INTRODUCTION

Sexuality education is highly topical (Lameiras-Fernández, 2021) due to the level of adolescents’ risky sexual behaviour leading to increasing sexually transmitted infections and unintended pregnancies (Wilkins et al., 2022). Especially after the COVID-19, widespread media consumption has also exposed youth to inappropriate content (Rolleri Insignares et al., 2021). In addition, the demographic crisis in Europe, as well as the weakening of family bounds, made feel the need for research-based sexuality education that fosters family values and moral virtues, promotes self-respect and respect for others, prevents discrimination and encourages gender equality.

There are various approaches to sexuality education. For example, the Risk Reduction Approach (e.g., Kirby & Coyle, 1997) focuses on preventing STIs and unwanted pregnancies through contraception. The Abstinence-Only approach (Ott & Santelli, 2007) promotes delaying sexual behaviour until marriage. UNESCO’s (UNESCO et al., 2018) Comprehensive Sexual Education integrates biological, emotional, social, and cultural aspects, emphasizing human rights and gender equality. The Virtue-Based Approach (Beltramo, 2022; Lickona, 2013) fosters character development, moral values, and respectful relationships. The Physiology-Only Approach (Raith-Paula, 2018) teaches reproductive processes before puberty, while the Holistic Love and Fertility Approach (Carter, 2017) merges virtue-based and physiology-based models within responsible love. These different approaches to sexuality education can be regrouped under two overarching directions: (1) comprehensive sexuality education (hereinafter - CSE); and (2) sexuality education based on family formation values and virtues (hereinafter - FVSE).

A summary of the main overarching approaches to sexuality education

The CSE “[i]s a curriculum-based process (…) about the cognitive, emotional, physical and social aspects of sexuality” (UNESCO et al., 2018, p. 16). The term “comprehensive” refers to "the development of learners’ knowledge, skills and attitudes for positive sexuality and good sexual and reproductive health" (UNESCO et al., 2018, p. 12) which include wide variety of topics like relationships, human rights, culture, gender, development of human body, sexual behaviour and reproductive health. In some European countries, the CSE approach, rooted in the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (UNESCO et al., 2018, p. 3), may seem misaligned with national priorities and demographic decline.

Centred on moral growth and self-command and actively involving parents in sexuality education, the FVSE approach emphasizes selfless love, mutual respect, stability, and openness to life, preparing youth for responsible relationships. It’s values-based approach promotes integration of biological, psychological, and social aspects of sexuality while fostering virtues like self-giving and responsibility. This description of the FVSE approach is based on the analysis and synthesis of recent research and educational programs. The research analysed included the work of the research group “Infinity: Family, Love, and Sexuality” at the University of Navarra and the research of the European Institute for Family Life Education, among others (Obeleniene, 2022). The main programs analysed were “Health, Sexuality, and Family Life Education” (Lithuania), the“Love in life - affectivity and sexuality education pathways” guidelines (Italy), and the Program “TeenSTAR” (USA) among others.  

Objective of the study and research question

The current dominant approach in sexuality education policy and practice in Europe and beyond is the CSE, which purports a particular worldview. Diversifying the existent sexuality education offer will reinforce democratic values. In order to ensure a better understanding of how to implement this diversification, a comparative analysis of the assumptions and implications of the two main overarching approaches would be necessary.

Therefore, the objective of this research was to compare CSE and FVSE proposals for sexuality education. The research question of the study was: what are the main differences between the CSE and FVSE approaches to sexuality education as described in the main documents defining them?

METHODOLOGY The study adopts a desk research methodology for comparing those two main approaches. Eight criteria were chosen for comparison, based on the structure of the UNESCO guidelines for sexuality education (UNESCO et al., 2018) and on relevant additional topics that emerged from the review of sexuality education programs and scientific papers, namely: conceptual framework; relationships and family formation; biology, life, and physical health; psychological and emotional aspects; sexual behaviour; sociocultural aspects; ethical aspects; role of parents. Documents compared during the analysis Rationale for the choice of the document representing the CSE approach. In Europe two pivotal documents provide frameworks for sexuality education (Michielsen, & Ivanonva, 2022), which represent comprehensive sexuality education: (1) the “Standards for Sexuality Education in Europe” (SSEE), published by WHO Regional Office for Europe (WHO & BZgA, 2010); and (2) the “International Technical Guidance on Sexuality Education” (ITGSE), initially published by the UNESCO (2009), and with an updated version released in 2018 with the collaboration of other UN agencies and the WHO. The ITGSE defines its approach as “comprehensive sexuality education” (UNESCO et all, 2018), while the SSEE describes its model as “holistic sexuality education” (WHO, & BZgA, 2010). Initially, this distinction was made in relation to the 2009 version of the ITGSE. However, Ketting and Winkelman (2013) stated that these approaches were “more of a continuum than opposing views” (p. 250). Michielsen and Ivanova (2022, p. 10) argued that the updated definition of CSE (UNESCO et al., 2018) aligns with holistic sexuality education. Therefore, the ITGSE represents the most recent version of the CSE approach. Clarification of the contents of the FVSE approach. Given the amount of different research and programmes mentioned in the introduction which use the FVSE approach, in order to operationalize the contents of the FVSE for comparison a conceptual document (25 pages) was elaborated, discussed within the research team and refined. It was structured according to the comparison criteria, and it synthesised all the relevant information from the documents included under the FVSE approach. This conceptual document was used for representing the FVSE approach. Comparative content analysis For answering the research question, a comparative content analysis of these two documents was implemented. For each criterium, the contents of each approach were first looked for in the respective sources and then discussed and compared. Differences were highlighted and relevant quotes supporting the analysis were retained as evidence for presenting the results.

EXPECTED FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS The findings were organized around the 8 criteria for comparison. Preliminary results point to the existence of fundamental differences between the CSE and the FVSE approaches, in particular regarding the general conceptual framework (human rights and equality versus self-giving committed love), the different priority given to the perspective of family formation in sexuality education, the presence/absence of the language of character and virtues, and the prominent or secondary role of long-term commitment and of pleasure for starting to engage in sexual behaviour. These results suggest the convenience of offering different approaches to sexuality education, so that parents and schools can chose what they understand to be the best approach for their children. These results can also be a basis for developing new teaching materials integrating the best insights of both approaches for the benefit of children. This work was funded by the Recovery and resilience Facility project “Internal and external consolidation of the University of Latvia” (No.5.2.1.1.i.0/24/I/CFLA/007), grant “Strengthening values-based family literacy and sexuality education in the Latvian education system” (No. LU-BA-PA-2024/1-0011).

REFERENCES Beltramo, C. (2022). La educación sexual centrada en el carácter y la alfabetización afectiva [Character-centered sexuality education and affective literacy]. In H. Del Castillo (Ed.), Madurez Afectiva y Sexual [Affective and Sexual Maturity] (pp. 48–68). Areté Ediciones. Carter, C. S. (2017). The oxytocin–vasopressin pathway in the context of love and fear. Frontiers in endocrinology, 8(356), 1-12. Ketting, E., & Winkelmann, C. (2013). New approaches to sexuality education and underlying paradigms. Bundesgesundheitsblatt - Gesundheitsforschung – Gesundheitsschutz [Federal Health Gazette - Health research - Health protection], 56(2), 250–255. doi:10.1007/s00103-012-1599-8 Kirby, D., & Coyle, K. (1997). School-based programs to reduce sexual risk-taking behavior. Children and Youth Services Review, 19(5-6), 415-436. Lameiras-Fernández, M., Martínez-Román, R., Carrera-Fernández, M. V., & Rodríguez-Castro, Y. (2021). Sex education in the spotlight: what is working? Systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(5), 2555. Lickona, T. (2013). Educating for character: How our schools can teach respect and responsibility. Bantam Books. Michielsen, K., & Ivanova, O. (2022). Comprehensive sexuality education: why it is important? European Parliament. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2022/719998/IPOL_STU(2022)719998_EN.pdf Obeleniene, B. (2022). From birth control to self-awareness and free decision making. A model for the evaluation of comprehensive sexuality education from the perspective of women’s health and free informed choice. The Pontifical University of John Paul II in Krakow. Ott, M., & Santelli, J. (2007). Abstinence and abstinence-only education. Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 19(5), 446–52. Raith-Paula, E. (2018). What’s going on in my body? Gerhard Paula MFM PrintMedia Rolleri Insignares, L. A., Bass, T. M., & Taverner, B. (2021). Sex ed lessons from COVID-19. American Journal of Sexuality Education, 16(4), 435-465. UNESCO, UNAIDS, UNFPA, UNICEF, UN Women, & WHO. (2018). International technical guidance on sexuality education. UNESCO. https://www.unfpa.org/publications/international-technical-guidance-sexuality-education UNESCO. (2009). International technical guidance on sexuality education. UNESCO. WHO, & BZgA (Bundeszentrale für gesundheitliche Aufklärung [German Federal Centre for Health Education]). (2010). Standards for Sexuality Education in Europe. WHO. https://www.bzga-whocc.de/fileadmin/user_upload/BZgA_Standards_English.pdf Wilkins, N. J., Rasberry, C., Liddon, N., Szucs, L. E., Johns, M., Leonard, S., ... & Oglesby, H. (2022). Addressing HIV/sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy prevention through schools: an approach for strengthening education, health services, and school environments that promote adolescent sexual health and well-being. Journal of Adolescent Health, 70(4), 540-549.