View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Laypeople's Perceptions of Sexuality Education with Young Children Insights from a Convenient Sample of the Greek Orthodox Community

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Laypeople's Perceptions of Sexuality Education with Young Children Insights from a Convenient Sample of the Greek Orthodox Community
Language: English
Authors: Iraklis Grigoropoulos (ORCID 0000-0001-5987-5483)
Source: American Journal of Sexuality Education. 2024 19(3):316-336.
Availability: Taylor & Francis. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 21
Publication Date: 2024
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Early Childhood Education
Descriptors: Foreign Countries, Sex Education, Social Environment, Early Childhood Education, Lay People, Attitudes, Educational Practices, Socialization, Parent Role, Developmentally Appropriate Practices, Barriers, Access to Information, Greek Civilization, Religious Factors
Geographic Terms: Greece
DOI: 10.1080/15546128.2023.2225790
ISSN: 1554-6128
1554-6136
Abstract: The current study examined laypeople's perceptions of sexuality education with young children in Greece. This exploratory qualitative web research used data from a convenience and snowball sample where respondents answered the question, "What do you think about sexuality education in early childhood (children aged 2-5)?" This study's approach is grounded on a feminist poststructuralist framework permitting the exploration and understanding of power relations through analyzing participants' written discourses. Reflexive thematic analysis was used in the current study. This study's sample comprised 64 participants aged 19-64 (M = 36.22, SD = 11.02). Based on this study's results, we identified three fundamental social discourses that influenced the issue of sexuality education in the early years in Greece: the concept of childhood sexual innocence, age-appropriate arguments that oppose sexuality education with young children, and parental influence. The current study questions the role of dominant social discourses acknowledging that they operate as social rules that exert power by creating structural silence on sexuality issues.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1432748
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGoJWP2bRUwGvDgHTIZ43YkAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDCh3vxRQ2KVQvt5VkgIBEICBmyLwI9Ac0kGCE__lZoWNTQkOBWLHTLup84nUz7I4tp2jMU65iQkGrIufJWtKcTd-u1Cj8Qys24wkOG0G-XbDIc0WGOMsR9xTGwpzU0Ln9sY0KDwxPZ0gNv9Ce5uLzBlqP0KXjX9T58fPZIcV_m_bTkd9XPnyOHMtuPXrXSYedD_KpZJwF3vSCkGb2IkAFAzEzZwyyCdjQP9PkZz3
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0178650881;[1h2p]01jul.24;2024Jul30.06:21;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0178650881-1">Laypeople's Perceptions of Sexuality Education with Young Children Insights from a Convenient Sample of the Greek Orthodox Community </title> <p>The current study examined laypeople's perceptions of sexuality education with young children in Greece. This exploratory qualitative web research used data from a convenience and snowball sample where respondents answered the question, "What do you think about sexuality education in early childhood (children aged 2–5)?" This study's approach is grounded on a feminist poststructuralist framework permitting the exploration and understanding of power relations through analyzing participants' written discourses. Reflexive thematic analysis was used in the current study. This study's sample comprised 64 participants aged 19–64 (M = 36.22, SD = 11.02). Based on this study's results, we identified three fundamental social discourses that influenced the issue of sexuality education in the early years in Greece: the concept of childhood sexual innocence, age-appropriate arguments that oppose sexuality education with young children, and parental influence. The current study questions the role of dominant social discourses acknowledging that they operate as social rules that exert power by creating structural silence on sexuality issues.</p> <p>Keywords: Sexuality education; sexual socialization; early childhood; meaning-making; reflexive thematic analysis; Greece</p> <p>How young children form their knowledge about sexual issues, shape their sexual and gender attitudes, and develop their sexual expectations has long been the focus of social scientists. However, this interest has not extended to examining lay peoples' (i.e., individuals without professional or specialized knowledge of this subject) perceptions about sexuality education with young children (Stone et al., [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref1">76</reflink>]). This lack of interest reflects socio-cultural beliefs that children are non-sexual and that sexuality generally starts at puberty (Cacciatore et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref2">22</reflink>]; Davies & Robinson, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref3">27</reflink>]). However, children from the first days of their lives receive implicit and explicit sexual messages from their families, peers, media, and educational settings. Through this process of sexual socialization, children acquire knowledge, attitudes, norms, and values about a wide range of sexuality and gender issues (Cacciatore et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref4">23</reflink>]; Stone et al., [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref5">76</reflink>]). In particular, sexual socialization involves assimilating information and messages from various social contexts delivered in different forms (e.g., verbal/non-verbal, intentional/unintentional; Jackson & Scott, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref6">55</reflink>]). Thus, sexual attitudes, knowledge, and values are acquired and transmitted through sexual socialization and sexuality education (Davies et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref7">26</reflink>]; Davies & Robinson, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref8">27</reflink>]; Jackson & Scott, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref9">55</reflink>]). In turn, young children quickly become active actors in this process, and adults are inevitably faced with toddlers' and preschoolers' direct questions about sexual issues. Whether these questions are addressed by adults (e.g., parents, primary carers, early childhood educators) and how they are addressed shapes children's formulations and understanding of human sexuality. In addition, these primary assumptions influence one's sexual discourses, meanings, and behaviors throughout the lifespan (Cacciatore et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref10">23</reflink>]; Stone et al., [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref11">76</reflink>]).</p> <p>Past research on Greek teachers, students, and parents demonstrates that sexuality education is an issue of interest even though not much has been done concerning its implementation (Gerouki, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref12">37</reflink>]; Kakavoulis, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref13">58</reflink>]; Menmuir & Kakavoulis, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref14">62</reflink>]). Greek and international research data demonstrate that preschool and primary school children want to discuss sexuality issues, have significant relationship concerns, and exhibit numerous sexual behaviors (Kakavoulis, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref15">58</reflink>]; Menmuir & Kakavoulis, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref16">62</reflink>]). In addition, Greek teachers verify the importance of sexuality in school-based programs (Gerouki, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref17">37</reflink>]). However, in Gerouki's ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref18">37</reflink>]) research, Greek teachers referred to "society" as the main obstacle in teaching sexuality education, whereas many teachers mentioned that sexuality education was considered a "taboo" issue. In addition, many teachers believed that "people in general," "the public," have not heard of the benefits of sexuality education. Overall, teachers believed that their surrounding social environment (i.e., people in general, the public) was conservative, prejudiced, and full of social stereotypes (Gerouki, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref19">37</reflink>]). Considering that there is scarce research in the socio-cultural context of Greece, the current study examines laypeople's (i.e., "people in general," "the public") perceptions about sexuality education in early childhood (children aged 2–5). Analysis emphasizing laypeople's perceptions may provide an initial insight into how a specific socio-cultural context views young children's sexual education and inform general and professional attitudes toward sexuality education.</p> <hd id="AN0178650881-2">Social anxieties concerning sexuality education in the early years</hd> <p>Even though research findings emphasize the significance of children's rights to early sexual information access to sexual knowledge and sexuality education remains a highly debated and controversial issue (Balter et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref20">6</reflink>]; Jackson & Weatherall, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref21">56</reflink>]; Stone et al., [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref22">76</reflink>]). On the one hand, sexuality education in schools destabilizes the already unstable equilibrium of politics and morality in school settings (Jackson & Weatherall, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref23">56</reflink>]). On the other hand, sexuality education emphasizes parents' uncomfortable feelings and embarrassment regarding discussing sexual issues with their children (Lee & Kweon, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref24">60</reflink>]; Shin et al., [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref25">73</reflink>]). In addition, sexual information and sexual education are frequently considered dangerous because of the fear that they may encourage early sexual experimentation, jeopardizing children's innocence (The Christian Institute, [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref26">77</reflink>]). These social concerns originate mainly from socio-cultural discourses that consider sexuality as developmentally unsuitable and dangerous to pre-pubescent children (Balter et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref27">6</reflink>]; Davies & Robinson, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref28">27</reflink>]; Egan, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref29">29</reflink>]; Egan & Hawkes, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref30">30</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref31">31</reflink>]; Robinson, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref32">68</reflink>]; Robinson et al., [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref33">69</reflink>]).</p> <p>Moreover, broader social taboos about sexuality education stem from socio-cultural discourses of childhood "innocence" (i.e., childhood is viewed as a normative and fixed developmental period in which discourses about sexuality are considered as disruptive to the "purity of children"; Bhana, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref34">7</reflink>]; Bialystok et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref35">9</reflink>]; Robinson, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref36">68</reflink>]). Thus, sexuality issues are usually considered damaging knowledge from which children must be distanced and protected (Robinson et al., [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref37">69</reflink>]). Due to these prevailing social anxieties around children's sexual knowledge and sexuality education, many children live their lives with minimal sexual education from school and rely mainly on other sources, such as their peers or the internet, for their information about sexuality (Hillier et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref38">51</reflink>]; Hillier & Mitchell, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref39">50</reflink>]). Furthermore, if parents and teachers ignore children's sexuality-related questions and interests, children may consider sexuality a taboo topic and feel embarrassed by their own sexuality and sexual issues (Cheung et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref40">25</reflink>]). Overall, even though there are increasing calls for sexuality education in early learning settings globally (Balter et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref41">6</reflink>]; Cacciatore et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref42">23</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref43">22</reflink>]) children's sexuality education is still plagued with social worries and anxieties.</p> <hd id="AN0178650881-3">Sexuality education</hd> <p>Children's right to comprehensive, science-based, and culturally sensitive sexuality education is most significant and recognized by international human rights institutions (Mijatovic, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref44">64</reflink>]). A commonly used definition of sexuality education established by WHO, the Federal Office for Health Education (BZgA), and UNESCO defines comprehensive sexuality education (CSE) as a curriculum-based series of lessons about the cognitive, emotional, physical, and social issues of human sexuality (WHO Regional Office for Europe and BZgA, [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref45">80</reflink>]). In this context, CSE may be considered a subject that empowers children to understand human sexuality. In addition, it may improve students' quality of life (Helmer et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref46">49</reflink>]; Raphael, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref47">65</reflink>]). Specifically, early sexuality education can help children develop personal safety skills because it teaches them that sexuality is a subject that can be discussed with trusted adults, gives them the vocabulary to describe their genitalia, and helps them understand the boundaries that apply to their own bodies and those of others. This promotes body autonomy, which is crucial for feeling comfortable and empowered to disclose child sexual abuse (Balter et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref48">6</reflink>]). Failing to provide children with the information they need according to their emotional, social, and health needs can be considered as neglect (WHO, [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref49">82</reflink>]).</p> <p>Sexuality education is an ongoing educational process, starting early, following a spiral curriculum model, where new information is added to existing knowledge (Blaise, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref50">11</reflink>]; Blaise & Ryan, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref51">12</reflink>]; WHO Regional Office for Europe and BZgA, [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref52">80</reflink>]). Across Europe, the starting age of sexuality education is different. Sexuality education in many European countries starts in kindergarten or primary school (European Expert Group on Sexuality Education, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref53">32</reflink>]). Sexuality education in early childhood specifically, "helps to develop the child's senses and body sense/body image and, at the same time, it strengthens the child's self-confidence and contributes to the development of self-determination: the child will be enabled to behave responsibly toward [themselves] and others" (WHO, [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref54">83</reflink>], p. 35).</p> <p>Several papers on standards and recommendations for sexuality education have been released in recent years. Two significant publications on the topic are it is all one Curriculum (International Sexuality and HIV Curriculum Working Group, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref55">53</reflink>]) and the International technical guidance on sexuality education (UNESCO), which begin from a more global perspective (WHO Regional Office for Europe and BZgA, [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref56">80</reflink>]). For European nations, the Standards for Sexuality Education in Europe (the Standards) also provide a crucial framework for sexuality education (WHO Regional Office for Europe and BZgA, [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref57">80</reflink>]). According to the Standards for Sexuality Education in Europe (WHO, [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref58">81</reflink>]), a matrix of subjects should be covered at various ages to develop knowledge, abilities, and attitudes. The Standards view sexuality as a positive aspect of human nature. The 0–6–year age groups highlight appropriate vocabulary for genitalia, body boundaries, consent, and emotions. This specific content helps children's safety abilities (Balter et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref59">6</reflink>]). The UNESCO guidelines have a more limited scope and begin with worries about the HIV/AIDS epidemic. The Working Group document is beneficial for the practice of sexuality education as it has 54 lessons on sexuality education that may be used immediately and customized to local circumstances. The other two publications mainly focus on the policy and programming levels (WHO Regional Office for Europe and BZgA, [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref60">80</reflink>]). However, still, there is no specific curricular support to address the development of sexuality in early childhood. Previous studies have argued in favor of curricular support and claimed that the lack of a curriculum is due to a limited understanding of sexuality education in early childhood (Balter et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref61">4</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref62">5</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref63">6</reflink>]). Accordingly, there is a heated debate about discussing sexuality and sexual identities in early childhood because these issues are deemed improper or difficult for children to understand (Kintner-Duffy et al., [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref64">59</reflink>]; Robinson, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref65">68</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0178650881-4">Theoretical framework</hd> <p>Opposite politics of moral conservatism and liberalism have changed the settings and climate around sexuality education across various geographic locations at different points in time (Alldred & David, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref66">2</reflink>]; Jackson & Weatherall, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref67">56</reflink>]). This study's approach is grounded on a feminist poststructuralist framework (FPS; Weedon, [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref68">79</reflink>]). FPS addresses personal, social, and institutional practices allowing the exploration and understanding of power relations through analyzing written discourses (van Wijlen & Aston, [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref69">78</reflink>]). The feminist dimension emphasizes the role and position of gender as well as sexuality, class, and race, whereas the post-structural perspective offers a lens on power relations (Aston, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref70">3</reflink>]). FPS also uses notions of values, subjectivity, meaning, and language to deconstruct existing power relations (van Wijlen & Aston, [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref71">78</reflink>]). Feminist critiques of sexuality education underline that emphasis on safer sex ignores non-penetrative sexual activities and excludes the most important topics, such as pleasure and enjoyment (Jackson & Weatherall, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref72">56</reflink>]). In particular, within FPS, the perpetuated as "truth" conventional assumptions about childhood, childhood sexuality, and childhood innocence that reinforce the concept of sexuality education as improper for young children are challenged (Jackson & Weatherall, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref73">56</reflink>]; van Wijlen & Aston, [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref74">78</reflink>]). In general, the impact of moral conservatism and traditionalism on sexual education is significant and can be seen in the moralist constructions of sexuality as heterosexual, coital, and confined to marriage (Jackson & Weatherall, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref75">56</reflink>]). In addition, notions of risk and danger are utilized to support moral arguments around abstinence (McClelland & Fine, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref76">61</reflink>]). Even more liberal curricula emphasize mainly contraception, safer sex, unwanted pregnancy, and abuse excluding issues, such as relationships, pleasure, and alternative sexualities (Abel & Fitzgerald, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref77">1</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0178650881-5">Current research</hd> <p>Past research data report that nursery school teachers in Greece did not use their opportunities during daily school activities to teach children about sexuality (Brouskeli & Sapountzis, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref78">18</reflink>]). According to the Standards, nursery school teachers could support the development of young children's positive body and self-images by naming the body parts, teaching how to wash one's body, and enhancing children's capacity to pay attention to their body's experiences and how to safeguard it. These are the fundamentals of a child's sexuality (Cacciatore et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref79">22</reflink>]). Children might gain valuable experiences that contribute to developing self-competence and body esteem when they learn to care for themselves (by washing their own hands, mouth, and genitalia; Cacciatore et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref80">22</reflink>]).</p> <p>The disclosures of the #MeToo movement in Greece at the beginning of 2021 resulted in many discussions about young children's knowledge and awareness of sexuality-related issues. Furthermore, the pilot implementation of the Skills Workshop in Greek schools during the school year 2020–2021 led the Greek Ministry of Education to announce the incorporation of sex education into the compulsory school curriculum (Sexuality education: Greece moving one step forward, [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref81">72</reflink>]). However, several Greek Orthodox organizations protested against sexuality education in schools under the slogan: "sex education is a family affair." They also called upon parents' associations to declare their positions and join them since their opposition aimed to defend the ideals and values of the Greek Orthodox family. The basic tenets of their arguments were that sexuality education is a "family and private issue" and that Greek citizens should not "allow the moral and spiritual infection of their children." In addition, the organizers called on "parents to take the issue into their hands" (Sex education in Greece's schools: Orthodox associations call to protest rally, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref82">71</reflink>]).</p> <p>Thus, this study examines laypeople's perceptions of sexuality education in early childhood. According to Cardoso et al. ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref83">24</reflink>], p. 1246) "seeking out laypeople's perceptions supports the effort to decenter academia and educational systems as the main producers of knowledge about lived experiences as well as the social power associated with it." Hogg and Williamson ([<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref84">52</reflink>]) argue that describing laypeople is not simple or uncomplicated. There are many levels of skill, expertise, or professionalism. In this study, we define laypeople as participants who are not educators, academics, or professionals related to sexuality issues. In other words, what we would call "people in general," "the public," or "society." This study aims to promote and enrich the understanding of dominant societal ideas, values, and stereotypes concerning sexuality education in early childhood. Also, this analysis could inform social scientists, educational professionals, and policymakers to comprehend societal perceptions of sexuality education better and adjust their practice accordingly (Grigoropoulos, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref85">42</reflink>], Grigoropoulos, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref86">45</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref87">48</reflink>]). Studies in this area could also weaken potential efforts to ban children's access to sexuality education. Finally, examining laypeople's perceptions could help inform educational practice.</p> <hd id="AN0178650881-6">Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0178650881-7">Participants</hd> <p>The research was advertised on social media accounts (e.g., LinkedIn, Facebook) and social networks, so convenience sampling was used. In addition, respondents were asked to send the study advertisement to other possible participants. Sixty-nine individuals participated in this study. Five responses were removed because they were blank or incomprehensible. Thus, 64 answers remained. Participants' age varied between 19 and 64 years (<emph>M</emph> = 36.22, <emph>SD</emph> = 11.02). Forty-three were female, and twenty-one were male. Fifteen female participants were married with children, nine were married without children, eight were in a relationship, five were single, and six were divorced with children. In addition, five male participants were married with children, three were married without children, six were in a relationship, and seven were single. All respondents were Greek Orthodox and came from a middle socio-economic background.</p> <hd id="AN0178650881-8">Procedure</hd> <p>The current study used thematic analysis of participants' responses to the following question: "What do you think about sexuality education in early childhood (children aged 2–5)." The research project was presented in Greek. Responses were collected from a convenience and snowball sample using a web survey (Google forms) published on social media. Participants were requested to read the information about the research project and provide consent to participate in the survey. Participants first responded to basic sociodemographic questions and then answered the open question. All data were collected in Greek; the complete analysis was also conducted in Greek. The main themes and representative written discourses were translated and presented in English. Measures were taken to ensure the collected responses did not expose personal information. Respondents were indicated as initials (i.e., P1: Participant 1, P2: Participant 2...). The current study follows all principles of Helsinki on Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects and all the ethical instructions and directions of the institution to which the researcher belongs.</p> <hd id="AN0178650881-9">Data analysis</hd> <p>Based on a feminist post-structural approach (Gavey, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref88">36</reflink>]), we considered that participants' discourses are influenced by their experiences and the discourses circulated in their everyday lives (e.g., families, media). In addition, although several discourses may be available to this study's participants, some may be reified within what Foucault ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref89">34</reflink>]) defined as a "regime of truth" assuming greater power than competing discourses. In addition, reflexive thematic analysis (RTA; Braun & Clarke, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref90">16</reflink>]) was used in the current study to answer the aforementioned question. The reflexive approach to thematic analysis underlines the researcher's dynamic role in knowledge production (Braun & Clarke, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref91">16</reflink>]). As Byrne ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref92">21</reflink>]) argues, RTA is a conceptually flexible interpretative method for qualitative data analysis that enables identifying and analyzing patterns or themes in a given data set (Braun & Clarke, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref93">14</reflink>]). To analyze the written discourses collected, inductive, semantic, and realist approaches to thematic analysis were used (Byrne, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref94">21</reflink>]). Thus the explicit content of the written answer was used to inform the process of forming the themes. Also, each response could be assigned multiple codes. The analysis followed the six steps of the thematic analysis according to Braun and Clarke ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref95">13</reflink>]) suggestions. First, the entire dataset was read multiple times as the researcher wanted to become familiar with the participants' responses. Then, initial codes informing of the fundamental interrelationships and similarity among integral data items concerning the research question were generated (Braun et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref96">17</reflink>]; Braun & Clarke, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref97">14</reflink>]). Next, all coded data were evaluated on how different codes could be synthesized based on their conceptual similarity to form themes or sub-themes. After this, the researcher reviewed all themes' relationships to the codes that generated them. Through this procedure/steps, a detailed map of the data was generated (Byrne, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref98">21</reflink>]). In the next phase, the themes' names were reviewed for clarity. Finally, a report presented this study's results. An external researcher also coded the participants' responses to ensure the study's validity. The thematic maps were compared until an agreement was reached. This process resembles other studies (e.g., Santos et al., [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref99">70</reflink>]). However, it should be noted that according to Byrne ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref100">21</reflink>]), when using RTA, there is no expectation of consensus between the thematic maps of two different researchers. Along the same line, Braun and Clarke ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref101">15</reflink>]) argue that it is useful for advocates of RTA to remain cognizant that qualitative analysis does not claim to provide a single or correct answer.</p> <hd id="AN0178650881-10">Results</hd> <p>The current study examined laypeople's perceptions of sexuality education in early childhood. Three themes emerged for the data analysis: (a) justifying the withholding of sexual information. The concept of childhood sexual innocence, (b) developmental arguments as barriers to sexuality education in the early years, and (c) parents' role in sexual socialization.</p> <hd id="AN0178650881-11">Theme 1: Justifying the withholding of sexual information—the concept of childhood innocence</hd> <p>In participants' discourses, children were represented as unknowledgeable of sexuality issues. This representation echoes the concept of childhood innocence, while sexuality education is regarded as a taboo subject that may corrupt children. Thus, adults can justify withholding sexual information by emphasizing the child's best interests.</p> <p>P22 (Female, 36 years old): <emph>".... Negative and with destructive consequences for young children. If (young children are) abruptly introduced to gender and sexuality issues, they may lose their childishness."</emph></p> <p>P36 (Female, 44 years old): <emph>"... to be knowledgeable of sex? It seems rather odd. They are just kids. Why not focus on other important life values at this age? They have all the time in the world. Let us not start from the end."</emph></p> <p>P11 (Female, 22 years old): <emph>"... an absurd idea, since toddlers do not know and there is no need to know the concept of sexual attraction."</emph></p> <p>Several participants expressed the maintenance of young children's sexual innocence. Participants' discourses embody a view of children's sexual innocence and, therefore, un-corruptness by adults' sexual knowledge. Thus any reference to sexually educating children at an early age is considered dangerous.</p> <p>P14 (Male, 49 years old): <emph>"Without any meaning at all. Young children do not know about sexual issues. Let's keep it that way. These issues could be better introduced at primary school or even later. Let them live their childhood. Let us not intrude into their lives."</emph></p> <p>P6 (Male, 54 years old): <emph>"Sexual education on preschoolers, for what reason? Can anybody prove that such knowledge is necessary for this age? It is better to preserve that children know as little as possible about sexual issues."</emph></p> <p>Participants' discourses convey the powerful message that sexuality education in early childhood is unacceptable, and therefore, forbidden. The concept of childhood innocence impedes any conversation about sexuality education in the early years. This also means that sexuality education is being reserved for adulthood, and children are left to navigate understanding sexual and gender issues in isolation. Jarkovská and Lamb ([<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref102">57</reflink>]) argue that the innocence perspective indicates children's minority status. It is most important to comprehend the roots of these beliefs because not talking and not learning about sexual issues can significantly affect how children conceptualize themselves, their families, other people's identities, and sexualities (DePalma & Atkinson, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref103">28</reflink>]; Meyer, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref104">63</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0178650881-12">Theme 2: Developmental arguments as barriers to sexuality education in the early years</hd> <p>This theme highlights the developmental arguments being used to limit conversations about sexuality education at an early age since they are deemed developmentally inappropriate for young children. Specifically, participants' discourses reflect their reservations and resistance to discussing sexuality issues with young children because they felt strongly that sexuality information at an early age is inappropriate according to the children's level of cognitive development.</p> <p>P19 (Female, 20 years old): <emph>"...children of this age are not yet mature enough to understand sexuality. I believe there is no need to be taught anything about this subject."</emph></p> <p>P21 (Female, 22 years old): <emph>"I think it's too early. I mean, cognitively, they are not ready yet for this kind of information."</emph></p> <p>P36 (Male, 31 years old): <emph>"...addressing sexuality issues to young children does not seem like a good idea. They are not yet ready to understand many things about sexuality."</emph></p> <p>P39 (Female, 49 years old) <emph>"I do not believe they will understand anything at all."</emph></p> <p>This theme reflects how developmental arguments operate to silence notions of sexuality information in the early years. Developmental norms and essentialist understandings of development are used as an undisputable framework that limits children's sexuality education possibilities. On the other hand, differences between children are ignored. Thus children are commonly viewed as of a certain age group with little room for variability. Thus, any dissimilarities are ignored, and what is considered acceptable is grounded on age-appropriateness arguments. Overall, powerful age-appropriate discourses justify the silence regarding open conversations about sexuality at early ages.</p> <hd id="AN0178650881-13">Theme 3: Parents' role in sexual socialization</hd> <p>Participants' discourses emphasized parents' primary role in providing sexuality education. This is because parents can serve as role models and offer time-sensitive knowledge as they encounter questions from their children.</p> <p>P34 (Male, aged 46): <emph>"From my experience, I know that it is not easy to find the right words or be prepared for all kinds of questions. However, I think the parent's role is crucial regarding sexual information. You are faced with all kinds of challenging questions and have to come up with an answer. I also think this communication type strengthens the relationship with your children."</emph></p> <p>P31 (Male, aged 26): <emph>"Parents should be the main sexuality educators of their children. You cannot depend on others for such significant information."</emph></p> <p>P48 (Female, aged 39): <emph>"Let us not forget that parents are role models for their children in many things. It would be ideal for also communicating their views about love, relationships, and sexuality to their children."</emph></p> <p>Other participants, however, emphasize the lack of parental knowledge and the necessary communication skills to talk about sexual issues with children. Thus, this theme also questions parents' primary role in providing sex education to their children, as they may not be prepared to provide such information.</p> <p>P11 (Female, Aged 44): <emph>"Parents are key figures in children's lives. Therefore they should offer the first information about sexual issues, especially to children at an early age. Nevertheless, I do not know if all parents have the necessary knowledge and the communicative abilities to discuss sexuality."</emph></p> <p>Since parents are the primary socializing agents for most children, this theme underlines that they should also be the providers of sexual information (Shtarkshall et al., [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref105">74</reflink>]). However, even though in this theme, parents are represented as the primary sexuality educators of their children, several participants raised concerns about parents' ability, knowledge, and skills to speak beneficially with their children about sexual issues. Interestingly, because of their key role, parents can limit or deny access to sexuality education legitimately. This, for example, can be achieved by giving the excuse that if children do not ask, they do not want to know or are not ready to know (Frankham, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref106">35</reflink>]). Importantly, parents' primary role also entails the powerful message that parents have the final say regarding their child's exposure to any new information regardless of personal interests, experiences, and needs.</p> <hd id="AN0178650881-14">Discussion</hd> <p>This study examined laypeople's perceptions of sexuality education in early childhood. Despite its apparent importance, there has been limited research on laypeople's perceptions of young children's sexuality education (Balter et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref107">6</reflink>]; Stone et al., [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref108">76</reflink>]). This study's results report three powerful social discourses concerning the issue of sexuality education in early childhood: the concept of children's sexual innocence, age-appropriate arguments opposing sexuality education in the early years, and parental role in sexuality education. Specifically, this study's results mirror the findings of previous work representing childhood as a time of sexual innocence, with children perceived as lacking sexual agency (Smith & Woodiwiss, [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref109">75</reflink>]). Thus, the concept of childhood innocence silences any conversation about sexuality education in early childhood (Bialystok et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref110">9</reflink>]).</p> <p>Interestingly, even though the discourse of childhood innocence was deployed to control sexuality education in the early years, no particular emphasis was given to the consequences this kind of information may have on children. In other words, there was no explanation of what was at stake. Therefore, the discourse of childhood innocence is utilized as a "regime of truth" controlling children's access to sexuality education. Accordingly, knowledgeable children are perceived as less innocent and therefore corrupted. Robinson ([<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref111">68</reflink>], p. 42) emphasizes that "sexuality has come to signify danger in the lives of children through discourses of innocence and protection, which have largely dismissed children's sexual subjectivities." Jarkovská and Lamb ([<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref112">57</reflink>]) criticize this concept of innocence. First, they suggest that protecting the unknowledgeable child by withholding knowledge opposes the notion of protecting children. Second, they argue that innocence is racialized, classed, and sexist since romanticized structures of white femininity depict the white middle-class female child as the most innocent. This result coincides with research data showing that the conception of childhood innocence is socially constructed (Robinson, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref113">67</reflink>]). Overall, this theme demonstrates how censorship, grounded on dominant childhood innocence discourses, controls sexuality education. Thus, the concept of childhood innocence constitutes a powerful "regime" that prohibits sexuality education in early childhood.</p> <p>Another way for adults to protect children from "inappropriate" sexuality education is the concept of children's cognitive maturity and age-appropriate information. Accordingly, this concept reinforces the belief that sexuality education is inappropriate as the child cannot comprehend what is being talked about (Stone et al., [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref114">76</reflink>]). However, through the lens of post-developmentalism, the concept of children's cognitive immaturity stemming from developmental psychology universalizes the child and childhood (Burman, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref115">19</reflink>]), establishing a set of rules about which information is developmentally appropriate or inappropriate. Within developmental discourses of ages and stages, taken-for-granted universal ideas about sexuality and childhood are reified. Foucault ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref116">33</reflink>]) utilizes the term "power" to denote how taken-for-granted forms of knowledge are valued as true. Post-developmentalism (Blaise, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref117">10</reflink>], p. 3) focuses on different theoretical perspectives that question the assumptions of universality (Grieshaber & Cannella, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref118">40</reflink>]). More specifically, scholars question the issue of reliance on child development justifications. Research data highlight the significance of the socio-cultural formation of childhood and the variety among children of the same age. Therefore, there are opposing arguments for using developmental reasoning since it tends to hinder activities related to sexuality issues as inappropriate for children (Blaise, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref119">11</reflink>]).</p> <p>Most importantly, we should welcome variety within children's development and understand that some children may need different information at different times and ways than other children. Thus, we have to deconstruct the notion of what sexual information is developmentally appropriate for children, illuminating the educational practice and supporting the sexual socialization of children (Balter et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref120">6</reflink>]). Furthermore, the notion of cognitive immaturity reinforces the concept that children are innocent.</p> <p>Acknowledging the powerful and oppressive role of the childhood innocence concept and the concept of age-appropriate information is most significant in uncovering how they operate and, in turn, counteracting their impact on the way sexual and gender issues are addressed in early childhood (Balter et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref121">6</reflink>]; Davies et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref122">26</reflink>]). Overall, through the aforementioned concepts, the inappropriateness of sexuality education in early childhood is naturalized, creating socially powerful beliefs that continue to impede children's understanding of gender and sexual issues and of themselves.</p> <p>Also, based on the participants' discourses, this study shows that parents should represent a significant starting point for sexual information. Accordingly, this entails the powerful message that parents' belief systems determine what is appropriate for their children. However, research findings report that even though parents feel responsible for educating their children about sexual matters, not all parents can address the subject of sexuality, while others may be reluctant to do so (Davies & Robinson, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref123">27</reflink>]; Izdebski et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref124">54</reflink>]). What is also implied in participants' discourses is that there is a "right" or "normal" family formation. This is in line with what the Greek Orthodox Church claims to protect. That is, children's right to grow up in a "normal" family environment with father and mother role models (Grigoropoulos, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref125">41</reflink>], Grigoropoulos, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref126">43</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref127">44</reflink>], Grigoropoulos, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref128">46</reflink>], Grigoropoulos, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref129">47</reflink>]). Consequently, this denotes that all other family formations are banned.</p> <p>This study reports and questions the role of dominant social discourses about childhood innocence and age-appropriate sexual information. The aforementioned taken-for-granted social discourses operate as dominant social rules creating structural silence as regards sexuality education in early childhood. However, considering sexuality education as a corrupting influence may also deprive children of crucial information on resisting inappropriate or unwanted behavior toward them. After all, children's innocence may itself as well be sexualized or fetishized (Green, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref130">39</reflink>]; Renold, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref131">66</reflink>]). Therefore dominant social discourses about sexuality education in early childhood need to be confronted (Burns, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref132">20</reflink>]). Jarkovská and Lamb ([<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref133">57</reflink>]) articulate that recognizing children's sexual agency and looking after them does not necessarily need to be contradictory. Indeed, children are vulnerable to specific harms (e.g., sexual abuse) that need to be addressed. However, this does not mean we should consider them passive recipients, unknowing, or innocent. The results obtained are of keen interest given the importance of this subject for toddlers and preschoolers to be recognized as active agents in their sexual education and not deemed too innocent and unprepared to learn about sexual issues. The failure to address young children as sexual subjects and the fact that sexuality is constructed by the wider societies within which we live and understand within specific cultural contexts may result in powerful societal messages prohibiting sexuality education in early childhood (Granger, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref134">38</reflink>]).</p> <p>To feel safe and accepted is an essential prerequisite for students to get involved in the adventure of learning, and since students are the center of educational institutions, it is essential always to put their needs first. Given this understanding, it is necessary to consider the significance of sexuality education in early childhood settings (Balter et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref135">6</reflink>]). However, to properly implement CSE, educators must feel supported by the legal system, school administration, and local authorities and have access to training and resources. Educators also need to have the confidence, desire, commitment, and resources to teach complex issues concerning sexuality and gender in young children. Thus, implementing CSE in early childhood education extends beyond the introduction of sexual education in early childhood settings. It also has implications on how this initiative is carried out and its purpose and objectives. Organizing proper and ongoing education for educators is crucial and required before implementing CSE in schools. This education should be based on policies established by organizations like the Council of Europe, WHO, UNESCO, and others, emphasizing the need for educators to acquire specialized knowledge and abilities. Also, discussing sexuality in early childhood would necessitate a conversation with parents to begin or continue discussing sexuality at home. Hence, political will, significant preparation, and ongoing support are deemed necessary to introduce sexuality education in early childhood settings.</p> <p>Overall, the current study demonstrates the dominant social notions that privilege a particular version of early childhood, establishing the issue of sexuality education in the early years as inappropriate and outside the realm of child development (Balter et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref136">6</reflink>]). In addition, through the guise of protection, parents preserve the notion of childhood innocence. At the same time, they refine what is appropriate knowledge for their children according to taken-for-granted ideas about sexuality and childhood (Bialystok, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref137">8</reflink>]). Thus, the current study demonstrates how a body of beliefs and ideas about sexuality education in early childhood becomes established and valid as "correct," and therefore difficult to question (Foucault, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref138">33</reflink>]). This study's results also stress the need for a deconstruction of the concept of childhood innocence which advocates discussions about age-appropriate information and strongly influences laypeople's perceptions concerning sexuality education in early childhood.</p> <hd id="AN0178650881-15">Limitations</hd> <p>Data came from a convenient small segment of the Greek Orthodox community that was not representative of the Greek population. However, this is a known limitation of snowballing sampling (Braun & Clarke, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref139">15</reflink>]). Furthermore, research on the internet limits the participation of different social groups. Future studies could emphasize collecting data from a more diverse sample. In addition, there may be a sampling bias as participants more interested in sexuality issues may have taken part. Thus, this study's results may be influenced by this factor. Finally, another limitation of the current study was using a single open-ended question. More varied questions could have resulted in more detailed participants' discourses.</p> <hd id="AN0178650881-16">Conclusions</hd> <p>The current study tried to capture the impact of dominant context-related societal discourses about sexuality education in early childhood. More studies in different cultures and countries need to emphasize laypeople's perceptions about sexuality education with young children to promote sexuality education in school settings as an important contributor to sexual knowledge. Understanding laypeople's perceptions regarding sexuality education in early childhood may also contribute to a better understanding of the existing opposition and new ways to overcome it. Overall, through deconstructing dominant social discourses surrounding sexuality education, we hope to illuminate educational practice and the sexual socialization of children. Staying within the bounds of childhood sexual innocence and age-appropriate information that parents exclusively convey preserves socially dominant discourses concerning early childhood and sexual knowledge (Davies et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref140">26</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0178650881-17">Ethical approval</hd> <p>All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.</p> <hd id="AN0178650881-18">Informed consent</hd> <p>Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.</p> <hd id="AN0178650881-19">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).</p> <hd id="AN0178650881-20">Data availability statement</hd> <p>The data supporting this study's findings are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.</p> <ref id="AN0178650881-21"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref77" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Abel, G., & Fitzgerald, L. (2006). When you come to it you feel like a dork asking a guy to put a condom on: Is sex education addressing young people's understandings of risk? Sex Education, 6 (2), 105 – 119. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681810600578750</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref66" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Alldred, P., & David, M. (2007). Get real about sex. The politics and practice of sex education. Open University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref70" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Aston, M. (2016). Teaching feminist poststructuralism: Founding scholars still relevant today. Creative Education, 7 (15), 2251 – 2267. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2016.715220</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref61" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Balter, A., van Rhijn, T., & Davies, A. W. J. (2016). Sexual and gender development in early learning settings: An exploration of Ontario early childhood educators' (ECEs) perspectives. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 25 (1), 30 – 40. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjhs.251-A3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref62" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Balter, A., van Rhijn, T., & Davies, A. W. J. (2018). Equipping early childhood educators to support the development of sexuality in childhood: Identification of pre- and post-service training needs. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 27 (1), 33 – 42. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjhs.2017-0036</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref20" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Balter, A.-S., van Rhijn, T., Gores, D., Davies, A. W., & Akers, T. (2021). Supporting the development of sexuality in early childhood: The rationales and barriers to sexuality education in early learning settings. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 30 (3), e20210034. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjhs.2021-0034</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref34" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bhana, D. (2008). Discourses of childhood innocence in primary school HIV/AIDS education in South Africa. African Journal of AIDS Research, 7 (1), 149 – 158. https://doi.org/10.2989/AJAR.2008.7.1.15.443</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref137" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bialystok, L. (2019). Ontario teachers' perceptions of the controversial update to sexual health and human development. Canadian Journal of Education, 42 (1), 1 – 41.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref35" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Bialystok, L., Wright, J., Berzins, T., Guy, C., & Osborne, E. (2020). The appropriation of sex education by conservative populism. Curriculum Inquiry, 50 (4), 330 – 351. https://doi.org/10.1080/03626784.2020.1809967</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Blaise, M. (2005). Playing it straight: Uncovering gender discourses in the early childhood classroom. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Blaise, M. (2009). What a girl wants, what a girl needs: Responding to sex, gender, and sexuality in the early childhood classroom. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 23 (4), 450 – 460. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568540909594673</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Blaise, M., & Ryan, S. (2012). Using critical theory to trouble the early childhood curriculum: Is it enough?. In J. J. File, D. B. Mueller, & N. Wisneski (Eds). Curriculum in early childhood education: Re-examined, rediscovered, renewed (pp. 80 – 92). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3 (2), 77 – 101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2012). Thematic analysis. In H. Cooper, P. M. Camic, D. L. Long, A. T. Panter, D. Rindskopf, & K. J. Sher (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in psychology, Vol. 2. Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological. American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13620-004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2013). Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners. Sage Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11 (4), 589 – 597. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Braun, V., Clarke, V., & Weate, P. (2016). Using thematic analysis in sport and exercise research. In B. Smith & A. C. Sparkes (Eds.), Routledge handbook of qualitative research in sport and exercise (pp. 191 – 205). Routlegde.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brouskeli, V., & Sapountzis, A. (2017). Early childhood sexuality education: Future educators' attitudes and considerations. Research in Education, 99 (1), 56 – 68. https://doi.org/10.1177/0034523717740149</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burman, E. (2008). Developments: Child, image, nation. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burns, K. (2013). Normative 'sexual' knowledge and critique as a mode of resistance – A response to Damien Riggs. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 14 (1), 88 – 93. https://doi.org/10.2304/ciec.2014.14.1.87</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Byrne, D. A. (2022). A worked example of Braun and Clarke's approach to reflexive thematic analysis. Quality & Quantity, 56 (3), 1391 – 1412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-021-01182-y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cacciatore, R. S., Ingman-Friberg, S. M., Lainiala, L. P., & Apter, D. L. (2020). Verbal and behavioral expressions of child sexuality among 1-6-year-olds as observed by daycare professionals in Finland. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 49 (7), 2725 – 2734. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-020-01694-y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cacciatore, R., Korteniemi-Poikela, E., & Kaltiala, R. (2019). The steps of sexuality—A developmental, emotion-focused, child-centered model of sexual development and sexuality education from birth to adulthood. International Journal of Sexual Health, 31 (3), 319 – 338. https://doi.org/10.1080/19317611.2019.1645783</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cardoso, D., Pascoal, P. M., & Maiochi, F. H. (2021). Defining polyamory: A thematic analysis of lay people's definitions. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 50 (4), 1239 – 1252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-021-02002-y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cheung, S. K., Kwan, J. L. Y., & Yim, K. Y. K. (2021). Pre-service early childhood teachers' perceptions about sexuality education and behavioural intentions towards children's curiosity about sexuality. Journal of Education for Teaching, 47 (1), 89 – 103. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2020.1829964</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Davies, A. W., Balter, A. S., & van Rhijn, T. (2021). Sexuality education and early childhood educators in Ontario, Canada: A Foucauldian exploration of constraints and possibilities. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 146394912110607. https://doi.org/10.1177/14639491211060787</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Davies, C., & Robinson, K. (2010). Hatching babies and stork deliveries: Risk and regulation in the construction of children's sexual knowledge. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 11 (3), 249 – 262. https://doi.org/10.2304/ciec.2010.11.3.249</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> DePalma, R., & Atkinson, E. (2010). Undoing homophobia in primary schools. Trentham.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Egan, R. D. (2013). Becoming sexual: A critical appraisal of the sexualization of girls. Polity.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Egan, R. D., & Hawkes, G. (2009). The problem with protection: Or, why we need to move towards recognition and the sexual agency of children. Continuum, 23 (3), 389 – 400. https://doi.org/10.1080/10304310902842975</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Egan, R. D., & Hawkes, G. (2010). Theorizing the sexual child in modernity. Palgrave Macmillan.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> European Expert Group on Sexuality Education (2016). Sexuality education – What is it? Sex Education, 16 (4), 427 – 431. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681811.2015.1100599</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972–1977. Pantheon Books.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Foucault, M. (1984). History of sexuality: An introduction. Penguin.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frankham, J. (2006). Sexual antimonies and parent/child sex education: Learning from foreclosure. Sexualities, 9 (2), 236 – 254. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460706063120</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gavey, N. (1992). Technologies and effects of heterosexual coercion. Feminism & Psychology, 2 (3), 325 – 351. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353592023003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gerouki, M. (2007). Sexuality and relationships education in the Greek primary schools—See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. Sex Education, 7 (1), 81 – 100. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681810601134710</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Granger, C. A. (2007). On (not) representing sex in preschool and kindergarten: A psychoanalytic reflection on orders and hints. Sex Education, 7 (1), 1 – 15. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681810601134769</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Green, L. (2001). Children, sexual abuse and the child protection system., In P. Foley, J. Roche, & S. Tucker (Eds.), Children in society: Contemporary theory, policy and practice. Palgrave/Open University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grieshaber, S., & Cannella, G. S. (2001). Embracing identities in early childhood education: Diversity and possibilities. Teachers College Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grigoropoulos, I. (2019). Attitudes toward same‑sex marriage in a Greek sample. Sexuality & Culture, 23 (2), 415 – 424. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-018-9565-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grigoropoulos, I. (2020). Subtle forms of prejudice in Greek day-care centres. Early childhood educators' attitudes towards same-sex marriage and children's adjustment in same-sex families. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 18 (5), 711 – 730. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2020.1835636</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grigoropoulos, I. (2021a). Lesbian motherhood desires and challenges due to minority stress. Current Psychology, 42, 11133–11142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-02376-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grigoropoulos, I. (2021b). Lesbian mothers' perceptions and experiences of their school involvement. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 31 (5), 590–602. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2537</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grigoropoulos, I. (2022a). Greek high school teachers' homonegative attitudes towards same-sex parent families. Sexuality & Culture, 26 (3), 1132 – 1147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-021-09935-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grigoropoulos, I. (2022b). Gay fatherhood experiences and challenges through the lens of minority stress theory. Journal of Homosexuality, 70 (9), 1867 – 1889. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2022.2043131</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grigoropoulos, I. (2022c). Towards a greater integration of 'spicier' sexuality into mainstream∥society? Social-psychological and socio-cultural predictors of attitudes towards BDSM. Sexuality & Culture, 26 (6), 2253 – 2273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-022-09996-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grigoropoulos, I. (2022d). Sexual prejudice as an institutional barrier to the social justice agenda in early childhood settings. Sex Education, 1 – 15. First online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681811.2022.2136153</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Helmer, J., Senior, K., Davison, B., & Vodic, A. (2015). Improving sexual health for young people: Making sexuality education a priority. Sex Education, 15 (2), 158 – 171. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681811.2014.989201</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hillier, L., & Mitchell, A. (2008). It was as useful as a chocolate kettle: Sex education in the lives of same‐sex‐attracted young people in Australia. Sex Education, 8 (2), 211 – 224. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681810801981258</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hillier, L., Monagle, M. J., Overton, N., Gahan, L., Blackman, J., & Mitchell, A. (2010). Writing themselves in 3: The third national study on the sexual health and wellbeing of same sex attracted and gender questioning young people. La Trobe University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hogg, C., & Williamson, C. (2001). Whose interests do lay people represent? Towards an understanding of the role of lay people as members of committees. Health Expectations, 4 (1), 2 – 9. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1369-6513.2001.00106</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> International Sexuality and HIV Curriculum Working Group. (2009). "It's All One Curriculum: Guidelines for a Unified Approach to Sexuality, Gender, HIV, and Human Rights Education," edited by Nicole Haberland and Deborah Rogow. New York: Population Council. https://doi.org/10.31899/pgy11.1009</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Izdebski, Z., Dec-Pietrowska, J., Kozakiewicz, A., & Mazur, J. (2022). What one gets is not always what one wants-young adults' perception of sexuality education in Poland. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19 (3), 1366. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19031366</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jackson, S., & Scott, S. R. (2010). Theorizing sexuality. McGraw-Hill; Open University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jackson, S., & Weatherall, A. (2010). The (im)possibilities of feminist school based sexuality education. Feminism & Psychology, 20 (2), 166 – 185. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353509349603</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jarkovská, L., & Lamb, S. (2018). Not innocent, but vulnerable: An approach to childhood innocence. In S. Lamb & J. Gilbert (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of sexual development (pp. 76 – 93). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108116121</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kakavoulis, A. (1998). Early childhood sexual development and sex education: A survey of attitudes of nursery school teachers. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 6 (2), 55 – 70. https://doi.org/10.1080/13502939885208241</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kintner-Duffy, V. L., Vardell, J. R., Lower, K., & Cassidy, D. J. (2012). The changers and the changed: Preparing early childhood teachers to work with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender families. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 33 (3), 208 – 223. https://doi.org/10.1080/10901027.2012.705806</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee, E. M., & Kweon, Y. R. (2013). Effects of a maternal sexuality education program for mothers of preschoolers. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing, 43 (3), 370 – 378. https://doi.org/10.4040/jkan.2013.43.3.370</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McClelland, S. I., & Fine, M. (2008). Embedded science: Critical analysis of abstinence-only evaluation research. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies, 8 (1), 50 – 81. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532708607310782</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Menmuir, J., & Kakavoulis, A. (1999). Sexual development and education in early years: A study of attitudes of pre-school staff in Greece and Scotland. Early Child Development and Care, 149 (1), 27 – 45. https://doi.org/10.1080/0300443991490103</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meyer, E. (2007). But I'm not gay: What straight teachers need to know about queer theory. In N. Rodriguez & W. Pinar (Eds.), Queering straight teachers: Discourse and identity in education (pp. 15 – 32). Peter Lang.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mijatovic, D. (2020). Comprehensive sexuality education protects children and helps build a safer, inclusive society. Retrieved February 13, 2022, from https://<ulink href="http://www.coe.int/en/web/commissioner/blog/-/asset%5fpublisher/xZ32OPEoxOkq/content/comprehensivesexuality-education-protects-children-and-helps-build-a-safer-inclusive-society">www.coe.int/en/web/commissioner/blog/-/asset%5fpublisher/xZ32OPEoxOkq/content/comprehensivesexuality-education-protects-children-and-helps-build-a-safer-inclusive-society</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Raphael, D. A. (2015). The effect of sexual education on sexual assault prevention. Women NC,CSW Research Paper. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.womennc.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/2015-WomenNC-ResearchPaper-Effects-ofSexEduc-on-PreventSex">www.womennc.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/2015-WomenNC-ResearchPaper-Effects-ofSexEduc-on-PreventSex</ulink> Assault_Dana-Raphael0415.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Renold, E. (2007). School studs: (De)constructing young boys' heterosexual masculinities. Men and Masculinities, 9 (3), 275 – 297. https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X05277711</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Robinson, K. H. (1970). In the name of 'childhood innocence': A discursive exploration of the moral panic associated with childhood and sexuality. Cultural Studies Review, 14 (2), 113 – 129. https://doi.org/10.5130/csr.v14i2.2075</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Robinson, K. H. (2013). Innocence, knowledge and the construction of childhood: The contradictory nature of sexuality and censorship in children's contemporary lives. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Robinson, K. H., Smith, E., & Davies, C. (2017). Responsibilities, tensions and ways forward: parents' perspectives on children's sexuality education. Sex Education, 17 (3), 333 – 347. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681811.2017.1301904</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Santos, A. N., Pascoal, P. M., & Barros, L. (2020). Sexuality in emerging adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus: An exploratory study using thematic analysis. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 46 (3), 234 – 245. https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2019.1682730</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sex education in Greece's schools: Orthodox associations call to protest rally (2021). Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.keeptalkinggreece.com/2021/09/13/greece-sex-education-schools-protest-orthodox/">www.keeptalkinggreece.com/2021/09/13/greece-sex-education-schools-protest-orthodox/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sexuality education: Greece moving one step forward (2021, June 14). Retrieved from <ulink href="http://allinc.eu/2021/06/14/sexuality-education-greece-moving-one-step-forward/">http://allinc.eu/2021/06/14/sexuality-education-greece-moving-one-step-forward/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shin, H., Lee, J. M., & Min, J. Y. (2019). Sexual knowledge, sexual attitudes, and perceptions and actualities of sex education among elementary school parents. Child Health Nursing Research, 25 (3), 312 – 323. https://doi.org/10.4094/chnr.2019.25.3.312</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shtarkshall, R. A., Santelli, J. S., & Hirsch, J. S. (2007). Sex education and sexual socialization: Roles for educators and parents. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 39 (2), 116 – 119. https://doi.org/10.1363/3911607</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, M., & Woodiwiss, J. (2016). Sexuality, innocence and agency in narratives of childhood sexual abuse: Implications for social work. British Journal of Social Work, 46 (8), 2173 – 2189. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcw160</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stone, N., Ingham, R., & Gibbins, K. (2013). Where do babies come from? Barriers to early sexuality communication between parents and young children. Sex Education, 13 (2), 228 – 240. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681811.2012.737776</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The Christian Institute. (2011). Too much, too young: Exposing primary school sex education materials. Newcastle upon Tyne: The Christian Institute. https://<ulink href="http://www.christian.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/toomuchtooyoung%5flordsed%5fsept11%5fweb.pdf">www.christian.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/toomuchtooyoung%5flordsed%5fsept11%5fweb.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van Wijlen, J. E., & Aston, M. (2019). Applying feminist poststructuralism as a framework for exploring infant feeding interactions in the neonatal intensive care unit. Witness: The Canadian Journal of Critical Nursing Discourse, 1 (1), 59 – 72. https://doi.org/10.25071/2291-5796.12</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weedon, C. (1997). Feminist practice & poststructuralist theory (2nd ed.). Blackwell Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> WHO Regional Office for Europe and BZgA (2010). Standards for sexuality education in Europe: A framework for policy makers, education and health authorities and specialists. BZgA.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe and BZgA. (2010). Standards for sexuality education in Europe: A framework for policy makers, educational and health authorities and specialists. Retrieved January 10, 2020, from https://<ulink href="http://www.bzgawhocc.de/fileadmin/user%5fupload/WHO%5fBZgA%5fStandards%5fEnglish.pdf">www.bzgawhocc.de/fileadmin/user%5fupload/WHO%5fBZgA%5fStandards%5fEnglish.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> World Health Organization (2017a). Child maltreatment. Retrieved April 10, 2021, from <ulink href="http://www.who.int/topics/child">http://www.who.int/topics/child</ulink> abuse/en/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> World Health Organization (2017b). Training matters: A framework for core competencies of sexuality educators. The German Federal Centre for Health Education (BZgA), WHO Regional Office for Europe (World Health Organization), & European Expert Group on Sexuality Education. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/Life-stages/sexual-and-reproductive-health/publications/2017/training-matters-a-frameworkfor-core-competencies-of-sexuality-educators-2017">www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/Life-stages/sexual-and-reproductive-health/publications/2017/training-matters-a-frameworkfor-core-competencies-of-sexuality-educators-2017</ulink></bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Iraklis Grigoropoulos</p> <p>Reported by Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref106"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref109"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref113"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref115"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref116"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref117"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref118"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref124"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref125"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref126"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref127"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref128"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref129"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref130"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref131"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref132"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref134"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1432748
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Laypeople's Perceptions of Sexuality Education with Young Children Insights from a Convenient Sample of the Greek Orthodox Community
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Iraklis+Grigoropoulos%22">Iraklis Grigoropoulos</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5987-5483">0000-0001-5987-5483</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22American+Journal+of+Sexuality+Education%22"><i>American Journal of Sexuality Education</i></searchLink>. 2024 19(3):316-336.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Taylor & Francis. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 21
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education%22">Early Childhood Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Sex+Education%22">Sex Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Environment%22">Social Environment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education%22">Early Childhood Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Lay+People%22">Lay People</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Attitudes%22">Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Practices%22">Educational Practices</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Socialization%22">Socialization</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Parent+Role%22">Parent Role</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Developmentally+Appropriate+Practices%22">Developmentally Appropriate Practices</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Barriers%22">Barriers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Access+to+Information%22">Access to Information</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Greek+Civilization%22">Greek Civilization</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Religious+Factors%22">Religious Factors</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Greece%22">Greece</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/15546128.2023.2225790
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1554-6128<br />1554-6136
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The current study examined laypeople's perceptions of sexuality education with young children in Greece. This exploratory qualitative web research used data from a convenience and snowball sample where respondents answered the question, "What do you think about sexuality education in early childhood (children aged 2-5)?" This study's approach is grounded on a feminist poststructuralist framework permitting the exploration and understanding of power relations through analyzing participants' written discourses. Reflexive thematic analysis was used in the current study. This study's sample comprised 64 participants aged 19-64 (M = 36.22, SD = 11.02). Based on this study's results, we identified three fundamental social discourses that influenced the issue of sexuality education in the early years in Greece: the concept of childhood sexual innocence, age-appropriate arguments that oppose sexuality education with young children, and parental influence. The current study questions the role of dominant social discourses acknowledging that they operate as social rules that exert power by creating structural silence on sexuality issues.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1432748
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1432748
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/15546128.2023.2225790
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 21
        StartPage: 316
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Sex Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Social Environment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Early Childhood Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Lay People
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Practices
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Socialization
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Parent Role
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Developmentally Appropriate Practices
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Barriers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Access to Information
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Greek Civilization
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Religious Factors
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Greece
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Laypeople's Perceptions of Sexuality Education with Young Children Insights from a Convenient Sample of the Greek Orthodox Community
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Iraklis Grigoropoulos
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1554-6128
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1554-6136
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 19
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: American Journal of Sexuality Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1