Increased attention from the media and popular culture has raised awareness about equality for the gay and lesbian community. However, despite growing attention to gay and lesbian concerns, today’s current sex education curriculum in U.S. schools and families is still centered upon heterosexuality (Connell and Elliott 2009; Elliott 2012, 2014; McNeill 2013). Parents and adolescents often feel uncomfortable discussing sexual topics (Connell and Elliott 2009; Green and Sollie 1989; LaSala 2010), and when conversations about sexuality occur, research shows that often parents assume that their child is heterosexual (Martin 2009). Heteronormativity often dictates sex education in the home and at school; heteronormativity refers to heterosexuality being the norm and dominating other forms of sexuality. Sex education programs frequently are scrutinized by parents and/or school administration (Elliott 2012) for the subject matter they cover, and attempts to address lesbian, gay, and bisexual issues often face even more challenges from parents, school boards, or politicians (Boushka 2006). However, excluding specific concerns faced by gay and lesbian individuals can leave them without much needed information regarding sexual decisions. Excluding these topics also perpetuates the invisibility of lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) adolescents along with reproducing heterosexism and homophobia (Connell and Elliott 2009).

There are few qualitative studies on family sexual communication in general, especially those that focus on the adolescents who participate in family sex communication. Qualitative studies have mainly focused on interviewing parents about the sexual communication they have had with their adolescents (Elliott 2012; Schalet 2011; Walker 2001). Those qualitative studies focusing on LGB individuals have examined school-based sex education (Gowen and Winges-Yanez 2014) and utilized focus groups to collect data (Pingel et al. 2013). Perhaps this is because of the sensitivity of the subject matter, but also the additional research barriers that are encountered and protections added to working with and studying adolescents because they are considered a vulnerable group (Swauger 2009). Overall, because of heteronormativity and heterosexism in school-based sex education and many parents’ reluctance to address homosexuality, research is scarce on the sexual conversations that gay and lesbian adolescents have with their parents and the information they received in school sex education. Along with peers, parents and schools continue to be cited as main sources of sexual information for adolescents (Angera et al. 2008); therefore, concentrating on what could be considered two of the most influential and accurate sources helps provide a more complete representation of the sex education that these individuals are receiving. Using data from 10 in-depth qualitative interviews with self-identified lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals between the ages of 19–25, I examine what LGB young adults learned about sexuality from their parents when they were adolescents, what LGB young adults learned about sex from their school-based sex education when they were adolescents, and where they learned about sex when their school and parents were not providing them with information.

Parental Communication about Sexual Topics

Adolescent sexual behavior has been studied from various perspectives. A variety of studies have looked at the parent-adolescent relationship, and previous research indicates that this relationship can be a protective factor against engaging in sexual activity. Commonly though, these studies have concentrated on parental monitoring (Miller 2002), parental involvement (Majumdar 2005), parental connectedness (Kapinus and Gorman 2004), and parental views on adolescents’ sexual behavior (Gillmore et al. 2002). There is less research on the actual communication between parents and their adolescents regarding sexual topics. The research that does exist is varied, and it is still unclear what exactly is being communicated during these conversations (Miller 2002). For example, Newcomer and Udry (1985) found that parents and adolescents often disagree on what exactly is being communicated when discussing sexual topics. Further they found that mothers were much more likely to report sexual communication and teaching their adolescent something about sex than adolescents themselves were likely to report (Newcomer and Udry 1985). Some studies have linked more sexual communication to fewer risk-taking behaviors, whereas others have found that more communication was not related to fewer risk-taking behaviors (Clawson and Reese-Weber 2003). However, each of these studies takes place within a heterosexual framework, meaning that they lack a focus or discussion related to varying sexual orientations and how that may or may not affect sexual conversations. Also, one critique a majority of these studies has in common is that they have been quantitative in design, which commonly lacks an in-depth analysis of these types of conversations. Furthermore, there is less research on the actual communication between parents and their adolescents regarding sexual topics, especially regarding homosexuality because parents commonly leave this particular aspect out of their sexual discussions.

Most research demonstrates that communication about sexual topics not only takes place from a heteronormative stance, but also shows that these conversations take place in that same context. For example, Martin (2009) found that most mothers assume that their adolescent is heterosexual and, with this mindset, they project heterosexuality as the norm and therefore do not discuss any alternative sexualities. She goes on to claim that most mothers use their actions and talk to project this identity onto their children. Her quantitative study examined how mothers “construct heterosexuality as the norm, regardless of a child’s ultimate sexual identity” (Martin 2009, p. 192). In their qualitative study of fathers, Solebello and Elliott (2011) found that fathers actively try to promote heterosexuality for their adolescents, especially their sons. Interestingly, as one father blatantly commented in their study when speaking of his adolescent, “we want them to be as heterosexual as possible” (Solebello and Elliott 2011, p. 301).

Discussing Homosexuality in the Family

Talking about sexuality in general may still be considered taboo, and being gay continues to be stigmatized in U.S. society therefore, putting the two together creates a complex situation for parents and their children (LaSala 2010). Some researchers have studied lesbian, gay, and bisexual issues within the family context (Goldberg and Allen 2013; LaSala 2010; Moore 2011) as well as parental reactions to their children coming out (Fields 2001; Johnson and Best 2012). However, there is a lack of research examining how LGB adolescents are educated and discuss sexual issues and topics with their heterosexual parents and within their family environment. LaSala (2010) examined a variety of issues that families with LGB youth face. He qualitatively interviewed 65 self-identified gay youth between the ages of 14–25 along with 76 of their parents. When considering the discussion of sexual topics LaSala (p. 205) claims that “parents in this study tried to discuss HIV risk with their children, but their kids, clearly embarrassed by their parents’ wish to talk specifically about sex—especially sex that is considered taboo—resisted their efforts.”

Research studies with LGB parents focus more commonly on family formation (Moore 2011) or the suitability of LGB parents (Goldberg and Allen 2013). Mitchell (1998) conducted a study that examined how lesbian mothers educate their children on sexual topics. This study explains that when educating their children on sexual topics, lesbian mothers put emphasis on their children knowing anatomically correct terms for their bodies, providing age-appropriate information, reminding children that any two people can love each other, and mutual respect in relationships and between them and their children (Mitchell 1998). However, there is an absence of research that examines heterosexual parents discussing and educating their LGB-identified children on sexual topics and issues.

Studies that have focused on LGB youth within the family context more commonly examine things like the coming out process, well-being, identity formation, and self-esteem (Beaty 1999; Goldberg and Allen 2013). These studies show that those individuals whose parents have displayed behaviors that are more supportive of homosexuality have higher self-esteem and may feel more comfortable to come out to them as gay or lesbian at younger ages (Beaty 1999). Being able to come out to supportive parents generates an environment that contributes to the well-being of gay and lesbian individuals (Beaty 1999; Goldberg and Allen 2013). Coming out to their parents at a younger age may also help to create a pathway for discussing sexual topics that include gay and lesbian specific issues, although a study has yet to focus on this aspect of the coming out process.

School-Based Sex Education

Elliott (2012, p. 34) refers to the “danger discourse” which often surrounds the conversation of teenage sexual activity. Teenage sexual activity is often discussed in terms of being dangerous and something from which teens need protection by focusing only on various consequences that can occur like pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections (Elliott 2012; Schalet 2011). This discourse, commonly employed in sex education courses, often takes place and is discussed within a heterosexual framework. School-based sexual education is often controversial with arguments over what should or should not be taught in these programs. There is also the longstanding argument over whether the school environment is the appropriate place to be discussing sexual topics (Zimmerman 2015). Zimmerman (2015, p. 3) asserts that “state sponsored school would come to dominate nearly every aspect of children’s lives, but it rarely and then only gingerly touched on sex.” Further, Republicans and the religious right have dominated the opposing discourse of school-based sex education (Irvine 2002), which leaves issues such as abortion, contraception, masturbation, and homosexuality largely invisible within sex education courses (Zimmerman 2015). Currently, only 13 states require a discussion of sexual orientation within their sex education classes; nine states require that discussion be inclusive whereas the other four require only negative information about sexual orientation (Guttmacher Institute 2016). This results in school-based sex education programs being largely inadequate because they do not address the sexual health needs that all youth may face, especially those needs of gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals.

The exclusion of homosexuality results in a disadvantage regarding sexual decisions, and especially so for gay and lesbian youth. There are a variety of reasons that have been cited as to why homosexuality is not discussed in school-based sexual education. In their research, Kennedy and Covell (2009) discuss how the majority of teachers hold negative attitudes toward lesbian and gay individuals, oppose incorporating homosexual topics into the classroom, and feel uncomfortable discussing homosexuality, which makes addressing the topic challenging. Boushka (2006) argues that religious views and discrimination are the reasons for the lack of teachings about homosexuality. Irvine (2002) claims that the religious right and Republicans have dominated policies related to sex education and refuse to allow any type of discussion related to homosexuality. Sex education teachers may lack administrative support (Zimmerman 2015) and fail to cover topics considered to be controversial such as homosexuality. However, not covering topics related to a variety of sexual orientations allows heteronormative structures to be maintained and oppression, stigmatization, and marginalization to persist.

Method

Participants

Participants for the present study ranged in age from 19 to 25, with six women and four men. Eight participants were White, one was African-American, and the other identified as multiracial. All the men indicated that their sexual orientation was gay; three women identified as lesbian, two as pansexual lesbians, and one as bisexual. Pansexual orientation indicates an attraction to a person’s personality; this may or may not be sexual and may or may not be an attraction to someone of the same sex. The two women who identified this way claimed that this was their main way of classifying their sexual orientation, but because each was in a relationship with a woman, they also considered themselves lesbians. All but one of the participants identified their parents as being heterosexual.

Procedure

I conducted ten in-depth interviews to examine what gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals remembered learning from their parents and school regarding sex education. Eight participants were recruited from a large U.S. southeastern public university through campus fliers and course announcements, whereas the other two were referred to the study by previous interviewees. Interviews were conducted between April 2015 and August 2015. Each interview was semi-structured and guided by 21 open-ended questions (which are available as an Online Supplement). All interviews were conducted by the author who identifies as a White, heterosexual woman in her late twenties.

I began each individual interview by asking a general question about the sex education they received while growing up. For example, the first question stated “Tell me generally about the sex education you received at home while you were growing up?” More specific questions followed that were related to topics covered, contexts of conversation, beneficial conversations, sexual orientation, and differing conversations once participant’s sexual orientation was revealed. My subsequent questions focused on sex education they received at school, followed by specific questions about what information was provided. Next, I asked about where participants got their sex education information if none was provided at home or school. Interviews were conducted in a place the interviewee felt comfortable, commonly a private campus study room or a local restaurant. Interviews lasted from 40 min to 2 h, with most lasting approximately 1 h. All interviews were digitally recorded and then transcribed verbatim as soon as possible once the interview was conducted. Detailed notes were taken after each interview, and memo writing began after the first interview was completed.

My analytical strategy represents a grounded theory approach, consisting of two main coding stages (Charmaz 2006). Based on the goals of the research and because all participants were asked to respond to questions regarding parental teachings about sexuality (“Tell me generally about the sex education you received at home while you were growing up?”), school sex education (“Did you receive sex education from your school?”), and where they were learning about sex (“If you didn’t learn about sex at home or at school, where did you learn about it?”), I began with these as three broad coding categories. To analyze the data in more depth, I then sub-coded each of these broad categories based on themes that emerged from within each category.

Throughout my analytical process, constant comparison (Charmaz 2006) was used to examine and compare each aspect of the data. During the first stage of coding, I listened to recorded interviews and transcribed them. I then read and reread interview transcripts numerous times utilizing line-by-line coding to develop as many codes within each category as possible. The second coding stage consisted of more focused coding where I paid special attention to key codes that I had identified during the line-by-line coding process. This allowed for further investigation into codes that had been identified as particularly significant during the first state of coding. The following results are presented in accordance with the three broad categories that were developed based on the initial research questions (sex education in the home, sex education at school, and sex education from outside sources). The sub-categories that were identified through the second stage of the coding process are presented as emergent themes in each section of the following results. Table 1 provides demographic information about each participant by pseudonym, which is used to identify the source of each quote presented here.

Table 1 Participants’ characteristics
Full size table

Results

Overall, three main themes emerged within each of the three broad categories. Table 2 provides each main category and the themes that emerged within each category along with a description and an example. The first category focuses on sex education in the home (see Table 2a). The initial theme relates to the absence of sexual conversations that take place in the home. Participants indicate that the topic of sexuality makes their parents uncomfortable in general which is exhibited in their lack of sexual conversations. Parents also assume that sex education will be covered in school, therefore they fail to engage in discussions about sexuality. Secondly, those parents who do attempt to engage in sexual conversations typically do so from a heterosexual standpoint, and once adolescents have come out to their parents, heteronormativity and heterosexual ideals continue to dictate conversations in various ways. Additionally, parents exhibit a lack of knowledge regarding same-sex sexual topics, which helps to explain why parents continuously discuss heterosexual sexuality.

Table 2 Definitions and examples of sexual experiences themes
Full size table

The second main category focuses on sex education at school (see Table 2b). Participants discuss school-based sex education as primarily focusing on abstinence while utilizing “danger discourse” (Elliott 2012, p. 34). Overwhelmingly participants point out that the sex education they received while in school was exclusionary and useless to LGB individuals because the majority of teachings are heterosexually focused. Participants indicate that sex education provided in school is inadequate not only for them, but also for their straight peers. The environment created and the information provided leaves these LGB individuals feeling invisible, unimportant, and uninformed.

The lack of information conveyed regarding LGB sex education leads to the third main category, which is obtaining sex education information on their own from outside sources (see Table 2c). Various media outlets provide the majority of information the participants received both related to sexual health and sexual behaviors. Largely, the sex education received at home, school, or through one’s own searching revolves around the “danger discourse” (Elliott 2012, p. 34), which indicates that teenage sexual activity is dangerous and something from which teens need protection regardless of sexual orientation. This type of discourse leaves a gap in the information participants want and need versus what is provided to them. The “danger discourse” and the gap in information related to sex education are both commonalities that LGB individuals have with their straight counterparts.

Sex Education in the Home

Participants point out that sex education in the home is either nonexistent or heterosexually focused; they also discuss how they view their parents as lacking knowledge about LGB sex, which helps to explain why sexual conversations are heterosexually focused before and after adolescents have come out. As other studies indicate, there is a lack of communication from parents regarding sexual topics (Epstein and Ward 2008; Irvine 2002; Zimmerman 2015). Six interviewees discuss how there was little to no formal conversations about sexual topics as they were growing up. Reasons given demonstrate that discussing sexuality, regardless of one’s sexual orientation, is uncomfortable and taboo for both the adolescent and the parent:

Sex definitely makes my parents uncomfortable. The fact that they don’t talk about it … there’s a certain silence about it I guess. And I definitely don’t feel comfortable talking to them about my sexuality. And it would have been uncomfortable for me [to talk about it] because I know it would have been uncomfortable for them. I know that they probably didn’t receive a good sexual education, so I guess I can’t really expect them to teach anything and honestly I really didn’t want them to … I think that I knew I couldn’t get it out of my parents so I didn’t even try. (Jack)

Kate discusses the taboo nature of sexual discussions as she was growing up:

I didn’t get a sex education, sex was kind of a forbidden topic. We didn’t talk about sex. I guess because I come from a more conservative, more Republican, more strict household where you dress nice for church on Sunday and you spend time with family and what not, and sex just is more of a topic that’s not discussed. (Kate)

Lack of direct conversations with parents about sex communicates to adolescents that their parents are uncomfortable discussing sexuality in general. They also seem to perceive their parents as lacking knowledge on sexual topics, leaving the adolescents to their own devices when it comes to sex education. Participants indicate that their parents also appear to believe that sex education will be taught in school so they fail to talk about it at home. Allen states “My parents never really talked about that [sex]. I feel like they might have wanted to, but they didn’t because they knew the schools would teach us.” This can be problematic when schools are inadequate at teaching relevant same-sex sexual topics, which will be discussed below, or fail to offer such courses altogether:

They didn’t offer wellness class in high school…and we had no sex education. It was never talked about it was never brought up. And maybe that’s why my mom didn’t talk to me about it, she assumed that I was going to take a class like that and then she wouldn’t have to cover it. But, we never got one. (Kate)

Those parents who did attempt to provide their child with sexual information tended to do so using outside resources to help:

I think I was eight when she [her mother] first kind of brought up menstruation and things like that. She had this book and it had all these pictures and it was kind of a little graphic for me like with skeletons and how the anatomy of it all works. And I was kind of like, it was interesting but scary at the same time because I was so young. (Lisa)

Lisa’s example shows that her mother was trying to teach her about her body, but that is not the same as discussing sexuality. Studies indicate that parents may be more apt to discuss topics that are considered less controversial like puberty (Collins et al. 2008) when compared to other topics such as homosexuality. Research also shows that parents may consider puberty a natural and normal part of growing up, but view their adolescents as too young and immature to engage in sexuality behaviors and conversations (Elliott 2010). The materials Lisa’s mother used left her feeling scared and confused because she was so young at the time and they failed to cover topics specifically related to sexuality. Overall, parents avoid teaching sexual education to their children or leave it to someone or something else. Whether it be the school system or scientific books, parents are relying on other outlets to teach their children about sexuality. Parents can be viewed as an important source of sexual communication; therefore, not communicating can be problematic (Epstein and Ward 2008).

Six of the participants recall their parents engaging in conversations related to sexuality. (Note that the number of participants does not add up here because two participants gave responses that would fit in this theme and the previous theme.) The nature of these conversations is complex because they still reflect a heteronormative stance before and after the adolescent has come out to their parents. Here, Bethany recalls a conversation she had with her mother before coming out:

I do remember her making a big point about men and women, she just kept on saying men and women shouldn’t do any kissing or touching until they’re married. I always believed my mom kind of had an idea about me being a lesbian but she kept on saying boys and girls, men and women, shouldn’t touch, you shouldn’t do anything until you’re married and she just kept using that. (Bethany)

As previous studies have indicated, parents assume their child will be heterosexual and push that sexuality onto their children regardless of their ultimate sexual orientation (Martin 2009); however, adolescents assume their parents know their sexual orientation as something other than heterosexual long before they disclose their same-sex attractions. As Bethany indicates, there is awareness of the heterosexual content within these conversations which can leave individuals feeling invisible and hurt when they do not feel acknowledged in the sexual conversation.

Once participants have come out to their parents, sexual conversations change but they still reflect a heterosexual ideal. For example, parents may continue to discuss only heterosexual sex in an attempt to change their adolescent. Colin describes sexual conversations with his dad after coming out:

I guess [dad] hinted maybe I’m just delayed or something. Or, maybe that what I’m feeling is maybe not really there and I haven’t noticed girls or something. He would always talk about how I wasn’t exposed to that so I don’t know where you got that from, that was how he was at first. So he wouldn’t talk about sex, it would be mostly like he was hoping my talking about straight sex that would kind of get me I guess interested in it. (Colin)

Colin felt his dad was trying to change his sexual orientation by only engaging in heterosexual talk once he came out. Other participants also recall their parents engaging in heterosexual talk once they came out.

Although no other participants describe their parents as trying to change them, three of the women participants discussed how their parents made comments related to pregnancy and having children. For example, when asked if her mother ever had any conversations related to sexuality or relationships once she came out Kate says “No, she just told me I was fine, I couldn’t get pregnant. She was like well if there’s one benefit, you’re not going to get pregnant.” The other two women participants echo this idea about pregnancy in their responses to the same question.

What’s interesting is when you bring up children, my mom’s kind of almost like how is that going to happen? (Lisa)

He [my dad] was just like “so you like girls?” and I was like yea. He was like “does that mean that you won’t have any babies?” and I was like no, that’s not necessarily what that means. (Bethany)

First, no male participants describe any comments from their parents related to having children which indicates a gendered assumption that women should be concerned about pregnancy, either with prevention or wanting to have children. Second, these comments are still made in a heterosexual framework because parents indicate that if their child is in a same-sex relationship, their opportunity for children diminishes. These comments show that parents do not consider adoption and artificial insemination as means to creating a family. Lastly, these comments directly relate sexuality to procreation, resulting in not only the invisibility of pleasure within a sexual relationship, but also the complete elimination of gay and lesbian sexuality.

Six participants describe their parents discussing sexual topics with them. Participants indicate those parents who have discussed heterosexual sexual topics may find it challenging to transition into discussing gay and lesbian sexual topics once their child has come out to them. Kerry, whose father had discussed birth control and condoms with her, reflects on how things changed when she started dating a woman:

Maybe he felt awkward, maybe he felt like oh boy you know how do I go about this? So, it was a learning process for me and I guess it was a learning process for my dad. Because now it, you know here he was preaching condoms, birth control, and now he’s like well I mean what do I tell her you know? I don’t have any advice to tell her. And the same for my mom, you know she she’s like um, I don’t really know what to do? (Kerry)

Lisa also points to the idea that her parents may not have known what to say to her once she came out:

I think they [my parents] also probably didn’t know much about, I’m sure they knew almost nothing about sexually transmitted diseases as far as with the lesbian community…I don’t know if they assumed we weren’t sexually active either. (Lisa)

Each of these examples indicate that parents may lack adequate knowledge regarding same-sex sexual topics which may explain why they are not engaging in sexual conversations once they learn of their adolescents same-sex sexual attraction.

Overall adolescents perceive their parents to be uncomfortable with discussing sexual topics, leading them to allow other outlets to teach their children about sexuality. Unfortunately, these substitutions are not always effective. Although parents may have the assumption that their child has a different sexual orientation than that of heterosexual, they do not have conversations related to alternative sexual preferences and specific sex education related to those preferences. Once adolescents have officially come out, the power of heteronormativity continues to persist as parents either ignore sexual topics all together or only discuss heterosexual sex. Those parents who attempt to continue sexual conversations once their child has revealed their sexual identity may lack the knowledge to do so effectively.

Sex Education at School

Overwhelmingly, participants told stories of experiencing sex education classes at school that were abstinence-based, heterosexually focused, and strictly excluded discussions of LGB individuals. A variety of other studies document and describe this same environment (Elia and Eliason 2010; Elliott 2014; McNeill 2013). These classes often engaged in the “danger discourse” (Elliott 2012, p. 34) surrounding teenage sexual activity by focusing on pregnancy and STD prevention. Allen describes how the danger discourse played out in his class:

They constantly preached abstinence. And then the second thing all it was, was a slideshow of diseases. And so it had that vibe of they really, they were really trying to get you to not have sex at all. Instead of teaching you how to do it safely, it was just an intimidation tactic. (Allen)

Overall the classes indicate a deficiency not only in providing information related to sexuality and LGB concerns, but also in acknowledging the wide range of sexual experiences that straight teens may have because there was no discussion related to mechanics and healthy or pleasurable sex. Also, participants indicate that these classes should have been provided sooner because some teens were “obviously sexually active” (Jack) before the classes took place. Stressing abstinence when most adolescents engage in sexual intercourse before leaving high school (Epstein and Ward 2008) is ineffective for all those who participate in these types of classes.

Based on participants’ experiences, sex education in schools is typically included in a high school health education course, taught by a coach, for approximately 1–2 weeks in length; however some participants recall classes being only a few days. Interviewees were required to attend these classes to fulfill the course requirement. Not one participant could recall discussing any same-sex sexual or relationship topics in these classes. Two participants did take a health class during their freshman year of college that “mentioned” same-sex relationships; however, even in college this topic was not given adequate time and instruction. Here, Tucker discusses his formal sex education:

I think even as early as middle school it might have been briefly touched on. But for sure in high school they had a sex ed through like health and wellness and science class. And then this past semester in my [college] wellness class they did an intensive sex ed and STI education, so I just really got the full I think, full spectrum of the education at least through the heterosexual side of sex. Never really touched on any gay relations like how lesbians would go about having sex or two gay males. Most sex education at the school can and probably should cover, but they didn’t really slide into gay relationships or sex. (Tucker)

All of the participants describe how they believe that same-sex relationships and sexual topics should be covered in their sex education courses, however, this is rarely the case. Most feel alienated and uncomfortable in these classes, leading them to withhold any questions they may have or check out altogether. Jack recalls his sex education class:

You know I didn’t even feel like I had concerns because they simply just did not feel valid. Any concern that I could have thought of wouldn’t have been regarded as valid. And I felt like they [the teacher] would have been unfit to answer it anyway. And I would be ridiculed for bringing anything up. And so I did not even consider what my concerns may be … it wasn’t an option to have one. I think in a lot of ways honestly I tried checking out because I felt very uncomfortable being in there, because none of it applied to me …I remember leaving that class and feeling like that was not helpful at all. That was so stupid is how I felt. I felt so different from the other boys, I mean I had certainly acknowledged to myself that at that point and to others that I had no desire to have sex with women. (Jack)

Bethany echoes some of Jack’s feelings about her sex education class:

Of course all throughout the thing, everything was male or female. They never once mentioned any other type of sexualities. So that made me uncomfortable for the first part. I felt like they should know that in high school that people are going to start knowing that, if they don’t already know that they’re gay or lesbian or bisexual and that they also would want to know about their sex on their end or how they should protect themselves during that and not having the exact same type of intercourse I guess. Any questions that we had it made us feel like that we couldn’t ask them or we couldn’t talk about it or we were ourselves taboo cause we didn’t even get a mention…I just didn’t know why, that if there were a lot of people in my high school who were lesbian or gay, so I felt like we are a part of the population in general why can’t you guys kind of talk to us. Why do we have to be so secretive? What’s the big deal I guess…it’s not like you know showing lesbians or showing homosexuals is going to turn every other student homosexual or lesbians. I felt like that if you guys kind of included us then we would realize oh that’s for us, we should probably pay attention, instead of saying just heterosexual, I’m like ok I don’t really know that much about that so I’m just not going to pay attention. So I felt like it was a waste of resources for us to be there and for us to not have gotten talked to. I kind of felt, made us feel like we’re not we’re not even worth talking to. So it was demeaning to me a little bit. (Bethany)

The environment created and the heterosexual discourse that surrounds these classes leave LGB individuals feeling bad, left out, and at a disadvantage. They feel as if they are invisible and straight sex is the only thing worthy of discussion.

In addition, the power of heteronormativity in current U.S. society leads some participants to expect this type of exclusion. When asked about how he felt as a gay male in these classes, Tucker states:

It’s natural at that point [being excluded]. Like you know that you’re not going to get the inclusion. It just becomes second nature like you’re not going to get the full experience. But I was never hurt or felt overly secluded because it had been like a whole life, that separation like not being included. With just everyday conversations, it was based from a heterosexual experience and so you just kind of assimilate along with that and just run with it. (Tucker)

The heteronormative structure is so powerful that this type of treatment, being excluded, begins to feel normal. LGB individuals may learn to adjust their expectations and behaviors to “assimilate” as Tucker stated, which allows heterosexist inequality to persist at various levels especially in sex education courses. This type of exclusion continues into college health courses, which is surprising because common discourse is that colleges are places where diversity of thought and progressive approaches exists.

Repeated exclusion of LGB individuals from sex education courses can leave them without much needed knowledge to protect themselves when engaging in sexual activity. Kerry demonstrates this point by saying:

So college was more informative but when it comes to same-sex couples, there’s nothing out there. I guess you have to kind of connect the dots. Like if you’re a male, you know this is what I learned, what did you learn, and hope for the best. And kind of the same with females, you know this is what I learned, this is what you learned, let’s put it together and hope for the best. So it should be its own class, it should be a separate topic, like a sub topic of sexual education. And then straight, gay, lesbian, you should have three categories…but there aren’t, there’s nothing! There’s nothing for anyone like that. So I guess you have to leave it to your own self to decide your sexual education and connect the dots. (Kerry)

Unfortunately, most LGB individuals are left with “connecting the dots” and find it necessary to take initiative and learn about sexuality on their own.

Sex Education from Outside Sources

Each participant highlighted how they did not learn anything useful or pertinent from their parents or school provided sex education classes regarding their specific sexuality and sexual health needs. Therefore, they sought their own sex education by pursuing information on their own. Participants indicate that their sexual information was obtained mostly through the internet, LGB-specific programming, or from being the member of an LGB group. Although some respondents retrieved information from what could be considered accurate and credible sources, others relied on sources that are not necessarily accurate, educational, or realistic.

In their searches, the internet is the primary avenue for finding sexual information. They looked at information from lesbian- or gay-specific sites. Participants primarily sought out information on websites, chat rooms, and social media sites. Jack recalls the information he obtained from the internet and its importance to him:

I learned most of my information from the internet. I remember Planned Parenthood website, that one was pretty good. I liked Planned Parenthood’s website, I learned a lot on there. I feel like there were some queer, something with the title queer in it that was a nice education website. I’ve had some online not like romantic relationships but online friendships with some people who would talk about sex every now and then so they sort of taught me things I wouldn’t have learned otherwise. Yea, but without the internet, I don’t know what I would have done. I mean I probably would not be who I am if I hadn’t learned what I learned when I learned it. (Jack)

The internet can be a good source to obtain information and build connections with others in the LGB community; however, the internet is not always the safest and most accurate source of information. As Kerry puts it, “Google is my friend, but google is not my friend; because anyone can post on google and so it’s not always accurate information. It could be, it’s not always factual, it’s probably opinion.” Providing LGB individuals with safe and medically accurate websites is important because the internet is heavily used.

Another place that interviewees pointed out as a source for information was media that specifically depict gay characters. Tucker said he would watch LOGO, which is a television channel aimed at LGB viewers, and this provided him with positive depictions of a variety of gay and lesbian people along with sexual health information.

The LOGO channel, that was definitely gay oriented. I think that’s where I got some more specific details, like information on AIDS and how to prevent and be aware and what the actual facts were and stuff like that. So that’s probably where I got more inclusive and helpful information. (Tucker)

Television was also used to guide behaviors that some engaged in. For example, Bethany recalls:

Experimenting and movies. Just like with girlfriends or watching movies, well not movies but TV shows. There was this TV show when I was little or when I was in high school called South of Nowhere…it was about our experience, it was like the first show of lesbians, so we watched that and it would have kissing scenes and like nothing really in-depth but we would kind of mimic what we saw on the TV show. (Bethany)

Kate indicates that she also learned about sex through a different type of lesbian specific media:

I guess terrible to admit, but porn. That’s what a lot of kids did, so I mean other than that you just had to do a little exploring and you’re like oh and then you learn about things that way. But that was my way of learning. I guess like browsing through types of videos, through different categories and such. Oh what is this, what is that, that kind of thing. The access to porn and being about to see oh ok so this is what it looks like, this is what is sounds like and that kind of stuff. (Kate)

Gay and lesbian individuals may use these types of media as a source of behaviors in which to engage, but this could be problematic if television shows and pornography are not providing all the necessary information to be sexually safe and healthy. And media in general rarely provide fully accurate sexual information and depictions. Therefore, media sources in general may not be the best place for LGB individuals to obtain sex education information. Providing accurate depictions of gay and lesbian individuals in media is a good way to normalize these types of relationships and make them more mainstream, but relying on them for sex education information may not be the best strategy for educating LGB youth on sexual topics.

Some participants described joining LGB-specific groups. These groups commonly would provide some type of sex education that was exclusively for LGB individuals. Colin discusses being a part of this type of group:

My senior year I was part of this group, it was all LGBT teens like myself and we had [a local HIV/AIDS organization] come and talk to us. They had demonstrations you know that kind of stuff. They showed us items and talked about diseases I mean they went through everything. So that’s where I got it all mostly was senior year. So as far as high school that’s where I got it from. (Colin)

This type of experience was rare, however it could be considered one of the most reliable and effective ways for LGB individuals to obtain sexual health information. Unfortunately, not everyone has the means and access to this type of program; therefore incorporating these types of programs and the material they include into mainstream public school sex education classrooms could help to narrow the gap in sex education between straight and gay students.

Overall participants indicate a want and a need for information related to gay and lesbian sexuality and sexual topics. These examples show that participants would like information that covers a wide range of topics from STD’s and condoms to the mechanics of how two women or two men engage in sexual intercourse. These examples also point to a number of commonalities between straight adolescents and gay adolescents when considering sex education in general. The first is that the danger discourse surrounds gay and lesbian sex education as well. Those participants who sought out information on their own mentioned how it was related to condoms and STD prevention. Next, there is a lack of discussion related to healthy sexuality. Whether gay or straight, there appears to be an omission in discussing topics such as masturbation (singular or mutual), how to have sex (oral, anal, or vaginal), or engaging in foreplay. Based on the examples, it appears that participants would like to receive this type of information because they sought it out on their own, in some not so healthy avenues, when it was not presented to them. These participants largely had to seek out information on their own because their family and school environments failed to provide them with adequate sex education knowledge. This results in them having more in common with their straight counterparts when considering the information that is wanted and needed in relation to sexuality compared to what is actually provided.

Discussion

In my study, participants perceive their parents as having a general discomfort with discussing sexual topics, leaving them to believe this is why parents fail to provide such information. Angera et al. (2008, p. 167) came to the same conclusion when they state “the implicit messages from parents who do not engage in the conversations may be that they are too uncomfortable addressing sexuality.” There is also the assumption that adolescents will receive some form of sex education in school; however, this is problematic when school-based sex education is limiting to all individuals, but especially those who are LGB. School-provided sex education frequently fails at providing a wide range of information related to a variety of sexualities and sexual experiences that adolescents may have. Those parents who do discuss sexual topics tend to do so strictly within a heterosexual framework. Heteronormativity structures the conversations that do take place, before and after adolescents have come out to their parents. Because heterosexual parents are also products of a heteronormative society, and the majority of participants indicated that their parents were heterosexual, they may lack knowledge and find it challenging to discuss LGB specific topics once their child has come out to them. This leaves LGB individuals with a variety of information related to heterosexual sex education, but uninformed, frustrated, and upset that LGB specific sexual concerns are not addressed.

Not only are parental conversations excluding LGB individuals, but school-based sex education is as well. This exclusion has been documented by a variety of studies (Elia and Eliason 2010; Elliott 2014; McNeill 2013). Also, these courses typically engage in using the “danger discourse” (Elliott 2012, p. 34) to discuss sexual topics, which leaves classes focusing on abstinence along with pregnancy and STD prevention—all within a heterosexual context. LGB individuals once again are provided with a variety of information related to heterosexual sexuality, but fail to gain knowledge related to specific questions and concerns they may have. This lack of knowledge regarding sexual issues can leave them at a disadvantage when making sexual decisions. Therefore, if LGB individuals want to be educated and knowledgeable about sexuality, they must seek out that information on their own, which is what many participants chose to do.

Most participants did not recall gaining any useful sex education information from their parents or school-provided sex education courses. Therefore, the knowledge they did have came from seeking out information on their own. The internet was a main source for gaining information, which has been documented as a supplemental sex education source for sexual minority students (Pingel et al. 2013). Participants also gained sexual information through television shows and movies depicting LGB persons. In addition to experimenting with sexual behaviors, participants used media sources like pornography and television shows as a guide for behaviors in which to engage. Gaining sexual knowledge through these types of media outlets can be problematic when the information is not always accurate (Hust et al. 2008).

Limitations and Future Research

Findings from my study should be interpreted within the context of its limitations. The sample size of ten is small, and most participants were White and educated, which could be a different perspective from more diverse samples. My study was limited to those individuals who had come out to their parents, and those who have not may have a different experience. Also, participants were asked to recall past events which can be challenged regarding the reliability of their reporting. Younger participants may be able to provide more recent and accurate accounts of their sex education. The findings presented here are limited to those individuals who volunteered and were willing to be interviewed, indicating some level of comfort and “outness” with these issues.

Future research should focus on expanding the sample to include a larger and more diverse group of interviewees. Studies should focus on heterosexual parents and examine why they provide sexual information within a strictly heterosexual context, even if they think or would be accepting of a child with a different sexual orientation. Other research should also focus on interviewing parents of gay and lesbian individuals to explore sexual information they have given. To help provide gay and lesbian individuals with more effective sex education, it would be beneficial to explore what topics and information they believe is important for parents and schools to offer. Finding ways to provide more inclusive sex education for all individuals is beneficial for everyone, especially for sexual minorities.

Practice Implications

My research has shown that there are a variety of similarities when considering sex education for LGB individuals and their straight peers. A general discomfort exists regarding parental sexual communication with their adolescent, which is compounded by an adolescent’s gay, lesbian, or bisexual sexual orientation. Conversations that do occur continue to take place within a heterosexual framework, even if parents assume their child is not straight. My research shows that LGB adolescents recall that they did not learn much that particularly useful to them from their parents or school-based sex education because these topics are typically excluded; therefore, they must educate themselves. Parental sexual conversations and school-provided sex education commonly lack the wide range of sexual issues that LGB adolescents may encounter. My study reveals that there is a gap in the information that adolescents want and need with what they are provided. Further, the “danger discourse” (Elliott 2012, p. 34) has commonly been examined within a heterosexual context. However, I show that it also takes place when considering the sex education of LGB individuals. Those participants who sought out information about sexuality on their own commonly referred to gaining knowledge on STD prevention. It is important that LGB adolescents receive information related to STD prevention, but receiving information related to other topics such as healthy relationships or sexual identity provides a more well-rounded sexual education.

My findings here demonstrate a variety of implications for sex education in general and LGB individuals more explicitly. As Zimmerman (2015) notes, there continues to be controversy about the appropriateness of sex education in the U.S. school environment. My research indicates that providing sex education in schools is not only appropriate but also necessary because many parents failed to provide sexual information because they assumed the school would. My findings also suggest that sex education should be broadened to include a wide variety of information that includes sexuality itself as well as covers topics related to sexuality. Sexual education policies should be written to not only include LGB-specific topics, but also provide training for teachers so that they are able to effectively teach these topics. It is imperative that accountability measures are also put in place to make sure all topics are covered within the classroom.

In addition to schools being more inclusive of LGB sexual topics, it is important for parents to do the same. Parents who do discuss sexual topics with their child should also incorporate information relating to a wide variety of sexualities. This can be beneficial regardless of an adolescent’s ultimate sexual orientation because the information they receive can be disseminated to a friend, sibling, classmate, etc. This inclusiveness would also help to teach the adolescent respect and acceptance for all types of relationships. Parents should educate themselves on a variety of sexual topics so that they are able to provide their adolescent with accurate information. Awareness regarding sexual education classes at school is also beneficial to parents. They should be knowledgeable regarding if these classes are being taught and what topics are being covered; this gives them the opportunity to supplement any information that may be lacking. Parents can also advocate for more inclusive sex education within schools.

Conclusion

Participants in my study highlighted how LGB individuals and issues continue to be overlooked when it comes to sex education. There were a variety of explanations as to why, but one thing was consistent among all participants: sex education, whether at home or school, can and should be inclusive to LGB young people. Even though these individuals did not recall receiving sex education from their parents or schools related to their specific sexualities, they found ways to educate themselves and they all had ideas on how to improve sex education inclusivity. As the United States moves forward in equality for lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals and relationships, it is important that we incorporate specific topics for these individuals in the discussion of sex education. Overall, if we are to provide a well-rounded, equality-driven sex education for all individuals, then parents and schools must include topics related to LGB individuals. Until sex education provides a wide range of information on wide ranges of topics for all sexualities, inequality, marginalization, and especially heteronormativity will continue to persist.