Sexuality education in public schools in the United States excludes a large population of students. These exclusions are due to a long history of legal and economic battles, as well as the politicized nature of adolescent sexuality. This critical interpretive inquiry explored the long history of sexuality education through the lens of economics, law, and psychological paradigms and examined the way in which each of these lenses furthered the exclusion of nonheterosexual males in curricula. Using a framework comprised of critical feminist theory, critical pedagogy, and queer theory, this manuscript provides an understanding of the social structures of sexuality education and how they continue to marginalize students labeled as “other.” Using critical discourse analysis, this study reviewed legal and political documents, state and private curricula, and works in the sociology and psychology fields. The outcomes of interpretive research do not lend themselves to specific answers, but to a greater understanding of the experience of marginalized individuals and the structures in place that keep this experience intact. Through a critical review of current programming initiatives, recommendations are made to continue moving toward a more gender- and identity-inclusive sexuality education curriculum. These recommendations, which are grounded in current legal and economic requirements, include teacher certification requirements, implementation of the Advocates for Youth 3Rs curriculum, utilization of a rights-based approach to program design, and adoption of national sexuality education by the Department of Health and Human Services, rather than by the Department of Education.

No description available.

This research contributes to understanding the attitudes of Russian politicians towards sex education in schools and the kind of argumentation styles they use to oppose it. The paper is based on a framing analysis of the arguments of two important opponents to sex education: Pavel Astakhov, a Russian politician and former Children’s Rights Commissioner from 2009 to 2016; and Yelena Mizulina, Chairman of the State Duma Committee on Family Affairs, Women and Children since 2008, using online media sources in a ten-year period (2011-2021). The analysis finds that Astakhov’s most used frames are the disapproval of children’s exposure to new, different attitudes, the interference in Russian traditions by the West and the spread of a gender discourse in Russia. Mizulina focuses mainly on the unfitness of teachers since sex education should only be addressed by parents, and on the “right age” to start talking about it with young people. From the results, both politicians seem to strongly oppose comprehensive sex education (CSE), but Astakhov proposes to adopt a type of abstinence-only curriculum (AO), while Mizulina tries to completely discourage sex education of any kind for school-aged children.

No description available.

No description available.