Not Under My Roof: Parents, Teens, and the Culture of Sex (38 page)

One reason that it is possible for Dutch parents and teenagers to nor- malize adolescent sexuality is that they conceptualize adolescent auton- omy as unfolding within continued interdependencies. Rather than requiring the severing of old ties and the establishment of complete self- reliance, this culture of interdependent individualism allows adolescents to attain autonomy in concert with their ongoing relationships with oth- ers. While adolescents are expected to develop their independent opinions and self-regulating capacities, they are not required to break with adult society in order to do so. In fact, keeping teenagers integrated in intergen-

erational social settings—whether in the family, venues for socializing, or schools that span the spectrum from early to late teens—enhances adult support as well as control. Accepting adolescent sexuality—within certain parameters—and negotiating sleepovers at home not only allows young people to develop their emergent sexuality and selves within a larger social fabric but it also gives parents the opportunity to provide guidance and exercise oversight.

The different cultures of individualism also shape perceptions and ex- periences of gender. The American culture of adversarial individualism ex- acerbates gender conflicts over sexuality: with autonomy and attachments viewed at odds, the two have been bifurcated and desire for the latter rel- egated to girls, who are still often seen as the sole keepers of intimacy. At the same time, when girls behave as boys are “supposed” to and pursue sex without relationships, what results, American teenagers report, is a “soulless sex” from which most boys feel alienated.
12
Like their American counter- parts, Dutch teenagers confront gender stereotypes and pressures. However, their culture of “interdependent individualism” softens, though it does not eradicate, gender conflicts. With relationships viewed as an unavoidable and desirable part of life, oppositions between girls and boys over love and lust are not as sharply drawn. Nor do Dutch boys feel they are unusual for wanting to be in love, as do many of their American peers.
13

Cultures emphasize certain aspects of the human potential and down- play others. As cultural constructs, the two versions of individualism thus provide different resources and constraints, and entail different costs and benefits. The American adversarial individualism gives more legitimacy to profound differences—whether between parents and children, or between population groups with different convictions and commitments. It also provides a cultural language for describing and emphasizing conflicts of interest, which may at times exaggerate such conflicts but which also pro- vide important cultural tools to address them.
14
The Dutch interdependent individualism emphasizes similarity over difference—between parents and children, and between girls and boys—and the possibility of consensus over intractable conflict. But it makes it more difficult to recognize—both positively and negatively—the consequential differences within a collectiv- ity. And it can obscure conflict of interest and inequality in power, and leave people without a satisfactory cultural language to address transgres- sion of boundaries.

Neither interdependent individualism nor the normalization of adoles- cent sexuality that it has facilitated constitutes a panacea. But normaliza-

tion does offer several advantages in the arena of adolescent sexual health. It makes it easier for adult caregivers and youth to accept that teenagers are sexual beings who, with the right support, have the capacity and responsi- bility to make decisions about their sexual progression and to prepare for their sexual behavior. The emphasis in Dutch sex education at home and at school on romantic relationships gives teenagers opportunities to learn the interactional skills with which they can better recognize and articulate sex- ual wishes and boundaries, and negotiate contraception and condoms. Fi- nally, the normalization of adolescent sexuality makes it easier for youth to admit to others, including adults, when they have progressed to the point of wanting or having sexual intercourse, which makes it easier to ask for as- sistance without fear of causing disappointment or being shamed.

Perhaps the most important lesson to be learned from the Dutch nor- malization of adolescent sexuality is that while cultures offer resources and impose constraints, culture is not destiny; its applications to actual situa- tions are by no means fixed. For as we have seen, prior to the early 1970s neither the general public nor the major institutions of Dutch society ac- cepted sex between unmarried youth as legitimate.
15
Profound discomfort with their own lack of sexual socialization—and the secrecy and shame that had surrounded sexuality—made large segments of the Dutch popula- tion open to change. Dialogue among political, professional, religious, and cultural leaders led to the reassessment of old rules and the development of new guidelines for sexual self-determination and intimacy.
16
The nor- malization of adolescent sexuality emerged out of this interplay between a widely felt discontent with past ways and conscious deliberations about how better to approach the present.

The potential for a similar synergy exists in the United States today. Awareness that heterosexual marriage neither honors the diversity, nor solves the dilemmas, of sex and intimacy in today’s society is growing: after years of stasis, the percentage of the American population that categori- cally condemns homosexuality has steeply declined over the past decade.
17
Young people are and remain notably more positive about sexual diver- sity than their elders. Research and the proliferation of parent workshops about sexuality suggest eagerness among parents for effective ways to en- gage with adolescents around issues of sexuality and relationships.
18
Grass- roots organizations advocate for culturally sensitive and empowering sex education in schools as part of the human rights required to foster healthy families and children.
19
An important opportunity has been created by the 2010 health-care reform, which has allocated federal funds for sex educa- tion that allows educators to teach about contraception.

But for all the desire and opportunity to change course, lacking in most efforts has been a conception of adolescent sexuality as a normal and po- tentially positive part of adolescent development. While the potential neg- ative aspects and consequences of adolescent sexuality do, of course, need attention, so too do the potentially pleasurable, connecting, and empower- ing aspects.
20
For without attention to positive personal and interpersonal experiences, we cannot discern the skills and conditions that foster them. Our current paradigms provide no such discernment: the marriage-only paradigm of recent policies equates refraining from any sexual intimacy with the promotion of sexual health; the sex-as-risk paradigm that prevails in much of public health and education promotes condom and contracep- tive use but nevertheless equates adolescent sexuality with a sickness best prevented.
21

Ironically, lacking from our current paradigms is recognition that teen- agers are
adolescents
, neither children nor adults, and that their sexuality ex- ists within that emergent space. The criteria for sexuality during established adulthood are of little use to teenagers in figuring out when to proceed sexually or how to assess the quality of their relationships. At the same time, teenagers
are
capable of learning to develop the skills for discernment and the capacity for self-protection in the arena of sexuality that they are learning in other parts of their lives. But neither the “marriage-only” nor the “facts-only” approach sufficiently supports their psychosocial learning. Adolescent sexuality requires from adults—parents, policymakers, educa- tors, providers, and members of the clergy—the engagement in a precari- ous balancing act of granting youth the rights they need to embark on that learning process, and of providing ongoing practical, emotional, critical, and ethical guidance to see them through the process of emergence.

Our cultural conceptions of individuality and autonomy have impeded us from that engagement—a joint enterprise in which adults give and take responsibility—and the dramatization of adolescent sexuality is, at least in part, the result of these cultural barriers.
22
Moving beyond the drama of adolescent sexuality thus requires us to engage in a process of cultural innovation. This process of cultural innovation need not involve denying the potentially difficult and dangerous aspects of sexuality. But it does need to start with an acceptance that most youth start their sexual “careers” in their mid-teens, and that they need internal discernment skills, interper- sonal communication skills, connectedness with adults, and society-wide resources to transverse adolescence in a healthy fashion. Providing those skills, relationships, and resources will take a change of course in policy, education, health care, the home, and ministry, not just in action but in

the language we use to think and talk about teenagers and their sexuality. To aid in this enterprise, I conclude with an ABC-and-Ds framework for adolescent sexuality.

The first component of adolescent sexual health in American society today is the development of the
autonomy
of the sexual self (A). As this book has shown, in American middle-class culture, financial self-sufficiency is upheld as the criterion that defines autonomy and legitimates sexual in- tercourse. And our sexual education policies of recent decades have also taught students that sexual intercourse is only acceptable after attaining the capacity for self-reliance. However, many middle-class youth do not be- come fully self-sufficient until their mid-twenties. Financial self-sufficiency is even more difficult to attain for low-income youth who lack the neces- sary educational and occupational resources and who often face additional discrimination.
23
As important, the current cultural and political definition of autonomy does not encompass the inner qualities and capacities that young people need to exercise autonomy as sexual beings vis-à-vis others, whether in peer relationships, romantic relationships, or as consumers of the media.

Such autonomy of the sexual self involves recognizing one’s sexual feel- ings and desires as separate from the pressures from the desires and needs of others, taking ownership over those feelings, and exercising control over one’s sexual behavior and decision-making.
24
To foster autonomy of the sexual self requires thinking of adolescent sexuality not simply as acts of intercourse or even as identities but rather as a continuum of feelings, be- haviors, relationships, and identities. Young people must be encouraged to move slowly through this continuum of experience, to pace themselves so that they can assess their comfort levels at each step along the way, commu- nicate their desires and boundaries, and adequately plan and prepare for next steps. Girls and boys face gender-specific barriers to their autonomy of sexual self. Girls must be encouraged to own their capacity for sexual plea- sure and use it as one of the criteria for sexual decision-making.
25
We must cease to undermine boys’ autonomy with images of them as mere vessels for physical forces and instead bolster their autonomy vis-à-vis detrimental norms of masculinity.
26

Building
relationships (B) is a second vital component of healthy ado- lescent development. Just as we must recognize that young people begin exploring sexual intimacy in the mid-teenage years—as long as a decade before they are financially self-sufficient—we must recognize that adoles- cents will form multiple emotional attachments that are significant. Our current paradigms provide two archetypes: the marriage ideal, on the one

hand, and the risk of the abusive relationship, on the other. But rather than uphold marriage as the only goal of intimacy, we must validate the need for intimacy during the adolescent years and assist teenagers in building egalitarian and fun romantic relationships that are suited to their life stage. Warning against the exploitative and abusive potential of intimacy is only one component of relationship education. Other important components are discussions of, and exercises to practice, positive relating—including how to show interest, negotiate difference, share enjoyment, and build trust.
27

Adolescent sexual health also requires
connectedness
with parents and other care providers (C). Connectedness between parents and teenagers is important to healthy development: young people who have close rela- tionships with their parents are more likely to take protective measures in sexual behavior and to thrive in other areas of their maturation.
28
But as we have seen, American middle-class culture, and American culture gener- ally, exacerbate what is perhaps an inevitable field of tension in the parent- adolescent relationship—sexuality—in a way that often leads to secrecy and undermines connectedness between parents and teenagers.
29
Such con- nectedness is absent altogether for the many teenagers, who for a variety of reasons lack emotional support from their biological parents. Thus other providers of care—professional and kin—play an important role both in helping parents become more effective sex educators and in supplement- ing their efforts. Medical professionals, educators, and members of the clergy and the media can help promote honest dialogue in their spheres of influence and in the family.

Finally, two D’s are critical to adolescent sexual health:
Diversities
and
Disparities
. There is great diversity in the pace of sexual and emotional de- velopment, orientations, gender identifications, and cultural values that shape perceptions and experiences of sexuality. Education and health poli- cies must honor those diversities, and teach young people to respect their own distinctiveness and that of others. But respecting differences—indi- vidual and cultural—is not the same as accepting disparities. Many of the negative sexual health outcomes in the United States, as elsewhere, result from young people’s lack of resources and opportunities for meaningful education and jobs.
30
Our cultural conceptions of autonomy often prevent us from seeing that poor sexual health outcomes result from conditions that supersede individual choices. To advance adolescent sexual health, we need to invest the public resources necessary to remove the disparities in access to the services that foster autonomy and facilitate the formation of relationships.