Although sexuality in adults is considered to be an integral compo nent of healthy functioning, researchers of adolescents have ignored the obvious developmental trajectory to this crucial aspect of healthy adult functioning. Instead, as we have discussed, previous research on adolescent girls’ sexuality has operated from a framework that views adolescent sex uality as pathological. This pathological orientation recognizes that the sexual behavior of adolescent girls can be associated with dangerous, even deadly, consequences ranging from undesirable social reputations to un wanted pregnancies to sexual violence to sexually transmitted diseases in eluding AIDS. We do not propose that researchers should ignore the po tential dangerous sequelae of adolescent girls’ sexuality or the possibility that some girls may experience their sexuality in unhealthful, even path ological ways. However, we contend that researchers should not neglect the healthful, developmentally appropriate spectrum of girls’ sexuality.
Some recent preliminary findings from an ongoing project being con ducted by Joseph Allen and his associates at the University of Virginia highlight the importance of examining girls’ levels of responsibility in their sexual behaviors. Preliminary findings from this project indicate that sex ually active adolescents are not less competent than adolescents who ab stain from intercourse and that adolescents who engage in more responsible sexual activity feel more competent themselves and are perceived as more competent by others than adolescents who engage in more risky sexual activities (Cullen & Boykin, 1995). Studies such as this one support the contention that sexuality falls on a developmental continuum and that it is important to differentiate the adolescents for whom sexual behavior is symptomatic of psychological disturbance from those for whom sexual be havior is associated with healthy, developmentally appropriate exploration.
In spite of empirical neglect of the normative development of ado lescent sexuality, developmental theorists have considered sexuality as a healthy aspect of adolescent development (Erikson, 1968; Sullivan, 1953). Erikson postulated that identity development is the primary developmental task of adolescence. He, and others who have expanded on his work (Jos selson, 1994; Marcia, 1994), consider the integration of sexuality into one’s sense of who she is and how the social world views her as a major aspect of identity. Sullivan’s interpersonal theory considers the development of intimacy and the capacity to integrate sexuality into intimate relationships to be the primary task of adolescence. These developmental theories, in spite of the pathological orientation of most empirical research, make in tuitive sense in a developmental perspective.
At least in the context of heterosexual adult married relationships (the current holders of power in this country), there is little argument that sexuality is a healthy aspect of these adults’ lives. In fact, there is a fairly large field of therapists who specialize in treating couples experiencing sex ual difficulties, and the failure to express sexuality in the context of mar riage is considered problematic by the general society. Yet, unlike almost all other developmental processes (e. g., ego development, moral develop ment, social development, cognitive development, physical development), we do not understand how sexuality develops. It clearly is not something that suddenly, almost miraculously, appears after marriage and was not ex perienced in any prior capacity.
We need a framework for viewing sexuality as a normal developmen tal process that would allow us to ask questions about developmental dif ferences in the experience of sexuality. For example, do early adolescents experience sexuality in different ways than middle or late adolescents or adults? One may suspect that sexuality serves different purposes at different life stages. For example, early adolescents may experience their sexuality as a means of becoming closer and establishing power among their same gender, platonic friendships; whereas, sexuality may be a means for older adolescents to experience connection with their romantic partners. These type of questions can only be addressed with a normative framework for understanding adolescent sexuality. Additionally, and ironically, working from a normative framework allows greater light to be shed on the pa thology of sexuality. For example, asking how one differentiates between adolescents whose sexual behaviors are expressions of normal, healthy ex ploration and those whose expressions of sexuality are symptomatic of se vere psychological turmoil is an important empirical question that would be of great use to many. We cannot ask this question unless we operate from a normative model that assumes sexuality can be healthy in adolescents.