Few studies have taken a dyadic approach to investigating adolescent sexuality. This is surprising as dyadic relationships form the principal con text in which girls express their sexuality and the initial context in which they make meaning of their sexual behavior. As we discussed earlier, this may relate to a Western tendency toward viewing individualness rather than relatedness as important (Gilligan, 1982) or to a cultural tendency toward viewing women as the gatekeepers of sexual behavior (Strouse & Fabes, 1987).
The dating relationship has been found to have a strong impact on the initiation and frequency of sexual intercourse (Jorgensen, King, & Tor rey, 1980; Leigh, Weddle, & Loewen, 1988; Miller, McCoy, & Olson, 1986; Zelnick & Shah, 1983). In one retrospective study, college students reflected on their first sexual partners. Students who reported having sex prior to the age of sixteen reported less commitment to their partners (Faulk — enberry, Vincent, James, & Johnson, 1987), implying that sex may have different meanings for couples of different developmental levels. Two research teams working with college samples developed typologies of dating couples and related the different types of couples to their sexual behavior (Christopher & Cate, 1985; Peplau, Rubin, &. Hill, 1977). The two studies found similar types of couples and found that couples used sex in different ways. For example, both research teams identified a type of couple who reported engaging in sexual behaviors primarily for erotic, physically pleasurable motivations. Commitment, although described by these couples as desirable, was not a crucial requisite for choosing to engage in sexual in tercourse. Another type of couple described in these studies reported that they engaged in sexual intercourse for emotional reasons. These couples tended to view commitment as an important ingredient to their sexual behaviors. Both research teams also identified a type of couple who decided not to engage in intercourse in spite of a strong commitment. These couples saw love as an insufficient reason to decide to engage in sexual inter course. Thus, the function of sexual intercourse and commitment varied for different couples.
We are currently in the process of conducting an observational study of the relationship between adolescent couples’ interactional processes and their sexual behavior. A key component of this study involves obtaining each member’s subjective understanding of their interaction with their romantic partner. One goal of this project is to describe the processes that occur in adolescent romantic relationships and to relate these processes to adolescents’ sexual behaviors. Another goal is to understand the meaning of these sexual behaviors to each member and to determine the degree to which these meanings are shared and negotiated by the couple. Some preliminary analyses suggest that adolescent dating partners differ in their perceptions of their communications with each other, especially their views of men’s communications. Specifically, adolescent girls reported being more aware of communications that reflected a dimension of power in their male dating partner’s interactions with them (Welsh, Galliher, Kawaguchi, & Rostosky, in press). Certainly, future research needs to examine the impact of this important context for the development of adolescent sexuality.
CONCLUSION
Research on adolescent girls’ sexuality, although plentiful over the past two decades, has focused on identifying factors associated with when girls engage in intercourse, whether they use contraception, or how to intervene to prevent intercourse or promote the use of contraception. We have discussed the cultural context and the underlying assumptions that have created a context which facilitated this voluminous, but narrow per spective on the development of girls’ sexuality. Recently, a small movement within the research community has begun that uses a wider lens with which to view this developmental phenomenon. In this chapter, we have articulated a framework with which researchers can attempt to understand ad olescent girls’ developing sexuality. Key components of this framework in elude (a) viewing the development of girls’ sexuality as a normative, developmental process; (b) examining girls’ subjective understanding of their sexual feelings, behaviors, and their sense of themselves as sexual beings; and (c) understanding the development of sexuality in context, including both personal characteristics and ecological variables. In addition, we encourage a broadening of our construction of sexuality beyond merely examining sexual intercourse. Our view of sexuality needs to en compass a wide variety of sexual behaviors and sexual feelings and the subjective meaning that adolescents ascribe to these feelings and behaviors. We also must broaden our construction of sexuality to include the possi bility of a relational component rather than viewing it exclusively as the property of the individual girl.
A shift in perspective from viewing adolescent girls’ sexuality as a social problem to viewing adolescent girls’ sexuality as an integral part of normal development has broad implications. Perhaps the most important ramification of this evolving perspective is that it highlights the critical need for research that examines the developmental trajectories of adoles cent girls’ sexuality. This examination must be sensitive to the complex interrelationships between girls’ developing sense of their sexuality and their personal characteristics and ecological contexts. In other words, re searchers need to ask how early adolescent girls experience their sexuality, how this experience changes for young women over the course of their adolescence, and how their personal characteristics and their ecological contexts impact on their sexual behaviors, feelings, and their understanding of themselves as sexual beings.
Once we have a sense of the different developmental pathways that girls take in the development of their sexualities, policies and programs can be developed to facilitate healthy sexual development. These policies and programs aimed at fostering healthy sexual development would com plement our current policies and programs that are aimed exclusively at preventing or controlling the undesired sequelae of adolescent girls’ sexual
behaviors. The facilitation of healthy exploration may require policymakers and care providers to focus on creating safe environments for adolescents to explore and discuss their sense of themselves as sexual beings. These en vironments need to be sensitive to individual and cultural differences and must include the people who are most meaningful to adolescent girls such as their parents, clergy, teachers, counselors, and extended family. Adoles cents benefit from the availability of appropriate role models with whom they can explore their feelings. Fear, generated by the existing problem oriented approach, inhibits this sort of exploration by making adults afraid to talk about sexuality with adolescents. Healthy exploration must extend beyond public programs and into the lives of adolescent girls, involving family members and other culturally significant people, and incorporate an appreciation for diverse cultures and contexts.
A normative perspective that views sexuality as a developmental pro cess rather than exclusively a pathological symptom allows for researchers, policymakers, clinicians, teachers, and others concerned about adolescents, including adolescents themselves, to begin dialogues about the development of healthy sexuality. Such discourses in the professional literature and with adolescents themselves will facilitate healthier sexual development by not automatically pathologizing important aspects of girls’ identity and experience. Ultimately and ironically, this shift in focus and the resulting healthier developmental trajectories that may follow may also reduce the prevalence of negative outcomes associated with the girls’ expression of their sexuality, which are too commonly experienced by adolescent girls today.