Dangerous Omissions: Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage School-Based Sexuality Education and the Betrayal of LGBTQ Youth

John P. Elia

95 citations0/0 files storedAmerican Journal of Sexuality Education

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Gender, Sexuality, and Education LGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy Adolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health

Abstract

To gain an understanding of how abstinence-only-until-marriage school-based sexuality education has been exclusionary, it is important to explore how heteronormativity has been endorsed, played out, and reproduced ever since school-based sexuality education has been offered in the United States. Such an exploration reveals glaring evidence that lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) issues and individuals have been left out. It is likely that this has had negative repercussions on LGBTQ youth and heterosexually identified youth alike. The majority of this article deals with how sexuality education, particularly since so many abstinence-only-until-marriage-until marriage programs have received federal funding since 1996, has discriminated against sexual others (those who do not identify as heterosexual). We provide an analysis of school climate and the consequences of the lack of positive attention to LGBTQ issues and individuals in schools. While we point out that historically these preferential practices and discourses and their resulting negative consequences have always been the case in U.S. schooling, they have been reified and reproduced as a direct result of the federally backed abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. Among other issues, we discuss risk factors LGBTQ youth face as well as the notion of resiliency, and the tension between these two perspectives when addressing the fallout of exclusionary sexuality education. The entire school culture has been, and continues to be, negatively affected by this kind of exclusion, and the situation is much more complicated than heterosexuals versus sexual and gender “minorities.” Ultimately, we provide ideas about how school-based sexuality education could be offered in a more just and responsible manner to make it more equitable and safe for all students.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 95 citations exist upstream.

References

2012The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader 1981Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality 1988Intimate matters: a history of sexuality in America 2005The New Gay Teenager 2002Effects of at-school victimization and sexual orientation on lesbian, gay, or bisexual youths’ health risk behavior 1998The Association Between Health Risk Behaviors and Sexual Orientation Among a School-based Sample of Adolescents 1986No Magic Bullet: A Social History of Venereal Disease in the United States since 1880 2000Handbook of the sociology of education

Cited by

2013Resolving Social Problems Associated with Sexuality: Can a "Sex-Positive" Approach Help?2017Transgender young people’s narratives of intimacy and sexual health: implications for sexuality education 2017“If There’s One Benefit, You’re not Going to Get Pregnant”: the Sexual Miseducation of Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Individuals 2018‘Keeping it straight’ what do South African queer youth say they need from sexuality education?2013Schools, Sex Education, and Support for Sexual Minorities: Exploring Historic Marginalization and Future Potential

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.