Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy
ISSN: 0092-623X (Print) 1521-0715 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/usmt20
Sex education for adolescents and their families Pearl P. Rosenberg PhD & Lois M. Rosenberg To cite this article: Pearl P. Rosenberg PhD & Lois M. Rosenberg (1976) Sex education for adolescents and their families, Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 2:1, 53-67, DOI: 10.1080/00926237608407073 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00926237608407073
Published online: 14 Jan 2008.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 18
View related articles
Citing articles: 5 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=usmt20 Download by: [University of Birmingham]
Date: 06 November 2015, At: 20:31
Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy Vol. 2, No. 1, Spring 1976
Sex
Education for Adolescents and Their Families
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 20:31 06 November 2015
Pearl P. Rosenberg, PhD, and Lois M . Rosenberg
ABSTRACT: This paper describes a unique, 2-day experiential program in sex education for adolescents and their families. The program is adapted from a similar teaching program for medical students and is a highly focused, intense emotional experience wherein participants are presented, via a multimedia approach, with a planned sequence of explicit sexual material on all areas of human sexuality. During the program, six small group sessions with family members in separate groups enable participants to share impressions and examine anxieties aroused by the presentations. The entire process is monitored by evaluative instruments and questionnaires. Results of the data support the hypothesis that communication is possible between generations, and assists rather than inhibits the development of an adult identity.
Adolescence is characterkticdly a time of confusion. The youth striving for maturity, respect, and a “total sense of identity” is bombarded by biological, social, and emotional pressures. Unfortunately these pressures descend when adolescents reject and are rejected by those who have previously been most helpful and supportive, their parents and family. The newly created communication barrier becomes only one additional pressure. The extreme biological changes and unpredictable emotional reactions of the adolescent, plus his attempts at defining and understanding his own sexuality, seem to cause a major part of his confusion. Sexuality, to be sure, is the last topic he can broach with his parents. Freud and Erikson stress the importance of defining oneself as a sexual being during adolescence. It is essential to the development of a complete self-identity. Sorensen’ documents the discrepancy between today’s adolescents’ sexual knowledge and sexual experiences. Adolescents do not know all they need to know. Freud insists that the learning” must take place away from the parents. Rebellion enables the 66
Reprint queries should be directed to Dr. Pearl P. Rosenberg at 560 Mount Curve Boulevard, Saint Paul. Minnesota 551 16.
53
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 20:31 06 November 2015
54
Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy
child to get over his sexual cathexis with his parents (Oedipal) and form his own sexual identity outside of the family. Yet Lewin’ provides us with another theoretical position. Problems occur when adolescence becomes a barrier to growth or in Lewinian terms a barrier to locomotion from the region of childhood to the region of adulthood. Lewinian theory postulates that one of the most effective barriers to locomotion is a lack of clarity and understanding of the experiences through which one must pass. This suggests that greater communication with parents, who are more experienced, might provide clarity and understanding and remove barriers to growth. Understanding where others who have passed through this transitional stage of growth once stood and now stand can help adolescents to determine more realistically their own position in a continuum of life-styles and behavior. In addition, Lewin’s3 theories maintain that greater locomotion occurs under conditions of lowered tension. Under such conditions greater emotional comfort exists, learning takes place, and changed behavior is evident. Open and supportive communication about sexuality designed to diminish anxiety or tension should encourage integration of learning into the present personality patterns, resulting in changed behavior. Lewinian theory thus illuminates the need to locomote through the growth barrier created by misunderstanding and ignorance and the need to do so in an atmosphere of lowered tension. Konopka4 states more directly the need to view adolescence not merely as a time of psychological moratorium (Erikson) and independence but also as a stage of “earnest and significant human development,” an age of “commitment and emerging interdependency.” She feels that open discussion, opportunity for values clarification, and respect for the adolescent as a person in his own right are essential for healthy development. Lester Kirkendahl’ also makes much of the need for communication and its usefulness in permitting a nonexploitive use of sex: “An atmosphere in which frank, objective, and honest communication about sex, personal feelings and desires could take place, not just once but a number of times, would seem an absolute prerequisite to the nonexploitive use of premarital sex. That atmosphere does not exist at the present time.” In accordance with Konopka, Lewin, and Kirkendahl, it appears that an ideal “sex education” program for adolescents needs to be more than informational. It must give the adolescent opportunity to clarify and assess his own values, integrating his own biological, emotional, and social needs into a sound system. It must also provide him with the opportunity to talk this process through with supportive adults. We at the University of Minnesota felt our Human Sexuality Seminar Program could approach this ideal. Its basic philosophy was to present emotionally laden sexual material and give participants the opportunity to discuss freely in small groups their feelings, concerns, values, and practices.
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 20:31 06 November 2015
Pearl P. Rosenberg and Lois M. Rosenberg
55
Originally, couples went through the program together and found that their communication skills increased not only on the sexual level but on all levels. We felt the program could similarly increase communication between parents and their young adults. The program is a 2-day highly focused and intense emotional experience. A number of articles have been written by the Program in Human Sexuality Very briefly, we attempt through the media of discussing it in detail.6, ‘ 9 music, slides, and movies to portray as explicitly as possible all types of sexual behavior. Material is presented in a planned developmental sequence starting with masturbation and moving through homosexuality and heterosexuality (all varieties available in cinema form) until a saturation point has been reached. Then we move into the area of relationships and the meanings of sex and sexual behavior and roles and role behavior. We hope to suggest how these facets of human life-styles are tied together through the dynamic processes of sex and sexuality. Central to the program’s success are the 7- to 10-member small group discussions held every 1% to 2 hours during the 2 days. The groups are where the seminar members “put it all together.” A certain amount of trust is engendered among members, and the groups are small enough so that each member who wishes to has the opportunity to participate as well as to receive support in examining the personal anxiety aroused by the presentations. The entire process is monitored by evaluative instruments and questionnaires. Particularly interesting to us was a question regarding the age at which the 3,000 or more initial adult participants responding would have preferred to experience the sessions. Over 50% suggested high school or younger. Equally important was our awareness of the unique contribution of the experience, particularly its small group discussion periods, to increased communication skills between participants. Somehow, development of an ability to discuss a subject as anxeity ridden as sex more freely and comfortably results in communication on other levels as well. Hence it was felt the seminar would afford an unusual opportunity to enhance the general communication patterns in families and to emphasize our relatively conservative viewpoint that sex education belongs within the family system. Learning about and discovering sex and sexuality, becoming aware of one’s reactions to the gamut of sexuality, and experiencing the anxieties attendant on such exposure should be a growth experience achieved by the entire family working together. Thus was conceived the family sex education seminar where students, with their parents, would spend the weekend learning together. As in standard seminars, a family would be together in the large group discussions and separate in the small groups where each could explore his unique sexual awareness freely with a group of other people. He could then share such awareness with other family members at home together.
56
Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy
METHODOLOGY
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 20:31 06 November 2015
Preparation Recognizing that the uniqueness of our proposal would require special preparation, we began developing our program over 6 months before it was scheduled to occur. A public school setting seemed impolitic, and we preferred to initiate the program in a local private school where we had already established some contact,with the headmaster, a solid yet visionary man who was dissatisfied with present sex education methods, insistent on looking for something better, and strong enough to venture into uncharted and possibly hazardous waters. The headmaster, his wife, a number of faculty and their wives, and a few interested and key parents were invited to participate in a standard seminar. After this experience they agreed that the program should be offered to their school’s seniors and their parents. A preliminary meeting was held with all seniors where the program was described and where they were asked to fill out a simple questionnaire on their interest in it. Of the 61 students attending that session, 27 of the 31 boys and all 30 of the girls were very or somewhat interested. Most of the students did not care whether or not their parents came, although 5 boys and 5 girls actively preferred to have their parents attend. With this material in hand we approached the parents 3 nights later, introduced them to the program, and invited them to sign up for either of the two sessions. Some parents expressed concern, feeling they were being forced into the program since their sons and daughters (already informed) had made the decision to go, and as caring parents they would feel very uncomfortable denying them the opportunity. (Future plans call for introducing the program to parents and their children together.) Families wege given 2 weeks in which to decide about participating in the program. Eventually over half the families were represented by at least 1 member in either of the two seminars and included 104 of the 134 total participants. To this were added families and individuals who had heard of the program and specifically requested admission to the “Adolescent SAR” (around the university, the program at that time was known as a SAR-Sexual Attitude Reassessment-and the family SAR was called the Adolescent SAR). These included 2 families with disabled adolescent members. Four families were represented by 4 people, 19 were represented by 3, 10 were represented by 2, and 14 by singles. Of these singles, 1 was a father, 3 were mothers, 6 were daughters, and 4 were sons. All parents and chiIdren were given a set of preprogram questionnaires modeled after the questionnaires used by Sorensenl in his study of adolescent sexuality in America. In planning our family seminars we attempted to provide ourselves with a ready-made control group by using the data from Sorensen’s book and comparing the answers given to his questions with those given by our adolescents. We also wanted to incorporate in our data parents’ responses to questions parallel to those that we asked of their children. Certain program modifications were suggested by parents and staff as more appropriate for families. We attempted to make the explicit sexual material a little less intense and added sessions on venereal disease and problems of conception and pregnancy. We also deliberately used films depicting young people’s sexuality and shared an excellent film9 in which a group of young adolescents were discussing together quite openly some of the major sexual preoccupations and questions of this age group. There was a session on morals and values, usually not included in the regular seminars, but it seemed to be particularly appropriate for a family SAR.
Seminar Process Despite the large number of families that eventually signed up for the SAR experience, anxiety and tension ran high until the actual moment when the program began. Nevertheless, the seminar, once it got under way, was very similar to others that had previously taken place. In the first small group session, which occurred after the fantasy material and the
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 20:31 06 November 2015
Pearl P. Rosenberg and Lois M. Rosenberg
57
introduction of the concept of masturbation, the groups spent much more time than is usual, however, discussing and estabbhing a contract between group members regarding confidentiality of the group’s discussion. Each group needed to reinforce the agreement that communications taking place in the small group would not be carried back to either parents or their children. Despite the numerous personal relationships already existing between many of these families, this development of mutual trust was achieved, except in one group in which neither parents nor children felt they could ever trust each other enough to agree to promise that kind of confidentiality. The first session was generally devoted to adults and adolescents testing each other to see how much they really could share, a state achieved in half the groups by the end of this session. In two of the groups the younger ones tended to take the lead in breaking through barriers of communication; in one it was one of the adults; and in the others the two groups shared the conversation equally. Groups that were having trouble getting started tended to focus their discussions on the technique of the films, on the various actors, on the questionnaire data, and the like. In some groups participants even discussed whether or not they should be in attendance, while, in a number of other, group members discussed their anxiety and discomfort about the whole procedure and their concern that it go well. In the more comfortable groups, conversations began on the problem of fantasy, questions of masturbation, and some of the concerns about touching and getting close. The main problem for participants in these groups was whether they could freely get together and talk, yet all involved said that they felt a need for a trusting relationship. The second session followed the homosexual discussion and films. The groups were still, on the whole, having intellectual discussions, but there were beginning attempts at sharing personal feelings and concerns. Some of the parents as well as the students were beginning to risk expressing their own anxieties regarding homosexuality. This sharing of experiences and concerns created a setting wherein new insights were beginning to occur. In a few of the groups the discussion of homosexuality was subordinated to discussions of relationships in general and marked the start of a realistic approach to the practice of oral-genital sex, a practice unacceptable to many adults and certainly a new exposure for many of the adolescent groups. The third session came after the very heavy visual exposure to extensive sexual experience. Reactions were almost universal and generally negative. People were tired, bored, angry, and some were able to be very open and concrete in expressing these feelings. It was a rare group in which anybody felt comfortable enough to say that they were turned on by some of the explicit sexuality. Feelings occasioned by the overexposure to sexuality seemed to cross age lines. The exposure to the number of stag films developed participant’s awareness of the lack of relationship and feeling among the actors and heightened participants’ valuation of “relationships” and “loving” as part of the sexual act. The difference between lack of meaningful relationships in many of the heterosexual films and the emphasis on meaningful interrelationships in the homosexual films afforded a new insight into what homosexuality was or could be for people who had chosen that way of life. There was a noticeable growth in tolerance and sympathy for the gay community. The fourth session came after a night of thought, action, and/or in many families a good deal of talking, followed by a morning of relationship films. This was generally a turning point for all the groups. All were working slowly but steadily, and, in many, participants began to evaluate their group’s process. For the most part participants were very relieved by the morning’s films on the meaning of relationships. Discussion was now freely crossing age lines, although from time to time one age group would still question the other with “How do adolescents [or parents] feel about such and such?” There was open communication, genuine concern, and a real interest in discovering the few real differences between age groups. Some problems were problems for all, and people were trying to solve them in a humanistic way, even though the means to the end were different. They shared relief at being able to see films that permitted them to empathize and that led to discussions of moral values and issues. (This process, which invariably occurs, i s directly related to their deliberate exposure to the pornographic material the night before.) Here groups focused on concepts of marriage and commitment and the
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 20:31 06 November 2015
58
Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy
concerns of both adolescents and adults with regard to these issues. Here, too, we became aware of how the mystique of sex contributed to the inability of young people to practice adequate contraceptive measures. In one group the generation gap seemed to exist solely in relation to concern about contraception. Despite the young people’s desire not to have children, they were not able to plan ahead and were inclined to take risks, rationalizing “This can’t happen to me.” The most understanding adult, who could accept differences in the younger generation’s attitude toward premarital sex, found it difficult to accept such a casual attitude toward contraceptive care. Contraceptive care apparently meant preplanning and manipulation attitudes which the youngsters rejected. Adolescents maintain a cultural stance wherein relationship is all-important, with sexual behavior secondary. To plan for sex without a relationship is wrong. Somehow, to indicate they were ready for sexuality by having planned for it would deny spontaneity of the interrelationship process. The group agreed that, were sexuality to become a common, natural function, the sexual activity of any couple would be only a measure of how far the relationship had proceeded, not an end in itself. With the mystique gone, young people could then prepare themselves for sexuality, take contraceptive measures, and not feel they were violating the relationship aspect when they did so. In the fifth session, genuine sharing occurred in all but two of the groups. Since the large group sessions had related to female and male role problems, t h i s was naturally the main topic of the small discussion groups. Nevertheless, each group focused on the particular phases of role problems pertinent to its membership. One group discussed problems of the disabled; another handled the problem worrying one boy concerning an impending divorce in his family; another talked about a particular woman member’s problem with her role; and another helped a young girl member clarify her concern about how she fit into her family structure. Discussion wasn’t always easy, but it was meaningful and important, giving evidence of the gradually developing trust pattern. It was significant that group members could learn about communicating with each other, between generations, and could realize that basic beliefs about “good” and “right” were much the same in spite of differing ideas as to how these goals might be reached. Discussion of the necd for freedom and the opportunity to touch, which took place in many of the groups, seemed to parallel, on a behavioral level, the actual experience in getting together and touching each other emotionally. By the fifth session most groups had accomplished this on many different levels. The sixth and final group session came after large group discussions of morals and values, and thus emphasized these topics. There was the usual general return to some of the questions of the first session as one made preparations to go back to the work-a-day world. But now these discussions were on a more personal level, and there was much more freedom in assessing the relevancy and meaning of such questions between and across generations. Morals and values were indeed the central theme, but most important was the recognition of the need to work things out individually so that one could be comfortable with one’s own decisions. Recognition of a need for individualization in the development of morals and values was accompanied by an increased concern and awareness of the need for both parents and children to know and respect each other’s values and principles. At this last session, in 12 out of 15 of the groups, many warm feelings were expressed by group members. They spoke of the special experience they had had together, and how important, for this moment in time, the relationship feeling had become. As usual at this time, a number of participants expressed their desire to continue with the group and have future sessions together. To summarize, the groups began with a general circling process verbally and emotionally between adolescents and adults in their mutual effort to develop an atmosphere of trust and communication. The second session of the group, with the discussion of homosexuality, was the beginning of the more open communication and mutual exploration that reached full bloom in about the fifth session. In the third session, after the saturated sex experience, group members seemed to find relief in sharing their annoyance and disgust at the idea of sex without any kind of positive emotional feeling and in trading mutual sensations of boredom and exhaustion. The fourth session, the beginning session of the next morning,
Pearl P. Rosenberg and Lois M. Rosenberg
59
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 20:31 06 November 2015
was a time of warmth. Just as the films showed relationships, so, in the group, did relationships begin to develop and grow between members. In the fifth session the intimacy experienced peaked, with leaders reporting conversations directed uniquely to the specific problems of individual members. Group time was allocated to giving support to each other. Finally, the last group session represented a return to reality, to the questions: “What are we going to do with this?” “What were we here for?” “Was it really worth it?” “Did it really show what w e wanted to see?” As is frequently the case, some participants whose internal barriers and defenses weakened so that they could participate actively in the fourth or fifth sessions, returned in the sixth to their original, often antagonistic position.
R ES ULTS Out of the 15 groups, 12 were felt to be successful, 5 were rated high, and 3 had some difficulties. In 1 of the 3, members were unable to resolve the problem of privacy between the adolescents, and the adults and the two age groups essentially confronted each other throughout the entire six sessions. Each of the other 2 groups was dominated by one individual whose opinions shaped the main thrust of the group’s discussion. While the group went along and did not rebel, individual members were dissatisfied and expressed their feelings in the evaluation questionnaire and in private chats with the group leaders. Students were usually the most active discussants and carried the ball, although frequently the adults wouId be the first to risk, thus role-model and give endorsement for risk taking. Groups tended to be divided along attitudinal lines rather than age lines; that is, some groups were divided between the feelers and the thinkers; others between the people who insisted on relationships and those who felt relationships weren’t that important; and still others between the experts and the novices. Experts’ status was attained through experience and reading rather than through age. Questionnaire data indicated that the family SAR closely paralleled the standard all-adult SAR experience, and provided the majority of the participants with an interesting and positive experience (see Table 1). TABLE 1 Comparison of Family and Adult SAR Seminar Evaluations Family SAR
Adult SAR
96% 96%
97% 97% 96%
~
Participants responding Found seminar personally beneficial Enjoyed seminar Could discuss sex freely prior to seminar Could discuss sex freely after seminar Feel seminar dispelled myths about sex Feel seminar was harmful to self Feel seminar was harmful to others Felt small group discussion helpful
92% 38% 69% 66% 1% 9% 9 1%
41% 72% 68% 2% 4% 86%
NOTE: See Appendix for a more detailed version of this comparison.
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 20:31 06 November 2015
60
Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy
The basic differences between the family and our usual SAR seemed to be: 1. It took longer for an operational feeling of trust and communication to occur in the family SARs but the gain, once achieved, seemed to be much more welcome and effective. 2. Family SARs placed greater emphasis on questions of morals and values, issues that preoccupied their discussions. Positions taken were comfortable, if different, for each group member. One participant usually did not try to win over another, but each achieved, instead, a mutual understanding and awareness of the other’s position. 3. Family SARs had a much more homogeneous reaction of dismay and antagonism to the supersaturation session. It was only on the 2nd day that one or two participants confessed to a “turn-on” or suggested that the supersaturation session had been exciting as well as disgusting and upsetting. We are convinced that a saturation experience is necessary. A participant has to venture beyond what seems to be emotionally tolerable in order to experience the subsequent relief and resultant ability to appreciate the totality of positive sexuality and sensuality. What does require research is to determine “too much” from “just enough.” 4. Family SARs disclose a stronger need to focus on the meaning and understanding of relationships, both nonsexual and sexual. In retrospect, the emphasis on the nonsexual reIationship appeared to be greater than on the sexual. One of the problems to be solved for future programs will be ways of developing quickly, in the time span of the seminar, opportunities to examine diagnostically the meaning of relationship. 5. Individual problems seemed more intense in family SARs. Individuals with preconceived notions on a sex-related topic would insist on discussing it, regardless of what the stimulus from the large group sessions had been. The person who was a research expert, the individual who came in late and had to make a place for himself in the group, the youngster who was worrying about a pending divorce in his family, the father concerned about a breakup in his family, the young woman who had behavior patterns that she felt would be unacceptable to her parents-all demanded the attention of the group. Some groups handled severe problem situations of members very well, but in the process sacrificed time for working on seminar-related material. Two days is not enough time to handle a group problem and an educational problem as well. The biggest difficulty was that of familiarity, the fear that information shared would get back to the original family constellation. Analysis of the open-ended questions on the evaluation questionnaire gives the participants’ explicit reactions: 1. “What parts of the seminar did you most like?” (210 comments) 7 Everything and refused to choose between them 82 The small group
Pearl P. Rosenberg and Lois M. Rosenberg
40 24 22
8
7 6
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 20:31 06 November 2015
14
61
The movies (particularly those of the second day) The large group on homosexuality The format and setting (such things as pillows, atmosphere, food, staff warmth, etc.) The large group setting The divergent ages Themusic Miscellaneous comments covering single items (having one’s family there, the feelings engendered, the opportunities to participate in something like this, etc.)
2. “What do you dislike most about the program?” (138 comments) 19 Nothing about the program they disliked 51 The films (30 of those expressly mentioned the highly saturated evening session) 14 The whole tone of the program (either too strong, too biased, no love shown, etc.) 13 The homosexual talk 10 The small group 4 The large group The general feeling, tone, or atmosphere of the situation 8 8 Manipulation of people’s thinking* Parts of the structure (i.e., ventilation, the temperature, the length of time, 7 etc.) The whole program was too short, and they would have preferred to have it 4 go longer
3. “Evaluate the factors that helped your small groups” (189 comments) 66 52 32 21 13 5
The leaders Themembers The diversity of ages The atmosphere The structure of the group itself (its size, content, splitting of families, etc.) The stimulation provided by the films that gave them the content of their discussion
4. “What factors did you feel were hindering your small group process?” (119 comments) Nothing had hindered their group 16 Specific members (either dominating members, reluctant members, judg39 mental members, etc.) The confidentiality problem 23 The group structure itself, the number of people in it (and 10 of these 18 18 felt that the small group meeting time was too short) Group factors (way the groups were structured, the focus, etc.) 4 That they didn’t move 4 The silence in the group 3 The leader had actually hindered the group in its path toward its goals 12
5. “What feedback, if any, they had to give to their own leaders?” (103 comments) 62 Positive 17 Nocomment The leaders should be more direct 18 *However, seven of these came from one group, with a very dominant member, whose very strong negative feelings were expressed at the beginning of the program, and one cannot help but wonder if anger was actually displaced by the other seven from him to the program?
Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy
62
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 20:31 06 November 2015
3 3
Their leaders should take over less than they had Gave special advice (in one group the leaders argued with each other and the suggestions of members were that they get together, one suggested that her leader handle intellectualization better, and one asked that her leader spend time handling the the problems of special members)
6. “Any suggestions regarding the media, the audiovisual part of the program?” (103 comments) 30 No recommendations All quite good and enjoyed it tremendously 20 Antagonistic toward the pornographic movies 23 Technical questions (color, light, sound, too loud, too soft, etc.) 18 Specific requests, more material on VD,childbearing, mothering, masculine 7 roles, sex over 40,heavy adolescent necking and petting Specifically asked about relationship concerned. Others wanted humor, and 5 one wanted some time to work on specific personal sex problems 7. “In what way was the program personally beneficial to you?”* (194comments) No Dersonal benefit 10 Awareness and comfort in self. It was possible to divide these comments 72 into four somewhat overlapping categories: a) 39 Focused o n the awareness of one’s own self and what one really thought b) 9 Focused on knowledge of one’s own roles, sexual and otherwise c) 3 Spoke of understanding which led to self-acceptance d) 21 Mentioned a present new comfort with where they were and what they felt about themselves as against a certain amount of discomfort previously Awareness and comfort with others (26 talked of increased awareness, i.e., 44 of others, and 18 specifically mentioned increased ability to communicate with others, both between and among generations) Information getting (they learned things that they had never learned before) 29 Communication with families 12 Communication with one’s partner 5 Miscellaneous comments 12 Increased general understanding of adolescence 5 Having general misconceptions or sexual myths clarified 5 1 Knowledge of body language General opportunity for catharsis from the general feeling of enthusiasm 1 that was engendered 8 . “In what way was this program harmful to you?”* (136 comments)
100
7 2 27
Not harmful Noanswer Question marks, indicating that they were not sure Actually said that they thought it was harmful
Breaking down these 27 we find: a) 9 I t was harmful to others (they were concerned with their daughters, their sons, their friends, or just others in general) b) 18 Had concerns about themselves Examining these 18 more carefully: i) 3 Were expressed as feelings, tired, bored, and 1 anger, which probably reflects anxiety *This and Question 8 were of the greatest interest to staff.
*This question was probably most critical.
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 20:31 06 November 2015
Pearl P. Rosenberg and Lois M. Rosenberg
63
ii) 2 Were frustrated with the whole program and its bias iii) 4 Were irritated with the intensity of the program For the 9 above it seemed to be more a question of irritation rather than harm, and 1 also commented that s h e had said too much in a group. 9 Spoke of specific harm: 3 Said they had become antisexual 1 Said s/he now hated penises 1 Commented that the SAR brought back bad memories 1 Thought there was too much lesbianism 1 Felt depersonalized by the program 1 Was still turned off by sexuality and said that no change had occurred 1 Spoke of his endangered marital relationship: An apparently serious problem was reported by this man whose wife had not come to the program: he had previously had difficulty talking to her, and now he was afraid he would find that state of affairs even more untenable. This was a cause for deep concern for him and for us as well. We hope, however, that this individual, whom we could not identify, has been stimulated to seek and find counseling for himself and his wife.
The benefits of the Sexual Education Seminar apparently outweighed any harm it created. The list of harmful effects seems mild. While not necessarily therapeutic or educational, the family seminar (including the pornographic section) did not seem to have done any real violence to any participant’s life-style. Less valid but equally interesting material came from conversations with at least 1 7 of the families involved in the program who gave feedback of the behavioral benefits involved. Shortly after the seminar, parents and children reported talking to each other, some for the first times in their lives, others at a deeper level than had ever been attempted before. Still others who had not had the total family there expressed deep regrets that the rest of the family could not have been included. A typical reaction came from one girl who ran to one of the experimenters, threw her arms around her, and said, “Thank you, thank you so much!” When asked why, she announced that now she had a friend. She found out her mother really wanted to talk to her, while the mother found her daughter wanted counsel. In another family the child had been the outsider, the one member of the family with whom the parents had problems communicating. As a result of the program, the family reported they had talked constantly for 2 days. Another family said talking together was more meaningful because they had all had a similar, intense experience and now found it very interesting to discuss things on any level.
LATER EVALUATION The Sorensen material, which we hoped would give us before-and-after data, was too sparse on follow-up material to be helpful. One week after the SAR, 19 adolescents and 29 parents had responded, with one statistically significant change in adolescent response and two from parents. The data suggested
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 20:31 06 November 2015
64
Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy
that the program made parents more realistic about adolescent sexual awareness. We also felt our original sample was different from that of Sorensen’s. W e used his 74 questions relating to parent-child relationships, but only 28 of them were answered the same by both groups of adolescents. Our adolescents and their parents seemed closer together than Sorensen’s adolescents with their parents. Our adolescents also felt their parents to be more liberal than Sorensen’s adolescents reported they felt their parents might be. And our parents in turn were more liberal and more communicative than their children thought they would be. In addition, our students felt their parents were more aware of their (the students’) sexual activity than the parents said they were. (Who was denying?) Differences between our data and Sorensen’s probably could be explained in great part by a difference in economic class; our group members were essentially middle- or upper-middle-class, all college oriented, all comfortable economically. More recently (6 months after the program), a telephone survey reached 2 1 mothers, 9 fathers, 13 sons, and 15 daughters, representing 30 (about 85%) of the participating families. All 28 of the students responded positively, including 2 who had been negative immediately after the experience. Eight of the fathers and 16 of the mothers were equally positive, while 1 father who had been relatively neutral immediately after the experience was violently hostile, saying it “was the worst 2 days I’ve ever spent” and “in poor taste.” Five mothers who said they were neutral or could see both positive and negative aspects to the experience all mentioned benefits they themselves had obtained as the result of their attendance. Comments of benefits followed the pattern already seen-greater awareness, comfort in communications with others and within the family, greater freedom in relating to others, and the like. All, except the one male parent previously noted, recommended the program for this age group, but the majority, both parents and students, felt it should be restricted to high school juniors and seniors. Two college age students who attended as part of their family group with their younger siblings were a bit less enthusiastic, feeling they would have gotten more benefit attending with their peer group. The majority of the group also felt the experience would have been more beneficial had there not been so many familiar faces, although there were a few who mentioned this as a positive feature of the 2 days.
DISCUSSION We feel we have demonstrated that families obviously belong together in a sex education program. We have also strengthened the hypothesis suggested by Lewin, Konopka, and Kirkendahl that communication is possible between generations within the same family and that such communication
Pearl P. Rosenberg a n d Lois M. R o s e n b e r g
65
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 20:31 06 November 2015
~
_
assists rather than inhibits the development of an adult identity. Parents and children are more alike than they are different, and they eagerly reach out to each other for support, trust, and communication. We believe we are developing a new technique that will allow not only parents and children but teachers and youth workers to learn together and practice interrelationship skills. The seminar mechanism provides a vehicle for those individuals who relate significantly to high school students t o better understand and communicate not only with students but also with colleagues in a more healthy and natural way. A family Sexual Education Seminar may be yet another way in which a high school faculty member may help shape himself into a highly trained sensitive tool for relating to teenagers. In future family programs it is obvious that we must extend the range of participants so that families and friends will be in separate discussion groups. We will, however, retain our present focus on the junior or senior in high school. Other recommendations for future work include careful analysis of the media and perhaps a diminution in the amount and quality of pornographic material presented. In addition, the emphasis placed on the small group and the small group leaders makes it imperative that increasing care and concern be paid to developing the best possible and most skilled leadership for these types of small group experiences. Although we thought it important to involve younger staff as leaders we found high leadership ratings on our evaluations corresponded to skill and experience, rather than age level of the leader. We do wish to express our appreciation to the school, which was courageous enough to work with us and participate in the program. Its administration is to be congratulated for their creativity and their courage, as are the parents who came into this program not really sure of how the program would affect their family. We’re overjoyed to be able to feel that they have received benefits from the experiment, as we have. Their interest in science as well as in their children is something for which we will forever be grateful.
REFERENCES 1.
Sorensen R C: Adolescent Sexuality in Contempormy America. New York, World, 1973.
2. Lewin K: finciples of Topological Psychology. New York, McGraw-Hill, 1936. 3.
4. 5.
6. 7.
a.
9.
Lewin K: Field Theory in Social Science. edited by D Cartwright. New York, Harper & Bros, 1951. Konopka G: Requirements for healthy development of adolescent youth. Adolesc 8(31). Fall 1973. Kirkendahl L A: Premarital Intercourse and Interpersonal Relationships. New York, Gramercy, 1961. Rosenberg P P, Chilgren R: Sex education discussion groups in a medical setting. Int J Group Psychother 23( l), January 1973. Chilgren R, Briggs M: On being explicit: Sex education for professionals. SEICWS Rep 1 ( 5 ) , 1973. Cole T,Chilgren R, Rosenberg P: A new programme of sex education and counselling for spinal cord injured adults and health care professionals. Parapleg 2: 1 1 1-124, 1973. About Sex. Film available from Texture Films New York, New York.
_
Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy
66
APPENDIX Comparison of Family and Adult SAR Seminar Evaluations Participants and response rate:
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 20:31 06 November 2015
Family Adult
Total Participants 134 790
Number Responding 129 766
Male 45% 48%
Female 55% 52%
Percentage Response 96 97
Sex: Family Adult Age: Family Adult
Under 18 23% 4%
18-22 24% 7%
23-26 4% 21%
27-35 4% 30%
36-45 15% 19%
Role: Family Adult
Student 48% 20%
Professional 25% 56%
Non-professional 2 7% 24%
Attended a sexuality seminar before: Yes No Family 6% 94% Adult 10% 90% Found SAR seminar personally beneficial: No Yes Family 96% 4% Adult 97% 3% Enjoyed the seminar: Yes No Family 92% 8% Adult 96% 4% Could discuss sex freely prior to seminar: Family Adult
Yes 38% 41%
Somewhat 50% 49%
No 12% 1W
Could discuss sex more freely after seminar: Yes Somewhat No 23% 8% Family 69% Adult 73% 21% 6% Feel seminar dispelled myths about sex: Yes Somewhat No Family 66% 31% 3% Adult 69% 29% 2% Feel seminar was harmful to self: Yes Somewhat No Family 1% 7% 92% Adult 2% 3% 9 5%
Over45 30% 18%
Pearl P. Rosenberg and Lois
M. Rosenberg
67
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 20:31 06 November 2015
Feel seminar was harmful to others: Yes Somewhat No Family 9% 22% 69% Adult 4% 14% 82% Effectiveness of large group leader (female): Excellent Very Good Good Fair 35% 38% 19% 7% Family 35% 38% 18% 8% Adult Effectiveness of large group leader (male): Excellent Very Good Good Fair Family 32% 43% 22% 6% Adult 36% 39% 18% 7%
Poor
1% 1%
Poor
-
1%
Effectiveness of speaker on homosexuality: Excellent Very Good Good 51% 3 1% 12% Family Adult 59% 2 7% 9%
Fair
Effectiveness of small group leaders: Excellent Very Good Good Family 34% 38% 17% Adult 3 8% 34% 17%
Fair 10%
Poor
9%
2%
Effectiveness of small group experience: Excellent VeryGood Good Family 21% 32% 28% Adult 25% 34% 25%
Fair
Poor 2% 4%
3% 4%
17% 13%
Effect of various features of SAR seminar: Helpful N o effect 7% 13% Smallgroup 91% 86% 79% 32% 21% 66% Largegroup 11% 6% 85% 93% Movies 27% 71% 43% 55% Music 43% 23% 56% 77% Slides
Poor 3% 1%
1%
Harmful 2% 1%
2% 3% 2% 1%
-
1% 2%
1%
ISSN: 0092-623X (Print) 1521-0715 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/usmt20
Sex education for adolescents and their families Pearl P. Rosenberg PhD & Lois M. Rosenberg To cite this article: Pearl P. Rosenberg PhD & Lois M. Rosenberg (1976) Sex education for adolescents and their families, Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 2:1, 53-67, DOI: 10.1080/00926237608407073 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00926237608407073
Published online: 14 Jan 2008.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 18
View related articles
Citing articles: 5 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=usmt20 Download by: [University of Birmingham]
Date: 06 November 2015, At: 20:31
Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy Vol. 2, No. 1, Spring 1976
Sex
Education for Adolescents and Their Families
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 20:31 06 November 2015
Pearl P. Rosenberg, PhD, and Lois M . Rosenberg
ABSTRACT: This paper describes a unique, 2-day experiential program in sex education for adolescents and their families. The program is adapted from a similar teaching program for medical students and is a highly focused, intense emotional experience wherein participants are presented, via a multimedia approach, with a planned sequence of explicit sexual material on all areas of human sexuality. During the program, six small group sessions with family members in separate groups enable participants to share impressions and examine anxieties aroused by the presentations. The entire process is monitored by evaluative instruments and questionnaires. Results of the data support the hypothesis that communication is possible between generations, and assists rather than inhibits the development of an adult identity.
Adolescence is characterkticdly a time of confusion. The youth striving for maturity, respect, and a “total sense of identity” is bombarded by biological, social, and emotional pressures. Unfortunately these pressures descend when adolescents reject and are rejected by those who have previously been most helpful and supportive, their parents and family. The newly created communication barrier becomes only one additional pressure. The extreme biological changes and unpredictable emotional reactions of the adolescent, plus his attempts at defining and understanding his own sexuality, seem to cause a major part of his confusion. Sexuality, to be sure, is the last topic he can broach with his parents. Freud and Erikson stress the importance of defining oneself as a sexual being during adolescence. It is essential to the development of a complete self-identity. Sorensen’ documents the discrepancy between today’s adolescents’ sexual knowledge and sexual experiences. Adolescents do not know all they need to know. Freud insists that the learning” must take place away from the parents. Rebellion enables the 66
Reprint queries should be directed to Dr. Pearl P. Rosenberg at 560 Mount Curve Boulevard, Saint Paul. Minnesota 551 16.
53
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 20:31 06 November 2015
54
Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy
child to get over his sexual cathexis with his parents (Oedipal) and form his own sexual identity outside of the family. Yet Lewin’ provides us with another theoretical position. Problems occur when adolescence becomes a barrier to growth or in Lewinian terms a barrier to locomotion from the region of childhood to the region of adulthood. Lewinian theory postulates that one of the most effective barriers to locomotion is a lack of clarity and understanding of the experiences through which one must pass. This suggests that greater communication with parents, who are more experienced, might provide clarity and understanding and remove barriers to growth. Understanding where others who have passed through this transitional stage of growth once stood and now stand can help adolescents to determine more realistically their own position in a continuum of life-styles and behavior. In addition, Lewin’s3 theories maintain that greater locomotion occurs under conditions of lowered tension. Under such conditions greater emotional comfort exists, learning takes place, and changed behavior is evident. Open and supportive communication about sexuality designed to diminish anxiety or tension should encourage integration of learning into the present personality patterns, resulting in changed behavior. Lewinian theory thus illuminates the need to locomote through the growth barrier created by misunderstanding and ignorance and the need to do so in an atmosphere of lowered tension. Konopka4 states more directly the need to view adolescence not merely as a time of psychological moratorium (Erikson) and independence but also as a stage of “earnest and significant human development,” an age of “commitment and emerging interdependency.” She feels that open discussion, opportunity for values clarification, and respect for the adolescent as a person in his own right are essential for healthy development. Lester Kirkendahl’ also makes much of the need for communication and its usefulness in permitting a nonexploitive use of sex: “An atmosphere in which frank, objective, and honest communication about sex, personal feelings and desires could take place, not just once but a number of times, would seem an absolute prerequisite to the nonexploitive use of premarital sex. That atmosphere does not exist at the present time.” In accordance with Konopka, Lewin, and Kirkendahl, it appears that an ideal “sex education” program for adolescents needs to be more than informational. It must give the adolescent opportunity to clarify and assess his own values, integrating his own biological, emotional, and social needs into a sound system. It must also provide him with the opportunity to talk this process through with supportive adults. We at the University of Minnesota felt our Human Sexuality Seminar Program could approach this ideal. Its basic philosophy was to present emotionally laden sexual material and give participants the opportunity to discuss freely in small groups their feelings, concerns, values, and practices.
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 20:31 06 November 2015
Pearl P. Rosenberg and Lois M. Rosenberg
55
Originally, couples went through the program together and found that their communication skills increased not only on the sexual level but on all levels. We felt the program could similarly increase communication between parents and their young adults. The program is a 2-day highly focused and intense emotional experience. A number of articles have been written by the Program in Human Sexuality Very briefly, we attempt through the media of discussing it in detail.6, ‘ 9 music, slides, and movies to portray as explicitly as possible all types of sexual behavior. Material is presented in a planned developmental sequence starting with masturbation and moving through homosexuality and heterosexuality (all varieties available in cinema form) until a saturation point has been reached. Then we move into the area of relationships and the meanings of sex and sexual behavior and roles and role behavior. We hope to suggest how these facets of human life-styles are tied together through the dynamic processes of sex and sexuality. Central to the program’s success are the 7- to 10-member small group discussions held every 1% to 2 hours during the 2 days. The groups are where the seminar members “put it all together.” A certain amount of trust is engendered among members, and the groups are small enough so that each member who wishes to has the opportunity to participate as well as to receive support in examining the personal anxiety aroused by the presentations. The entire process is monitored by evaluative instruments and questionnaires. Particularly interesting to us was a question regarding the age at which the 3,000 or more initial adult participants responding would have preferred to experience the sessions. Over 50% suggested high school or younger. Equally important was our awareness of the unique contribution of the experience, particularly its small group discussion periods, to increased communication skills between participants. Somehow, development of an ability to discuss a subject as anxeity ridden as sex more freely and comfortably results in communication on other levels as well. Hence it was felt the seminar would afford an unusual opportunity to enhance the general communication patterns in families and to emphasize our relatively conservative viewpoint that sex education belongs within the family system. Learning about and discovering sex and sexuality, becoming aware of one’s reactions to the gamut of sexuality, and experiencing the anxieties attendant on such exposure should be a growth experience achieved by the entire family working together. Thus was conceived the family sex education seminar where students, with their parents, would spend the weekend learning together. As in standard seminars, a family would be together in the large group discussions and separate in the small groups where each could explore his unique sexual awareness freely with a group of other people. He could then share such awareness with other family members at home together.
56
Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy
METHODOLOGY
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 20:31 06 November 2015
Preparation Recognizing that the uniqueness of our proposal would require special preparation, we began developing our program over 6 months before it was scheduled to occur. A public school setting seemed impolitic, and we preferred to initiate the program in a local private school where we had already established some contact,with the headmaster, a solid yet visionary man who was dissatisfied with present sex education methods, insistent on looking for something better, and strong enough to venture into uncharted and possibly hazardous waters. The headmaster, his wife, a number of faculty and their wives, and a few interested and key parents were invited to participate in a standard seminar. After this experience they agreed that the program should be offered to their school’s seniors and their parents. A preliminary meeting was held with all seniors where the program was described and where they were asked to fill out a simple questionnaire on their interest in it. Of the 61 students attending that session, 27 of the 31 boys and all 30 of the girls were very or somewhat interested. Most of the students did not care whether or not their parents came, although 5 boys and 5 girls actively preferred to have their parents attend. With this material in hand we approached the parents 3 nights later, introduced them to the program, and invited them to sign up for either of the two sessions. Some parents expressed concern, feeling they were being forced into the program since their sons and daughters (already informed) had made the decision to go, and as caring parents they would feel very uncomfortable denying them the opportunity. (Future plans call for introducing the program to parents and their children together.) Families wege given 2 weeks in which to decide about participating in the program. Eventually over half the families were represented by at least 1 member in either of the two seminars and included 104 of the 134 total participants. To this were added families and individuals who had heard of the program and specifically requested admission to the “Adolescent SAR” (around the university, the program at that time was known as a SAR-Sexual Attitude Reassessment-and the family SAR was called the Adolescent SAR). These included 2 families with disabled adolescent members. Four families were represented by 4 people, 19 were represented by 3, 10 were represented by 2, and 14 by singles. Of these singles, 1 was a father, 3 were mothers, 6 were daughters, and 4 were sons. All parents and chiIdren were given a set of preprogram questionnaires modeled after the questionnaires used by Sorensenl in his study of adolescent sexuality in America. In planning our family seminars we attempted to provide ourselves with a ready-made control group by using the data from Sorensen’s book and comparing the answers given to his questions with those given by our adolescents. We also wanted to incorporate in our data parents’ responses to questions parallel to those that we asked of their children. Certain program modifications were suggested by parents and staff as more appropriate for families. We attempted to make the explicit sexual material a little less intense and added sessions on venereal disease and problems of conception and pregnancy. We also deliberately used films depicting young people’s sexuality and shared an excellent film9 in which a group of young adolescents were discussing together quite openly some of the major sexual preoccupations and questions of this age group. There was a session on morals and values, usually not included in the regular seminars, but it seemed to be particularly appropriate for a family SAR.
Seminar Process Despite the large number of families that eventually signed up for the SAR experience, anxiety and tension ran high until the actual moment when the program began. Nevertheless, the seminar, once it got under way, was very similar to others that had previously taken place. In the first small group session, which occurred after the fantasy material and the
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 20:31 06 November 2015
Pearl P. Rosenberg and Lois M. Rosenberg
57
introduction of the concept of masturbation, the groups spent much more time than is usual, however, discussing and estabbhing a contract between group members regarding confidentiality of the group’s discussion. Each group needed to reinforce the agreement that communications taking place in the small group would not be carried back to either parents or their children. Despite the numerous personal relationships already existing between many of these families, this development of mutual trust was achieved, except in one group in which neither parents nor children felt they could ever trust each other enough to agree to promise that kind of confidentiality. The first session was generally devoted to adults and adolescents testing each other to see how much they really could share, a state achieved in half the groups by the end of this session. In two of the groups the younger ones tended to take the lead in breaking through barriers of communication; in one it was one of the adults; and in the others the two groups shared the conversation equally. Groups that were having trouble getting started tended to focus their discussions on the technique of the films, on the various actors, on the questionnaire data, and the like. In some groups participants even discussed whether or not they should be in attendance, while, in a number of other, group members discussed their anxiety and discomfort about the whole procedure and their concern that it go well. In the more comfortable groups, conversations began on the problem of fantasy, questions of masturbation, and some of the concerns about touching and getting close. The main problem for participants in these groups was whether they could freely get together and talk, yet all involved said that they felt a need for a trusting relationship. The second session followed the homosexual discussion and films. The groups were still, on the whole, having intellectual discussions, but there were beginning attempts at sharing personal feelings and concerns. Some of the parents as well as the students were beginning to risk expressing their own anxieties regarding homosexuality. This sharing of experiences and concerns created a setting wherein new insights were beginning to occur. In a few of the groups the discussion of homosexuality was subordinated to discussions of relationships in general and marked the start of a realistic approach to the practice of oral-genital sex, a practice unacceptable to many adults and certainly a new exposure for many of the adolescent groups. The third session came after the very heavy visual exposure to extensive sexual experience. Reactions were almost universal and generally negative. People were tired, bored, angry, and some were able to be very open and concrete in expressing these feelings. It was a rare group in which anybody felt comfortable enough to say that they were turned on by some of the explicit sexuality. Feelings occasioned by the overexposure to sexuality seemed to cross age lines. The exposure to the number of stag films developed participant’s awareness of the lack of relationship and feeling among the actors and heightened participants’ valuation of “relationships” and “loving” as part of the sexual act. The difference between lack of meaningful relationships in many of the heterosexual films and the emphasis on meaningful interrelationships in the homosexual films afforded a new insight into what homosexuality was or could be for people who had chosen that way of life. There was a noticeable growth in tolerance and sympathy for the gay community. The fourth session came after a night of thought, action, and/or in many families a good deal of talking, followed by a morning of relationship films. This was generally a turning point for all the groups. All were working slowly but steadily, and, in many, participants began to evaluate their group’s process. For the most part participants were very relieved by the morning’s films on the meaning of relationships. Discussion was now freely crossing age lines, although from time to time one age group would still question the other with “How do adolescents [or parents] feel about such and such?” There was open communication, genuine concern, and a real interest in discovering the few real differences between age groups. Some problems were problems for all, and people were trying to solve them in a humanistic way, even though the means to the end were different. They shared relief at being able to see films that permitted them to empathize and that led to discussions of moral values and issues. (This process, which invariably occurs, i s directly related to their deliberate exposure to the pornographic material the night before.) Here groups focused on concepts of marriage and commitment and the
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 20:31 06 November 2015
58
Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy
concerns of both adolescents and adults with regard to these issues. Here, too, we became aware of how the mystique of sex contributed to the inability of young people to practice adequate contraceptive measures. In one group the generation gap seemed to exist solely in relation to concern about contraception. Despite the young people’s desire not to have children, they were not able to plan ahead and were inclined to take risks, rationalizing “This can’t happen to me.” The most understanding adult, who could accept differences in the younger generation’s attitude toward premarital sex, found it difficult to accept such a casual attitude toward contraceptive care. Contraceptive care apparently meant preplanning and manipulation attitudes which the youngsters rejected. Adolescents maintain a cultural stance wherein relationship is all-important, with sexual behavior secondary. To plan for sex without a relationship is wrong. Somehow, to indicate they were ready for sexuality by having planned for it would deny spontaneity of the interrelationship process. The group agreed that, were sexuality to become a common, natural function, the sexual activity of any couple would be only a measure of how far the relationship had proceeded, not an end in itself. With the mystique gone, young people could then prepare themselves for sexuality, take contraceptive measures, and not feel they were violating the relationship aspect when they did so. In the fifth session, genuine sharing occurred in all but two of the groups. Since the large group sessions had related to female and male role problems, t h i s was naturally the main topic of the small discussion groups. Nevertheless, each group focused on the particular phases of role problems pertinent to its membership. One group discussed problems of the disabled; another handled the problem worrying one boy concerning an impending divorce in his family; another talked about a particular woman member’s problem with her role; and another helped a young girl member clarify her concern about how she fit into her family structure. Discussion wasn’t always easy, but it was meaningful and important, giving evidence of the gradually developing trust pattern. It was significant that group members could learn about communicating with each other, between generations, and could realize that basic beliefs about “good” and “right” were much the same in spite of differing ideas as to how these goals might be reached. Discussion of the necd for freedom and the opportunity to touch, which took place in many of the groups, seemed to parallel, on a behavioral level, the actual experience in getting together and touching each other emotionally. By the fifth session most groups had accomplished this on many different levels. The sixth and final group session came after large group discussions of morals and values, and thus emphasized these topics. There was the usual general return to some of the questions of the first session as one made preparations to go back to the work-a-day world. But now these discussions were on a more personal level, and there was much more freedom in assessing the relevancy and meaning of such questions between and across generations. Morals and values were indeed the central theme, but most important was the recognition of the need to work things out individually so that one could be comfortable with one’s own decisions. Recognition of a need for individualization in the development of morals and values was accompanied by an increased concern and awareness of the need for both parents and children to know and respect each other’s values and principles. At this last session, in 12 out of 15 of the groups, many warm feelings were expressed by group members. They spoke of the special experience they had had together, and how important, for this moment in time, the relationship feeling had become. As usual at this time, a number of participants expressed their desire to continue with the group and have future sessions together. To summarize, the groups began with a general circling process verbally and emotionally between adolescents and adults in their mutual effort to develop an atmosphere of trust and communication. The second session of the group, with the discussion of homosexuality, was the beginning of the more open communication and mutual exploration that reached full bloom in about the fifth session. In the third session, after the saturated sex experience, group members seemed to find relief in sharing their annoyance and disgust at the idea of sex without any kind of positive emotional feeling and in trading mutual sensations of boredom and exhaustion. The fourth session, the beginning session of the next morning,
Pearl P. Rosenberg and Lois M. Rosenberg
59
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 20:31 06 November 2015
was a time of warmth. Just as the films showed relationships, so, in the group, did relationships begin to develop and grow between members. In the fifth session the intimacy experienced peaked, with leaders reporting conversations directed uniquely to the specific problems of individual members. Group time was allocated to giving support to each other. Finally, the last group session represented a return to reality, to the questions: “What are we going to do with this?” “What were we here for?” “Was it really worth it?” “Did it really show what w e wanted to see?” As is frequently the case, some participants whose internal barriers and defenses weakened so that they could participate actively in the fourth or fifth sessions, returned in the sixth to their original, often antagonistic position.
R ES ULTS Out of the 15 groups, 12 were felt to be successful, 5 were rated high, and 3 had some difficulties. In 1 of the 3, members were unable to resolve the problem of privacy between the adolescents, and the adults and the two age groups essentially confronted each other throughout the entire six sessions. Each of the other 2 groups was dominated by one individual whose opinions shaped the main thrust of the group’s discussion. While the group went along and did not rebel, individual members were dissatisfied and expressed their feelings in the evaluation questionnaire and in private chats with the group leaders. Students were usually the most active discussants and carried the ball, although frequently the adults wouId be the first to risk, thus role-model and give endorsement for risk taking. Groups tended to be divided along attitudinal lines rather than age lines; that is, some groups were divided between the feelers and the thinkers; others between the people who insisted on relationships and those who felt relationships weren’t that important; and still others between the experts and the novices. Experts’ status was attained through experience and reading rather than through age. Questionnaire data indicated that the family SAR closely paralleled the standard all-adult SAR experience, and provided the majority of the participants with an interesting and positive experience (see Table 1). TABLE 1 Comparison of Family and Adult SAR Seminar Evaluations Family SAR
Adult SAR
96% 96%
97% 97% 96%
~
Participants responding Found seminar personally beneficial Enjoyed seminar Could discuss sex freely prior to seminar Could discuss sex freely after seminar Feel seminar dispelled myths about sex Feel seminar was harmful to self Feel seminar was harmful to others Felt small group discussion helpful
92% 38% 69% 66% 1% 9% 9 1%
41% 72% 68% 2% 4% 86%
NOTE: See Appendix for a more detailed version of this comparison.
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 20:31 06 November 2015
60
Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy
The basic differences between the family and our usual SAR seemed to be: 1. It took longer for an operational feeling of trust and communication to occur in the family SARs but the gain, once achieved, seemed to be much more welcome and effective. 2. Family SARs placed greater emphasis on questions of morals and values, issues that preoccupied their discussions. Positions taken were comfortable, if different, for each group member. One participant usually did not try to win over another, but each achieved, instead, a mutual understanding and awareness of the other’s position. 3. Family SARs had a much more homogeneous reaction of dismay and antagonism to the supersaturation session. It was only on the 2nd day that one or two participants confessed to a “turn-on” or suggested that the supersaturation session had been exciting as well as disgusting and upsetting. We are convinced that a saturation experience is necessary. A participant has to venture beyond what seems to be emotionally tolerable in order to experience the subsequent relief and resultant ability to appreciate the totality of positive sexuality and sensuality. What does require research is to determine “too much” from “just enough.” 4. Family SARs disclose a stronger need to focus on the meaning and understanding of relationships, both nonsexual and sexual. In retrospect, the emphasis on the nonsexual reIationship appeared to be greater than on the sexual. One of the problems to be solved for future programs will be ways of developing quickly, in the time span of the seminar, opportunities to examine diagnostically the meaning of relationship. 5. Individual problems seemed more intense in family SARs. Individuals with preconceived notions on a sex-related topic would insist on discussing it, regardless of what the stimulus from the large group sessions had been. The person who was a research expert, the individual who came in late and had to make a place for himself in the group, the youngster who was worrying about a pending divorce in his family, the father concerned about a breakup in his family, the young woman who had behavior patterns that she felt would be unacceptable to her parents-all demanded the attention of the group. Some groups handled severe problem situations of members very well, but in the process sacrificed time for working on seminar-related material. Two days is not enough time to handle a group problem and an educational problem as well. The biggest difficulty was that of familiarity, the fear that information shared would get back to the original family constellation. Analysis of the open-ended questions on the evaluation questionnaire gives the participants’ explicit reactions: 1. “What parts of the seminar did you most like?” (210 comments) 7 Everything and refused to choose between them 82 The small group
Pearl P. Rosenberg and Lois M. Rosenberg
40 24 22
8
7 6
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 20:31 06 November 2015
14
61
The movies (particularly those of the second day) The large group on homosexuality The format and setting (such things as pillows, atmosphere, food, staff warmth, etc.) The large group setting The divergent ages Themusic Miscellaneous comments covering single items (having one’s family there, the feelings engendered, the opportunities to participate in something like this, etc.)
2. “What do you dislike most about the program?” (138 comments) 19 Nothing about the program they disliked 51 The films (30 of those expressly mentioned the highly saturated evening session) 14 The whole tone of the program (either too strong, too biased, no love shown, etc.) 13 The homosexual talk 10 The small group 4 The large group The general feeling, tone, or atmosphere of the situation 8 8 Manipulation of people’s thinking* Parts of the structure (i.e., ventilation, the temperature, the length of time, 7 etc.) The whole program was too short, and they would have preferred to have it 4 go longer
3. “Evaluate the factors that helped your small groups” (189 comments) 66 52 32 21 13 5
The leaders Themembers The diversity of ages The atmosphere The structure of the group itself (its size, content, splitting of families, etc.) The stimulation provided by the films that gave them the content of their discussion
4. “What factors did you feel were hindering your small group process?” (119 comments) Nothing had hindered their group 16 Specific members (either dominating members, reluctant members, judg39 mental members, etc.) The confidentiality problem 23 The group structure itself, the number of people in it (and 10 of these 18 18 felt that the small group meeting time was too short) Group factors (way the groups were structured, the focus, etc.) 4 That they didn’t move 4 The silence in the group 3 The leader had actually hindered the group in its path toward its goals 12
5. “What feedback, if any, they had to give to their own leaders?” (103 comments) 62 Positive 17 Nocomment The leaders should be more direct 18 *However, seven of these came from one group, with a very dominant member, whose very strong negative feelings were expressed at the beginning of the program, and one cannot help but wonder if anger was actually displaced by the other seven from him to the program?
Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy
62
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 20:31 06 November 2015
3 3
Their leaders should take over less than they had Gave special advice (in one group the leaders argued with each other and the suggestions of members were that they get together, one suggested that her leader handle intellectualization better, and one asked that her leader spend time handling the the problems of special members)
6. “Any suggestions regarding the media, the audiovisual part of the program?” (103 comments) 30 No recommendations All quite good and enjoyed it tremendously 20 Antagonistic toward the pornographic movies 23 Technical questions (color, light, sound, too loud, too soft, etc.) 18 Specific requests, more material on VD,childbearing, mothering, masculine 7 roles, sex over 40,heavy adolescent necking and petting Specifically asked about relationship concerned. Others wanted humor, and 5 one wanted some time to work on specific personal sex problems 7. “In what way was the program personally beneficial to you?”* (194comments) No Dersonal benefit 10 Awareness and comfort in self. It was possible to divide these comments 72 into four somewhat overlapping categories: a) 39 Focused o n the awareness of one’s own self and what one really thought b) 9 Focused on knowledge of one’s own roles, sexual and otherwise c) 3 Spoke of understanding which led to self-acceptance d) 21 Mentioned a present new comfort with where they were and what they felt about themselves as against a certain amount of discomfort previously Awareness and comfort with others (26 talked of increased awareness, i.e., 44 of others, and 18 specifically mentioned increased ability to communicate with others, both between and among generations) Information getting (they learned things that they had never learned before) 29 Communication with families 12 Communication with one’s partner 5 Miscellaneous comments 12 Increased general understanding of adolescence 5 Having general misconceptions or sexual myths clarified 5 1 Knowledge of body language General opportunity for catharsis from the general feeling of enthusiasm 1 that was engendered 8 . “In what way was this program harmful to you?”* (136 comments)
100
7 2 27
Not harmful Noanswer Question marks, indicating that they were not sure Actually said that they thought it was harmful
Breaking down these 27 we find: a) 9 I t was harmful to others (they were concerned with their daughters, their sons, their friends, or just others in general) b) 18 Had concerns about themselves Examining these 18 more carefully: i) 3 Were expressed as feelings, tired, bored, and 1 anger, which probably reflects anxiety *This and Question 8 were of the greatest interest to staff.
*This question was probably most critical.
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 20:31 06 November 2015
Pearl P. Rosenberg and Lois M. Rosenberg
63
ii) 2 Were frustrated with the whole program and its bias iii) 4 Were irritated with the intensity of the program For the 9 above it seemed to be more a question of irritation rather than harm, and 1 also commented that s h e had said too much in a group. 9 Spoke of specific harm: 3 Said they had become antisexual 1 Said s/he now hated penises 1 Commented that the SAR brought back bad memories 1 Thought there was too much lesbianism 1 Felt depersonalized by the program 1 Was still turned off by sexuality and said that no change had occurred 1 Spoke of his endangered marital relationship: An apparently serious problem was reported by this man whose wife had not come to the program: he had previously had difficulty talking to her, and now he was afraid he would find that state of affairs even more untenable. This was a cause for deep concern for him and for us as well. We hope, however, that this individual, whom we could not identify, has been stimulated to seek and find counseling for himself and his wife.
The benefits of the Sexual Education Seminar apparently outweighed any harm it created. The list of harmful effects seems mild. While not necessarily therapeutic or educational, the family seminar (including the pornographic section) did not seem to have done any real violence to any participant’s life-style. Less valid but equally interesting material came from conversations with at least 1 7 of the families involved in the program who gave feedback of the behavioral benefits involved. Shortly after the seminar, parents and children reported talking to each other, some for the first times in their lives, others at a deeper level than had ever been attempted before. Still others who had not had the total family there expressed deep regrets that the rest of the family could not have been included. A typical reaction came from one girl who ran to one of the experimenters, threw her arms around her, and said, “Thank you, thank you so much!” When asked why, she announced that now she had a friend. She found out her mother really wanted to talk to her, while the mother found her daughter wanted counsel. In another family the child had been the outsider, the one member of the family with whom the parents had problems communicating. As a result of the program, the family reported they had talked constantly for 2 days. Another family said talking together was more meaningful because they had all had a similar, intense experience and now found it very interesting to discuss things on any level.
LATER EVALUATION The Sorensen material, which we hoped would give us before-and-after data, was too sparse on follow-up material to be helpful. One week after the SAR, 19 adolescents and 29 parents had responded, with one statistically significant change in adolescent response and two from parents. The data suggested
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 20:31 06 November 2015
64
Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy
that the program made parents more realistic about adolescent sexual awareness. We also felt our original sample was different from that of Sorensen’s. W e used his 74 questions relating to parent-child relationships, but only 28 of them were answered the same by both groups of adolescents. Our adolescents and their parents seemed closer together than Sorensen’s adolescents with their parents. Our adolescents also felt their parents to be more liberal than Sorensen’s adolescents reported they felt their parents might be. And our parents in turn were more liberal and more communicative than their children thought they would be. In addition, our students felt their parents were more aware of their (the students’) sexual activity than the parents said they were. (Who was denying?) Differences between our data and Sorensen’s probably could be explained in great part by a difference in economic class; our group members were essentially middle- or upper-middle-class, all college oriented, all comfortable economically. More recently (6 months after the program), a telephone survey reached 2 1 mothers, 9 fathers, 13 sons, and 15 daughters, representing 30 (about 85%) of the participating families. All 28 of the students responded positively, including 2 who had been negative immediately after the experience. Eight of the fathers and 16 of the mothers were equally positive, while 1 father who had been relatively neutral immediately after the experience was violently hostile, saying it “was the worst 2 days I’ve ever spent” and “in poor taste.” Five mothers who said they were neutral or could see both positive and negative aspects to the experience all mentioned benefits they themselves had obtained as the result of their attendance. Comments of benefits followed the pattern already seen-greater awareness, comfort in communications with others and within the family, greater freedom in relating to others, and the like. All, except the one male parent previously noted, recommended the program for this age group, but the majority, both parents and students, felt it should be restricted to high school juniors and seniors. Two college age students who attended as part of their family group with their younger siblings were a bit less enthusiastic, feeling they would have gotten more benefit attending with their peer group. The majority of the group also felt the experience would have been more beneficial had there not been so many familiar faces, although there were a few who mentioned this as a positive feature of the 2 days.
DISCUSSION We feel we have demonstrated that families obviously belong together in a sex education program. We have also strengthened the hypothesis suggested by Lewin, Konopka, and Kirkendahl that communication is possible between generations within the same family and that such communication
Pearl P. Rosenberg a n d Lois M. R o s e n b e r g
65
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 20:31 06 November 2015
~
_
assists rather than inhibits the development of an adult identity. Parents and children are more alike than they are different, and they eagerly reach out to each other for support, trust, and communication. We believe we are developing a new technique that will allow not only parents and children but teachers and youth workers to learn together and practice interrelationship skills. The seminar mechanism provides a vehicle for those individuals who relate significantly to high school students t o better understand and communicate not only with students but also with colleagues in a more healthy and natural way. A family Sexual Education Seminar may be yet another way in which a high school faculty member may help shape himself into a highly trained sensitive tool for relating to teenagers. In future family programs it is obvious that we must extend the range of participants so that families and friends will be in separate discussion groups. We will, however, retain our present focus on the junior or senior in high school. Other recommendations for future work include careful analysis of the media and perhaps a diminution in the amount and quality of pornographic material presented. In addition, the emphasis placed on the small group and the small group leaders makes it imperative that increasing care and concern be paid to developing the best possible and most skilled leadership for these types of small group experiences. Although we thought it important to involve younger staff as leaders we found high leadership ratings on our evaluations corresponded to skill and experience, rather than age level of the leader. We do wish to express our appreciation to the school, which was courageous enough to work with us and participate in the program. Its administration is to be congratulated for their creativity and their courage, as are the parents who came into this program not really sure of how the program would affect their family. We’re overjoyed to be able to feel that they have received benefits from the experiment, as we have. Their interest in science as well as in their children is something for which we will forever be grateful.
REFERENCES 1.
Sorensen R C: Adolescent Sexuality in Contempormy America. New York, World, 1973.
2. Lewin K: finciples of Topological Psychology. New York, McGraw-Hill, 1936. 3.
4. 5.
6. 7.
a.
9.
Lewin K: Field Theory in Social Science. edited by D Cartwright. New York, Harper & Bros, 1951. Konopka G: Requirements for healthy development of adolescent youth. Adolesc 8(31). Fall 1973. Kirkendahl L A: Premarital Intercourse and Interpersonal Relationships. New York, Gramercy, 1961. Rosenberg P P, Chilgren R: Sex education discussion groups in a medical setting. Int J Group Psychother 23( l), January 1973. Chilgren R, Briggs M: On being explicit: Sex education for professionals. SEICWS Rep 1 ( 5 ) , 1973. Cole T,Chilgren R, Rosenberg P: A new programme of sex education and counselling for spinal cord injured adults and health care professionals. Parapleg 2: 1 1 1-124, 1973. About Sex. Film available from Texture Films New York, New York.
_
Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy
66
APPENDIX Comparison of Family and Adult SAR Seminar Evaluations Participants and response rate:
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 20:31 06 November 2015
Family Adult
Total Participants 134 790
Number Responding 129 766
Male 45% 48%
Female 55% 52%
Percentage Response 96 97
Sex: Family Adult Age: Family Adult
Under 18 23% 4%
18-22 24% 7%
23-26 4% 21%
27-35 4% 30%
36-45 15% 19%
Role: Family Adult
Student 48% 20%
Professional 25% 56%
Non-professional 2 7% 24%
Attended a sexuality seminar before: Yes No Family 6% 94% Adult 10% 90% Found SAR seminar personally beneficial: No Yes Family 96% 4% Adult 97% 3% Enjoyed the seminar: Yes No Family 92% 8% Adult 96% 4% Could discuss sex freely prior to seminar: Family Adult
Yes 38% 41%
Somewhat 50% 49%
No 12% 1W
Could discuss sex more freely after seminar: Yes Somewhat No 23% 8% Family 69% Adult 73% 21% 6% Feel seminar dispelled myths about sex: Yes Somewhat No Family 66% 31% 3% Adult 69% 29% 2% Feel seminar was harmful to self: Yes Somewhat No Family 1% 7% 92% Adult 2% 3% 9 5%
Over45 30% 18%
Pearl P. Rosenberg and Lois
M. Rosenberg
67
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 20:31 06 November 2015
Feel seminar was harmful to others: Yes Somewhat No Family 9% 22% 69% Adult 4% 14% 82% Effectiveness of large group leader (female): Excellent Very Good Good Fair 35% 38% 19% 7% Family 35% 38% 18% 8% Adult Effectiveness of large group leader (male): Excellent Very Good Good Fair Family 32% 43% 22% 6% Adult 36% 39% 18% 7%
Poor
1% 1%
Poor
-
1%
Effectiveness of speaker on homosexuality: Excellent Very Good Good 51% 3 1% 12% Family Adult 59% 2 7% 9%
Fair
Effectiveness of small group leaders: Excellent Very Good Good Family 34% 38% 17% Adult 3 8% 34% 17%
Fair 10%
Poor
9%
2%
Effectiveness of small group experience: Excellent VeryGood Good Family 21% 32% 28% Adult 25% 34% 25%
Fair
Poor 2% 4%
3% 4%
17% 13%
Effect of various features of SAR seminar: Helpful N o effect 7% 13% Smallgroup 91% 86% 79% 32% 21% 66% Largegroup 11% 6% 85% 93% Movies 27% 71% 43% 55% Music 43% 23% 56% 77% Slides
Poor 3% 1%
1%
Harmful 2% 1%
2% 3% 2% 1%
-
1% 2%
1%
