2008;

Laumann et al. 1994; Gagnon and Simon 1973). Thus, researchers can use sexual scripting theory to understand how messages about sex may be internalized by young adults in a myriad of contexts, including school-based sex education courses (Smith 2012).

Young Adults and Sexual Socialization

How students internalize— learn, interpret, and act on— messages received during SBSE courses in adolescence can influence the way teens begin their sexual journeys and explorations of their sexual selves. While the classic psychoanalytic approach asks, “How is the sexual represented in behavior?”, the sexual scripting approach asks, “What does sexuality represent?”

(Simon and Gagnon 2003:495). Sexual scripts evolve as society changes and with the ushering in of the technological age, many of today’s scripts are influenced by media (Bogle 2008; Garcia

2012). Cultural norms designate the where, when, why, and how for sexual activity (Laumann et al. 1994; Bogle 2008). In other words, the way individuals act is often influenced by

interpersonal and intrapsychic scripts within a cultural scenario context (Simon and Gagnon

1984).

Because schools are important to the overall socialization of young people, they are in a

unique position to influence the sexual socialization of students (Smith 2012).

“Sexual socialization refers to the process by which we learn, through interaction with others, sexual knowledge, attitudes, norms, and expectations associated with sexuality, sexual behaviors, and sexual relationships” (Fitzgerald and Grossman 2018:39).

Schools expose young people to societal roles, networks, and positions, thus giving them incredible influence over youths’ sexual development (Smith 2012). However, scholars have largely ignored how young adults perceive the role of SBSE in shaping their understandings of sex and sexuality. Specifically, as Smith (2012) points out, sociology can do more to fill the gap between the role SBSE plays and how sexual scripts are formed in emerging adulthood. SBSE is a formal source of information about sex, yet there is little to be found on how this formal source plays a role in sexual scripting for adolescents making their way into emerging adulthood. Thus,

it can be reasoned that SBSE messages constitute cultural scenarios that influence students’

personal thoughts about sex (intrapsychic scripts) and interactions with sexual partners

(interpersonal scripts) (Unis 2020; Smith 2012; Bogle 2008).

Neoliberalism in SBSE

Neoliberalism is no longer limited to macroeconomic and social policy discussions. It permeates our culture, behaviors, perceptions, and in large ways this is through our education system (Bay-Cheng et al. 2015; Clark and Stitzlein 2018). Though sexuality has only recently become a topic among scholars of neoliberalism there is little question that the SBSE curriculum in the US is shaped by neoliberal ideology and practice. (Brooks 2012/2013; Elliott 2014). SBSE curricula constructed from a neoliberal perspective perpetuates the idea that young people who

experience negative sexual health outcomes are solely to blame for not heeding warnings and

acting accordingly in the sexual arena (Clark and Stitzlein 2018; Elliott 2014). This approach,

through emphasizing personal responsibility, places all of the responsibility of sexual health,

safety, and maturity on the individual, regardless of their age, education, healthcare access, or

social position (Clark and Stitzlein 2018). In this framework, abstinence-only sex education often reigns supreme due to the emphasis on individual risk being combatted by what is believed to be the only infallible way of being responsible with sex and sex-adjacent activities: abstinence. It is important to acknowledge that even comprehensive SE operates within the neoliberal framework and keeps personal responsibility at the forefront (Elliott 2014).

As a result, while students are taught to believe that knowledge is power, many neoliberal-influenced SBSE courses fail to equip students with the knowledge, or power, to move forward with their sexual lives in healthy ways. Students are often left to make decisions with varying levels of information and sometimes misinformation. Elliott (2014) describes this as a “you play, you pay ethos” (221). This punitive way of thinking puts additional blame on people who are at a disadvantage from the beginning. A neoliberal approach to SBSE further complicates the lives of marginalized individuals like women, people of color (POC), low- income, and those in the LGBTQ+ community (Clark and Stitzlein 2018). By privileging a narrative of personal responsibility, blame is directed towards individuals for their actions rather than institutions that “enables or hinders students differently depending on their gender or majority or marginalized status”, while also situating sexual decision making as completely rational (Clark and Stitzlein 2018:331; Fields 2012). Elliott (2014) suggests that maybe instead of emphasizing personal responsibility, SE should turn its attention towards unpacking how social inequalities are reproduced in that field and what steps can be taken to disrupt them.

Inequality in SBSE

Race

Due to the lack of standardization for who provides SBSE, anyone can teach it to students, whether it be a health teacher or an outside entity with no regulation on credentials

(Marques et al. 2017; SIECUS 2020). Therefore, specific subjects can be cherry-picked from the curriculum and taught in a variety of ways (Elliott 2014). Beyond topics being excluded from curriculum, certain student populations are excluded from SBSE as well. SE is inherently linked to race, class, gender, and sexual orientation and given the systemic sexism, racism, and capitalism in the US, sexuality is a deeply layered and complex topic (Rousseau 2009; Bay-

Cheng 2003; Kantor 1992/1993). For example, Black sexuality is seen as a social problem whereas, since the sexual revolution during the latter half of the 1900s, white sexuality is celebrated as a liberation (Rousseau 2009). Under these systems, when a woman is part of the working class or is a POC, a type of superexploitation is present, being that women are already an oppressed/exploited group (Rousseau 2009). Specifically, Black women face a long-reigning stereotype of being “hypersexual savage slave[s]” or jezebels, and more contemporarily

‘hoochies’ (Rousseau 2009:71; Hill Collins 1990). As for Black men, media representations often focus on the physicality of their body when they are depicted as promiscuous, predatory, and violent, specifically in sexual matters (Hill Collins 2005). These notions and stereotypes, whether intentional or not, permeate the curricula of SBSE (Whitten and Sethna 2014; Harley

2020).

Today many schools utilize a colorblind curriculum which is not productive in confronting the social issues that appear in race and SBSE discourse (Whitten and Sethna 2014), such as the higher rates of teen pregnancy that poor, minority, and female students experience (Guttmacher

2019). When discussing teen pregnancy and single motherhood, as is often a topic of SBSE, it is important to recognize the raced implications of this discussion (McNeill 2013). For instance, the high rates of Black male incarceration leave many Black mothers to raise children alone

(Rousseau 2009). Patricia Hill Collins (1990) notes,

“Not only do intersectional paradigms prove useful in explaining U.S. Black women’s experiences, such paradigms suggest that intersecting oppressions also shape the experiences of other groups as well” (227).

Therefore, this inherent connection between sexuality and race, and in turn, SBSE begs for the curricula to be taught in an intersectional fashion to identify the systemic issues that have long been present in the courses (Whitten and Sethna 2014). Despite this, colorblind approaches to

SBSE persist.

LGBTQ+

Another area of inequality that is often found in SBSE courses is the LGBTQ+ community since SBSE has historically been taught with heterosexuality at the center (Elia and

Eliason 2010). For example, in the CDC’s (2019) self-administered questionnaire given to principals and lead health teachers, only 42.4% of Ohio secondary schools reported providing

HIV/STD/pregnancy prevention information involving LGBTQ+ youth. Additionally, only

55.4% of the schools reported teaching about gender identity/expression/roles, and 60.7% teach sexual orientation (CDC 2019). SBSE instructors often present material that assumes heterosexuality among the students (Elliott 2014). Some states, six at the time of writing

(GLSEN 2019), even have specific laws that prohibit the discussion of LGBTQ+ people at all, coined “No Promo Homo” laws (Crowell 2019).

Regardless of sexual or gender identity, misconceptions and perpetuated myths about sex can lead to difficulty in understanding how sex lives develop (Michael et al. 1994). These

misconceptions are exacerbated for sexual minority youth who often feel SBSE courses are

inapplicable to them because the courses only cover heteronormative topics (Hall et al. 2019),

leaving LGBTQ+ students to be exposed to unsafe sex and feeling robbed of a proper SBSE

experience (Crowell 2019). Since most SBSE courses are heteronormative, transgender and non-

binary (TNB) youth are taught that sex is defined as a penile-vaginal intercourse. Youth come to view non-PV sexual acts as non-sex acts overall, which can create confusion, ambiguity, and feelings that non-heterosexual sex is unworthy of being taught (Haley et al. 2019; Crowell 2019).

Sex Negativity

Bay-Cheng (2003) suggests that SBSE in America relies on morals and presupposes the hypersexuality of adolescents by only focusing on the dangers and risks of teen sex. Yet, because of SBSE’s position, it plays a large role in constructing the “normal” teenager and “normative” ideal of adolescent sexuality, arguably making it a cultural scenario, in the language of Simon and Gagnon (1984). SBSE perpetuates the myths of teen sex and sexuality that it is also attempting to discourage (Bay-Cheng 2003). SBSE portrays sexuality most often in three ways: sexuality as violence, sexuality as victimization, and sexuality as morality (Kantor 1992/1993).

All of these views can be compiled into the term “sex negativity.” Sex negativity is essentially a mindset that sex is intrinsically dirty, risky, deviant and/or dangerous (Jorgensen 2016).

Sex-negative narratives found within K-12 sex education foster fear and shame, two emotions believed to undermine—rather than foster—healthy behavior in adolescents (Kantor

1992/1993). For example, in Wilson et al.’s (2012) study of SBSE in Texas, they observed the fear-based tactics that students are exposed to through their curriculum. Students were being taught that premarital sex can, and does, lead to depression, suicide, and divorce and about the deadly nature of STDs (psychologically, if not physically). Elliott (2014) also observed SBSE

engaging in silencing of alternative narratives, whether this be alternative sexualities or

masculinities/femininities. Fear-based messages run rampant through SBSE discourse. Even

when traditionally sex positive topics are discussed, such as pleasure, they are employed in a

negative fashion. Pleasure is used as a weapon to illustrate the dangers of sex, through

correlations of pleasure with regretted sexual experiences, pregnancy, or rushing into sex (Lamb

et al. 2013). Sex positivity, at the other end of the spectrum, challenges common tactics in SBSE

such as using fear, shame, and silencing (Kantor 1992/1993).

The Missing Pieces

In the US, students are exposed to SBSE courses that vary greatly in style, content, and

instruction. However, it is apparent that many students feel less than satisfied with what they

learned in their courses. For example, students in one study noted that while their SBSE covered

reproduction, STI prevention, and puberty, they were not taught about dating or the emotional

aspects of relationships (Bradford et al. 2019). Additionally, Connell and Elliott (2009) examine

how SBSE’s teachings leave a lot to the imagination, such as when students are told to “Just say

No,” but they aren’t taught about what their options are if they decide to say “Yes.” This

ambiguity in SBSE “threatens to undermine young people’s well-being” (Fields 2012:9).

It is important to recognize that even when ideas are being communicated, they may not be interpreted by students the way instructors are anticipating. For instance, students in Unis’s 2020 study believed that there were underlying messages being conveyed in their SE courses. They believed that the information being presented in SE were basic facts centered around the negative outcomes of sex (e.g., STIs or unwanted pregnancy). Additionally, they felt that the messages were meant to scare them away from any sort of sexual engagement (Unis 2020). Thus, it is important to further understand the meanings students attach to topics in their SBSE courses,

15 something that sociologists of sexuality are well-situated to investigate (Smith 2012). The subfield’s interest in subjective understandings of sexuality and sexual socialization combined with various methodologies at our disposal, suggests that sociologists of sex have much to offer in the study of sex education.

It is important to note that, despite the importance of sex education, sexual socialization also happens outside of the classroom. Students receive information about sex from many different sources: parents, grandparents, friends, religious leaders, the media, and more (Bleakley et al.

2009), especially as access to both formal and informal resources for sex-related information continues to increase (Sprecher et al. 2008). Additionally, as important as it is to gather information on what is being presented in SBSE courses, it is equally important to examine what is being left out (Elliott 2014; Fields 2008). What curricula are being retained by students and what is the impact of those retained messages? In order to answer these inquiries, researchers need to go to the source: young adults. We need to understand how SBSE messages are interpreted and acted on from those who are still discovering themselves in the sexual world.

METHODS

Research Topic and Justification for Methods

Through this research, I sought to better understand how the messages received during

SBSE influence students’ development of sexual scripts, as understood by the students themselves, and how adolescents perceive the impact of SBSE on their sexual behaviors and attitudes as young adults. I answered these research questions by conducting twenty in-depth interviews with college students aged 18-23 years old. By interviewing undergraduate college students, I limited the amount of time between last SBSE course and present day, ensuring that students were young enough to remember the lessons they were taught, but old enough to have had the opportunity to be sexually active in some capacity and grow into sexual beings. In-depth qualitative interviews were necessary to assess how messages are internalized because such a method creates a safe, open environment for the participants. Comfort is imperative in this situation as students may be disclosing sensitive information about their sexual behaviors and how they truly feel about their SBSE experience, or lack of experience, in their adolescent years.

While it could be argued that survey research would be a more comfortable avenue for students, it is important to note that interviews allow for real, meaningful connections to be made between

SBSE and sexual scripting, as it is perceived by students. Additionally, interviews allow participants to reflect deeply on their past education experiences and current beliefs and behaviors that would be difficult to capture otherwise. Without in-depth interviews, the nuance, connections, and detail would be lost.

Recruitment

After receiving IRB approval (8/25/2020), I recruited 20 college students from Kent State

University (KSU) for this study. I sent an informative email and flyer to more than 80 different instructors teaching at KSU during the Fall 2020 semester. I asked these instructors to send my email to the students enrolled in their course. The email included a brief description about the study and asked students to reach out to me if they were interested in participating. A total of 23 students responded to the call for participants for a total of 20 respondents. All participants were adults between 18-22 years old (apart from one participant who turned 23 a few days before the interview was conducted). All are graduates of Ohio public high schools (18 different high schools across Central and Northeast Ohio) and are currently enrolled as undergraduates at KSU.

Participants received a five-dollar Starbucks gift card via email after completing the interview as compensation for their time.

Because Ohio does not have set standards for SBSE, this makes it difficult (for researcher and respondent) to know which schools support which type of SBSE. After reaching out to various non-profit and advocacy organizations who conduct research on SE, I learned that school officials within the same local school district are inconsistent in their reports of the type of SBSE their districts offer. So, while I cannot clearly identify district-specific SBSE policies (and by extension, the curricula students in this study were exposed to), this research provides an understanding of how young adults interpret their SBSE experience, irrespective of which type of curriculum they received. That said, students were asked to talk about which type of SBSE curriculum they believe they were exposed to (comprehensive, abstinence, some combination of these, or something else entirely). When analyzing students’ descriptions of their SBSE, some students experienced different curricula throughout their time in middle and high school (n=3), and others were completely unsure about the exact type of curricula (n=3). From my analysis, it

seems as though most (n=7) students fell into a sort of abstinence-plus category (abstinence first

and foremost, but contraception was briefly mentioned), followed by abstinence-only (n=4), followed by comprehensive (n=3).

Data Collection

This study utilized in-depth interviews with participants. Interviews were held via telephone, using Google Voice. Each interview lasted approximately 45-60 minutes and

consisted of open-ended questions to best facilitate dialogue and create a comfortable environment for the respondents. Interviews were recorded utilizing the Google Voice record function, which notifies all callers when recording starts. The program creates a downloadable

audio file post-recording. Participants were asked questions pertaining to their experiences in

their middle and high school SBSE courses. Participants were asked to recall their SBSE, how

informal messages about sexual behavior were communicated alongside the formal SBSE

curriculum, and if, and how, they believe SBSE has shaped their sexual thoughts, decision

making, and behaviors. The internalization of the messages they received was central to the

discussion. The interviews were semi-structured utilizing an interview guide (See Appendix A).

By digitally recording the interviews and having an interview guide, I was able to stay focused

and engaged during the conversations, taking only quick breaks to jot down relevant, sparse

notes about key points to enhance the audio recording and give greater depth during the

transcription process (Lofland et al. 2006).

Informed Consent, Privacy, and Confidentiality of Data

Participants were sent the informed consent documents the day before the scheduled

interview. The informed consent document explained to the interviewees that their participation

in the interview signifies their consent for participation. Written informed consent was waived

for the participants of the study, per IRB recommendation. Prior to beginning the interview, I

reviewed the informed consent document with each participant. All data were de-identified after transcription and pseudonyms are used in place of participant’s real names in all write-ups and presentations. All data from this study were stored on a password protected computer that only I have access to.

Description of Sample

At the outset of the interviews, I asked each of my twenty participants to answer a series of demographic questions such as age, gender identity, race, sexual orientation, etc. All participant information is self-identified. My sample included 17 females and 3 males (all participants responded with sex categories, even when prompted to provide gender identity) and

18 white and 2 nonwhite participants. Additionally, my sample was majority LGBTQ+ identifying (n=12). Of important note, one asexual participant in my sample is included in the

LGBTQ+ category as asexual individuals are often considered to be part of the LGBTQ+ community. Participants’ ages ranged from 18-23, where 18-year-olds were the most represented group (n=10). This places all of my participants in Generation Z, which has been found to be increasingly LGBTQ+ identifying and overwhelmingly engaged in social activism (Parker and

Igielnik 2020; Schmidt 2021; Biederman et al. 2020). Most of my participants were single

(n=15), with just over half of them (n=11) identifying as religious (as opposed to nonreligious).

My sample comes from 18 different high schools across Northeast (n=16) and Central (n=2)

Ohio. A more detailed breakdown of self-reported participant demographics can be found in

Table 1 of Appendix B.

Data Analysis and an Abductive Approach

All audio recordings were transcribed verbatim after the interviews were completed.

Interview notes supplemented the audio recordings. I transcribed the interview using a

transcription service (Otter.ai) and followed along with the transcription and audio to detect any

errors. By transcribing after each interview, I was also able to draw on past interviews to focus

on important topics that I may have otherwise overlooked. (Charmaz 1996). Post-transcription, I

used a qualitative data analysis software (NVivo 12) to do line-by-line coding. “Line-by-line coding forces you to think about the material in new ways that may differ from your research participants’ interpretations,” (Charmaz 1996:38). By utilizing line-by-line coding, before moving to focused coding, I developed a better idea about the data I had collected, and I was able to begin creating analytical categories (Charmaz 1996). Through focused coding, I worked to create parent and child codes to identify overarching themes along with subthemes within them.

I used Timmermans and Tavory’s (2012) abductive approach to qualitative research. By following this approach, I was able to incorporate my knowledge of existing literature throughout the data collection and analysis procedure (Timmermans and Tavory 2012).

Specifically, I was able to utilize my current and growing knowledge of sexual scripts (Simon and Gagnon 1984; Simon and Gagnon 2003; Smith 2012) to garner information from students about what they believed to have influenced their sexual ideas, feelings, and decisions (i.e., sexual scripts). Putting an emphasis on the language that participants used was a key aspect to better develop questions throughout the interviewing process. An abductive style of analysis allows for a “double engagement” between existing theory and careful methodology, which I believe has been beneficial to my study (Timmermans and Tavory 2012:181).

My goal was to improve understanding of how school-based sex education messages are interpreted by students, how these interpretations internalize and are manifested, or acted upon,

by the students, and how the messages influence developing sexual scripts. Additionally, I

believe I now have a better understanding of how the piecemeal nature of SBSE in Ohio trickles

down to students during and after their time in the public-school system. It is my hope that the

knowledge gained from this study will inform education policy and contribute to current

discussions about how to improve school-based sex education for Ohio’s youth.

Positionality

As a graduate student and a researcher, I understand that there is a perceived amount of authority that I hold over undergraduates. It is difficult to determine how this dynamic may have impacted the information that participants shared with me. I feel that by keeping identities secure and recording only audio for the interview, there was a more open researcher-participant rapport.

Additionally, as a young, white, heterosexual woman I may not fully understand the lived experiences of some of the individuals who participated. Lastly, I do advocate for a medically accurate, evidence based SBSE. However, I do my best to be an objective researcher to gather and analyze the best data possible.

FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS

Three main themes were identified through systematic analysis of the twenty participant

interviews: (1) sex negativity in the messages being communicated to students, (2) unique

experiences of LGBTQ+ students, and (3) missing pieces in the curricula that students were left

to fill in on their own. Fear, shame, and stereotype messaging were common in respondents’

courses, suggesting a culture of sex negativity for developing adolescents. These themes, though

interrelated and connected in various ways, particularly through their influence on sexual

scripting, are distinct and capture the complexities of what participants experienced through their

SBSE courses. Themes are presented as overarching ideas and then parsed out into different

subcategories to share, describe, and analyze patterns in experiences more specifically.

Sex Negativity

Shame

Fourteen students felt the presence of shame in their SBSE discourse, with some

recalling messaging about sex as being uncomfortable, repulsive, or dirty, reinforcing a cultural

scenario script based in sex negativity. Charlotte (19, Female, White, Bisexual) remarked that

her SBSE had “ingrained this idea of sex being wrong.” One student even recalled the

positioning of sex as appropriate only for procreation, a “conquest” for men, and degrading to

women, noting that pleasure was not presented as an option for women. Even bodily discomfort,

a form of intrapsychic scripting, relative to sex became a source of shame for one student, “… I

felt uncomfortable with the thought of somebody seeing me having sex or being with me during

sex,” (Ava, 19, Female, White, Bisexual).

Unfortunately, the shame went beyond personal feelings. Students in my sample recalled

various ways in which their perceptions of sex, as a result of their SBSE, led to shameful

interpersonal scripting via the thoughts or actions between friends, partners, or schoolmates. A few students, such as Miley, recalled shaming other students for their sexual experiences, “I feel like people didn’t necessarily talk about sex a lot. So, it’s kind of easy for people to slut shame other people in my high school, and so I definitely didn’t have a favorable view of having sex as a high schooler.” Later, she told me how she felt the pressure to avoid any conversation of sex with her closest friends, because she didn’t “want to make them uncomfortable or seem like I’m

some kind of sex-crazed demon or something.” Emma, a 20-year-old, white, heterosexual, female also described the presence of shame, name calling, and negative body image as a result of her SBSE.

“I felt gross after hearing what she [instructor] would say, I thought that like swimming in a pond made me a dirty person, if that makes sense… any mention of sex or anything wasn’t in my vocabulary as a child. But I think that was common for everyone in my class, because after going through that teaching of abstinence, there was a lot of body shaming, name calling… girls would be… deemed the ‘whores’ or…dirty people if they were to be involved in, you know…”

As for Brandon, a 22-year-old white, gay, male, he spoke to me about how he contributed to HIV shame and stigma within the LGBTQ+ community. Brandon attributes these feelings directly to his SBSE course and the information he was exposed to through it: “I think that my sexual health education in high school led to me… contributing to the stigma of HIV positive men, because I thought HIV was… a death sentence” and “you know, from that one lesson, I went out into the real world and treated people like, they were less than me, and that they were like, these lepers, and they couldn’t be in society.” After his realizations of his actions through further education and exposure, Brandon remarked on his interpersonal connections, “I didn’t realize how awful I had treated some of these people… Like the one person I talked to, I literally

ghosted them, and I just feel so awful… I tried to find that person too, and I could never find

them again.”

Some students even experienced overtly sex negative and shame-based demonstrations as part of the SBSE courses.

“…she [instructor] took a tissue and she said, ‘This is your heart’… then she went down a list. She's like, ‘This is another relationship. This is another person you slept with’. And she kept tearing at the tissue until there was like, a little bit left. And she's like, ‘This is all you have left to give to the person you truly love’. Because something about losing yourself along the way.” -Oliver (18, Male, White, Bisexual)

“One of them [standout topics] was, they took us to a separate room from our normal science - and this was in middle school. It was eighth grade, I believe. And they took pudding, and they mix... they had us each mix the pudding and say that like ‘That is what sex is. And once you mix the pudding, you cannot separate it’.” -Rachel (19, Female, Asian, Heterosexual)

These demonstrations hinged on the sexist ideal of purity (particularly for women) and positioned sex as a dirty act to engage in, being told they would be left with no pieces of themselves if they slept with too many partners.

Fear

Similar to shame, twelve of the twenty students remarked on the fear-driven discussions they experienced. Students reflected on the “scary” perception of sex. While a level of nerves is normal prior to experiencing something for the first time, having panic attacks over the thought of someone wanting to engage in sexual activity with you, or being constantly petrified that STIs were lurking in dark corners is, as one student described: debilitating. Students were influenced by a cultural scenario that emphasized: “if you were to choose to not stay abstinent, you would suffer extreme consequences” (Olivia, 19, Female, White, Heterosexual) or that “any interaction that you have is gonna end up with an STD” (Emma, 20, Female, White, Heterosexual).

Many students described the teaching they experienced as a scare tactic which left them petrified to reach out with questions or concerns. “It was like, they were trying to scare us. And obviously, that wasn't…the direct, like what they were trying to do. But it was like, ‘You have to

use a condom or like, you're gonna get sick and get syphilis and die’.” -Kate (18, Female, White,

Bisexual). Another student, Mia, an 18-year-old, white, bisexual, female had a similar experience. She noted,

“Oh, oh, they scared us out of our minds for that [STIs]. Like, I thought that, until like... being on the internet just learning stuff myself… I thought that every STD that you could get, was permanent and it would infect you for the rest of your life and it would absolutely ruin your life. And that there was absolutely no... There's no treatment and no going back,”

For some students, these fears manifested in such a way that they abstained from sexual

encounters for years after the course. For others, cognizant of the fear-driven curricula, they

threw caution to the wind and went into encounters before they felt “ready” in order to combat

the sex negativity in the SBSE courses and schools at large. Charlotte described this experience:

“I was trying so hard to be sex positive and to be encouraging for people around me and to be comfortable having those conversations… I think it pushed me to feel pressured that I had to have sex to prove that I was comfortable with it. Because I thought in my head… ‘Well, I’m preaching all these ideas with sex being normal, why am I not, you know, having sex?’… I think I rushed myself into having sex and to feeling comfortable with that, because I felt like the only way to truly be a sex positive person was by having sex.”

One student who stood out as having experienced a fear-driven curriculum is Ava, a 19- year-old, white, bisexual female. Throughout my interview with her, she repeatedly recalled moments in which she felt scared of sex and attributed it to sex being taught to her as “a cautionary tale.” For example, she told me that she never really dated men, though she identifies as bisexual. Ava described being “afraid” of heterosexual sex because all of the possible negative consequences. For a long while, she was under the impression that you could only get STDs from straight sex so she thought if she could avoid men sexually, she could avoid any negative implications of sexual activity, thus shaping her sexual scripts. Because of this, she said, “So, I

never even really felt like I personally had the option to date men or engage in sexual activity with men. So, it kind of took that experience away from me almost.” Ava remarked that to this day, she still feels a tinge of fear related to STIs or pregnancy, like when her friends talk about having unprotected sex, “So, I guess I’m still afraid of them [STIs].” Similarly, Brandon also remarked on how fear was the driving force behind the STI/HIV discussion in his SBSE course.

He thought HIV was a death sentence because he was only taught about the negative health effects of contracting HIV but was not informed on the medicines and preventative care for someone who is HIV+.

Sex negative messaging, although not overt in every case, has the ability to leave students feeling confused about information received. They are told that sex often leads to pregnancy or disease, but they are not given tools to prevent these consequences. They are told that sex takes

“pieces away from you,” leaving you less than whole if you choose to engage in intercourse with someone. As students reflected on the negative nature of their SBSE courses, many came to the same conclusions. The negative discourse of their class often led to negative perceptions of sex, as Charlotte noted, “… there’s a very negative connotation to all of it, that you shouldn’t be having sex and that if you do have sex, your life is ruined…”.

LGBTQ+ Experiences

Throughout the interviews, students often remarked on the heterosexual nature of their courses in which LGBTQ+ sex or sexuality was never discussed. A total of seventeen participants reflected on the inclusion or exclusion of the LGBTGQ+ community, with responses ranging from being unsure about the framing of the topic in their course to being very cognizant of how the LGBTQ+ community was talked about. Some students even seemed to become aware of the cishet-standard as I asked them whether they felt like their SBSE was inclusive.

“I don't know it's weird… it wasn't like it was not inclusive but it wasn't inclusive. I feel like it was in between because they just didn't bring it up.” – Amy (18, Female, White, Asexual)

Some participants even joked about or laughed at my inquiry that their SBSE courses would have talked about LGBTQ+ individuals, as though the very thought of schools prioritizing inclusion was comical.

“Absolutely not *laughs*…. yeah, no, I didn't learn anything. Even like, on the topic, like it was never brought up. Nobody ever talked about it… I did not learn anything besides like man and woman and like stuff like that...” – Kate (18, Female, White, Bisexual)

“Ooh, no *laughs*. No, it was only ever. You know, like male and female. It was never, it never once would have talked about homosexual relationships, or no, never *laughs* that.” – Emma (20, Female, White, Heterosexual)

For women like Ava, the experiences in SBSE courses were blatantly exclusionary, leaving her feeling abandoned and ashamed of the thoughts in her own head as the course structured a cultural scenario that positions heterosexual relationships as the standard.

“I remember feeling very lost because they didn't talk about sex between gay men or gay women. And when I, when I took it in eighth grade, I was young enough where I didn't know necessarily if it was right or wrong to want to have sex with another woman. And so, by not having an education around it, it kind of forced me to seek out information online about how that worked. And like, I remember asking questions about it. Like we had the opportunity to ask anonymous questions, but they answered every question except mine. I remember feeling that it was almost wrong, that I wanted to have sex with women at my age.”

Some students, like Oliver, did not describe their instructors’ approach to ignoring the LGBTQ+ community as overt, but instead as “[taking] a little bit of liberty to avoid including them in the discussion.” Charlotte described the exclusion as follows, “…from what I remember, there wasn't a single conversation about gay sex, or lesbian sex or any type of queer romantic situation. Yeah, they definitely avoided that like the plague. They did not bring that up at all.”

This, she noted, made it difficult for her growing up as someone who wanted to date other

women because she simply didn’t understand why she felt that way, which can be a difficult

intrapsychic script to develop and grapple with.

For some students, the exclusion of an entire population made sexual and personal

exploration even more difficult than it typically is for an adolescent. Sexual exploration can be a

tumultuous journey for teens and emerging adults, even for those who fall into the “normative”

cishet category. So, students like Brandon, who do not subscribe to heteronormative societal

ideals, are left to their own devices to fill in the missing pieces of their education.

“At that time, I was, you know, a teen questioning my sexuality. And I didn't come out until the grade after, in terms of… I mean, 2015, you know, was when gay marriage was legalized. So, that was the year after I took that course. Could it be more inclusive? Obviously. Was it a touchy subject at the time? Sure. I think it definitely could be more…. inclusive in terms of same sex relations. I mean… when you're… not in a same sex relationship you still have to use contraception. You know, just because they can't get pregnant doesn't mean you can't… contract different diseases. And so, yes, it definitely could be more inclusive. And I think it could also be more inclusive in terms of where to access these tools, how to use these tools, and, you know, the, the real life, the real-world application and just understanding of these things.” – Brandon (22, Male, White, Gay)

For some students, the LGBTQ+ exclusion affected their friends in rather serious ways.

Victoria, an 18-year-old, white, heterosexual female watched her friend move to online courses because of the discrimination she was facing daily at high school for being lesbian. Kiera, an 18- year-old, white, lesbian female recalled a time when her middle school principal pulled her friend out of the classroom and instructed him to not look at or talk to any of the boys in his class because he was gay. Students, including these two participants, point to the exclusion of

LGBTQ+ individuals in SBSE as a mechanism for fueling discrimination within the school.

Students suggested that had there been an open discussion for non-cishet people, there may have been less discrimination and a more open culture at their schools overall.

The Missing Pieces

Omissions

Many students spent a good portion of the interviews discussing topics they wish had been covered in their SBSE courses. Of the eighteen students who gave specific examples of topics they wish were covered, many commented on their ability to seek out information on their own. However, they still felt slighted by how little information they were given during their sex education courses. For students like Jane, the only student who truly nodded to her SBSE experience as overwhelmingly positive (Planned Parenthood was brought in to teach her high school SBSE), she would have liked to see more attention given to men’s health. Ava also pointed out that it would have been helpful to know more information about the male reproductive system and their experiences during puberty, should she ever have a son.

Additionally, many students pointed out that though they were often taught about STIs, they were not taught how they could be cured, resources to seek out for help, or what to do if you suspect you may have contracted an STI.

The topics of consent and sexual abuse/assault were commonly left out of respondents’

SBSE courses or, at best, were covered superficially . Holly noted,

“Um, I wish we would have talked more about consent and what that is and what it should look like, and different ways of consenting. And what nonconsenting looks like and the different ways that you know, saying ‘no’ can look like, I definitely wish we would have talked about that more. I wish we would have talked more about sexual abuse and maybe just what to expect from sex overall.”

Even Liam, the only straight, white, male in my participant pool discussed how much more education on rape culture he wanted.

“Oh, yeah, definitely. Definitely, just like the rape culture. Just because, I mean, people don't think that rape and sexual abuse happens on... even at high school and that kind of stuff, but they don't realize that that kind of stuff happens throughout all your years… But… if anything, I wish they just covered more how to prevent rape, I guess. Even though that's kind of heavy... I... just I don't know, I don't know if you could really do that. But I wish they would just talk about that kind of stuff more.” – Liam

Students were also given relatively little information about contraception beyond male

condoms, which left out the wide variety of birth control options available to females.

Respondents were also not instructed on how to access birth control. Most participants also

indicated that in the case of an unplanned pregnancy, there was no information given on how to

cope with that situation; they were not taught who to seek out for help or what their options

were. For example, a number of students described an unplanned pregnancy as something you

simply dealt with, but also as something that will ruin the rest of your life, as many were taught about the negative implications of teen pregnancy, but not about prevention or possible alternatives to pregnancy, such as abortion or adoption.

Twelve students, both LGBTQ+ and heterosexual noted their desire for more information on the LGBTQ+ community.

“I wish they talked about transgender health… I would say talk about LGBT sex in general, because I felt lost. And um, very confused, like there's still even topics now surrounding that, but I'm still a little gray on.” – Ava (19, Female, White, Bisexual)

“…gay sex would have been nice to know about and then, I mean, sexuality in general would be nice to learn about. And I mean, the difference between gender identity and sexual identity is important, like an important thing that not a lot of people really understand. And then also, I need all the types of sexualities that exist. Those are important to know. And in my sheltered conservative town, no one really knows or cares to educate themselves on the topic.” – Victoria (18, Female, White, Heterosexual).

Some students simply wished to be educated about the reality of sex and sexual encounters. SBSE courses represented in this sample may have covered the possible consequences of sex or promoted abstinence, but they never talked about what it means to connect sexually with another person. Specifically, students mentioned the lack of education around emotions and relationships. Many students felt as though they were not prepared for

“real-life” sexual situations, whether this meant how to utilize contraception or how to have a conversation about the possibility of sex with a partner. Miley remarked that her lack of

31 knowledge on sex-related topics was embarrassing as she entered college and would have conversations with peers about various sexual things, saying that she didn’t know things “which everyone knows, apparently.”

Seeking Out Information

Since students were so often left to discover more sex-related information on their own, they sought out a variety of sources. Of my participant pool, every single student mentioned an outside source of sex-related information from parents and family to friends, to retaining information they had observed in TV shows or movies. Luckily, for some students, more accurate and reliable information was easily accessible. Parents and other adults were available and willing to answer any questions and were considered by students to be an additional resource on sex. Holly, for example, whose mother works in the medical field, was often a source of information and help. Holly described her as an “easy person to talk to” and mentioned that “she was completely there for me.” Charlotte attributes the open dialogue with her mother to her mother being “very liberal” in comparison to the conservative area in which she grew up and went to school. She discussed sexual safety, birth control, relationships, and more with her mom.

Charlotte even remarked on the fact that she seemed to be much more in the know than her classmates when it came to sex-related information, “… it’s almost funny to me, I have memories of being in that course and knowing what things were that nobody else my age knew what they were.” Danielle talked about having a similar, close relationship with her mom, and even elaborated that her mom made up for the lack of SBSE she received, but that other students may not be so lucky.

Yet, unfortunately for other students, sex was not discussed with parents or medical professionals such as doctors. So, adolescents were left to seek help and supplemental (or

32 primary) education on their own. In this context, teens are beacons of information and assistance for one another. Some students like Charlotte, even became pseudo-formal sources of information for their classmates, being strapped with resources, validation, and tutoring about various topics.

“…people would come to me with conversations about like, things that I guess they would feel embarrassed about… like how to talk to a significant other about not wanting to have sex yet, or how much they want to do with their significant other if they don't want to completely have sex yet, or things like… I mean, even things like vaginal health, or like physical health with like, your boobs or anything like that. It was all very stigmatized at my high school. And I want to make sure people knew that even... anyone could have this type of conversations with me, like, if they want to discuss how to ask their parents for this type of advice or who they think they should go to. I always wanted to provide resources for people.” – Charlotte (19, Female, White, Bisexual)

Though the intent is good-natured, other adolescents, be it peers, partners, or siblings, are not always equipped to dole out accurate information. For example, as Kiera noted, even though she had a good relationship with her sister and felt comfortable discussing sex-related topics with her, she couldn’t ask her about the mechanics and safe-sex options within lesbian sex, because her sister is heterosexual. Or students like Amy, who identifies as asexual, had trouble figuring out why she was not wanting the same things as her friends or how to describe her sexuality.

But there was another avenue of sexual learning and exploration that are part of the cultural scenarios informing adolescent sex education: media. Miley describes media’s influence on her SE in a succinct sentence, “And honestly, I think I’ve probably gotten more of a sex education at college or by watching TV shows than I have just from my units in school at all.”

Students cited shows like Grey’s Anatomy, 16 & Pregnant, Sex Education, Law & Order: SVU, and Family Guy as sources of sexual health information. Additional sources such as Google, movies, BuzzFeed, and social media were also mentioned. Again, there was a vast array of topics searched and learned from these various sources. The topics ranged from the menstrual cycle to

33 female orgasms because the information is simply not present in any formal way to these students. These gaps in curricula, along with the implications of the topics that were included, make clear that SBSE courses are part of the cultural scenarios (Simon and Gagnon 1984) that inform the interpersonal and intrapsychic sexual scripts of adolescents.

DISCUSSION

Students interviewed for this study report exposure to SBSE curricula that were sex negative, anti-LGBTQ+, and insufficient in meeting their needs. Though the sex negativity is varied in the way it presents itself, be it through direct discourse, hidden curricula, or evasion of necessary education, the way that students describe their SBSE experiences is overwhelmingly negative and fear- and shame-driven, which is arguably detrimental to the formation of sexually responsible and confident adolescents. As for LGBTQ+ students, the default cishet SBSE curriculum is not applicable to LGBTQ+ adolescents and is based in misogynistic and sexist ideologies (Hoefer and Hoefer 2017). So, for a growing portion of students who are not the

“default” (straight, white, heterosexual, cismen), the information in SBSE courses is often fear- based, misleading, and contributes to sex negativity (Jones 2021; Hoefer and Hoefer 2017;

Bishop et al. 2020; Bay-Cheng 2003; Wilson et al. 2012). Lastly, the missing pieces of SBSE curriculum for students in this sample are glaring. While students are resourceful and can often find ways to get the information they need, for others, these possibilities are inaccessible because they do not have other ways to identify or access trustworthy information. Furthermore, even if support systems or open lines of communication are present for students, such substitutes are not a reliable way to ensure that all students receive medically accurate and science-based SBSE.

The way that information about sex and sexuality is being presented in this sample of

Ohio’s SBSE courses appears to impact students’ perceptions of themselves as sexual beings.

Though there is variation in how much SBSE courses in the sample influence each student, it is evident that the legacy of instruction is largely negative. Through the use of fear- and shame-

based messaging, students are left feeling scared, uncomfortable, and worried about current and

future sexual relationships and encounters. The exclusion and omission of the LGBTQ+

community that many of the students in my sample experienced speaks to the persistent framing

of SBSE courses as cishet-centered in addition to how abstinence until marriage has a stronghold

on the discussion (Elia and Eliason 2010; Elliott 2014; Crowell 2019; Haley et al. 2019). The gaps in SBSE curricula were also a main finding that supports prior research that students are being sent off from their SBSE courses yearning for more information (Bradford et al. 2019;

Connell and Elliott 2009; Fields 2012:9; Elliott 2014; Fields 2008). The students in my sample attested to how little relevant information they received in their formal courses which left them to seek out information from family members, friends, the Internet, media, and more.

Findings presented here also reveal the influence of SBSE in a crucial moment in the

development of students’ sexual scripts (Simon and Gagnon 1984; Smith 2012; Laumann et al.

1994). The undergraduates in my sample remarked on the negative and biased messages they

received through their SBSE courses and though SBSE is likely not be the only influence on

students’ sexual scripts, it does constitute a neoliberal cultural scenario that influences students’

intrapsychic and interpersonal sexual scripts. The framing of the cultural scenarios or, “the

instructional guides that exist at the level of collective life” (Simon and Gagnon 1984:53) in

SBSE are largely negative and exclusionary and position students as individually responsible for

their sexual desires and behavior. Not surprisingly, these leave students feeling lost, scared, and

confused (Bay-Cheng et al. 2015; Clark and Stitzlein 2018; Elliott 2014). Sexual scripts

informed by neoliberal SBSE curriculum create an environment in which students are taught to

avoid sexual situations, while also being the targets of scare tactics through the weaponization of

sexual consequences, like STIs or pregnancy. Adolescents are simultaneously being taught about

the hyper sexualization of teens while also being taught to be the complete opposite, all with the

neoliberal influence of feeling as though they are the sole person to blame should any sexual

situation go awry. As evidenced through my interviews, the cultural scenarios that inform

students’ sexual scripting appear to shape their feelings and decision making about sex, well

after they have completed high school.

While other researchers have also found that sex education fails students in terms of giving

them adequate information (Bradford et al. 2019; Connell and Elliott 2009; Fields 2012; Elliott

2014), and perpetuating sex negative ideologies, (Bay-Cheng 2003; Jorgensen 2016; Wilson et

al. 2012; Elliott 2014; Kantor 1992/1993) it is important to note that this study considers SBSE

in a unique policy and educational climate: Ohio remains the only state that does not have a set standard for health education in schools. Student experiences with SBSE in Ohio are a prime example of the implications of not only lack of standardization, but also demonstrate how poorly conceived SBSE can impact students as they develop into young adulthood. Though sex education is only a portion of the broader curriculum of health education, the data here suggest that students struggle to secure a safe, confident, and healthy sex life when SBSE curriculum is poorly conceived, implemented in a piecemeal fashion, and in ways that do not reflect best practice in the field. Therefore, it is my position that this research can be used as a starting point for future research, SBSE curricula, and policy change. We have been faced with firsthand accounts of long-lasting, negative consequences of SBSE messaging; thus, I believe that we have a duty to work towards making changes for future students.

Limitations

There are several limitations to this study. To begin, it is important to note that the experiences shared in these interviews are not representative of all SBSE courses across Ohio.

Additionally, interviews took place on a virtual platform due to COVID and I cannot fully attest

to how this may or may not have impacted my research. It is possible that respondents were less

forthcoming via remote interviews, but it is also the case that the interviews provided a welcome

opportunity for conversation and interaction for the student respondents, who had been remote

learning since March of 2020. Finally, I believe the composition of the sample reflects a

selection bias. Even though the study invitation was offered to a wide swath of students, it is

likely the students who chose to participate were more inclined to have critical views of their

SBSE experiences.

Another notable limitation of this study is the lack of ethnic and racial diversity in the sample. While I did end up with a diverse sample with respect to LGBTQ+ young adults, the sample is not diverse by race or ethnicity. The way that SBSE curricula impact different groups of students is incredibly important to consider and is crucial to developing a rich understanding of how students perceive SBSE curricula and messaging. Unfortunately, I was unable to recruit a diverse set of respondents to address this gap in the literature. Further, the nature of the study as retrospective does introduce bias in terms of memory recall and memory loss due to the time between SBSE courses and date of interview. Lastly, I limited my sample to Ohio public school graduates and those currently enrolled at KSU. While I wanted to maintain consistency with the high school location, due to Ohio’s specific guidelines of SBSE, I believe that going beyond the

bounds of KSU would provide a more comprehensive understanding of SBSE in Ohio, beyond

the confines of Northeast and Central Ohio.

Future Directions

In the future, I would recommend opening the participant pool to all of Ohio, or even

across states to allow for a systematic comparison of SBSE across geographical, political, and

38 demographic contexts. Additionally, even though my participants were young and not too far removed from their high school experiences, some were still recalling SBSE courses from years ago. I believe that future researchers may benefit from interviewing high school students shortly after taking their courses, or even conducting some participant observation within SBSE classes.

This would give the researcher the unique opportunity to assess the class, students, and instructors in situ and then interview the students on their perceptions, and perhaps even the instructors as well. Through these various pathways, researchers could move toward a more systematic understanding of SBSE’s impact on students as well as a more comprehensive review of sex education curricula.

Conclusion

In conclusion, there is an immediate need for SBSE’s curriculum to be revisited, particularly in Ohio. Students are being exposed to sex negative cultures, being explicitly excluded, and are still left with so many questions. Thus, we should be actively working to combat this. In the journey to set adolescents up for success and to have enjoyable, healthy, and safe sex lives, they need to be given access to consistent and reliable sex education. Don’t our youth deserve that?

REFERENCES

Bancroft, John. 2004. “Alfred C. Kinsey and the Politics of Sex Research.” Annual Review of Sex

Research. 15:1–39.

Bay-Cheng, Laina, Caroline Fitz, Natalie Alizaga, and Alyss Zucker. 2015. “Tracking Homo

Oeconomicus: Development of the Neoliberal Beliefs Inventory” Journal of Social and

Political Psychology. 3(1):71-88.

Bay-Cheng, Laina. 2003. “The Trouble of Teen Sex: the construction of adolescent sexuality

through school-based sexuality education” Sex Education. 3(1):61-74.

Berntson, Marit, Tracy Luff, and Kristi Hoffman. 2014. “College as Context: Influences on

Interpersonal Sexual Scripts” Sexuality & Culture. 18:149-165.

Best, Joel, and Kathleen Bogle. 2014. Kids Gone Wild: From Rainbow Parties to Sexting,

Understanding the Hype Over Teen Sex. New York, NY: NYU Press.

Biederman, Alyssa, Melina Walling, and Sarah Siock. 2020. “Meet Gen Z activists: Called to

action in an unsettled world” AP News.

Bishop, Meg, Allen Mallory, McKenna Gessner, David Frost, and Stephen Russell. 2020.

“School-based Sexuality Education Experiences across Three Generations of Sexual

Minority People” The Journal of Sex Research.

Bogle, Kathleen. 2008. Hooking Up. Sex, Dating, and Relationships on Campus. New York, NY:

NYU Press.

Bradford, Nova, James DeWitt, Jilyan Decker, Dianne Berg, Katherine Spencer, and Michael

Ross. 2019. “Sex education and transgender youth: ‘Trust Means Material By and For

Queer and Trans People’” Sex Education. 19(1):84-98.

Brooks, Siobhan. 2012/2013. “Beyond marriage and the military: race, gender, and radical

sexual politics in the age of neoliberalism” The Scholar & Feminist Online. 11.1-11.2.

Bullough, Vern. 1998. “Alfred Kinsey and the Kinsey Report: Historical Overview and Lasting

Contributions.” The Journal of Sex Research 35(2):127–31.

Carter-Smith, Karin. 2019. “Kinsey Report.” Salem Press Encyclopedia.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2019. “School Health Profiles 2018: Characteristics

of Health Programs Among Secondary Schools.” Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention.

Charmaz, Kathy. 1996. “The Search for Meanings- Grounded Theory.” Pp. 27–49 in Rethinking

Methods in Psychology. London, England: Sage Publications.

Connell, Catherine, and Sinikka Elliott. “Beyond the Birds and the Bees: Learning Inequality

through Sexuality Education” American Journal of Sexuality Education. 4:83-102.

Crowell, Courtney. 2019. “Anti-Gay Sex Education: A Lasting Tool for Discrimination?” Law &

Sexuality. 28:45-57.

Donovan, Megan. 2017. “The Looming Threat to Sex Education: A Resurgence of Federal

Funding for Abstinence-Only Programs. Guttmacher Institute.

Elia, John, and Mickey Eliason. 2010. “Dangerous Omissions: Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage

School-Based Sexuality Education and the Betrayal of LGBTQ Youth.” American Journal

of Sexuality Education. 5:17–35.

Elliott, Sinikka. 2010. “Parents’ Constructions of Teen Sexuality: Sex Panics, Contradictory

Discourses, and Social Inequality.” Symbolic Interaction. 33(2):191–212.

Elliott, Sinikka. 2014. “Who’s to Blame?: Constructing the Responsible Sexual Agent in

Neoliberal SE.” Research & Social Policy. 11:211–24.

Estes, Michelle. 2017. “‘If There’s One Benefit, You’re Not Going to Get Pregnant’: The Sexual

Miseducation of Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Individuals.” Sex Roles. 77:615–27.

Fields, Jessica. 2008. Risky lessons. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Fields, Jessica. 2012. “Sexuality Education in the United States: Shared Cultural Ideas across a

Political Divide” Sociology Compass. 6:1-14.

Fitzgerald, Kathleen and Kandice Grossman. 2018. Sociology of Sexualities. Thousand Oaks,

CA: SAGE Publications.

Foster, Lyndsay and Sandra Byers. 2008. “Predictors of stigma and shame related to sexually

transmitted infections: Attitudes, education, and knowledge” The Canadian Journal of

Human Sexuality. 17(4):193-202.

Gagnon, John and William Simon. 2005 [1973]. Sexual Conduct: The Social Sources of Human

Sexuality. Chicago, IL: Aldine Transaction.

Garcia, Justin, Chris Reiber, Sean Massey, and Ann Merriweather. 2012. “Sexual Hookup

Culture: A Review” Review of General Psychology. 16(2):161-176.

GLSEN. 2019. “No Promo Homo” Laws. New York, NY.

Guttmacher Institute. 2019. Unintended Pregnancy in the United States. Washington DC.

Guttmacher Institute. 2020. Sex and HIV Education. Washington, DC.

Haley, Samantha, Diana Tordoff, Alena Kantor, Julia Crouch, and Kym Ahrens. 2019. “SE for

Transgender and Non-Binary Youth: Previous Experiences and Recommended Content.”

The Journal of Sexual Medicine. 16:1834–48.

Hall, William, Benjamin Jones, Kristen Witkemper, Tora Collins, and Grayson Rodgers. 2019.

“State Policy on School-Based SE: A Content Analysis Focused on Sexual Behaviors,

Relationships, and Identities.” American Journal of Health Behaviors. 43(3):506–19.

Harley, Christine. 2020. “Why Students Need Sex Education That’s Honest About Racism.”

Rewire News.

Hill Collins, Patricia. 1990. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the

Politics of Empowerment. Boston, MA: Unwin Hyman.

Hill Collins, Patricia. 2005. Black Sexual Politics: African Americans, Gender, and the New

Racism. 1st ed. New York, NY: Routledge.

Jones, Jeffrey. 2021. “LGBT Identification Rises to 5.6% in Latest U.S. Estimate” Gallup.

Retrieved March 2, 2021. (https://news.gallup.com/poll/329708/lgbt-identification-rises-

latest-estimate.aspx)

Jorgensen, Jeana. 2016. “Becoming an Alt-Ac Sex Educator, Part III” Inside Higher Ed.

Washington, DC.

Kantor, Leslie, John Santelli, Julien Teitler, and Randall Balmer. 2008. “Abstinence-Only

Policies and Programs: An Overview.” Sexuality Research & Social Policy 5(3):6–17.

Kantor, Leslie. 1992/1993. “Scared Chaste? Fear-Based Educational Curricula” SIECUS Report.

21(2).

Kennett, Deborah, Terry Humphreys, and Kristen Schultz. 2012. “Sexual Resourcefulness and

the Impact of Family, SE, Media and Peers.” SE 12(3):351–68.

Kinsey, Alfred, Wardell Pomeroy, Clyde Martin, and Paul Gebhard. 1953. Sexual Behavior in

the Human Female. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Lamb, Sharon, Kara Lustig, and Kelly Graling. 2013. “The use and misuse of pleasure in sex

education curricula” Sex Education. 13(3):305-318.

Lamb, Sharon. 2013. “Just the Facts? The Separation of Sex Education from Moral Education”

Educational Theory. 63(5):443-460.

Laumann, Edward, John Gagnon, Robert Michael, and Stuart Michaels. 1994. The Social

Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States. Chicago, IL: The

University of Chicago Press.

Lofland, John, David Snow, Leon Anderson, and Lyn H. Lofland. 2006. Analyzing Social

Settings: A Guide to Qualitative Observations and Analysis. 4th ed. Belmont, CA:

Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Marques, Sara, Eva Goldfarb, Julianna Deardorff, and Norman Constantine. 2017. “Perspectives

on Conceptualizing Developmentally Appropriate Sexuality Education.” American Journal

of Sexuality Education. 12(1):35–54.

McNeill, Tanya. 2013. “Sex Education and the Promotion of Heteronormativity.” Sexualities.

16(7):826–46.

Michael, Robert, John Gagnon, Edward Laumann, and Gina Kolata. 1994. Sex in America: A

Definitive Survey. MV-NY: Little, Brown & Company.

National Guidelines Task Force. 2004. Guidelines for Comprehensive Sexuality Education:

Kindergarten through 12th Grade. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Sexuality Information and

Education Council of the United States.

Planned Parenthood. 2018. “Planned Parenthood of Greater Ohio: Sex Education IS Education:

Sex Education Promotes Young People’s Health, Relationships, and Life Goals” Retrieved

March 2, 2021. (https://www.plannedparenthood.org/planned-parenthood-greater-

ohio/newsroom/planned-parenthood-of-greater-ohio-sex-education-is-education-sex-

education-promotes-young-peoples-health-relationships-and-life-goals)

Pearson, Jennifer. 2018. “High School Context, Heterosexual Scripts, and Young Women’s

Sexual Development.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 47(1):1469-1485.

Parker, Kim and Ruth Igielnik. 2020. “On the Cusp of Adulthood and Facing an Uncertain

Future: What We Know About Gen Z So Far” Pew Research Center: Social &

Demographic Trends. Washington, DC.

Rousseau, Nicole. 2009. Black Woman’s Burden: Commodifying Black Reproduction. 1st ed.

New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Santelli, John, Leslie Kantor, Stephanie Grilo, Ilene Speizer, Laura Lindberg, Jenifer Heitel,

Amy Schalet, Maureen Lyon, Amanda Mason-Jones, Terry McGovern, Craig Heck,

Jennifer Rogers, and Mary Ott. 2017. “Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage: An Updated

Review of U.S. Policies and Programs and Their Impact.” Journal of Adolescent Health.

61:273–2880.

Schmidt, Samantha. 2021. “1 in 6 Gen Z adults are LGBT. And this number could continue to

grow.” The Washington Post: Social Issues.

Schooler, Deborah, L. Monique Ward, Ann Merriwether, and Allison Caruthers. 2005. “Cycles

of Shame: Menstrual Shame, Body Shame, and Sexual Decision-Making” The Journal of

Sex Research. 42(4):324-334.

Shah, Courtney. 2017. “Race, Gender, and SE in 20th-Century America.” Oxford Research

Encyclopedia, American History.

SIECUS. 2020. Ohio State Profile.

SIECUS. 2020. Our History.

Simon, William, and John Gagnon. 1984. “Sexual Scripts.” Society 22(1).

Simon, William, and John Gagnon. 2003. “Sexual Scripts: Origins, Influences and Changes.”

Qualitative Sociology. 26(4):491–97.

Smith, Sarah. 2012. “Reading Sociology into Scholarship on School-Based Sex Education:

Interaction and Culture.” Sociology Compass. 6/7:526-540.

Smith, Sarah. 2012. “Scripting Sexual Desire: Cultural Scenarios of Teen Girls’ Sexual Desire in

Popular Films, 2000-2009.” Sexuality & Culture. 16:321-341.

Social Security Administration (2019) United States Code: Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§

710 Sec. 510. Separate Program for Abstinence Education.

https://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title05/0510.htm#ft28

Sprecher, Susan, Gardenia Harris, and Adena Meyers. 2008. “Perceptions of Sources of Sex

Education and Targets of Sex Communication: Sociodemographic and Cohort Effects”

The Journal of Sex Research. 45(1):17-26.

State Board of Education of Ohio. 2019. Health Education.

Timmermans, Stefan and Iddo Tavory. 2012. “Theory Construction in Qualitative Research:

From Grounded Theory to Abductive Analysis.” Sociological Theory. 30(3):167-186.

Unis, Brian, and Christina Sallstrom. 2019. “Adolescents’ conceptions of learning and education

about sex and relationships.” American Journal of Sexuality Education. 15(1):25-52.

Whitten, Amanda, and Christabelle Sethna. 2014. “What’s Missing? Anti-Racist SE!” Sex

Education. 14(4):414–29.

Wilson, Kelly, David Wiley, and Brittany Rosen. 2012. “Texas Sexuality Education Instruction:

Shame and Fear-Based Methodology” Journal of Health Education Training. 3(1):1-10.

APPENDICES

Appendix A – Interview Guide

Hi, thank you for volunteering to talk with me today, I really appreciate it.

Before we begin, I need to get verbal consent from you. I am going to read the consent statement and then you can just state yes or no.

“You received the informed consent form and had time to review it. You have the right to refuse participation at any point in this study and you are voluntarily agreeing to participate in an audio-only recorded Google Voice interview.”

Great. First, I want to start off with some basic questions about you. Demographics: 1. What is your age? 2. What year did you graduate from high school? 3. What high school did you attend? 4. What year are you here at Kent State? 5. What is your major? 6. Which professor did you hear from regarding this study? 7. What is your religious affiliation? 8. What is your gender identity? 9. What is your sexual orientation? 10. What is your race/ethnicity? 11. What is your marital or relationship status?

Thank you, next, I’d like to ask some questions about your experiences in sex education. 1. Tell me about your sex education experiences in middle and high school. Begin as early as you can remember and take me through to graduation, if possible. a. Who instructed you along the way? b. What are your thoughts about who taught you? c. Can you walk me through some of the more memorable lessons or topics conveyed during your course(s)? d. Why do you think these topics are easy to recall? e. What messages about sex do you think they were trying to convey? f. What messages have stuck with you the most? g. Why do you think the messages were forgettable? Why didn’t they stick? h. Do you feel like your sex ed courses were inclusive? i. Do you remember discussing consent? j. Did they discuss options for unintended pregnancy?

2. Do you remember if you went into the courses with prior knowledge about the topics? a. Where did this knowledge come from?

b. Can you tell me about who else you discussed sex with when you were in school? c. What kinds of things did you discuss with your parents? d. What about with your friends? e. Anyone else? f. Did you feel like there was someone within the school you could go to with additional questions?

3. If your college self could talk to your high school self about sex education, what would you tell your younger self? a. If you could go back and talk to the people who taught your courses, what would you say to them?

4. How do you think the things you learned in sex ed shape your sexual behaviors or attitudes? a. Did you engage in or abstain from anything based on the messages you were taught in sex education?

5. How have your views of sexual behaviors changed between taking your first sex education course and now? a. In what ways?

6. Overall, would you say that your sex ed experience was positive or negative? a. Why do you feel this way?

7. What are some things you wish had been covered in your sex education courses? a. If nothing, what is one thing you wish had been discussed more thoroughly? b. What advice would you give to those who are creating a sex education curriculum for middle and high schoolers?

8. Perhaps there was something that you wanted to discuss that I did not ask. Is there anything else you’d like to add about your sex education experience?

Thank you for taking the time to talk with me today. I really enjoyed hearing about your experiences and the unique perspective that you have.

Do you have friends or roommates that you think may be interested in participating? Please don’t hesitate to reach out if you have any questions or concerns about this research.

Thanks again.

Appendix B

Table 1- Participant Demographics (Self-Reported) Category Sub-Category N Gender Female 17 Male 3 Race White 18 Nonwhite 2 Sexual Orientation LGBTQ+ 12 Heterosexual 8 Religion Religious 11 Non-Religious 9 Age 18 10 19 5 20 1 21 1 22 2 23 1 Relationship Status Single 15 Relationship 5 Northeast 16 School Region (Ohio) Central 2 Comprehensive 3 Abstinence-Plus 7 Abstinence-Only 4 Combination between Courses 3 Curricula Type Uncategorized 3 Total 20