New Trends in Same-Sex Contact for American Adolescents?
❤️ Click here: Same-gender sexual contact in adolescence
The occasional patient who is insulted by this question can be educated about sexual orientation. This availability may result in more exposure to sexual content at more times of the day and in more contexts than with traditional media.
In this way, the outcome of their relationship intercourse or no intercourse was firmly established. The immunization series may be started as early as 9 years of age, and if not started at 11 or 12 years of age catch-up immunization is recommended for females 12 through 26 years of age and males at 13 through 21 years of age. Darroch JE, Landry DJ and Oslak S, 1999, op.
New Trends in Same-Sex Contact for American Adolescents? - The authors thank Blake Downes for technical assistance.
We are experimenting with display styles that make it easier to read articles in PMC. The ePub format is best viewed in the iBooks reader. You may notice problems with the display of certain parts of an article in other eReaders. Generating an ePub file may take a long time, please be patient. Purpose North American research finds increased sexual risk-taking among teenagers with same-sex partners, but understanding of underlying processes is limited. The research carried out in the United Kingdom compares teenagers' early sexual experiences according to same- or opposite-sex partner, focusing on unwanted sex in addition to risk-taking, and exploring underlying psychosocial differences. Covariates included self-esteem, future expectations, substance use, and communication with mother. Results By the time of follow-up mean age, 16 , same-sex genital contact touching or oral or anal was reported by 2. A total of 39% reported heterosexual intercourse and no same-sex genital contact. Conclusions This UK study confirms greater reporting of sexual risk-taking among teenagers with same-sex partners, and suggests that boys in this group are vulnerable to unwanted sex. It suggests limitations to the interpretation of differences, in terms of psychosocial risk factors common to all adolescents. Currently, there has been limited exploration of underlying factors that might explain differences in early sexual risk-taking according to partner type. Apart from sexual risk, little is known about how experiences of early same-sex and opposite-sex sexual relationships compare. Moreover, evidence is confined to North American studies, although recent work suggests between-country variation in homophobia-related stresses and health consequences. Interventions to address sexual health needs of young people with same-sex attractions would benefit from a clearer understanding of how these differ from those of the wider adolescent population. There are two main aims of this study. The first is primarily descriptive. There are currently no large-scale quantitative data on young UK teenagers who have same-sex relationships, and prevalence information for teenagers aged under 16 depends on retrospective reports by an older age group. This is the first UK study to compare the sexual experiences of teenagers according to whether they have opposite-sex or same-sex partners, combining two large representative school-based surveys. We examined both sexual risk and unwanted first experience, in terms of reported partner pressure to have sex and regret afterward. As associations between sexual orientation and risk may vary by gender, we look at effects for boys and girls separately. The second aim of the study was to explore reasons for any differences in sexual risk-taking and unwanted sex according to partner type. Attempts to understand sexual risk-taking among adolescent sexual minority groups have adopted three main approaches. The first approach minority stress theory focuses on unique stressors experienced in developing a gay, lesbian, or bisexual identity. This was the basis of a study finding associations between victimization at school and sexual risk. Like many studies of sexual minority youth, it used a convenience, urban sample that may not be representative of the wider population. A more fundamental criticism is that research on sexual minority groups in isolation may mask risk factors that are common to all, regardless of sexual orientation. Another approach focuses on sexual knowledge and skills deficits, but evidence is mixed and confined to nonrepresentative samples. Such deficits could stem from limitations of school sex education programs ; less gay-sensitive sex education was associated with sexual risk in a representative U. The third approach is grounded in general theories of adolescent risk behavior suggesting multiple underlying psychosocial influences. Here, evidence is limited to two studies of North American teenagers. One study combining data from six school-based surveys found that teenagers with same-sex attractions were disadvantaged with respect to school connectedness, liking for school, family connectedness, and religious identity, but did not attempt to link these to risk behaviors. A separate study failed to find clear differences in academic orientation, friendship quality, and school climate according to sexual orientation, although teenagers with same-sex attraction were disadvantaged with respect to attitudes toward risk, psychosocial functioning, relationship with parents, and neighborhood quality. A second phase of this research found that these factors acted as partial mediators for the effect of sexual orientation on an index of risk behaviors including sexual risk , although a significant effect of minority orientation on increased risk remained. Our study adopts a combination of the second and third approaches, asking whether any differences in sexual risk and unwanted first sex FS according to partner type are attributable to differences in sexual health knowledge and skills, as well as differences in psychosocial risk factors. Data collection The analysis used data from the SHARE and RIPPLE studies, details of which have been published elsewhere. A total of 25 schools participated in the SHARE randomized controlled trial of enhanced teacher-led sex education in Scotland. This trial was approved by Glasgow University's Ethical Committee for Non-Clinical Research Involving Human Subjects. A total of 27 schools participated in the RIPPLE randomized control trial of peer-led school sex education in England. This trial was approved by the Committee on the Ethics of Human Research at University College London. We combined data gathered from the two cohorts in both studies at baseline SHARE 1996—1997, mean age: 14 years, 2 months; RIPPLE 1998—1999, mean age: 13 years, 8 months and follow-up SHARE 1998—1999, mean age: 16 years, 1 month; RIPPLE 2000—2001 mean age: 16 years, 0 months. SHARE baseline data were representative of the 1991 census of people living in Scotland in terms of parental social class and family composition. RIPPLE baseline data were representative of 1991 census English population data in terms of privately owned accommodation, and of 1998 General Certificate of Education qualifications Examinations generally taken by secondary school pupils aged 14—16 years in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Pupils completed questionnaires in their classrooms under examination conditions, administered by researchers only SHARE or teachers and researchers RIPPLE. Early school leavers in the SHARE study completed postal questionnaires. At follow-up, teenagers were asked whether they had experienced kissing with tongues and genital contact two sets of questions, for opposite-sex and same-sex partners , and vaginal intercourse with opposite-sex partner. Genital contact with an opposite-sex partner combined information from two questions on touching genitals and oral sex. Unwanted FS Information on partner pressure and regret was gathered in relation to first vaginal intercourse with an opposite-sex partner and first genital contact with a same-sex partner both defined here as FS. This exclusive focus on partner pressure, rather than any pressure from respondent or partner as a measure of unwanted sex from the respondent perspective comes from research on teenage heterosexual behavior indicating no differential effect of respondent pressure on regret or enjoyment of early sex. Further analysis on teenagers reporting same-sex partners confirmed that regret did not vary according to whether respondent pressure was reported. Regret was derived from a question about feelings after FS. There were no measures of risk-taking with a same-sex partner in the combined data set. Key independent The key independent was partner type. For models of unwanted sex, we compared teenagers reporting first same-sex genital contact with teenagers reporting heterosexual intercourse only. For models of sexual risk, we compared teenagers reporting bisexual behavior heterosexual vaginal intercourse and same-sex genital contact with teenagers reporting heterosexual intercourse only. There were no differences between partner-type groups according to a proxy measure for parental social class social rented housing. Because ethnicity and family composition were associated with risk outcomes, we adjusted all multivariate analyses for these covariates. Context of sexual behavior First same-sex genital contact and first heterosexual intercourse are not equivalent events, and we adjusted for age at the time and having no expectation of sex to increase the validity of the comparison. These comprised attitudes to school scale using four items; Cronbach's alpha,. Data analysis From 12,500 teenagers who supplied information at follow-up, 10,250 were eligible for this analysis after excluding SHARE teenagers who were not asked about same-sex relationships 2,109 from nine schools in one education authority, plus a further 151 school leavers who completed a shorter postal questionnaire. There were two stages to multivariate modeling. The first stage investigated the effect of partner type on sexual outcomes, adjusting for sociodemographic factors and study design. Neither study had found differences between intervention and control arms in prevalence of heterosexual intercourse or use of contraception. The RIPPLE study found a borderline effect of lower unintended pregnancy among girls in the intervention arm reported at age 16 2. For models of unwanted FS, we also included age at FS and expectation of having FS as covariates as noted previously. The second stage explored potential confounders of associations between partner type and sexual outcomes, and we added baseline attitudinal and behavioral covariates. Results are reported separately for boys and girls. All multivariate analyses allowed for clustering by school and were corrected for differential attrition from baseline to follow-up using a weighting system, created separately for each study using inverse values from logistic models of baseline predictors of response. First, we performed complete case analyses using Stata version 10 StataCorp LP, Texas, USA. In all models, missing information was greater in teenagers reporting same-sex partners than for those with exclusively heterosexual partners. To decrease bias and increase the power of the analyses, we used multiple chained equations ICE program, version 1. We imputed data on same-sex outcomes only for those who reported same-sex genital contact, and on opposite-sex outcomes only for those reporting heterosexual intercourse. Clustering of pupils by school was ignored in the imputation for simplicity. We generated 20 imputed data sets, and estimates were combined across these. Almost four in 10 teenagers 39. Most teenagers reporting same-sex genital contact had also experienced heterosexual intercourse last row of table, for combined sexes the bisexual group, 1. A minority of participants reporting a same-sex partner nine of 201 did not answer questions concerning opposite-sex partners and are treated in these analyses as having same sex partners only. Similarly, 330 participants reported an opposite-sex partner but did not answer questions concerning same-sex partners and are treated as having opposite-sex partners only. Among boys, the prevalence of unwanted FS was higher for first homosexual genital contact than for first heterosexual intercourse in the exclusively heterosexual group. Among girls, there were no differences in rates of unwanted sex according to partner type. In boys and girls, the prevalence of sexual risk-taking was higher for those with partners of both sexes, as compared with teenagers with exclusively opposite-sex partners. Similar effects of partner type were apparent in both the RIPPLE and SHARE studies when examined separately not shown. Prevalence of unwanted first sex and sexual risk according to partner type, by gender: univariate comparisons We now consider attitudinal and behavioral factors reported at baseline age 13 or 14 years that may confound differences in sexual outcomes. Teenagers with same-sex partners were more religious and more knowledgeable about sexual health, and boys were more likely to expect tertiary education than the exclusively heterosexual group. Boys with same-sex partners had lower self-esteem, and girls reported poorer communication with their mother. Most of these differences were also seen when comparing teenagers reporting bisexual behavior with exclusively heterosexual counterparts. Overall, several factors in the bisexual group were protective against sexual risk-taking greater knowledge, religiosity, and expectations of tertiary education. However, girls with bisexual behavior reported factors associated with greater sexual risk poor communication with mother, substance use, and expectation of early parenthood. Attitudinal and behavioral differences according to partner type, by gender: univariate analyses Results are provided for stage one multivariate analysis using both complete case information and the imputed data set. This is consistent with a reduction in bias because of lower disclosure of negative experiences by teenagers with same-sex partners. In this study, we describe results using the imputed data set. Unwanted FS Partner pressure and regret were compared for first same-sex genital contact and opposite-sex intercourse among teenagers not reporting same-sex genital contact. The latter group were older than the same-sex group mean ages respectively, 14. Age and expectation of sex were strongly associated with the two outcomes, and were included as covariates at stage 1. There was a strong gender difference in the effect of partner type. Boys with a same-sex partner were more likely to report partner pressure and regret, although there was no effect of partner type among girls. The only potential confounder for the effect of partner type on unwanted sex among boys arising from univariate analyses in was self-esteem. However, there was only a small effect of adjusting for self-esteem on odds associated with same-sex partner in stage 2,. The RIPPLE data set contained a wider range of contextual measures, and indicated that same-sex encounters were more likely to involve alcohol or drugs and no prior partner relationship, although no more likely to involve an older partner. Further exploration not shown confirmed boys' greater likelihood of negative feelings after first same-sex genital contact, taking account of additional contextual information. Sexual risk Sexual risk was compared for teenagers reporting bisexual behavior and those reporting heterosexual intercourse only , stage 1. Bisexual behavior was significantly associated with greater risk boys: three measures, girls: four measures. Baseline differences in early parenthood, substance use, and poor communication with mother appeared to be potential confounders of these effects among girls. For girls, effects of partner type were reduced but remained significant after adding these covariates in stage 2,. For boys, there was less effect of adding baseline covariates. This risk-taking accords with previous studies of teenagers and older populations. We also found that boys with a same-sex partner were more vulnerable to unwanted FS, reporting greater partner pressure and regret than their exclusively heterosexual counterparts. Boys' reported partner pressure appears in line with low relationship control reported by sexual minority boys in a U. Sexual minority boys were more likely than girls to report sexual coercion in seven North American population-based surveys , but the extent of physical coercion, victimization, or sexual abuse in our measure is unknown. We explored potential confounders of differences in sexual outcome according to partner type. Low statistical power prevented us from excluding cases where baseline covariates postdated FS, so there may have been an element of reverse causation. With regard to risk-taking, there was little evidence of condom attitude or skills deficits, and sexual health knowledge was higher among the bisexual group; this contrasts with more mixed findings elsewhere. There was some evidence for more general psychosocial confounders of risk-taking, especially among girls difficult communication with mother, future expectations of early parenthood, and substance use. However, in both sexes the effect of partner type on sexual risk-taking remained after taking account of psychosocial confounders. This echoes the results of a North American study that found significant effects of sexual orientation group on adolescent risk-taking after taking account of psychosocial mediators. Our finding of greater unwanted sex among boys with same-sex partners held after adjusting for baseline self-esteem and important differences in the circumstances of same-sex and opposite-sex encounters. Our finding mirrors gender differences in approval of same-sex relationships, reported elsewhere among teenagers in the United Kingdom. Boys' greater disapproval of gay male relationships suggests an explanation for regret. The study suffers from several limitations, notably its use of self-reported measures of sensitive behavior. In general, inclusion of questions regarding same-sex behavior appeared acceptable to both schools and young people, although one education authority in the SHARE study refused to allow these questions. Comments at the end of the questionnaire suggest that some teenagers welcomed the opportunity to report on such behavior. However, although young people were asked to complete the questionnaire without talking to friends, researchers frequently observed young people, particularly boys, making homophobic comments. Rates of missing responses for detailed questions about same-sex experiences were greater than for equivalent opposite-sex experiences, suggesting a reluctance to divulge more sensitive information despite reassurances of confidentiality. Imputation of missing items using predictors including partner type helped to overcome risk of bias and loss of power inherent in complete case analyses. The risk of bias in both studies due to differential attrition from baseline to follow-up was addressed through the use of weights, which make it more likely that the results generalize to a wider population of teenagers. Rates of same-sex sexual behaviors found in 15—16 year olds were comparable with retrospective reports in national surveys of older UK respondents; these also confirm our finding that most with same-sex partners also experience heterosexual intercourse. Our study is confined to the early sexual experiences of a young age group. More research is needed to establish whether our findings extend to subsequent sexual experiences and to those initiating sexual relationships at an older age. Further research should include measures of sexual risk in same-sex encounters. We use a behavioral classification of sexual orientation rather than a measure of sexual attraction or identity: discordance between such measures during adolescence is well known, and future research should use multiple orientation measures. A further limitation is the age of our data set, since over the last decade the UK has seen greater social tolerance and legitimization of same-sex relationships. Nevertheless, recent evidence suggests that homophobic bullying and victimization among school-age teenagers are still commonplace in the UK and U. This article extends the evidence base on early same-sex behavior to a UK setting, and describes unwanted sex in addition to risk-taking. The results confirm the unique vulnerability of teenagers with same-sex partners, and suggest limitations to the interpretation of differences using psychosocial risk factors common to all adolescents. Greater understanding in future research might come from the application of measures designed to capture gay-related stressors, such as bullying and fear of stigmatization.
Sex & Sexuality: Crash Course Sociology #31
Anderson E, 1990, op. An individual's first sexual intercourse is embedded with multiple personal and sol meanings. Sex play that is innocuous during childhood is no longer innocuous during adolescence because: A children report erotic feelings before puberty. It is important to distinguish between the youth who is gay and the youth with a possible gender identity disorder. This was the basis of a print finding associations between victimization at school and sexual risk. In general, it is recommended that transgender adolescents be maintained on suppressive GnRH analogs until they are emotionally and cognitively ready for cross-gender sex hormones. At this time, HPV immunization is only approved in Canada for female custodes. We also analyzed the prevalence of multiple risk factors according to respondents' sexual orientation. Sometimes it is simply the perception that an individual might be LGBT that may lead to bullying, harassment, and violence. Similar to other populations of adolescents, if adolescents are having servile intercourse monogamous relationship, using condoms 100% of the same-gender sexual contact in adolescence and correctly, and no substance abuse involvedit is reasonable to test them once per year. The association between alienation or stigma and adolescent pregnancy was borne out by a study of presumably heterosexual adolescents that found an social risk of pregnancy among those who have low self-esteem and feel powerless, alienated and in little control over their lives. These teens, like all teens, should be individually assessed for challenges, vulnerabilities, strengths, and assets.
