There is a lot of evidence supporting the effectiveness of sex education (SE) in addressing various personal, relational, and societal issues. It enhances self-worth, reduces sexual risk-taking, promotes sexual and reproductive health, fosters a positive socio-emotional atmosphere in schools, diminishes LGBTI+ bullying, and contributes to the physical and physiological well-being of different groups or students. However, adults often fall short in engaging in these crucial discussions. They lack confidence in their own competencies and capabilities to discuss sexual matters, are burdened by cultural anxieties related to providing too much information too early, and fear disrupting children's innocence by presenting challenging knowledge or inadvertently encouraging premature sexual activity. Meanwhile, numerous studies indicate that children and adolescents are willing to initiate discussions earlier, engage in more routine conversations, and explore a broader spectrum of themes.

The discourse of sex education is marked by a multitude of contradictions and paradoxes, which I explore by using insights from posthumanism authors such as Rosi Braidotti and Nathan Snaza, and their colleagues. Their perspectives illuminate the imperative to reevaluate our conception of a 'just' human, liberating it from the constraints of entrenched humanistic traditions. Posthumanism advocates for a shift away from viewing humans as isolated, dominating entities superior to other organic and non-organic subjects. Instead, it encourages recognizing humanity as intricately entwined in constant interaction and perpetual transformation within the intricate web of meanings. In this study a non-binary approach to the concept of gender, examined through the lens of posthumanism, takes on particular significance. Delving into the nexus between a child and sexuality, I draw upon the insights of scholars Kerry H. Robinson and Kathryn Bond Stockton, who delve into the construct of childhood. Their work becomes a valuable resource in comprehending the relationship between a child, sexuality, and the child's entitlement to knowledge about it. Additionally, the perspectives presented by authors Barry McCarthy and Emily McCarthy, who explore inhibiting and nurturing aspects of sexual development, carry significant weight. Given the centrality of relationships in sex education field, not only romantic but also those between parents and children and more broadly among adults and children, I delve into the ideas of sociologist Anthony Giddens. Giddens' examination of the transformation of the intimacy sphere sheds light on its profound impact on emotional and physical relationships. Finally, considering the historical perspective of sex education is integral to this study. In this regard, the work of Jonathan Zimmermann, providing a global overview of the history of sex education, proves to be a valuable resource. Finally, in this study sexuality education is framed as ‘wicked problem’. 

In the field of sex education research, the focus has primarily been on understanding adult perspectives and values, with minimal exploration of their experiences in sex education discussions with young people or among adults. Thus, the aim of this study is to explore the necessity of SE and emphasize the complexity of this field. To analyse the narratives of adults regarding their experiences in discussing topics of sexuality with young people and among themselves, and based on this, consider assumptions necessary for improving the quality of the organization and implementation of sexuality education.

To garner insights about adults’ experiences in conversations about sexuality, a Dialogical Narrative Analysis (DNA) has been conducted. I formulated methodological insights about DNA based on the theoretical perspectives of Catherine K. Riessman and Arthur W. Frank. However, in narrative research, it is recommended to blend the boundaries of different methods and approaches, guided by previous examples and existing guidelines, without treating them as a set of rules. Therefore, while the leading methodology in this work was DNA, during the analysis, I applied qualitative content analysis features. From May 3, 2023, to June 20, 2023, a total of 23 interviews were conducted with 24 participants (one interview involved a couple of caregivers). I invited individuals who raise school-age children or teach them to participate in the interviews. After the narrative interviews were transcribed, I read the transcripts multiple times and identified narratives in line with Labov's concept of narrative. Then in order to organize the data, I registered narratives in an "Excel" program. I created six broad thematic categories and filled them with sub-themes. In dialogic narrative analysis, it is appropriate to implement interviews even without a clear and detailed plan of what will be done with the obtained data. Researchers do not know what will be told, therefore, "the analysis of chosen stories happens while trying to write" (Frank, 2012, p. 43). The collected and selected stories determine the focus and direction of analytical work. Decisions about what and how to include in the analysis and how the reconstructed story should be told are constantly made while writing. The conventional understanding of sexuality education discourse as polarized between abstinence promotion and comprehensive sexuality education oversimplifies the complexity of experiences, approaches, and attitudes in people's lives. Adopting the DNA methodology provided a platform to listen to diverse and nuanced stories that hold significance for the storyteller. Narrative research enabled the fusion of private and public discourses, revealing how narratives shape individuals' choices. This approach allowed for an investigation into which narratives could facilitate different choices in navigating SE matters. This data was useful for considering the support adults need to enhance their understanding and competencies in sexuality related discussions.

6 conceptual areas of importance emerged: (1) Menstruation as the master narrative about sexuality for all young people despite gender. Adults feel the need to discuss menstruation topic with girls and often this is considered as sexuality education itself. It leaves young people with the notion that sexuality education is girls’ subject and sexuality equals reproduction. (2) “You are (not) gay” as epidemic informal sexuality education. “You are gay” name calling is so prevailing that adults stop noticing it and in the context of extremely scarce SE directed at boys – the name calling and the underlying message of it becomes SE of young people and especially boys. (3) Disruption of dichotomous roles (gender, age, function in the family) in the conversation about sexuality. Adults feel the pressure of “adult role” in the discussion about sexuality with minors. Also as mothers are most often responsible for sexuality topics at home, with their sons they feel tension of differing gender which leaves boys excluded from the reflexive communication. (4) Non-verbal talking of young people and in-ability to hear it. As young people lack the vocabulary and the skills to discuss sexuality, adults often interpret their behaviour as simply provocative and do not see it as creating an opportunity for dialogue. (5) Between fear of saying (too much) and delegating responsibility for the conversation to a child. Adults tend to wait for minors to “ask a question” and without the question they fear of causing harm to young people with saying too much. (6) Gap in conversations with young people – silence among adults. While adults feel the imperative to talk to young people, they do not find it important to elaborate the discussion about sexuality among themselves.

Braidotti, R. (2013). The Posthuman. Polity Press Frank, A. (2012). Practicing dialogical narrative analysis. Varieties of Narrative Analysis, 33–52. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506335117.n3 Giddens, A. (1993). The transformation of intimacy. Polity Press. Goldfarb, E. S., & Lieberman, L. D. (2021). Three decades of research: The case for comprehensive sex education. Journal of Adolescent Health, 68(1), 13–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2020.07.036 Grossman, J. M., & Richer, A. M. (2021). Parents’ perspectives on talk with their adolescent and emerging adult children about sex: A longitudinal analysis. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 20(1), 216–229. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-021-00656-w Kar, S., Choudhury, A., & Singh, A. (2015). Understanding normal development of adolescent sexuality: A bumpy ride. Journal of Human Reproductive Sciences, 8(2), 70-74. Kramer, A. S. (2019). Framing the debate: The status of US sex education policy and the dual narratives of abstinence-only versus comprehensive sex education policy. American Journal of Sexuality Education, 14(4), 490–513. https://doi.org/10.1080/15546128.2019.1600447 McCarthy, B. W., & McCarthy, E. (2021). Contemporary male sexuality: Confronting myths and promoting change. Routledge. Moshman, D. (2014). Sexuality Development in Adolescence and Beyond. Human Development, 57(5), 287–291. Noorman, M. A. J., den Daas, C., & de Wit, J. B. F. (2022). How parents’ ideals are offset by uncertainty and fears: A systematic review of the experiences of European parents regarding the sexual education of their children. The Journal of Sex Research, 60(7), 1034–1044. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2022.2064414 Pesch, U., & Vermaas, P. E. (2020). The wickedness of Rittel and Webber’s dilemmas. Administration & Society, 52(6), 960–979. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399720934010 Riessman, C. K. (2008). Narrative methods for the human sciences. Sage. Robinson, K. H. (2013). Innocence, knowledge and the construction of childhood: The contradictory nature of sexuality and censorship in children's contemporary lives. Routledge. Snaza, N., Appelbaum, P., Bayne, S., Morris, M., Rotas, N., Sandlin, J., Wallin, J., Carlson, D., & Weaver, J. (2014). Toward a posthumanist education. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing. Retrieved November 16, 2022, from http://journal.jctonline.org/index.php/jct/article/view/501 Stockton, K. B. (2009). The queer child, or growing sideways in the twentieth century. Duke University Press. Tolman, D. L., & McClelland, S. I. (2011). Normative sexuality development in adolescence: A Decade in Review, 2000-2009. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21(1), 242–255. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00726.x UNESCO. (2018). International technical guidance on sexuality education an evidence-informed approach. Zimmerman, J. (2015) Too Hot to Handle. A Global History of Sex Education. Princeton University Press.