Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T08:45:00.818Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

9 - Bad Choices

How Neoliberal Ideology Disguises Social Injustice in the Sexual Lives of Youth

from Adolescence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 December 2018

By
Laina Y. Bay-Cheng
Edited by
Sharon Lamb  and
Jen Gilbert
Sharon Lamb
Affiliation:
University of Massachusetts, Boston
Jen Gilbert
Affiliation:
York University, Toronto
Get access

Summary

This chapter reveals how neoliberal ideology operates in the "good" and "bad" choices rhetoric common to both abstinence-based and comprehensive sexuality education for young people. The author argues that initiatives that emphasize the need for youth to "make the right (sexual) choices" attribute youths’ life outcomes to individual merit or deficit and deny the influence of external forces, contexts, and conditions. The author critiques the "good choices" approach by drawing attention to the kinds of choices young people are offered, rather than the choices they make. This chapter proves that the discourse of "good sexual choices" is incompatible with an approach to sexuality education that is invested in social justice.
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Sexual Development
Childhood and Adolescence
 , pp. 180 - 197
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2018

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, K. L. & Umberson, D. (2001). Gendering Violence: Masculinity and Power in Men’s Accounts of Domestic Violence. Gender & Society, 15, 358–380. doi:10.1177/089124301015003003.Google Scholar
Ballet, J., Biggeri, M., & Comim, F. (2011). Children’s Agency and the Capability Approach: A Conceptual Framework. In Biggeri, M., Ballet, J., & Comim, F. (Eds.), Children and the Capability Approach (22–45). London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Basile, K. C. (1999). Rape by Acquiescence: The Ways in which Women “Give In” to Unwanted Sex with Their Husbands. Violence against Women, 5, 1036–1058. doi:10.1177/1077801299005009004.Google Scholar
Bay-Cheng, L. Y. (2015). The Agency Line: A Neoliberal Metric for Appraising Young Women’s Sexuality. Sex Roles, 73, 279–291. doi:10.1007/s11199-015-0452-6.Google Scholar
Bay-Cheng, L. Y. (2017). Critically Sex/Ed: Asking Critical Questions of Neoliberal Truths in Sex Education. In Allen, L. & Rasmussen, M. L. (Eds.), Handbook of Sexuality Education (343–376). London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Bay-Cheng, L. Y. & Bruns, A. E. (2016). Yes, but: Young Women’s Views of Unwanted Sex at the Intersection of Gender and Class. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40, 504–517.Google Scholar
Bay-Cheng, L. Y., Bruns, A. E., & Maguin, E. (2018). Agents, Virgins, Sluts, and Losers: The sexual typecasting of young heterosexual women. Sex Roles. Online first. doi: 10.1007/s11199-018-0907-7.Google Scholar
Bay-Cheng, L. Y. & Eliseo-Arras, R. K. (2008). The Making of Unwanted Sex: Gendered and Neoliberal Norms in College Women’s Unwanted Sexual Experiences. Journal of Sex Research, 45, 386–397. doi:10.1080/00224490802398381.Google Scholar
Bay-Cheng, L. Y. & Fava, N. M. (2014). What Puts “At-Risk Girls” at Risk? Sexual Vulnerability and Social Inequality in the Lives of Girls in the Child Welfare System. Sexuality Research & Social Policy, 11, 116–125. doi:10.1007/s13178-013-0142-5.Google Scholar
Bay-Cheng, L. Y., Livingston, J. A., & Fava, N. M. (2011). Adolescent Girls’ Assessment and Management of Sexual Risks: Insights from Focus Group Research. Youth & Society, 43, 1167–1193. doi: 10.1177/0044118X10384475.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Becker, M. G. & Barth, R. P. (2000). Power through Choices: The Development of a Sexuality Education Curriculum for Youths in Out-of-Home Care. Child Welfare, 79, 269–282.Google Scholar
Beckman, L. J. (2016). Abortion in the United States: The Continuing Controversy. Feminism & Psychology, 27, 101–113. doi:10.1177/0959353516685345.Google Scholar
Berglas, N. F., Constantine, N. A., & Ozer, E. J. (2014). A Rights-Based Approach to Sexuality Education: Conceptualization, Clarification and Challenges. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 46, 63–72.Google Scholar
Bessner, D. & Sparke, M. (2017). Nazism, Neoliberalism, and the Trumpist Challenge to Democracy. Environment and Planning A, 49, 1214–1223.Google Scholar
Brown, W. (2003). Neo-liberalism and the End of Liberal Democracy. Theory & Event, 7. doi:10.1353/tae.2003.0020.Google Scholar
Brown, W. (2006). American Nightmare: Neoliberalism, Neoconservatism, and De-democratization. Political Theory, 34, 690–714. doi:10.1177/0090591706293016.Google Scholar
Craig, S. L., McInroy, L., McCready, L. T., & Alaggia, R. (2015). Media: A Catalyst for Resilience in Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Youth. Journal of LGBT Youth, 12, 254–275. doi:10.1080/19361653.2015.1040193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dean, H. (2009). Critiquing Capabilities: The Distractions of a Beguiling Concept. Critical Social Policy, 29, 261–273.Google Scholar
Dehlendorf, C., Harris, L. H., & Weitz, T. A. (2013). Disparities in Abortion Rates: A Public Health Approach. American Journal of Public Health, 103, 1772–1779. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2013.301339.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duggan, L. (2002). The New Homonormativity: The Sexual Politics of Neoliberalism. In Castronovo, R. & Nelson, D. D (Eds.), Materializing Democracy: Toward a Revitalized Cultural Politics (175–194). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Elliott, S. (2014). “Who’s to Blame?” Constructing the Responsible Sexual Agent in Neoliberal Sex Education. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 1–14. doi:10.1007/s13178-014-0158-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ely, G. E., Hales, T., Jackson, D. L., Maguin, E., & Hamilton, G. (2017). The Undue Burden of Paying for Abortion: An Exploration of Abortion Fund Cases. Social Work in Health Care, 56, 99–114. doi:10.1080/00981389.2016.1263270.Google Scholar
Evans, A. & Riley, S. (2014). Technologies of Sexiness: Sex, Identity, and Consumer Culture. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fields, J. (2008). Risky Lessons: Sex Education and Social Inequality. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Fine, M. & McClelland, S. I. (2007). The Politics of Teen Women’s Sexuality: Public Policy and the Adolescent Female Body. Emory Law Journal, 56, 993–1038.Google Scholar
Fox, J. & Ralston, R. (2016). Queer Identity Online: Informal Learning and Teaching Experiences of LGBTQ Individuals on Social Media. Computers in Human Behavior, 65, 635–642. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.06.009.Google Scholar
Froyum, C. M. (2010). Making “Good Girls”: Sexual Agency in the Sexuality Education of Low-Income Black Girls. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 12, 59–72. doi:10.1080/13691050903272583.Google Scholar
Gavey, N. (2005). Just Sex?: The Cultural Scaffolding of Rape. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gill, R. (2008). Culture and Subjectivity in Neoliberal and Postfeminist Times. Subjectivity, 25, 432–445. doi:10.1057/sub.2008.28.Google Scholar
Giroux, H. (2016). Donald Trump and the Plague of Atomization in a Neoliberal Age [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://billmoyers.com/story/donald-trump-plague-atomization-neoliberal-age/.Google Scholar
Giroux, H. A. (2017). America at War with Itself. San Francisco: City Lights Books.Google Scholar
Gomillion, S. C. & Giuliano, T. A. (2011). The Influence of Media Role Models on Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Identity. Journal of Homosexuality, 58, 330–354. doi:10.1080/00918369.2011.546729.Google Scholar
Gonick, M. (2006). Between “Girl Power” and “Reviving Ophelia”: Constituting the Neoliberal Girl Subject. NWSA Journal, 18, 1–23. doi:10.1353/nwsa.2006.0031.Google Scholar
Goodkind, S. (2009). “You Can Be Anything You Want, But You Have to Believe It”: Commercialized Feminism in Gender‐Specific Programs for Girls. Signs, 34, 397–422. doi:10.1086/591086.Google Scholar
Hamilton, L. & Armstrong, E. A. (2009). Gendered Sexuality in Young Adulthood: Double Binds and Flawed Options. Gender and Society, 23, 589–616. doi:10.1177/0891243209345829.Google Scholar
Harris, A. (2004). Future Girl: Young Women in the Twenty-First Century. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hasstedt, K. (2016). Recent Funding Restriction on the U.S. Family Planning Safety Net May Foreshadow What Is to Come. Guttmacher Policy Review, 19, 67–72.Google Scholar
Heldman, C. (2013). Pennsylvania Public Service Announcement Blames Rape Victims [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2013/03/21/pennsylvania-public-service-announcement-blames-rape-victims/.Google Scholar
Herrman, J. W. & Waterhouse, J. K. (2012). A Pilot Program to Address Healthy Sexual Behaviors among Girls in Juvenile Detention. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, 25, 224–231. doi:10.1111/jcap.12007.Google Scholar
Holland, M. M. & DeLuca, S. (2016). “Why Wait Years to Become Something?” Low-Income African American Youth and the Costly Career Search in For-Profit Trade Schools. Sociology of Education, 89, 261–278. doi:10.1177/0038040716666607.Google Scholar
Ioverno, S., Belser, A. B., Baiocco, R., Grossman, A. H., & Russell, S. T. (2016). The Protective Role of Gay–Straight Alliances for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Questioning Students: A Prospective Analysis. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 3, 397–406. doi:10.1037/sgd0000193.Google Scholar
Jones, T. (2011). A Sexuality Education Discourses Framework: Conservative, Liberal, Critical, and Postmodern. American Journal of Sexuality Education, 6, 133–175. doi:10.1080/15546128.2011.571935.Google Scholar
Jost, J. T., Banaji, M. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2004). A Decade of System Justification Theory: Accumulated Evidence of Conscious and Unconscious Bolstering of the Status Quo. Political Psychology, 25, 881–919. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00402.x.Google Scholar
Kelly, P. (2001). Youth at Risk: Processes of Individualisation and Responsibilisation in the Risk Society. Discourse, 22, 23–33. doi:10.1080/01596300120039731.Google Scholar
Kendall, N. (2012). The Sex Education Debates. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kennedy, T. M. (2014). Sustaining White Homonormativity: The Kids Are All Right as Public Pedogogy. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 18,118–132.Google Scholar
Kimmel, M. S. (2002). “Gender Symmetry” in Domestic Violence: A Substantive and Methodological Research Review. Violence against Women, 8, 1332–1363. doi:10.1177/107780102237407Lesko 2001.Google Scholar
Klein, N. (2016). It Was the Democrats’ Embrace of neoliberalism that Won It for Trump [Blog post]. Retrieved from www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/09/rise-of-the-davos-class-sealed-americas-fate.Google Scholar
Lamb, S. (1999). New Versions of Victims: Feminists Struggle with the Concept. New York: NYU Press.Google Scholar
Lamb, S. (2010). Towards a Sexual Ethics Curriculum: Bringing Philosophy and Society to Bear on Individual Development. Harvard Educational Review, 80, 81–105.Google Scholar
Lamb, S. (2015). Revisiting Choice and Victimization: A Commentary on Bay-Cheng’s Agency Matrix. Sex Roles, 73, 292–297.Google Scholar
Lamont, E. (2017). “We Can Write the Scripts Ourselves”: Queer Challenges to Heteronormative Courtship Practices. Gender & Society, 31, 624–646.Google Scholar
Lesko, N. (2001). Act Your Age!: A Cultural Construction of Adolescence. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lesko, N. (2010) Feeling Abstinent? Feeling Comprehensive? Touching the Affects of Sexuality Curricula. Sex Education, 10, 281–297. doi:10.1080/14681811.2010.491633.Google Scholar
Macleod, C. & Vincent, L. (2014). Introducing a Critical Pedagogy of Sexual and Reproductive Citizenship: Extending the “Framework of Thick Desire”. In Allen, L., Rasmussen, M. L., & Quinlivan, K. (Eds.), The Politics of Pleasure in Sexuality Education (115–135). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Marx, R. A. & Kettrey, H. H. (2016). Gay-Straight Alliances Are Associated with Lower Levels of School-Based Victimization of LGBTQ+ Youth: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45, 1269–1282. doi:10.1007/s10964-016-0501-7.Google Scholar
McClelland, S. I. & Frost, D. M. (2014). Sexuality and Social Policy. In Tolman, D. L. and Diamond, L. M. (Eds.), APA Handbook of Sexuality and Psychology: Volume 2, Contextual Approaches (311–337). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Mendelsohn, D. (2006). An Affair to Remember. New York Review of Books. Retrieved from www.nybooks.com/articles/2006/02/23/an-affair-to-remember/?pagination=false.Google Scholar
Mitnik, P. A., Cumberworth, E., & Grusky, D. B. (2016). Social Mobility in a High-Inequality Regime. ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 663, 140–184.Google Scholar
Ng, E. (2013). A “Post-Gay” Era? Media Gaystreaming, Homonormativity, and the Politics of LGBT Integration. Communication, Culture, & Critique, 6. 258–283.Google Scholar
Norton, B. (2016). How Neoliberalism Fuels the Racist Xenophobia Behind Brexit and Donald Trump [Blog post]. Retrieved from www.salon.com/2016/07/01/how_neoliberalism_fuels_the_racist_xenophobia_behind_brexit_and_donald_trump/.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. C. (2000). Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. C. & Dixon, R. (2012). Children’s Rights and a Capabilities Approach: The Question of Special Priority. Cornell Law Review, 97, 549–593.Google Scholar
Pew Research Center (2016). As Election Nears, Voters Divided over Democracy and “Respect.” New York: Pew Research Center.Google Scholar
Poteat, V. P., Sinclair, K. O., DiGiovanni, C. D., Koenig, B. W., & Russell, S. T. (2013). Gay–Straight Alliances Are Associated with Student Health: A Multischool Comparison of LGBTQ and Heterosexual Youth. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 23, 319–330. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2012.00832.x.Google Scholar
Probyn, E. (1993). Choosing Choice: Images of Sexuality And “Choiceoisie” in Popular Culture. In Fisher, S. & Davis, K. (Eds.), Negotiating at the Margins: The Gendered Discourses of Power and Resistance (278–294). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Raifman, J., Moscoe, E., Austin, B., & McConnell, M. (2017). Difference-in-Differences Analysis of the Association between State Same-Sex Marriage Policies and Adolescent Suicide Attempts. JAMA Pediatrics, 171(4):350–356. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.4529.Google Scholar
Ringrose, J. & Walkerdine, V. (2008). What Does It Mean to Be a Girl in the Twenty-First Century? Exploring Some Contemporary Dilemmas of Femininity and Girlhood in the West. In Mitchell, C. A. & Reid-Walsh, J. (Eds.), Girl Culture: An Encyclopedia (6–16). Westport: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
Rubin, G. S. (2011). Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality. In Rubin, G. S. (Ed.), Deviations: A Gayle Rubin Reader (137–181). Durham, NC: Duke University Press. (Original work published 1984).Google Scholar
Schalet, A. T. (2011). Not Under My Roof: Parents, Teens, and the Culture of Sex. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Schram, S. F. & Pavlovskaya, M. (2018). Rethinking Neoliberalism: Resisting the Disciplinary Regime. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sen, A. (1999). Development as Freedom. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sisson, G. & Kimport, K. (2016). Depicting Abortion Access on American Television, 2005–2015. Feminism & Psychology, 27, 56–71. doi:10.1177/0959353516681245.Google Scholar
Smeeding, T. M. (2016). Multiple Barriers to Economic Opportunity for the “Truly” Disadvantaged and Vulnerable. Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 2, 98–122.Google ScholarPubMed
Soss, J., Fording, R. C., & Schram, S. F. (2011). Disciplining the Poor: Neoliberal Paternalism and the Persistent Power of Race. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Spencer, H. & Stolberg, S. G. (2017). White nationalists march on University of Washington. New York Times. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com.Google Scholar
Stahl, L. (Interviewer). (2016). The 45th president [Television broadcast]. In J. Fager (Executive Producer), 60 Minutes. New York: CBS.Google Scholar
Stringer, R. (2014). Knowing Victims: Feminism, Agency and Victim Politics in Neoliberal Times. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
van Eeden-Moorefield, B., Martell, C. R., Williams, M., & Preston, M. (2011). Same-Sex Relationships and Dissolution: The Connection between Heteronormativity and Homonormativity. Family Relations, 60, 562–571.Google Scholar
Vitulli, E. (2010). A Defining Moment in Civil Rights History? The Employment Non-Discrimination Act, Trans-inclusion, and Homonormativity. Sexuality Research & Social Policy, 7, 155–167.Google Scholar
Watson, J. (2011). Understanding Survival Sex: Young Women, Homelessness, and Intimate Relationships. Journal of Youth Studies, 14, 639–655. doi:10.1080/13676261.2011.588945.Google Scholar
Whitten, A. & Sethna, C. (2014). What’s Missing? Antiracist Sex Education! Sex Education, 14, 414–429.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Bad Choices
  • Edited by Sharon Lamb, University of Massachusetts, Boston, Jen Gilbert, York University, Toronto
  • Book: The Cambridge Handbook of Sexual Development
  • Online publication: 27 December 2018
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108116121.010
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Bad Choices
  • Edited by Sharon Lamb, University of Massachusetts, Boston, Jen Gilbert, York University, Toronto
  • Book: The Cambridge Handbook of Sexual Development
  • Online publication: 27 December 2018
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108116121.010
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Bad Choices
  • Edited by Sharon Lamb, University of Massachusetts, Boston, Jen Gilbert, York University, Toronto
  • Book: The Cambridge Handbook of Sexual Development
  • Online publication: 27 December 2018
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108116121.010
Available formats
×