Current cultural and theoretical perspectives of the meaning of sexuality to female adults have transitioned from an emphasis on reproduction to a view of sexuality as a healthy component of adult functioning and personal identity (D’Emilio & Freedman, 1988; Foucault, 1978; Irvine, 1994; Weeks, 1981). This view has only recently been adopted as a lens for investigating adolescent sexuality.
Two recent professional forums exemplify this transition (Feldman & Paikoff, 1994; Irvine, 1994). Janice Irvine’s (1994) recent edited book, Sexual Cultures and the Construction of Adolescent Identities, presents a collection of articles that view adolescent sexuality from a normative perspective and posits that “sexual meanings, sexual practices, and adolescents’ sexual bodies are complicated social artifacts mediated by such influences as race, ethnicity, gender, sexual identity, class, and physical ability” (p. vii). The authors of the articles take a social constructionist stance and argue that adolescent sexualities cannot be understood outside the context of cultural analysis.
In addition, at the 1994 meeting of the Society for Research on Adolescence, the primary mainstream arena for communication about research pertaining to adolescents in this country, 4 hours (twice the typical time allotment) were devoted to a symposium exploring “new perspectives on adolescent sexuality.” Three major points were emphasized at this symposium: researchers and others interested in adolescent sexuality need to (a) promote greater understanding of adolescent sexuality in a normative context; (b) promote enhanced theoretical understanding of adolescent sexuality; and (c) understand individual differences in the meaning and experience of adolescent sexuality, particularly the influences of gender, ethnicity, SES, peer cultures, and media exposure. Thus, in the past 2 years, researchers’ construction of adolescent sexuality has begun to change.