7 Chapter 7: Emotional Life and Relationships

Youth networks consist of cliques which are small groups of people closely connected to each other which are in turn loosely connected to other small cliques in larger networks called crowds (Hartup, 1993).  Though elementary school children spend much of their social lives in cliques, they move on to larger groups as they get older.  Children do maintain their closest ties with a small group of friends.  Within these small networks, youth create their own frameworks of meaning.  Selective and often creative use of language and ritualized behavior form important elements to both the meaning-making aspects of their lives in the social communities and to cementing their bonds with each other (Brown & Klute, 2003).

Friendships from the earliest years in school are marked by seeking similarities in terms of race and sex.  As they enter adolescence, some youth begin to cross gender boundaries and seek friendships across genders.  Well-adjusted boys and girls demonstrate a marked capacity to form friendships with both same sex and other sex teens.  Girls typically value closeness and openness in their friendships while boys are more likely to engage in activities together.  In the context of such gendered friendship styles, boys learn trust and intimacy when they have close friends who are girls (CSU Fullerton HCOM, 2013).  Race, class, gender and neighborhood characteristics all play key roles in determining who children and youth befriend, how the friendship unfolds, the spaces they occupy in a person’s life, the relationship these peer connections have to family life and the impact they have on the person’s life (Clark & Ayers, 1992; Graham, Cohen, Zbikowski & Secrist, 1998).

From very early in childhood when children are given a choice, they select friends who are most like them temperamentally; thus, aggressive children seem to seek out other aggressive children to associate with (Gleason, Gower, Hohmann & Gleason, 2005).  Researchers have found that even when children exhibit behavioral problems, they find similar levels of support and loyalty from their friends as young people without behavioral issues.  This is one reason that there is an intensifying of conduct issues over the course of childhood as youth reward behaviors that they approve of in each other (Gifford-Smith, Dodge, Dishion & McCord, 2005; Seidman et al (1999).  Adolescents often find themselves very vulnerable in terms of their social relationships and young people with conduct issues find a great deal of support from each other as they find themselves increasingly isolated from others in their peer group.

There has been much research conducted on the cross-cultural variations in friendship patterns.  North American adolescents tend to spend less time on homework and with family than they do with peers as compared to Asian youth (Larsen & Verma, 1999); however, there are intra-national differences in this pattern of findings.  African American youth report feeling closer to their parents and spending more time with family members than their white peers (Bengtson, 2001).  Similarly, youth from middle class homes typically tended to be more instrumental in their friendship patterns, forming and breaking connections depending on changes in their interests and their activities.  Students from working class homes lacking these extracurricular outlets have more long-lasting relationships often with youth from their neighborhoods and within their extended family (Boiché, Sarrazin & Chanal, 2015).  Young people from homes with unstable living conditions must relocate frequently leaving them with little time to form lasting friendships.  In addition, living in unsafe environments forces children to have a cautious approach to people and unable to trust in others (Anderson & Leventhal, 2017; Faris & Felmlee, 2018).

The quality and the type of friendships they have and the peer networks they maintain have a significant impact on the lives of children and adolescents.  Research has pointed to the impact of peer networks in fostering delinquency and aggression.  Earlier research posited that isolation led young people to antisocial behavior (Rubin & Mills, 1988); today there is substantial evidence that points to the notion that friendship qualities do not differ for conforming and nonconforming adolescents but teens with different temperaments seek others who share their values and framework towards school and society (Rulison, Gest & Osgood, 2015; Young et al., 2014).  Similarly, it has been found that suicide ideation and body dysmorphia can be fostered by peer groups (Fortuin, Van Geel & Vedder, 2015; Kenny et al., 2017).  Thus, self-destructive behavior can be disrupted by peers as well.  Peers tend to reward others who exhibit behaviors that conform to their own cherished values.  In a subset of studies, there has been racial differences in peer influence on behavior; Black teens tend to be less susceptible to peer pressure than white teens.  This correlates with the strong attachment that Black teens exhibit towards their families (Giordano, Cernkovich & DeMaris, 1993).

Harry Stack Sullivan (1937) offered one of the most comprehensive theories describing the development of intimacy between people before and during adolescence.  According to Sullivan, our capacity for intimacy predates adolescence and the quality of our earliest intimate relationships with others, including friends and family predict our capacity for close relationships during adolescence.  He believed that it is healthy for adolescents to experiment with different roles in their relationship as they make novel attempts to experience intimacy and sexual fulfillment within the same relationship.  Some youth may not attempt a sexual relationship but may have close intimate relationships with same sex and other sex peers while others may engage in sex without seeking intimacy from the same person.  By the time they reach late adolescents, a mature young person is ready to address intimacy needs in a healthy fashion (Buhrmester & Furman, 1987).

While early adolescents describe their relationships as companionships within which they engage in activities together, later in youth, individuals increasingly describe their friendships as including loyalty and intimacy.  For girls, these qualities are especially important in their relationships and any perceived betrayal of the relationship is accompanied by emotional upheaval.  As they get older, teens learn to deal with conflict with their best friends through negotiation and compromise rather than dominance and insisting on getting their way.  During the same period, adolescents become increasingly knowledgeable about their closest friends’ deepest secrets and know things about them that others do not.  Over the course of adolescence, they are increasingly likely to show more care and concern for their friends and predict their closest friends’ responses to situations better than casual acquaintances (Hey, 1997).

Research with white teens has demonstrated that girls define their relationships to close friends by highlighting the self-disclosure, intimacy and care that they share.  Boys tend to be less exclusive and more controlling in their friendships (Shulman et al., 1997).  While the heightened empathy and understanding among girls’ close relationships is comforting, it can also lead to excessive rumination leading to increased depression and anxiety for the participants.  Similarly, the closeness among girls makes conflict more emotionally painful. Boys’ conflicts often are a result of exertion of power and control and gets resolved on its own without the trauma that accompanies girls’ conflicts (Goodwin, 2006).  Towards the end of adolescence there are few gender differences in the quality of close relationships that boys and girls share (Davis, 2012; Valkenberg, Sumter & Peter, 2011).  The pattern of gender differences in self-disclosure is varied for youth from other backgrounds with Black teens exhibiting few gender differences in the quality of close friendships through adolescence (Miller & Benson, 1999).

While adolescents’ intimacy with their peers and romantic partners grow, so does their intimacy with their parents especially later in adolescence and into adulthood.  Studies have found that the quality of relationships that youth have with their peers and romantic partners is related to the quality of the relationships they enjoy at home.  In some ways, teens find it easier to express negative emotions to their parents since they are convinced that the ties are less likely to break (Larson & Asmussen, 1991).  While there are ethnic group differences in the relationship between youth and their parents, actual behavior tends to be very similar across cultural groups with most adolescents naming their parents as being very significant in terms of sources of support (Helson, Vollebergh & Meese, 2000).  In the modern social context in the west, relationships with siblings and the extended family tends to diminish in importance through adolescence; Black youth have a deep relationship with their grandparents when they have an unmarried or partnered mother (Stoneman & Brody, 1993; Wilson, 1986).  Often, youth tend to seek help and support from different sources in different areas as they navigate adolescence.  For many teens, there is no one to offer a helping hand when needed, especially when the adolescent belongs to a more vulnerable group in terms of race, social class, sexual and gender orientation or a discriminated religious group.

Over the last few decades, the age of marriage first declined and then increased for both men and women ((Rotz, 2016).  New research shows that boys have the same needs for emotional intimacy that girls have but find themselves inadequately prepared by society to engage with cross-sex intimacy in an authentic fashion (Coontz, 2015). The age at which adolescents date is influenced by several factors – age of sexual maturation is one; the earlier a teen matures the earlier they begin to date.  The attitude that communities hold around issues of dating and the behavior of teens’ peer groups, influence the age at which youth begin dating (Besharov & Gardier, 1993).

Dating could involve anything from casual outings in mixed sex groups to having an intimate relationship with one person.  Usually, the former precedes the latter and the transition to serious dating is hard for most teens because of their limited experience and awkwardness around initiating and maintaining romantic relationships.  Adolescent relationships tend to involve more conflict around jealousy and betrayal as compared to young adult romantic connections.  By late adolescence, issues regarding commitment and intimacy begin to enter romantic partnerships even though relationships are still unstable (Connolly & McIsaac, 2011; Connolly et al., 2004).  For gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals, the development of their intimate relationships may have a different trajectory because of the discrimination and the stigma attached to their choices.  Despite the enormous progress being made in the area, LGBTQ+ youth face censure when they attempt to express intimacy in public; same sex friends may misinterpret their actions and they may have to hide their desires in order to be accepted (Furman, Brown & Feiring, 1999).

According to the early psychologists like Freud, one of the major developmental tasks of adolescence is establishing romantic relationships with other youth (Furman & Shaffer, 2003).  Erikson, Freud’s student, suggested however that adolescence is a time of identity search and adolescents will not be able to achieve mature romantic connections if their need for an identity is not met.  Cross-cultural research has substantiated that most of the developmental goals that we construe for children and adolescents in the industrialized world are specific to the social needs in modern capitalist economies (Breyers & Seiffge-Krenke, 2010).  Research has also demonstrated that many of the assumptions that youth hold about romance and sexual relationships are socially constructed and are highly gendered.  Social sanctions around violating norms like monogamy or heterosexual behavior help keep these rules in place (Tolman & Tolman, 2009).  In middle school, the social emphasis on boys controlling their relational behavior and emotions, especially in spaces like sports locker rooms, leads young boys to objectify girls and establish relationships of exploitation in heterosexual connections (Lorber & Farel, 1991).

Early adolescence is characterized by romantic relationships that are highly unstable. Going steady is often associated with superficial needs and there is frequent turnover of partners.  Through adolescence, unlike friendships which often bring comfort to the young person, romantic alliances bring about heightened emotionality and intensifying conflict. Inexperience with these kinds of relationships adds to the intensity and ruminating nature of the connections.  Unlike within friendships, the relatively high percentage of lack of reciprocity in feelings adds to the instability and the associated feelings of neglect and vulnerability.  While overt norms in society value commitment and loyalty within romantic relationships, many adolescents are forced to deal with the conflicted feelings that come from violating these norms such as monogamy or honesty within relationships (Crouter & Booth, 2014).

All through their early socialization experiences, girls are more prepared to engage intimately with other people as compared to boys.  Girls are taught to value relationships and are better prepared to disclose their authentic selves.  Boys are socialized to hide their vulnerabilities and connect with other people by engaging in activities rather than by self-disclosure or strengthening their emotional connections.  Tannen, Hamilton & Schiffrin (2015) refer to girls’ connection styles as being face to face and boys’ engagement style as being side by side.  Studies have demonstrated that boys use very different language when connecting with their friends versus with their romantic connections.  Girls on the other hand use the same engagement style and vocabulary with their friends and their romantic relationships. Boys have also learned, through socialization, that dominating over their partners is one way to establish their masculine credentials.  During adolescence, girls struggle to be assertive within relationships whereas their male partners take their superiority for granted (Hertzog & Rowley, 2014; Honeycutt & Cantrill, 2014).

There has been little research on the influence of romantic relationships on the partners themselves and the conditions that foster good relationships.  For many youths, especially those who are marginalized, being in a romantic relationship provides a way to feel good about themselves.  However, these connections have downsides as well because of their instability and intensity (Machel, Disabato & Kashdan, 2016).  There is some evidence that the movement to establish romantic connections in adolescence leads to a lowering of self-esteem, especially for girls.  Dating during early adolescence is related to decreased academic achievement and lower levels of participation in school activities.  Thus, while romantic connections can provide a safe space for some youth, it is often fleeting and by its very nature leads to emotional vulnerability (LaGreca & Harrison, 2005).

Studies indicate that dating at younger ages leads to earlier sexual experiences for both girls and boys (Bouchey & Furman, 2003).  Engaging in cross-sex friendships earlier in life is related to earlier initiation into sex especially for boys (Connelly et al., 2004).  Traditional notions of who engages in sex with whom has been upended by more recent work in the area.  Youth do not just engage in sex with partners who they are in a dating relationship with. Surveys reveal that they also engage in sex with friends, previous partners who they have broken up with and with casual acquaintances.  Under these circumstances, the importance of exploring safe sexual practices become even more important.  Where there is greater asymmetry and difference between the partners (age, economic status, ethnicity) the lesser the frequency of use of condoms and engaging in safe sex (Center for Disease Control And Prevention, 2013). Two very salient factors that seem to predict lower contraceptive use is status asymmetry (when one has a higher status than another) and relationship asymmetry (when one partner is more invested in the relationship than the other).  Girls who are engaged in a romantic relationship with an older man are some of the least likely to use contraception (Manning, Giordano & Longmore, 2006; Moore & Rosenthal, 1992; Troth & Peterson, 2000).

One way in which inequality is reproduced with each generation is through the maintenance of the social hierarchy in school.  Research has found that concern over being popular peaks at about grade 9 in the USA.  While the students at the top of the hierarchy often exert time and energy to maintaining their position within the system, they also actively avoid associating with lower status peers because the association might influence other students’ opinions about them (Eckert, 1989; Milner, 2013).  Once the status of any student is established, it is relatively stable through adolescence.  The established status is reinforced by the associations that students make and by feedback from authority figures.  Occasionally, there is significant movement up or down the social ladder by a boy who may go through a sudden growth spurt or a girl who could possibly develop special talents but most times if there are status changes it is usually not very dramatic (Simmons, 2017).   Students who find an opening to moving up the social ladder in school often find that they would have to distance themselves from their old friends and even put them down in order to be able to move up.  The result is often that youth who were made fun of become downwardly mobile (Sentse, Kretschmer & Salmivalli, 2015).   Marcel Danesi (1999) calls these insults small cruelties and adolescent school life is filled with them on a regular basis.  Derogatory comments are often made by students when their object of derision is not present, and it forces other high-status group members to distance themselves from the lower status individuals.  Coming up with a mocking nickname is another way that high status youth keep others in their place and influence their status.  Such ritual ridicule is not restricted to verbal insults but also includes physical aggression where high status students would rough up someone of a lower status.  Students of lower status thus have great incentive to avoid any contact with those who are of higher status in order to protect themselves physically and emotionally (Klein, 2006; Milner, 2013).

Much of the hostility, threats, ridicule and aggression arise from the way schools are organized where social and academic rewards are given only to a select few and most students experience little power in their interactions with peers, administrators and teachers.  When the atmosphere is wrought with hostile feelings, aggression is used as an instrument to gain status.  Students practice their put-downs with students’ lower down in the ladder with few consequences.  The put-downs and insults are also used to keep people from deviating from what is considered normal behavior in the dominant group by making the consequences intolerable for those most vulnerable to insults.  The result is often that those who enjoy high status are those who come from the most privileged segments of the social economic, political, gender, racial and religious hierarchy.  Clearly, there are also more obvious ways in which children coming from families of privilege advance within the educational system as demonstrated in the recent example where a sting operation found many wealthy families bribing their way into elite colleges (PBS Newshour, 2019).

Most children in the USA will be of non-European origin by the year 2040.  A significant proportion of them will have at least one immigrant parent (Passel & Cohn, 2008). Schools can provide important spaces for children and youth to meet students from other cultural and social contexts where they can learn diverse frameworks for viewing the world.  Encouraging friendships across social boundaries can help reduce prejudice and further understanding.  Teachers, school counselors and administrators can help advance the cultural competence of young people by facilitating better communication among students.  Studies demonstrate that better intergroup relations predict higher academic achievement, and social emotional development for all students (Kawabata & Crick, 2008).  In schools where race and the social hierarchy of the school coincide, intergroup relationships are harder to form and sustain.  Thus, fostering cross-cultural friendships and associations involves questioning the inequities that exist in schools (Graham, Munniksma & Juvonen, 2014).

From early childhood onwards, children tend to have friends from within their own racial group and intragroup friendships are rated more highly than intergroup friendships.  This phenomenon seems to be especially strong for white children who tend to have fewer friends from other ethnic groups.  Where there is active effort made on the part of the adults in a child’s life to foster varied connections with children from diverse communities, the results are often dramatic prejudice reduction, higher self-efficacy, and appreciation of other cultures.  The chance to form friendships across racial and ethnic lines allows for young people to understand others as individuals and thereby resist stereotypes (Sigelman & Welch, 1993).

Allport (1954) hypothesized that for optimal friendships between different ethnic groups in a school context they must feel equal, have common goals and have the support of administrators and other adults.  It is not just enough to have diversity among the student body; it must be supported by the institutional framework.  Some ways to assist in facilitating interethnic contact and friendships include a) Mixed group collaborative projects with shared goals; b) Having open discussions about race, racism and other forms of prejudice in both formal and informal settings to further the goals of honest communication between students; c) Having an inclusive curriculum with regards to race, gender, sexual orientation and disability studies; d) Incorporating informal conversations on prejudice reduction and equity.  Research studies have shown that facilitating direct conversations between students from varied backgrounds in terms of race, ethnicity, social class, religion, abilities, gender identity and sexual orientations have had the greatest impact in prejudice reduction, self-awareness, and appreciation of diversity (Brewer & Gaertner, 2004).

One of the main factors that prevents intergroup friendships is the systemic barriers that exist in schools that do not allow for engagement across social class lines.  Often, extracurricular activities may cost family resources that may not be affordable or may be scheduled at times when the student cannot be there.  Thought must be given to alleviate these structural barriers.  Data on discipline, punishment and school activities and achievement should be consistently collected in order to identify areas of improvement with regard to equity.  The bottom line is that it is difficult to foster intergroup communication and connection when there is deep inequality in the social and academic fabric of the school life.  Overcoming the structural barriers that keep intergroup divisions in place requires all the various institutions in society from governmental agencies, schools, communities and families to engage with each other in a constructive manner.

There has been an explosion of research on cyberbullying in recent years. Most experts agree that the presence of technology has led to an increase in cyberbullying among youth. Children today can handle technology in complex ways earning them the nickname Digital Natives (Prensky, 2001).  Many of these youth have never known a time when there was no digital technology.  This contrasts with the Digital Immigrants who grew up during a time when technological devices were absent or were not easily available.  While much of this new access to technology has proven beneficial to young people giving them diverse ways to get information, providing them new avenues to be creative and allowing them easy connectivity to friends and peers, youth are often unschooled about the dark side of cyber use.  The new digital forms of bullying are perhaps some of the most destructive ways in which a small number of young people use social media and other online tools.

Olweus, Limber & Mihalic (1999) define bullying as an action where there is intentional harm towards the victim, the harmful behavior is repeatedly performed, and there is a power imbalance between the victim and the bully.  Smith et al (2008) define cyberbullying as “an aggressive intentional act carried out by a group or individuals, using electronic forms of contact, repeatedly and over time, against a victim who cannot easily defend himself or herself” (p.376). Whatever the form of bullying, the phenomenon causes core distress among victims, occurs when there is no supervision, starts in school and spills over outside of school, and the victim usually knows the bully.  A crucial difference between cyberbullying and face-to-face bullying is that in the former case, it is difficult for the bully to see the victim’s distress, which often makes it easy to be uninhibited in the problematic behavior.  Some experts argue that cyberbullying also robs the bully of the pleasure of seeing another person suffer. Another difference between the two forms of bullying is that of anonymity – in cyberbullying the victim often does not know who is doing the bullying. This emboldens individuals who may not otherwise use bullying to resolve an issue.  How the bullying behavior is replicated also distinguishes between both forms of bullying.  In cyberspace, a simple act of aggression by one bully may be repeated endlessly by others uninvolved in the original incident by sending forward an email or a picture or re-posting threatening messages.  Thus, the consequences of cyberbullying on all the students involved may be longer-lasting.  One third of bullies both online and face-to-face are themselves victims of bullying (Haynie et al., 2001).

There are gender differences in the kind of bullying youth are subjected to.  Girls use indirect/relational forms of bullying more frequently while boys engage in more direct/physical aggression (Rivers & Smith, 1994).  Relational aggression involves verbal and emotional harassment of individuals repeatedly and with the intention to do harm.  Some cyberbullying experts claim that girls are more likely to engage in online forms of aggression because of the increased likelihood of girls engaging in relational aggression (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995).  The internet lends itself easily to relational violence.  However, other studies do not show a gender difference in cyber aggression (Li, 2006).  Several studies have demonstrated that girls report more negative impacts and are more likely to experience exclusion and revelation of private personal information as a violation of trust (Smith et al., 2008).

The consequences of bullying in the victim tends to be depression, poor self-esteem, anxiety, suicidal ideation, psychosomatic problems like headaches and sleep disturbances, low academic achievement, not feeling safe in school and a risk for problems at school (Hoertel et al., 2011; Meyer, 2015).  The effects of cyberbullying may be intensified by its very nature; most youth have difficulty cutting oneself off from technology because of the social isolation it produces even when they are bullied.  The public nature of the aggression online, not knowing who has seen the bullying posts and the permanent nature of the posts themselves leading to repeated exposure to the same messages make the encounters traumatic for individuals.

Lynn Mikel Brown writes that bully-prevention has become a huge for-profit business with top-down strategies aimed at reducing bullying behavior in school.  She suggests that the solutions are often simple with the adults in children’s lives taking responsibility for the unsafe environments that children are forced to spend hours in.  She offers 10 simple strategies to address behaviors that form bullying.  Strategies for addressing bullying include:

Stop labeling kids as bullies and victims: Children are complex and are capable of both doing good and harm to others.  Adults ought to take responsibility if schools are unsafe.

Name the behavior and not the child: Identifying the specific behavior like homophobia or sexual harassment or ableism is more productive to pointing to a consequence or a strategy than simply calling it bullying.

Move beyond the individual: Examine social factors like racism, classism, homophobia and ableism as sources of aggressive behaviors.  How does cultural, social and economic capital affect bullying behavior in school?

One size does not fit all: While Olweus programs have worked in Norway, they may not show the same effectiveness in diverse schools in the United States.

Have realistic expectations for students: Expecting students to adhere to standards that adults may find difficult to follow is unrealistic.  Having students always follow rules imposed from above, never resisting or fighting back when their rights are violated, are counterproductive in reducing aggressive behaviors.

Listen to students: Understanding where kids come from and their perspective helps undermine the damaging impact of privilege and protects the less powerful. Often, aggression stems from an unequal status quo.

Embrace Grassroots Movement: Change has to be student-driven, not enforced top-down for effectiveness.  Including students in dialogues about school rules increases compliance by students.

Be Proactive/Not Reactive: Working towards making schools safe for all students helps in reducing bullying.  Clubs like Civil Rights Team Projects allow students who are otherwise marginalized in schools to explore their identity.

Coalition Building: Working towards building bridges between different groups allows for marginalized youth to find allies and respond to violence in constructive ways.

Accentuate the Positive: Adult advocates for youth must recognize that youth need more control over their lives to feel important.

One area that has not been explored well is the influence of peer groups in both the bullying behavior as well as an effective means of stopping the bullying. There is evidence that children who are willing to intervene when a peer is being bullied report greater empathy than those who do not (Cowie & Olafsson, 2000).  However, peer intervention is influenced by the social standing of the bully or bullies, the number of people engaged in the bullying incidence, and the relationship of the bystander to the bully as well as the one being bullied.  Thus, peers may be reluctant to intervene if there are several, more popular peers who are the bullies or if the victim is unpopular (Rodkin & Hodges, 2003).   The larger climate in peer communities around issues of race, gender and sexual orientation influence bullying behaviors. Rarely does prejudiced aggression take place in isolation but often, the community normalizes certain forms of prejudice which is then exhibited as physical or emotional violence against individuals from underrepresented groups.  As many experts observe, it is hard to prevent incidents of bullying if diversity and inclusion are not infused into the school curriculum and it its rituals.

From its very origins, sexuality education in the US had a rather ambivalent framework that was mostly aimed at keeping youth informed about the negative consequences of engaging in sex while stifling a more scientific understanding of the topic.  The earliest sex education programs addressed the issues of chastity, nutrition and the evils of masturbation.  In their presentations of the topic, early educators connected masturbation to warts, constipation, loss of energy, insanity and death.  In the late 1800s when the first sex education programs were launched, the Catholic church tried to shut them down.  During World War I, the country experienced widespread sexually transmitted diseases (STD) and infections (STIs) and this prompted the first organized sexuality education programs within the military.  Later, the curriculum was adopted by schools to teach about STIs and hygiene.  In 1964, MaryCalderone, a physician at Planned Parenthood, established the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the USA (SIECUS).  The organization attempted to move away from scare tactics and teach sexuality from a scientific viewpoint.  It also established the first programs to train teachers in sexuality education methods.  Religious conservatives attacked SIECUS and claimed that sex education had the potential to further the cause of communism and create chaos.  Rumors were spread that sexuality educators were stripping themselves in front of their students.  In 1994, the surgeon general of the US was forced to resign after she admitted that masturbation can reduce unsafe sexual activity (Middleton, 1998; Pardini, 2002).  To this day, the country still struggles to form a coherent policy on sexuality education for young people.

Current sexuality education in schools often replicate relationship of hegemonic sexuality and heterosexism, reinforcing racist and classist stereotypes.  While the debate about the efficacy of abstinence education is centered around whether teaching abstinence leads to lower or higher engagement with safe sex, there is very little discussion around homophobia, racism and classism.  Some authors argue that sex education in schools normalizes inequality (Ferfolja, 2007; Fields, 2008).  Conservative groups initially resisted all forms of sex education but the advent of HIV/AIDS in the 1980s forced these groups to shift tactic and advocate for abstinence-only education.  During the HIV pandemic, conservatives encouraged more resources to be set aside for abstinence education.  In abstinence only education, teens are encouraged to wait until marriage to engage in monogamous sex.  By 2005, the dominant model for educating teens about sex was abstinence only education, though in recent years there has been a shift to ‘abstinence + condom’ where abstinence is still held up as the only appropriate sexuality related behavior (Perrin & DeJoy, 2003).  On both sides of the issue, children have been constructed as victims of sex; thus, education around sexuality is often based on inculcating fear in children.  White teens are especially constructed as ‘innocent’ and needing to be protected while youth of color are perceived as being hypersexualized and in need of restraint (Chan et al, 2001).  Today, many states have the provision that public schools will be stripped of funding for sex education if they taught comprehensive sexuality education.

Gays, lesbians, bisexual, transsexuals, and queers are invisible in these lessons and six states in the USA require instructors to label behavior associated with non-normative sexual behaviors as being self and other destructive (Fields, 2008).  Even when students seek out information on non-normative sexualities, they are prevented from gaining accurate information.  Another missing element from sexuality education in schools is an exploration of female desire.  Girls are portrayed as victims that need protection with little discussion about their own needs and desires (Garcia, 2009).  All these misconceptions about sexuality and youth lead to large public acceptance of rape myths that objectify girls and women and construct boys as people with insatiable sexual appetite.

Schools teach children implicitly about how to do gender and sexuality through various curriculum but especially when it relates to sexuality education.  Homophobia and heterosexist messages prevail from elementary school to high school.  In high schools, through the many rituals during the school year, boys learn how to do masculinity and learn an aversion to feminine behavior (Pascoe, 2007).  Rituals like the prom and sporting events reinforce and reward hierarchical heterosexism.  Sexually harassing behaviors, sexist language and homophobic slurs frequently used by students are ignored by teachers thereby reinforcing inequality based on gender.  Similar behaviors by Black and white students are perceived very differently by administrators – Black students’ behaviors are framed as sexually loaded while white student behaviors are ignored as harmless, thereby hypersexualizing Black students, especially boys (Ferguson, 2000).  It is harder for teens to abstain from sexual behavior in a society where desire floods popular media and images consistently communicate hypersexuality and sexual objectification.

A critical pedagogy of sexuality education can overcome some of the deepest concerns about traditional sex education. In order for an equity based sexuality pedagogy instructors must use strong anti-discriminatory language when discussing and introducing sex education.  This will go a long way towards an equal education for all groups. The information needs to be medically accurate instead of simply trying to induce fear in young people. Teachers would need to be sensitive to issues of race, class, gender and sexual orientation and they ought to be ready to acknowledge adolescent desires.  Last but not least, schools should focus on peer education; this could make students feel safe about expressing themselves in an authentic manner.

These alternative pedagogies could be fraught with their own pitfalls – homosexuality may become central to the discussion marginalizing other groups, and teachers may let their own prejudices get in the way of effective teaching.  Apart from the formal education about sex that adolescents receive, there is also an informal curriculum with peers teaching each other about how to do sex and gender.  Much of this learning is hierarchical.  Beauty magazines and clothing provide props to discuss heterosexual relationships and they solidify class and race divisions among youth.  Sexual performance and sexual restraint help reinforce stereotypes about teens based on race and class.  Among boys, heterosexism is reinforced by objectification of girls, homophobic language, and boasting about heterosexual connections made.  However, peers also have the potential to disrupt traditional ideas about sexuality and gender.  Parents reinforce traditional gender norms and heterosexism by emphasizing the safety aspect of sex and discriminating between girls and boys in how much sexual freedom a child is allowed.  Fathers are especially likely to express homophobic ideas and focus on heterosexual relationship when talking about sex in adolescence.  Many parents experience resistance among their children when they do attempt to talk about sex especially if they are themselves ambivalent about the topic.  Teachers and other advocates can help provide safe spaces for youth to challenge and transform their traditional frameworks for comprehending gendered and sexual behavior.

Many people assume that grieving in adolescence takes on similar characteristics as adults coping with deep loss.  However, research has demonstrated that adult grief exhibits a different set of signs as compared to youth grief.  As discussed earlier, teens are very peer oriented.  When they do face loss, it often tends to be sudden and traumatic since few youths die of natural causes.  The top reasons for youth mortality are auto accidents, suicides and homicides.  There is little warning preceding the loss and this leads to young people not feeling safe in their communities after the loss of their loved one.  The response to traumatic loss is severe in young people and is marked by greater functional impairment, suicidal ideation and physical disability.  The move to be independent from families and other adults predisposes adolescents to not communicate their emotional states to the adults that they interact with every day.  Hence, it is difficult for teachers and parents to gauge how a sudden loss has affected the individual concerned.  Youth are often concerned that they may be judged harshly by their peers if they expressed their fears, anxieties and sadness.  This leads to self-silencing of their negative emotions.  They may feel very alone in their misery since they feel unique and different from other people.  Teens may express their sadness through spending hours listening to music or exercising or even engaging in destructive behavior (Wingate, 2017).  They may feel more comfortable expressing their sadness online in an anonymous fashion and while this may provide some relief, they may also be subjected to misinformation and cruel taunts.  Unlike children, adolescents may not be able to rely on simple answers from their religious faith to comfort them since they may be moving away from their spiritual or religious traditions and questioning cherished family beliefs (Cox & Stevenson, 2017; Sofka, 2009).

Adolescents who may be experiencing profound transformations in their identity or who may be questioning their identity intensely may be even more affected by general questions around death and specific anxieties about the loss of a loved one.  While youth are questioning the meaning of their own lives and the purpose of their actions in the larger scheme of things, death may make their lives appear unstable, unpredictable and scary.  Problem-focused and emotion regulation only appear later in adolescence making responses to loss extreme and sometimes destructive in young people (Doka, 2017).

Grief in teens may be unacknowledged because of the nature of the loss – abortions, the loss of a loved pet, perinatal loss, incarceration of a loved one or a parent, divorce, placement in a new foster home (Doka, 2017).  The grief of children and youth are left unacknowledged because they are thought to be incapable of feeling to the same intensity as adults.  In some cases, the circumstances of the loss may be deeply shameful and therefore unacknowledged.  Children and teens often experience the loss of a parent they have not had contact with deeply because of the lost time and opportunity to establish a connection.  The way adults respond to their children’s grief may teach young people lifelong lessons in how to cope with loss and sorrow.  Thus, listening respectfully as youth voice their feelings gives everybody an opportunity to strengthen their connections while also learning appropriate ways of coping (Moore, 2018).  Brushing the feelings aside and pretending that they do not matter sets up patterns that prevent conflict resolution that youth take with them into adulthood.

In order to help youth, educational institutions would need to have clear policies and guidelines to help grieving students cope with schoolwork and their lives at school.  A death of a family member especially by homicide or suicide often brings with grief, a sense of shame.  They may be treated differently by other people or there may be silence around the event that the adolescent may feel is embarrassing.  Teachers, staff and administrators would have to be trained to look for signs of grieving in students who may be acting out or whose grades have dropped precipitously.  Setting up helping groups might facilitate the participants sharing of their thoughts and feelings about the events that may be bothering them.  Some organizations offer grief camps for children and teens to find solace as they cope with their loss.  Comfort Zone Camp and Camp Erin are two such camps that have national reach.  They have an online profile as well so students can continue their healing process even after camp ends.  Hospice groups offer grief counseling and healing groups as well (Warnick, 2015).

The cyber environment that adolescents immerse themselves in provides a natural outlet to adolescents as they face loss.  Online environments tend to be more participatory and have fewer barriers to engagement and artistic expression.  It gives youth a little more control over how and when they participate, and the feedback is often immediate.  Thus, even as they face marginalization and a sense of ‘difference’ at a time of profound loss, the online environment may provide a more accepting space for a grieving teen (Williams & Merton, 2009).  Youth and young adults have built shrines to commemorate the memories of their loved ones; there are several sites that offer easy templates that youth then fill in with digital artefacts.  Some popular sites include cemetery.org, teensremembered.org, and worldgardens.com.  Many adolescents are using web logs to record their experiences with illness, loss and coping with death.  Facebook and other social media websites allow for messages of condolences and organizing of vigils quickly.  The challenge for a moderator of any social media platform is to keep the remembrance respectful and positive.  It is also important to educate teens about being sensitive to their friends needing help, especially after a suicide event.  Ultimately, both digital immigrants and digital natives, adults and children, advocates for youth and the youth themselves need to learn about the technologies that are available for use during times of stress and grief.  At the same time, it is important to teach adolescents how to keep themselves safe when they reach out for support in a digital environment (Balk, Zaengle & Carr, 2011; Sofka, 2009).