Q&A with Stephen Russell 

Stephen Russell was the Guest Editor for the March 2005 issue of Sexuality Research and Social Policy, and agreed to be interviewed about this special issue on "Positive Perspectives on Adolescent Sexuality." Professor Russell spoke to us from his office in the Family Studies and Human Development department at the University of Arizona in Tucson.

American Sexuality: I read an interview with Fran Lebowitz where she said, "As far as the loathing of teenagers is concerned, certainly it springs from envy of their sexuality, which is most extreme at this time of life, especially for boys. This is primarily why teenagers are dangerous and the reason they are feared."

Why do you think adults attach such strong emotions to adolescence and teenage sexuality?

Stephen Russell: Culturally we are ambivalent at best and hostile at worst about adolescence. The same is true about sexuality. That period of life, adolescence, there are things about it that we fear but also things we hold onto as dear, as one of the best times of life. It is one of the most profound developmental changes in the human life span.

Physical changes for the person experiencing it bring interpersonal changes. People begin to react to those changes. For example, for a 12-year-old girl physically maturing, all important relationships start to shift. Her parents treat her differently. Her father is concerned about her private space. Her body becomes her own. And other adults in the community react differently to her. Men begin to respond to her and she realizes people look at her differently and have different expectations of her because of the changes in her body. People may expect her to be moody and rebellious. This affects the way she understands herself and how she relates to others. There is a total rearrangement of family dynamics and dynamics with friends and peers compelling changes at the personal level.

For parents, it is an amazing, exciting, terrifying kind of change because it is this thing about life that we are really ambivalent about. Almost all parents, if you ask them how they feel about their children's sexual maturation, their response is to freak out: I don't want to think about it; I don't want to go there.

The irony is that everybody goes through the process but it doesn't take long to forget what it's like to have been in the process. Because of the fear, the reaction of most adults is how do we control it, how do we make sure bad things don't happen. But at a fundamental level, most adults know they can't control sexual expression or sexual desire of another human being. That scares us to death, so we like to think that we can "just say no."

But if we acknowledge we can't control people, we need to tell young people, "You know your family's values, your friends' values. Now you're going to have to make the right choice for yourself." That's terribly scary as an adult. You have to be ready to give over to a young person the power for them to make choices for themselves.

AS: The article by O'Sullivan in the issue looks at "lack of knowledge about the typical contexts of early sexual experiences among youth." Yet all adults have been through adolescence. Do our memories become distorted or get blurry? Or do experiences change that much with each generation?

SR: Times have changed but most adults today were, as adolescents, sexually active, probably not in the context of heterosexual marriage. There is a tension between wanting to tell teenagers "No, don't do it" and not wanting to own up and say "Oh, well, maybe I did that myself."

At the same time, the reality of things seems and feels different. Many parents didn't have MTV or the Internet and they hear all these things about oral sex, thinking "that was different than when I was in the seventh or eighth grade." So there are historical changes in the way adolescents are experiencing sexuality.

The CDC came out with its report, and it does appear adolescents may be engaging in oral sex in a way not found in past generations. We don't know for sure because these questions weren't asked before. But from the reaction of adults—My god, we didn't do that—suggests that it is probably true to a degree.

AS: Has your research given you a different perspective on your own experiences as an adolescent?

SR: Well, I'm gay. There wasn't such a thing as gay teenagers when I was a teen. Today nearly every high school has somebody who considers themselves gay. I think that represents that we're now at a point where we can conceptualize positive adolescent sexuality and sexual expression, not necessarily that sexual intercourse is good for teenagers, but to say the pervasive idea that sexual behavior is bad if you're a teen is becoming challenged. We are at a time when exposure to different ideas and models for sexuality, including teens engaging in positive consensual sex, is possible in a way that was not twenty years ago.

My own personal experiences are very unusual. I was involved in a Unitarian/Universalist church group, where we started thinking about human sexuality, when I was a teenager. It had a curriculum that was an early precursor to Our Whole Lives. I was not starting with the assumption that sex before marriage is bad, but that sexuality was a normative part of human life and how to guide decisions about sexual behavior.

That was unusual. It's probably why I went into sex research. People were also talking openly about the possibility of homosexuality among adults andf about the possibility of making choices to be sexually active maybe before marriage based on values.

There was less anxiety and fear. Sex was not a huge terrible mystery. Maybe I was not eager to try it out the way my peers were—I'm not saying I didn't have desire—but it was a big compelling question mark. I felt like I would figure it out soon enough. Maybe that's just my personality though; maybe I just have more patience.

AS: Can you comment on that CDC report? The media really focused on its findings about the practice of oral sex among teens and same sex practices among females. I believe some commentators have suggested that women finding new alternatives to heterosexual intercourse in order to reduce their chances of getting pregnant or getting an STD.

SR: Is it the case that more teens are engaging in oral sex? If we believe the data from five years ago and now, then yes. And this is consistent with anecdotal evidence when we talk to sex educators and parents.

What does this mean? Some are saying oral sex is an alternative to "real sex." We have created a world where sex means only one thing, heterosexual intercourse. For some teens, it is the case that oral sex is the alternative practice they can engage in without having sex as they understand it.

As far as same-sex sexual practices being the result of an alternative, to me that's kind of bizarre concluding that females have sex with women as an alternative to having sex with men. More likely, more women are reporting it because now its considered an option. It's heterosexist to say women have sex with women only as an alternative to "real sex."

There have been huge shifts in the cultural visibility and understanding of sexuality and models of it. Maybe more women are learning about it and imaging themselves doing it, and are being presented with opportunities. Fifty years ago same sex behavior was invisible; thirty years ago, it was shameful; ten years ago it just started coming out of the closet.

AS: Interesting that oral sex is on the rise and the idea that oral sex is not real sex. Do see any connection between this and the Clinton years, specifically the Lewinsky scandal?

I've heard young people say, "It's not sex; the president said it wasn't sex." We cannot underestimate the influence of iconic cultural figures like the president, particularly that president who was especially charismatic in many people's eyes.

But it's not just that. The change in oral sex behavior was taking place before the Lewinsky scandal. There were concerns raised by the CDC before that, where people were asking, "What's happening?" when an outbreak of STDs transmitted by oral sex occurred in Rockland County Georgia.

So certainly, Clinton's actions were not a cause. Whether it contributed to some kids saying, "If the president can do it, so can I," we can't rule that out as a possibility.

The interesting thing about that whole discussion—and I'm not saying Bill Clinton should not be held accountable—is how much did we work to counteract that message. Did American sex educators work with adolescents in looking at what is oral sex; what does it mean; what about the idea that it's not real sex? I don't think we did. We were hoping, pretending teenagers weren't watching television, which was naive. They were hearing the message as much as we were.

AS: How has the Bush administration affected society's views of teen sexuality? Most people working in the field of sexuality would agree that the Clinton years were certainly better, yet during that time we had the resignation of Jocelyn Elders because she mentioned masturbation as part of sex education; and then there were the escapades in the White House.

SR: Probably only time will tell. It's true young people are engaging in safer, more conservative sexual practices now, but that trend began in the 1980s and early 1990s. One could make the argument that a conservative and obsessively on message president is helping shape thinking about adolescent sexuality with abstinence as the only appropriate behavior. In fact, more adolescents are choosing abstinence.

A downside of the policies—worked out under Clinton but not offered during his presidency—regarding abstinence only education is that they're not responsible, because they don't apply to the lives of so many young people.

AS: Research on the issue shows abstinence is not necessarily healthier for teens. Do you think that finding is right?

SR: The question we have to ask is: What do we really want for young people? Do we want them to be shut down until the day they get married when it comes to intimacy and sexual expression? Or do we want young people who are sexually healthy and can make decisions that are good for them? There's a huge gray area between these two extremes.

One Australian study suggests that having sexual experience as a teenager is associated with positive sexually related outcomes, such as feeling good about yourself in terms of the sexual sense of who you are, having sexual agency, and feeling like you have a voice in your sexual life. So much research is focused on negative experiences of first sexual experiences, yet some adolescents talk about pleasure, planned sex, sex associated with their own personal satisfaction. This pushes us beyond ideas like "Sex is bad" and "How do we make sure it doesn't happen?" The reality is sex does happen. So we should be more concerned about how we help young people make healthy choices about sex.

AS: Describe an ideal world where society has a positive perspective on teen sex.

SR: We are so far away from that and I don't want to impose my ideals on anyone else. But the first characteristic that is so absent is engaging with young people about issues about their relationships that are compelling and real to them, sex education where you talk about intimacy, sexual desire and expression, and how to have a healthy relationship, beyond "Here's a condom?" or "Don't do it," engaging with kids around hard issues they are struggling with when it comes to relationships, the same issues adults struggle with too, clarifying values, understanding values, and thinking about "How do I work so that my values and behavior match every time." To me, that would be a sexually healthy society.

AS: Do you think teenage boys are capable of such thoughtful dialogue?

SR: Our ambivalence is as oppressive for boys as girls. Boys are taught that they are supposed to be predators, that there's only one way to have sex and that looks, sounds, and feels a certain way. If a woman doesn't look a certain way it's not going to be good sex. Guys are supposed to be aggressive. Their penises are supposed to look a certain way and be hard as rock. Other issues around gender have affected their ability to express or engage in discussion around sexuality. But it's a cop out that young men can't talk about sex; that reinforces ideas that we don't expect young men to be capable of mature dialogue around sexuality.

AS: Do you think sexuality education can change this? I recall some pretty brutal teenage boys.

SR: Sex education is not the only thing. It has to be looked at from many different levels. All you have to do is look to Europe. In the Netherlands the number one reason young men gave for the reason they had sex for the first time is because they were in love. The number one reason for young men in England and the United States was because they wanted to have sex. It's a real difference.

I don't think men from the Netherlands are genetically superior or different from English and U.S. men. But they do have a healthier view of sexuality. It is integrated from childhood from their first public school lesson, even in kindergarten, what healthy intimate expression is about. It is possible to imagine we can think differently about things related to sex.

AS: Your article points out that problems associated with teen sexual behavior are not just a phenomena of adolescence. Can you explain?

SR: When we talk about problems of adolescents' unintended pregnancies, STDs—these are major problems for adults as well. Teenagers haven't captured the market on unintended pregnancy or STDs. Adolescent sexuality is not the problem. American sexuality is problematic in a number of ways for all of us, teens and adults alike.

AS: Thank you and congratulations on your special issue.