See discussions,
stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/298739055
ARTICLE
·
MARCH 2016
DOI:
10.3390/bs6010008
 |
READS
16
3 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:
18 PUBLICATIONS 89
CITATIONS
73 PUBLICATIONS 103
CITATIONS
All in-text
references underlined in blue
are linked to publications on ResearchGate,
letting you access and read them immediately.
Available from: Daphne
Van de Bongardt
Retrieved
on: 19 March 2016
Review
Sexuality (and Lack Thereof) in Adolescence and
Early Adulthood: A Review of the Literature
Marie-Aude Boislard 1,*, Daphne van de Bongardt 2 and Martin Blais 1
1
Département de Sexologie,
Université du Québec à Montréal, Case postale 8888, Succursale Centre-Ville,
Montréal, QC H3C
3P8, Canada; blais.martin@uqam.ca
2 Research Institute of Child Development and Education (YIELD),
University of Amsterdam, P.O. Box 15776,
* Correspondence:
boislard-pepin.marie-aude@uqam.ca; Tel.: +1-514-987-3000 (ext. 4505)
Academic
Editor: Melanie Zimmer-Gembeck
Received: 2
December 2015; Accepted: 7 March 2016; Published: 17 March 2016
Abstract: Youth sexuality has been primarily studied with a focus on its potential public health issues, such as sexually transmitted
infections and unwanted pregnancies, and its comorbidity with other risky
behaviors. More recently, it has
been studied as a normative step in romantic partnerships, either pre- or
post-marital, as well as outside the context of romantic involvement. In this paper, we
review the extensive
literature on sexuality
in adolescence and early adulthood
both within and
outside romantic relationships (i.e., casual sexual
relationships and experiences; CSREs). Furthermore, the recent recognition of youth sexuality as a developmental task has led to a renewed interest
from scholars in youth who
abstain from sexual encounters, whether deliberately or not. A
brief overview of the literature on cultural differences in sexuality, and sexual-minority youth sexual development is also provided. This paper
concludes by suggesting future directions to bring the field of youth sexuality and romantic relationships forward.
Keywords:
adolescence;
early adulthood; sexuality; sexual behavior; development; normative; sexual
minorities; casual sexual relationships and experiences (CSREs);
literature review
 |
1.
Introduction
Research on the psychosexual development of adolescents is generally characterized by two main streams. First, adolescent (or
premarital) sexual activity has been investigated as potentially risky and
harmful, and examined from a public health perspective for a long time [1–4].
This traditional line of research
is of critical importance, considering the high prevalence rates of sexually
transmitted infections (STIs) and unwanted teenage
pregnancies in countries such as Great
Britain and the United
States [5–7]. Youth risky sexual
behaviors, commonly operationalized as precocious sexual
onset (i.e.,
first intercourse before
15 years old;
[8,9]),
inconsistent condom use,
and multiple sexual
partners [10], are directly involved in the high prevalence rates of STIs, including HIV [11]. Past decades of research
have yielded important knowledge on the improvement of prevention and intervention strategies in education and health
care aiming to promote youth
sexual health [12–14].
Second, although research on
adolescent risky sexual behavior is of vital importance, over the past two
decades, it has been increasingly recognized that the exploration of intimate
relationships and sexual behaviors during adolescence and emerging adulthood
are not inherently risky. As such,
the field of youth sexual development has recently shifted
toward an increased
recognition of sexual intimacy with one’s partner
as a developmental task in adolescence and emerging adulthood
[15–17]. In this
expanding second line of research, scholars do not only focus on potentially
risky aspects of young people’s sexual
behavior but also on positive outcomes associated with sexual activity in adolescence and emerging adulthood. For instance, two studies found that female
sexual subjectivity
(defined as feelings of sexual self-efficacy, entitlement to sexual
pleasure from self and partner,
sexual body esteem and sexual self-reflection; [18], increases significantly with sexual experience [19,20]. Other recent longitudinal studies
reported a more positive body image among male college
students after their first experience of intercourse, and lower
psychological distress among both male and female college students [21,22]. Another
study observed that youth sexual health is associated with greater well-being in early and later adulthood [23].
This body of literature has provided insight into how
comprehensive sexuality education can effectively promote responsible sexual
decision-making in young people [24– 26]. Thus, youth sexuality research agenda is now
taking both its normative and risky components into account, focusing on
promoting positive sexual health [20,27,28] and prevention of
sexual health issues such as STIs
and HIV, unplanned pregnancies, sexual coercion
and abuse, and violence in romantic relationships. This
is also in line with the World Health
Organization’s [29] claim that sexual health is not merely the absence of
illness or sexual problems, but also encompasses physical, mental, emotional,
and social well-being in relation to sexuality.
2. Timing of Sexual Onset
Research has shown that most heterosexual adolescents follow a progressive sexual trajectory, in which they first engage in non-genital
behaviors (e.g., kissing, holding hands, hugging), followed
by genital sexual behaviors, (e.g., mutual touching of the genitals,
oral sex), and, ultimately, vaginal
intercourse [30,31]. The
majority of adolescents in the Netherlands, Canada, and in most Western countries follow this developmental sequence [31,32], although there are individual differences in the pace of this sequence. As such,
sexual repertoires typically increase in diversity along with age [33], but apart from a few studies on oral sex (e.g., [34,35]), the vast majority
of the literature on adolescent sexual behavior has focused
on intercourse.
Research shows that a majority of
teenagers from the U.S. [36,37], the UK
[38], Canada [39]), Australia [40] and
the Netherlands [41] report
experience with sexual
intercourse by eighteen years of age.
Between 10% to 40% of youth in the U.S. and other Western countries remain virgins after age 18 [42,43]. These
rates drop dramatically among older emerging adults, with only 5% of males and
3% of females still being virgins at ages 25 to 29 [44]. Hence, individual differences in timing of first
intercourse
have been one of the most studied features of sexual
development [45]. A lot of attention
has been devoted to the factors associated with first
intercourse in adolescence, as well as to targeting the protective factors to
delay its onset. As a result, numerous studies have been published on the
individual, interpersonal, and socioeconomic characteristics that precipitate
or delay sexual initiation, and there is abundant literature on the correlates
of the distinct trajectories of early, normative,
and late first intercourse (e.g., [45–47]. Recent
longitudinal evidence suggests that both early and late sexual onset are related
to mental and sexual health issues, poorer peer relationships, and higher
adjustment difficulties in comparison with a more normative timing of sexual
debut [4,8,15,45,48]. These findings echo with lifespan [49] and lifecourse [50] theories that raise the importance of transitioning in sync with peers within a specific cohort, historical
period, cultural context, and within group norms. These theories suggest that early and late normative life transitions are
associated with increased challenges, over and beyond the difficulties of any
transition per se.
research indicates that early starters
are typically more vulnerable to potential risks.
It has been argued that
teenagers in early and middle adolescence are generally not “cognitively ready”
for safe and consensual sexual interactions [52]. Moreover, younger
adolescents are generally more impulsive [53] and
more sensitive to social pressure [54]. They also often have less knowledge about sexual risks,
and tend to be less confident and assertive during interactions with partners [41]. As a result, early initiators are more likely to have condomless sex [9,55] , to accumulate more sexual partners
throughout adolescence [9], to have non-consensual sexual experiences [41], to contract sexually transmitted infections [56], to become pregnant as a teenager [7], and to experiment subsequent
increases in
externalizing behaviors, albeit only among females [4]. Furthermore, sexual precocity is often comorbid with both externalized symptoms [8], especially among
boys [57] and
internalized problems [58], such as low self-esteem among girls [59].
In light of such potential risks, research on factors that delay or promote the initiation of sex is
paramount. Yet, the scholars’
attention has been devoted to the correlates
of early sexual intercourse in adolescence, neglecting the individuals who remain sexually abstinent into adulthood.
Late Sexual Onset. Until recently, literature on sexual abstinence in late adolescence
and emerging adulthood was scarce and tended to present virginity as a personal
choice [60], based on religious attendance and religiosity [61], moral principles and conservative attitudes [62], or high academic goals. Other
individual characteristics identified as correlates of virginity
in late adolescence
and early adulthood include a younger appearance due to late pubertal
development [63], and lower
use of alcohol and drugs [64]. When adolescent abstainers were asked directly why they refrained from
sexual activity, various reasons
emerged from their responses: fear- or uncertainty-based postponement (e.g.,
not ready, fear of pregnancy),
conservative values (e.g., religious values, desire of waiting until marriage),
and emotionality and confusion [65]. Similar findings from a Dutch study on
sexual attitudes, behaviors, and
health of adolescents and young adults aged 12–25 years [41] indicated developmental patterns in the reasons
for not having sex. Whereas most 12–14 years old (72%) mentioned considering
themselves too young, this percentage rapidly decreased to 34% among 15–17
years old, and 11% among 18–24 years old.
Among 15–24-year olds, the most cited reason was that it just had not happened yet (49%–56%).
However, various other reasons were also cited (e.g., being scared, not finding
an eligible sexual partner, and parental or religious constraints), showing
individual variation in reasons for abstaining from sex, and highlighting the
need to increase our understanding of complex
psychosocial processes behind
young people’s sexual
decision making.
In addition to the aforementioned
individual factors, several studies have also identified interpersonal factors
associated with adolescent virginity, mostly
related to family structure and education and peer influences. For family influences, living with both biological parents
[63], having a highly educated
mother [64], and believing that adults and parents have high achievement standards toward them are linked to delayed sexual onset in
youth [66]. With regards
to peer relationships, numerous studies have shown that adolescents who postpone their first intercourse until later in life
are more likely to have friends who also believe in delaying sexual intercourse
[45,67] and who are involved in religious activities [68]. These findings
are in line with the extensive research
of the last 40 years supporting homophilia in friend selection among adolescents [69–71], including
among late sexual starters who
tend to hang out with alike-peers [47] in groups where sexual abstinence is
the norm [63].
Virginity in Early Adulthood. Most of the literature
on sexual delay and virginity in adolescence
has documented their “positive” correlates. However, when
virginity continues into early adulthood, different factors are likely to
explain this delay. Since the paradigm
on adolescent sexuality
has shifted from a risky vision
leading to abstinence-only sex education to the recognition of sexuality as a
developmental task of the second decade of life, an increasing number of studies
are now documenting the correlates and predictors of virginity in early
adulthood. For instance, one study showed that adult virgins have higher odds
of being overweight and of being perceived as physically unattractive [72]. Four additional studies reported that adult virgins have greater
probabilities of never having been in a romantic relationship [47,68,73,74]. Moreover, in
a qualitative study conducted among 82 involuntary celibate adults aged 18 to
64 years, Donnelly and colleagues [48] found that nearly all adult virgins never dated
anyone, including in adolescence. Thus, findings converge to support the
importance of romantic and sexual experiences during adolescence for ongoing
romantic and sexual development in
adulthood. Additionally, this study
revealed that these
adult virgins perceived
themselves as being very shy and unable to establish social
contacts, and reported body image issues, such as being overweight and
perceiving their physical appearance to be an obstacle to their sexuality [48]. In summary, research
on adulthood virginity, although
embryonic, has started
to uncover that there are
several
reasons for remaining a virgin in early adulthood, some relating to personal
choices, and others being more egodystonic and linked to a lack of sexual
opportunities.
Therefore, one of the issues for
scholars focusing on virginity is the diversity among this population, and the
distinction between youth who have never had dyadic erotic experiences, on the
one hand, and those who abstain from coitus but engage in other partnered
sexual behaviors, on the other. The
latter are often referred to as “technical virgins” in the literature [75]. These individuals have partnered sexual repertoires that
include various sexual experiences, like mutual touching of the genitals, oral sex, and more rarely
anal sex, but refrain from engaging in penile-vaginal
intercourse [75,76]. Various reasons
can motivate this technical virginity, ranging
from religiosity to wanting to avoid potential negative
consequences of sexual activity [34], or waiting for the “right person” [75]. Sexual-minority youth who have never engaged
in sexual intercourse with someone of the
other-sex are also often confounded with heterosexual virgins
if no questions on sexual
orientation are asked [47]. Thus, technical virgins
seem to be in different psychosexual developmental trajectories than those who never
experienced any sexual
contact with a partner because
of difficulties to attract
one, or of very little
interest in sexual
interactions [77]. Because most studies
have conflated these
two distinct populations, our knowledge on the prevalence and characteristics of emerging adults
without any sexual experience with another person
remains very limited
[72].
Asexuality. One
of the explanations associated with sexual abstinence in youth is asexuality.
According to the rare surveys in which such data is
available, up to 1% of the general population is asexual [77], that is,
individuals “who, regardless of physical or emotional condition,
actual sexual history, and marital status or ideological orientation, seem to
prefer not to engage in sexual activity” ([78], p. 97). The question of whether asexuality
constitutes a sexual orientation in itself has been an ongoing a debate among
sex scholars [77– 79].
Even though asexual youth are more likely than sexual ones to be virgins in adulthood [77],
the overlap between adulthood inexperience and sexual non-attraction is
incomplete. For instance, in Haydon and colleagues’ study [72], only half of sexually inexperienced adults of both
genders
reported never having been sexually attracted to someone. However, the links
between sexual attraction, sexual experiences, and sexual identity are complex
and still largely overlooked [80,81].
3. Gender Differences in Youth Sexuality
Although historical changes have taken place in gender
expectations regarding sexuality, recent studies suggest that the sexual double
standard persists. Stricter social norms remain for female sexuality,
encouraging young girls to refrain
from sex and
avoid cumulating multiple
sexual partners [82], whereas boys are generally granted more sexual freedom. Girls are also
more often discouraged by their peers from having sex [83–85], whereas boys are generally socialized in more
sex-positive peer contexts, characterized by more approval of—but also more
pressure toward—sexual activity, especially from male friends [86]. Accordingly, boys generally report higher rates of masturbation and
lifetime sexual partners and more consistent sexual activity than girls in
studies on youth sexuality [87].
Even
more striking are the reported
differences in emotions
associated with sexual
activity across genders. Qualitative research has found that many young girls experience ambivalence and mitigated
emotions following their
experience of first
intercourse [88,89]. This has recently
been substantiated by a
quantitative study conducted among Dutch adolescents, in which sexually
experienced boys reported overall more positive sexual
emotions than sexually
experienced girls [90]. More specifically,
boys reported experiencing more pride after sex, whereas girls were more likely
to report feeling “dirty” and shameful
[90].
Similar findings have been reported
in another quantitative study by Brady and Halpern-Fisher [82]: sexually inexperienced girls aged 14 to 16 years old
reported more mixed feelings about their virginity than boys. The authors hypothesized that young girls may feel pressured
by their romantic partners to have sex, while feeling pressured by most other
socialization agents, including parents and same-sex peers, to abstain from
sex. This interesting avenue has yet to be empirically tested.
This sexual double standard
was also observed in Carpenter’s qualitative interview study [91], in which more
women perceived their virginity as a gift (i.e., to be given to a beloved partner), whereas more men
viewed theirs as a stigma (i.e., to be eradicated as soon as possible). This finding
was also replicated in a quantitative study presenting the same virginity
scripts to a different emerging adult sample [92]. As a result of
viewing virginity as a stigma, males are more likely to perceive it as a source
of embarrassment [91], and to lie about
their virgin status [93]. Furthermore, a
study conducted among virgin adolescents found a higher proportion of males
reporting being a virgin as a lack of sexual opportunities when compared to
females [94]. There is also
evidence suggesting that males who delay sexual onset until adulthood are more
likely to have anxious symptoms than on-time males [45].
In summary, the
evidence converges in that sexual scripts, sexual trajectories, cognitions
about sexuality, and the subjective
experiences of dyadic sexuality differ by gender.
However, meta-analyses investigating gender differences in sexual
attitudes and behaviors have also found substantial similarities between males and females
[87,95]. This supports the gender similarity hypothesis, which hold that, overall, boys/men and
girls/women tend to be more psychosocially (and sexually) similar than
different [96]. This suggests that within-gender
individual differences in sexuality may be stronger than between-gender differences, and points to an important
site for future research.
Furthermore, an interesting study from Tolman and Diamond [97] pointed out that research
on male and female
sexuality over the life course
lacks theorization, resulting in a fragmented knowledge from studies focusing either on sociocultural and
political aspects leading to gender differences in sexual development, or on the
biological aspects of gendered sexual behavior. In addition, a multimethod study
assessing gender differences in values among 127 samples issued from 70
countries revealed that gender differences are small (median
d = 0.15) and typically
explain less variance
than age and much
less than culture
[98]. Together, these
studies suggest that
gender differences observed in youth sexuality may be better
explained by cultural
factors and socialization effects than by the biology distinguishing males and females.
Since sexual norms are shaped by the more distal influences of culture, gender
differences in youth
sexual development may
be a reflection of a gendered socialization in any particular culture.
4. Cultural Differences in Youth Sexuality
With regards to youth sexual development and sexuality across cultures, research
has revealed both commonalities and cultural specificities in different subgroups based on their
cultural background and
context. A systematic review of 268 qualitative studies on young people’s
sexual behaviour published between 1990 and 2004, including studies on cultural
minorities and among culturally diverse samples, explored
common themes in young people’s
sexual lives across
cultures. This review pointed out seven key themes that were not exclusive to any particular country or cultural
background, specifically: (1) young people assess potential sexual
partners as “clean” or “unclean”; (2) sexual partners have an important
influence on behaviour in general; (3) condoms are stigmatising and associated
with lack of trust; (4) gender stereotypes are crucial in determining social
expectations and, in turn, behaviour; (5) there are penalties and rewards for
sex from society; (6) reputations and social displays
of sexual activity
or inactivity are important; and (7) social
expectations hamper communication about
sex [99]. These seven
themes were present,
in varying degrees,
in all countries assessed. This study
suggests that some attitudes toward
sexuality might be universal in youth. Despite these commonalities, many studies
have examined differences in the sexual
behaviors, attitudes and development of youth with specific
cultural backgrounds, and have done so in two different ways:
(1) by
comparing collectivist versus individualistic
cultures, and assessing different dimensions
of
youth sexuality while conducting sex research in non-Western countries; and (2) by comparing youth sexuality with samples from diverse
cultural backgrounds in countries marked by high rates of immigration. The main findings
from each of these two lines of research are reviewed below.
Youth Sexuality in Collectivist versus Individualistic Cultures. Based on one of Hofstede’s cultural
dimensions for
cultures [100], scholars have
investigated whether youth raised in collectivist cultures
(i.e., cultures
that place great value in social belonging
and group responsibility; e.g., some African
and Asian countries) differ in their sexual development from those who
grow up in more individualistic countries (i.e.,
cultures that emphasize the value of independence and individual well-being;
e.g., the United States, Canada, Australia, and Western Europe). In general, the former tend to be more oriented
toward their social context, show more sensitivity and conformity to social
norms, and greater endorsement of friendship rules than the latter [101–104]. In
terms of sexuality, they are also
typically surrounded by sexual norms that tend to be overall more conservative
in comparison with those in more individualistic cultures [105]. It has been suggested that,
as a result of these cultural characteristics, youth
raised in collectivist cultures are more susceptible to social influences in the development and shaping
of their sexuality and sexual decision-making (e.g., [90]).
Indeed, a meta-analysis on peer influences on adolescent sexual activity conducted
by Van de Bongardt,
Reitz, Sandfort, and colleagues [90] found that friends’
sexual behaviors and peer pressure
to have sex were more strongly
related to the levels of sexual activity of adolescents in collectivist
cultures than in individualistic cultures. However, this meta-analysis also
revealed that adolescents’ perceptions of their peers’ sexual activity had the
strongest effect on their own sexual activity,
compared to other types of sexual peer norms (i.e.,
peer sexual attitudes, peer pressure), regardless of the country in which the
included studies were
conducted. Thus, the
fact that perceptions of peer sexual
behavior are an important
proximal factor in adolescents’ sexual decision-making across countries and
cultures again shows that not only cross-cultural differences but also similarities can be found.
Sexual Development of Ethnic Minority Youth. A considerable amount of research has also
been
devoted to determining the effects of ethnic group membership on youth sexual development.
In a review of 35 longitudinal studies on age at first
intercourse, mostly conducted in the U.S., Zimmer-Gembeck
and Helfand [45] reported
that, after controlling for socioeconomic status and parental education, the 13 studies
that included ethnicity as a predictor showed earlier onset
of sexual
intercourse for Black males, but not Black females, when
compared to White adolescents. Hispanic adolescents
reported an age of first intercourse similar to White adolescents, and Asian American
adolescents reported a later onset
of sexual activity. Findings
from the representative large-scale The
Add Health survey
in the U.S. also revealed
that virgin males
had lower odds of initiating sexual activity after age 18 if they were non-Hispanic Asian
[72]. Furthermore, although the evidence usually shows that Black and White girls do not differ in their average age of first intercourse, or in their rates
of early onset, regional differences may exist. For example, only a study
from the southeast
of the U.S. reported that Black females had their first
experiences of sexual intercourse earlier
than White females [106]. A meta-analysis from Wells and Twenge
[107] examining differences in sexual
behavior among young Whites, Blacks,
and Latinos corroborated that Black adolescents often initiate intercourse at a significantly earlier
age and that a higher
percentage of Black
adolescents are sexually active compared to Caucasian
and Latinos, even after controlling for other sociodemographic factors. Several studies have shown that adolescents from
some minority ethnic groups in the United States (e.g., African American,
Latino) are particularly at risk of negative sexual health outcomes, including early sexual
initiation, unprotected intercourse, and high rates of STIs and teenage pregnancies
[108–110]. This
has been explained in terms of cultural beliefs and values regarding
sexuality, socio-economic
status, and social phenomena such as segregation, discrimination, and
racism [108,109]. For instance, having experienced
discrimination has been found to increase African American adolescents’ affiliations with
deviant peers, which, in turn, promoted risky
sexual
Differences between ethnic groups
have also been identified in other countries. Yahyaoui
and colleagues [112] examined the sexual attitudes and experiences of youth aged 13 to 20 living
in France, who were either
immigrants from countries in the Maghreb,
a region highly influenced by Islam,
or French-natives, mostly influenced by Christianity. They found that
among the immigrant group, the sexual attitudes
and sexual experiences were more traditional, more strongly affected
by sexual taboos outside
marriage and by fear of judgement.
The authors
also found that immigrant girls
conformed to the sexual norms
conveyed by their
parents, culture and religion, and strongly endorsed the abstinence until marriage
script, partly to avoid stigmatization and exposure to public slander. On the contrary, boys in the immigrant group
reported having full access to sexuality, based on both their gender and the sociocultural
traditions in their country of residence (i.e.,
France). This result is consistent with Baumeisters’ examination of how historical and cultural changes
affect male and female sexual
behavior differently [113]. Through his theory of “female
erotic plasticity” the author concluded that,
although mostly based
on cross-sectional research, female sexuality is generally
more subject to sociocultural influences than male sexuality (i.e., more socioculturally malleable), and that “variations among the societies
in sexual customs
are apparently greater
for girls than for boys” (p. 325). Together, these studies suggest differential effects of culture
on gender, though additional studies
in other countries are needed to fully capture the possible interactions
between culture and gender influences on youth
sexuality.
Altogether, the literature on youth sexuality
outside the Western world is limited,
possibly due to a lower social recognition and funding
of research on what can be considered a sensitive topic. As a result, the existing empirical knowledge
lacks information on the lived experiences of about 90% of adolescents
worldwide, who grow up in the “majority world”, which includes Asia, Africa,
Latin America, and the Caribbean [114]. This is problematic, because the norms and values related to young
people’s sexuality are likely to vary across these cultural contexts [115,116], leading
to only partial understanding of the processes through
which culture may shape youth
sexuality.
5. Youth Sexual
Behaviors in Romantic Relationship Contexts
Research from the U.S. shows that, in
adolescence, most sexually active teenagers engage in (first-time) sexual behaviors
within the context of a romantic relationship [117,118]. Moreover, findings
from the Netherlands [41] indicate that many young people consider a romantic relationship context a normative prerequisite for having first-time sex. Specifically, when non-sexually active
12–25 years
old were asked why they had not yet had sexual intercourse, 25% of the boys and
33% of the girls reported wanting to be in love first, and 34% of the boys and 47% of the girls mentioned first wanting
to be in a dating relationship for a while. The motives for engaging in the
first sexual intercourse experience further illustrated the importance of romance in the initiation of sex. Among
sexually active
youth, having been in a dating relationship for a while
(53% of the boys and 67% of the girls), and being in love (60% of the boys and 73% of the girls) were mentioned
as reasons for engaging in sexual
intercourse for the first time. Furthermore, Maas and Lefkowitz
[119] found that American University students who were either
currently in a serious romantic relationship, or who had more romantic
relationships in prior
semesters, reported higher
frequencies of kissing,
oral sex and penetrative sex, indicating that romantic activity
and sexual activity
tend to go hand in hand.
Romantic relationships are not
only normative contexts for young people’s emerging and ongoing sexual behaviors, but also
appear to be contexts that promote more positive sexual experiences. Maas and
Lefkowitz [119] found
that romantically active university students (either currently or previously)
reported more sexual esteem (i.e., a higher
evaluation of their sexual self, e.g., being a good sexual partner), suggesting
that romantic relationships are a context to practice and improve sexual skills
and confidence. Alternatively, the authors propose that is also possible that
individuals with higher sexual
esteem may be more successful in selecting, attracting, and maintaining potential romantic partners [119]. When looking at actual sexual
satisfaction, another study
among American university students
found that students
in exclusive dating
relationships (e.g., cohabiting or engaged) reported more physiological/physical and psychological/emotional sexual satisfaction than students
who were not dating or dating casually [120]. Similar findings were
observed in a study among Norwegian college students, where sexually active
yet romantically unattached young adults were less
satisfied with their
sex lives than those who were involved
in long-term, committed relationships [121]. However, in this longitudinal study, a decrease in sexual satisfaction was observed over time, showing a negative link with relationship
duration. The authors suggest that this
may indicate that routine
and boredom may negatively affect
sexual satisfaction within
long-term romantic relationships [121], but this hypothesis is yet to be investigated. Together, these findings
illustrate the interplay between romantic experiences, sexual behaviors, and sexual
skills, and the need to further investigate these associations, including using
longitudinal designs.
Sexual
Experiences as Predictors of Romantic Relationship Quality. When considering the interplay
between romantic experiences and sexual behaviors,
the bidirectionality of association needs to be taken into account. In other words,
romantic relationship status
or quality may not only affect sexual behaviors and the evaluation
thereof, but the typology and quality of sexual behaviors engaged in may also
affect the evaluation of the romantic relationship. In a study on adolescent
heterosexual romantic couples aged 14–21 years
who had been dating for at least
four weeks, sexual
experiences were indeed found to be predictive of the perceived quality
of the romantic relationship [122]. Specifically, couples who
engaged in more kissing were more satisfied with their relationship, and also more committed to their relationship [122]. The frequency of other sexual
behaviors (i.e., intimate touching, oral sex, and intercourse), however,
were not overall
predictive of relationship satisfaction or
commitment, although younger adolescents who more frequently engaged in
intercourse reported lower satisfaction [122]. Adolescents who
felt more desire for their romantic partners (i.e., experiencing romantic excitement, and interest in their partners’ body) also scored
higher on relationship satisfaction and commitment [122]. This bidirectional interplay
between romance and sexuality, the
underlying mechanisms, and variation
between couples as well as within couples
(e.g., changes over time) needs to
be further explored.
Safe
versus Risky Sex within Romantic Relationships. Committed romantic
relationships are generally
considered safe contexts for sexual behaviors in comparison with casual
sexual encounters. Research among American female adolescents shows that girls
who had their first intercourse experience with their regular dating partner or
their steady partner were more likely to use some form of contraceptives at first
intercourse (i.e., 75.2% and 76.4%,
respectively), compared to girls who had first-time intercourse with a friend (56.1%) or someone they had just met (48.3%)
[117]. However,
it has also been argued that
the perceived safety within romantic relationships may also cause young people
to misjudge potential risks. In a qualitative study among 57 Australian
adolescents, analyses of semi-structured interviews illustrated that many
adolescents framed their sexual relationships as part of their search for love [123]. Furthermore, the
interviews suggested that condom use negotiations with romantic partners were
difficult to combine with notions of trust as a central component of a
committed relationship [123]. As such, young
people’s scripts for sex within romantic relationships seem to be an important
site for the promotion of safe sex negotiation
skills.
6. Youth Sexual
Behaviors outside Romantic Relationship Contexts
Although most adolescents and young adults engage in sexual behaviors
within the context
of a romantic relationship, it is striking that in all
the research on youth romance
and sexuality, it is the field of sexual behaviors outside of committed
romantic relationships, (i.e., hook-ups, friends with benefits,
one-night stands, and other types of sex partnerships) that has been expanding
the most rapidly over the past decades, especially among emerging adults (see [124], for a review of literature).
The expression casual sexual relationships and experiences (CSREs) is often referred
to as the most inclusive way to describe these
non-romantic sexual experiences [125]. There is a consensus among
scholars that the majority of emerging adults, at least those attending
colleges, participate in hookups [126]. In fact, lifetime prevalence
data suggests that up to three quarters of college men and women have
experienced CSREs [127,128].
Numerous studies reveal a spectrum of sexual experiences among adolescents and emerging adults
that ranges from one-time sexual
encounters to sexual
relationships that take place only in a committed, romantic
relationship. The term hookup is
also often used to describe uncommitted sexual encounters, and encompasses other vernacular such as one-night stand, booty call, friend with benefits, fuck buddy, or sexual encounters with
no strings attached. Despite
increasing research on these
non-romantic sexual experiences, few studies provide
clear definitions or criteria
to
distinguish the various CSREs. However, as Claxton, DeLuca,
and Van Dulmen
[129] reported, most of this literature is based on the
premise that CSREs are characterized by a lack of emotional connection and
commitment between sexual partners. They are often considered unstable relationships, emotionally
inconsequential interactions [130], or
non-relational or non-relationship sex [131].
CSREs
Variety and Definitions. While the main script of hookups implies the
absence of a committed
relationship,
a non-relational and short-term encounter, and a variety of sexual
behaviors [132], recent studies point to multiple scripts and
a more nuanced portrait, especially regarding the first two components.
Qualitative (e.g., [133]) as well as quantitative studies (e.g., [134]) have identified multiple criteria to describe CSREs, such as the
relationship status when the partners first met (e.g., strangers,
acquaintances, friends, et cetera) and their current relationship status, if
applicable (e.g., acquaintance, dating partner, ex-romantic partner, friend, et
cetera), the frequency of sexual contacts versus social activities,
the importance attributed to sex as the primary goal of the relationship, the
presence and explicitness of an agreement regarding sexual exclusivity, and the level
of personal disclosure.
The combination of these criteria
allows for several
scripts that better reflect the diversity of sexual
experiences and relationships that fall outside of a committed relationship. At
least five different types of CSREs have been described. The one-night stand refers to “a sexual
encounter with another individual that only occurred one time” ([135], p. 5). Because one-night stands occur not only with
strangers but also with acquaintances and friends, Rodrigue and colleagues [134] suggested the label
“one-time sexual encounter”. The booty call designates a
non-committed, non-monogamous relationship between individuals, usually friends
or acquaintances, who communicate with each other mainly in order to schedule
sexual encounters [136]. Rodrigue and
colleagues [134] refer to this profile as “mostly about sex
partnership”. In the one-time sexual encounter and the mostly about sex partnership profiles, both
social activities and personal disclosure are infrequent, and sex is the main goal of the encounter.
Another class of CRSEs describes relationships that combine aspects
of both sexual relationships
and friendships, or, in vernacular, friends with benefits relationships.
Epstein and colleagues [132] reported that the central
themes of the friends with benefits
script are that the partner
is a friend or an acquaintance, that a sexual activity is ongoing and that there is no monogamous commitment to each other. Rodrigue and colleagues [134] also
report that such CRSEs come with a high frequency of both sexual and
social activities, as well as high personal disclosure to one another. While
they mostly report a non-monogamous sexual agreement, it is noteworthy that more than half of the respondents
in intimate and sexual partnerships in Rodrigue and
colleague’s [134] study had negotiated their sexual
agreement explicitly. It is possible
that some of those engaging in such intimate and sexual partnerships are
transitioning to a couple relationship while rejecting monogamy. Rodrigue and colleagues [134] also report a friendship first
partnership profile, which is a variation of friends with
benefits in which sexuality is infrequent and not central
to the friendship, characterized by high levels of personal disclosure and social activities.
Finally, sexual
encounters outside of a committed relationship can also involve an ex-romantic
partner. This type of CSRE involves a high level of personal disclosure, as
well as frequent sexual and social activities. Described as a subtype of friends with benefits by
Mongeau, Knight, Williams, Eden, and Shaw [137], this type of sexual relationship may capture the process of transitioning out of a couple
relationship. However, there are distinctive characteristics between friends
with benefits and romantic partners, as the former devoted
more of the time spent together to sexual activity, practiced safe sex more frequently, communicated more often about
extra-dyadic sexual experiences than the latter [138].
As these descriptions suggest, the majority of CSREs tend
to occur with previously known partners, including in one-night stands, and often involve
more than one encounter. Bisson and Levine’s results [139] suggest that CSREs come with various degrees of
commitment, intimacy, and passion.
Epstein and colleagues [132] also report that most men actually reject
non-relational scripts of friends with benefits relationships, opting for a
script that allows a greater relational connection. This portrait
challenges the assumption
of a lack
of emotional connection
and/or commitment between
casual
sexual
partners that dominates the literature on CSREs, and questions the apparent
distinction between friendships and romantic relationships.
Sexual Scripts in CSREs. A large body of research
has described the changes in the sexual
and
relational scripts that took place
during the twentieth century. Not only is sexual activity
now integral to most dating
and courtship scripts, but sex has also become accepted between partners who
have no expectation of future contact or any intention of engaging in a
committed, romantic relationship. Both genders still express at least some preference
for dating over hooking up [140]. While Epstein and colleagues [132] propose that the presence
of some kind of sexual
behavior is a core definitional element of hookups and
that it should minimally imply some level of nudity,
there is little evidence that CSREs actually involve different sexual
behaviors than romantic relationships. The variety of behaviors reported in both types
of sexual relationships can include kissing, petting, breast and
genital touching, masturbation and oral sex, and penetrative sex [125,141–147]. However, LaBrie,
Hummer, Ghaidarov, Lac and
Kenney [148] report that the types of sexual
behaviors enacted vary according to the familiarity of the partners. For both
males and females, hooking up with a familiar partner led to the furthest physical extent of
penetrative sex as the most common response, as opposed to an unfamiliar sexual partner. With unfamiliar partners, however, males
reported touching below
the waist as the most common
furthest extent, while
it was kissing among females.
There is some evidence
of an imbalance in the (hetero)sexual hookup
script in favor
of men [126]. Hookup is gendered in three ways according to England and colleagues [143]. There is an imbalance
in the initiation script, where the man is expected and more likely to initiate
sexual activities than women. Men also report having
more orgasms and sexual satisfaction than women during
a hookup, suggesting a
gendered orgasm gap. Moreover, Backstrom, Armstrong,
and Puentes [149] report a feminization of oral sex, where men are
less likely than women to perform oral sex in hookups. Women also more often feel pressured by their male hookup partners
to exceed their
personal sexual boundaries [146]. Finally, there is a sexual double standard that stigmatizes both
men and women, where women who have many sexual partners
are labeled as “sluts” and men labeled
as “man whores”. Both of these labels
use words originally assigned to promiscuous women. However women
still tend to be judged more negatively than men for participating in CSREs [150].
Factors Associated with Involvement in CSREs. At the behavioral level,
prior hookups [144,148,151,152]
and past alcohol use [129] tend to increase hookup behavior. At
the personal level, involvement in CSREs is often
described as a result of a compromised well-being, including depressive symptoms and
suicidal ideation [153], and lower self-esteem [144]. Traits like impulsivity, sensation-seeking and a stronger tendency
to compare oneself
to others [144], narcissism and psychopathy [154] have also been found to increase the likelihood of hookups. On the contrary, religiosity [144,155] and loneliness [156] are associated with a decreased
engagement in hookups.
Regarding motivations to hookup,
Garcia and Reiber [128] found
that the most endorsed motivations for doing
so were physical pleasure (89%), emotional gratification (54%), and
to initiate a romantic relationship (51%), with no gender
differences. In their sample
of college students, Uecker, Pearce and Andercheck [157] reported that the most endorsed motivations were, in decreasing order, fun or excitement, sexual
gratification, lack of a dating
scene, hoping a relationship evolves,
too busy for a relationship, and wanting to fit in. Other motivations have also been reported, such as improving one’s reputation or popularity [125]. Uecker and colleagues’
results [157] suggest that about three quarters of college students
reported hooking up for a combination of sexual gratification, the lack of a
dating scene, and hopes that a hookup
would evolve into a romantic
relationship (50%), or mainly for fun/excitement-seeking and sexual gratification only (27%). Studies
further suggest that motivations
vary according to gender,
sex being a more common
motivation for men
to begin CSREs,
and emotional connection a more common
motivation for women
[140,158].
At the event or situational level, the use of alcohol
or other substances [148,159], the attractiveness of a potential hookup
partner [159], and situational
triggers, such as the likelihood of engaging in hookups when meeting someone at
a bar or party, when someone
attractive wants to hookup, or when
it
seems like everyone
else is hooking up [127,144], have been identified as predictors of hooking up. At
the environmental level,
involvement in hookups
has also been described as a consequence of the recent social
and cultural shifts in the dating and relationship scripts, changes captured in
the term “hookup culture”. The term “hookup
culture” has been coined to describe the shared values,
attitudes, goals, and practices surrounding hookups on
college campuses [142,160]. Aubrey
and Smith [160] have operationalized “hookup culture” through
five core beliefs: (a) hooking up is harmless and best
without emotional commitment; (b) hooking up is fun; (c) hooking
up enhances one’s
status in one’s peer group; (d) hooking
up allows one to assert
control over one’s
sexuality; and (e) hooking up reflects
one’s sexual freedom.
Comparing attitudinal and behavioral patterns between 1988–1996 and
2004–2012 waves of the
U.S. General Social Survey,
Monto and Carey [161] have
found only modest changes that are consistent with the cultural shifts
designated by “hookup
culture”. Regarding the behavioral patterns, they found that respondents from the most recent survey
waves did not report more sexual partners
since age 18, more frequent sex, or more partners
during the past year than respondents from the earlier waves. However, sexually
active respondents from the more recent waves were more likely than those from the
earlier waves to report sex with a casual date or a friend, and less likely to report sex with a spouse or
regular partner. Regarding
attitudinal patterns, Monto
and Carey [161] report that recent weaves of respondents were no more
accepting than earlier waves of sex between teens aged 14 to 16, sex outside of
marriage, or premarital sexuality between adults; however, they were more
accepting of sex between adults of the same sex. They conclude that if college
students today indeed live in a so-called hookup culture,
it appears to be a culture similar
to the one inhabited by the earlier
cohort they studied.
CSREs can describe variations in the
traditional scripts toward the formation or dissolution of committed
relationships. It is possible that CSRE scripts reflect different stages in the
processes of dating and the development of romantic relationships, with a
greater permissiveness granted for exploration
before committing to such relationships. Data on motivations for hooking up suggest that only a minority of college students
are completely uninterested in anything more that hooking up, and that a majority
of them also report emotional
motivation [128], which supports this hypothesis.
However, there is a lack of follow-up data on the formation and dissolution of CSREs that would allow for such a conclusion.
Outcomes.
The
literature on CSREs mostly focuses on the negative
outcomes
of CSREs. For instance,
with regards to emotions after CSREs, research show that
up to three quarters of college students who
have engaged in hookups report
regret afterwards [159,162], with women more likely to report
regret than men [162]. Such regrets notably concern
the choice of partner, hopes for a relationship that did not materialize,
negative social repercussions such as awkwardness or close people being hurt,
guilt and moral issues, going further than expected because of alcohol, and
suboptimal sexual performances [148,159,162]. Hooking
up is also associated with an increase in psychological or emotional distress
among young adults [156,159],
possibly more among women than men [163]. CSREs have also been
associated with increased risk of coercion and sexual assault [124,164], and sexually
transmissible infections [159,164].
Recently,
scholars have started to investigate the potentially positive outcomes of CSREs, given
their high prevalence and popularity in emerging
adulthood. An increasing body of research is now focusing on the short-term
benefits of CSREs, such as feeling attractive, desirable and empowered,
experiencing sexual pleasure and excitement, meeting new people, including
friends and potential future romantic partners [146,165], as well
as well-being, resulting in a more nuanced portrait of CSREs outcomes. For example, psychological well-being has been
reported to increase among the most depressed or lonely individuals, suggesting that hooking
up may be a coping
strategy for internalizing problems [156]. A recent longitudinal study by Vrangalova [166] suggests that well-being following the engagement in casual sex may
also depend on the motivation for doing so. Indeed, engaging in CRSEs for non-autonomous reasons
was linked to lower self-esteem, higher depression and anxiety,
and more physical symptoms, whereas autonomous hookup
motivation (i.e., emanating from one’s self) was
not linked to such outcomes [166].
7. Sexuality in Sexual-Minority Youth
Developmental Psychosexual Trajectories in Same-Sex Attracted
Youth. Since the 1970s and the pioneer
work of Cass [167,168] and others [169–171], the dominant narrative
of sexual identity
development has suggested that
sexual minority youth
(SMY) progress from
identity confusion to identity synthesis through various stages (i.e.,
most often, four to six stages). Examples of such stages are: Confusion
regarding sexual attraction, struggle with his/her
own sexual difference, acceptance of his/her
sexual orientation, sexual identity affirmation, and taking pride in
oneself. Other indicators of progression in sexual identity development are the
age at which they first experience specific milestones (e.g., awareness of
non-exclusively heterosexual attractions, realization they might not be
heterosexual, telling someone about their sexual orientation). However, stage
models have been critiqued for being mostly gay male-centric, lacking
empirical evidence among specific subgroups
(i.e., women and bisexuals),
oversimplifying complex issues, not explaining the inconsistency between sexual
behaviors, attractions and identity,
and disregarding erotic
fluidity and plasticity across the lifespan
[172,173]. As a result, they
tend to be abandoned in favor of models of sexual identity development that acknowledge the instability of the sexual identity
over time.
In response to these critiques,
Savin-Williams [173] proposed four basic tenets
for a new developmental trajectory framework. First, same-sex attracted youth are similar
to other adolescents in their developmental
trajectories, and subject to the same biopsychosocial influences that affect youth universally.
Second, same-sex-oriented youth are dissimilar from other-sex-oriented
adolescents in their developmental trajectories, for both biological and cultural reasons
(e.g., heteronormativity) and
this dissimilarity forces them to negotiate their psychological development
differently than other-sex-oriented youth. Third, same-sex-oriented youth vary
in their developmental trajectories probably as much as other-sex-oriented
youth when we take into account the intersectionality of their identity with gender, ethnicity, location, socioeconomic
status, and so on. Fourth, each same-sex-oriented individual follows his/her
own unique developmental trajectory, rendering
general descriptions of group mean differences and similarities irrelevant when applied to a specific individual, and stressing the
importance of adopting a person-centered approach to understanding developmental trajectories.
Sexual
Health Issues in Sexual Minority
Youth (SMY). SMY
report concerns with
sexual health.
Young men
who have sex with men (MSM) face particularly high vulnerability to contract
HIV and other STIs [174]. Condomless anal sex
with HIV serodiscordant partner(s) is the main behavioral risk factor for HIV
infection among MSM. Among young MSM, condomless anal sex is particularly driven by substance use,
homophobia and discrimination, a lack of comprehensive sexuality education and a misconception of risks, racial and ethnic
marginalization, and mental health and psychosocial issues [174,175]. While women who have sex with women
(WSW), especially younger
ones, are less represented in research on
sexual health and sexual minorities, they nevertheless face important sexual health issues, such
as unplanned pregnancies [176] and
screening for the
human papillomavirus (HPV) and other STIs (e.g., genital
herpes and bacterial vaginosis), particularly bisexual women who also have sexual
relations with men
[177].
8. Future Directions in Youth Sexuality Research
This paper reviewed the extensive
literature on sexuality in adolescence and early adulthood both within and
outside romantic relationships, as well as on
sexually inexperienced youth. In light of the knowledge reviewed, this paper
concludes by listing four directions for future research to fill out the gaps in what is left to be known
about young people’s sexuality. Firstly,
historically, the literature on the development of interpersonal intimacy
in adolescence and early adulthood has focused either on romantic involvement [178,179] or on sexual behavior
[17]. As such,
the literature
on romantic relationships and youth sexuality has
evolved in parallel and rather independently of each other until recently
[180]. This is rather
striking since sexual
behaviors for most youth emerge within the context of romantic
relationships [117]. As a result, much remains
unknown about how characteristics of romantic relationships and partners are
associated with adolescents’ and early adults’
(a)sexual behavior, despite
an increasing number of scholars
having raised the importance of studying youth sexuality within
romantic couples [181– 183]. As discussed in this review, a few scholars are starting to fill this gap
by examining sexual behaviors in the context of romantic relationships, however this body of research is still relatively small [117,119,121,122]. More longitudinal research
is needed to investigate how trajectories of romantic and
sexual development run
parallel to one
another (e.g., timing, sequence, pace, continuity,
and change), and how various stages and events in these trajectories are
intertwined (for an example, see:
[180]). In such future
longitudinal research on youth
sexuality, specific attention should be paid to assessing
bidirectional relations between romance-related characteristics and processes on the one hand, and sex-related
characteristics and processes on the other.
This would allow for an exploration of how youth’s experiences with
romantic relationships and sex are intertwined and bidirectionally influence
one another over time. Further investigations of how various aspects of youth
romantic relationships (and lack thereof), sexual cognitions and behaviors,
romantic sex, casual sex, and asexual relationships evolve over time—including
through life transitions such as, for example, puberty (e.g., [184]), schools transitions (e.g., [185,186]), entry
into parenthood (e.g.,
[187])—would bring more complete
knowledge on youth
sexual development. Besides identifying main developmental trajectories, attention should be paid to the investigation of the presence or absence of sexual behaviors and experiences,
both within and outside of romantic relationships, and how these may differ across subgroups
of youth (e.g., boys and girls; early, middle, late adolescents and young adults;
ethnicities; sexual orientation subgroups; early and late starters, adult
virgins; subtypes of CSREs).
Secondly, although many studies focus
on sexual intercourse, sexual behaviors encompass other types of intimate
experiences as well (i.e., coital
and non-coital). The majority of adolescents follow
a progressive sexual trajectory, where
they engage in non-coital sexual behaviors before they engage in intercourse [31,32]. Thus,
this narrow focus in research excludes sexually active adolescents who have not
yet engaged in intercourse, but who may have engaged in other (i.e.,
non-coital) sexual behaviors, traditionally referred to as “technical virgins” [75,77]. In
addition, considering coital activities only is inherently heteronormative, and
provides a limited portrait of the sexual behaviors of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and questioning youth. More in-depth life
history qualitative research (for examples, see: [188,189]) focusing
both on risky
as well as positive sexual
trajectories, and that encompass not only various behaviors (coital
and non-coital, same-sex and other-sex), but also cognitions (e.g., intentions,
motives), and emotions (e.g., attachment and love, desire/lust/pleasure, satisfaction, guilt, shame, regret) are
needed to complement current quantitative findings. Future research should
continue to acknowledge that youth sexual development is multifaceted and goes
beyond the component of sexual behavior to also include cognitions and emotions.
These aspects may especially advance
our understanding of the reasons
why adolescents have sex (e.g., intentions,
motives), why they engage in risky sexual behaviors (e.g., discrepancies
between the negotiation of safe sex
practices and trust-scripts in romantic relationships), and how they experience
sex (e.g., experienced emotions after sex), all of which remain less
understood. A new body of research has started
to investigate the cognitive and affective components of youth sexuality, by examining sexual decision-making and sexual agency
(e.g., [190,191]), sexual
intentions (e.g., [192,193], sexual
emotions (e.g., [82,90], and the sexual
component in one’s
self-concept (e.g., [20,194], but more research
in this area is needed.
Thirdly, the literature on gender,
cultural, and sexual identity differences in youth sexuality reviewed in this
paper reveals the importance of acknowledging between- and within-group
differences and diversities, as well as similarities. One of the promising
research avenues for studying the heterogeneity
in youth sexual
development is the
monitoring of youth
sexual
emotions, cognitions, and behaviors with more
person-centered, rather than variable-centered, methodological approaches [194,195]. Traditional methodological approaches expect
samples to share their population of reference’s parameters, while
person-centered methodologies examine the possible diversity and heterogeneity in the subgroups that may coexist in such
samples and allow further comparisons. They have been identified as a rich
complement to traditional methodological approaches [196,197]. For
example, more studies in particular are needed on sexual identity development in hard-to-reach and understudied subgroups, such as questioning and gender-variant
youth [198], undisclosed SMY, racialized SMY, and those who do not
identify as SMY
despite their same-sex behavior
or attraction history, who may fall
in the “mostly heterosexual” subgroup, which is now increasingly recognized to
form a distinct sexual orientation group [199]. SMY are a heterogeneous group,
hence the importance of adopting a person-centered approach to understanding
their developmental trajectories is salient in this line of research
as well (e.g.,
[200]).
Research on SMY would also benefit from
the inclusion of multidimensional questions on sexual attraction, self-identified sexual orientation and partners’ gender in
general youth surveys [201]. There is also a
need to increase the quality and impact of research among SMY, for instance by multiplying sources of
information besides self-report data, and by implementing longitudinal designs to better
understand how sexual minority
identities develop over time and to identify
factors, such as gender- and sexual
orientation-based
prejudice, that impact their sexual development and sexual health (e.g., [202]). While most research has focused on challenges to well-being, sexual
health issues, the coming-out process and negative adjustment outcomes
among SMY, it is paramount that we also document positive
sexual development and resilience trajectories to shed
light on and
learn from the
many SMY that
successfully transition to adulthood [203,204].
Fourth, although the body of research
on CSREs is vastly expanding, the extent to which CSREs reflect a cultural transformation
in the way sexuality, romance, and
friendship intersect nowadays, and in the norms regarding sexual agreement among
sexual partners also needs to be further
explored. This may for instance be done through
in-depth qualitative research
methods, to better
theorize the impact of the macrosocial and historical factors
on youth’s psychosexual development (e.g., [136,205]).
Another avenue that
would not only
reduce memory biases
and retrospective reconstructions of events based on more recent
experiences [206] but
also enable the examination of the convergence in partners’ reports while also tapping
the subjectivity of each member’s
experiences, would be to collect
data on CSREs with both sexual partners shortly
after they occurred,
for example by using digital
diary apps or beepers
at random times
with both partners
to assess their
thoughts and perceptions on their sexual partnership. Such methods are
already being used to investigate individual experiences of CSREs (e.g., [207,208]. In general, more dyadic (i.e., romantic
and sexual partners) research is needed
to assess how each individual
of a romantic or sexual dyad initiates and develops sexual relations over time,
including partner selection processes, socialization, and use of modern technological tools designed for mating
and sexual encounters, such as dating
sites and apps,
which may be especially relevant
for SMY (e.g., [209,210]). Besides
multi-informant, macro-time (e.g.,
questionnaires) and micro-time (e.g., daily diaries) longitudinal data on individual, partner, and dyadic couple
characteristics and processes (and their interrelated
changes over time), observational research methods could provide valuable
additional data on micro-interactions between romantic or sexual partners
(e.g., communication, negotiation, support, conflict resolution, level of agreement
towards their sexual status). All in all, important next steps in research on sexuality in adolescence and young adulthood
will encompass a rich combination of multimethod and multi-informant research
methods.
9. Conclusions
Overall, the reviewed body of
literature has provided important empirical knowledge and theoretical understanding on adolescent and early adult sexuality. This knowledge is valuable for the
design of effective and empirically-based comprehensive sexuality education
programs, and suggests ways in which parents,
teachers, sex educators
and practitioners in adolescent medicine
can support
adolescents’ healthy, responsible and positive
exploration of their sexuality, and promote relational and sexual health (e.g.,
[24–26]). It also sheds
light on the importance of acknowledging the many possible forms in which
adolescents and young adults experience and experiment (or do not experiment)
with intimacy and sexuality, and on the multitude of social norms that
present-day adolescents and young adults learn to navigate in their romantic
relationships and sexual development.
Author Contributions: Marie-Aude Boislard drafted
the outline of the paper, coordinated the writing schedule, took the lead of the writing
and editing of most sections, and wrote the responses to the reviewers’
requests. Coauthors were invited
to contribute to the review
according to their
respective expertise, and all three
authors paid special attention to ensure that the literature review was exhaustive, thorough and up-to-date. Daphne van de Bongardt contributed especially to the gender
differences in youth
sexuality, cultural differences in youth sexuality,
and youth sexual
behaviors in romantic
relationship contexts sections, and wrote some of the future directions in youth sexuality research.
She also made sure the European literature was covered in the review. Martin Blais
contributed especially to the sections
on cultural differences in youth sexuality, youth sexual behaviors
outside romantic relationship (i.e., CSREs) and reviewed the literature on sexuality in sexual-minority youth.
The three authors provided
their inputs for all versions
of the manuscript from the beginning to the resubmitted final paper.
Conflicts
of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of
interest.
Comentários
Postar um comentário