Sex Education, 2013

Vol. 13, No. 2, 228–240, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14681811.2012.737776

‘Where do babies come from?’ Barriers to early sexuality

communication between parents and young children
Nicole Stone*, Roger Ingham and Katie Gibbins

Centre for Sexual Health Research, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK

(Received 25 April 2012; final version received 4 October 2012)

‘Where do babies come from?’ ‘Why do boys have willies?’ ‘What does gay mean?’
Probably all parents have faced such ‘innocent’ questions from young children, and many
have found them challenging to answer. Access to sexuality education at an early age is
frequently considered controversial; however, there are strong indications that early and
open communication can impact positively in terms of sexual safety and outcomes.
Using focus group discussions with parents of 3–7 year olds in the UK, this study
explores some of the challenges parents report in dealing with early sexual socialisation
as well as the reasons they cite for restricting young children’s sexual awareness and
access to knowledge. Thematic analysis reveals a number of barriers to communication:
the need to protect childhood ‘innocence’, suitable timing and age appropriateness of
explanations, personal discomfort, and fear of criticism and judgement.
Keywords: sexual communication; early childhood; family interaction; parent –child
relations; UK

Introduction
Interest in how young people acquire their knowledge about sexuality, form their attitudes
and develop their expectations and values has long been a focus of attention for social
science researchers. For most, however, this interest has not extended to exploring the
sexual socialisation of younger children despite the obvious links. This could, in part, be a
reflection of cultural assumptions that young children are non-sexual and that sexuality is
typically seen to start at the onset of puberty and to be linked with physical, reproductively
relevant changes (Davies and Robinson 2010).
Sexual socialisation and sexuality education are the processes by which knowledge,
attitudes and values about sexuality are transmitted and acquired. These are complex
processes that occur throughout the entire lifespan; they involve the assimilation of
contributions from different sources that are delivered in multiple forms – verbal and
nonverbal, direct and indirect, intentional and unintentional (Gagnon and Simon 1973;
Jackson and Scott 2010; Shtarkshall, Santelli, and Hirsch 2007).
Parents are generally acknowledged as the initial sexuality educators of their children
(Finan 1997; Martin, Luke, and Verduzco-Baker 2007). Possibly wittingly (albeit not
necessarily so), the parents’ role as educator starts the day their child is born in subtle ways
through the implicit (through modelling) and explicit assumptions about gender
‘properties’ and roles. Subsequent and ongoing communication (involving modelling,
scripting, discursive positioning, etc.) about relationships, love and affection, and other

*Corresponding author. Email: n.stone@soton.ac.uk

q 2013 Taylor & Francis

 Sex Education 229

relevant issues follows (Jackson and Scott 2010). All too soon, children become active
agents in this process, and parents inevitably find themselves facing challenging (and often
very direct) questions from toddlers and pre-schoolers such as ‘where do babies come
from?’ and ‘why don’t girls have willies?’
How these, and other such questions, are dealt with by parents and primary carers of
children, forms the basis on which young children begin to develop an understanding of
the sexual and relationship world they inhabit. They are also the foundations that will
likely shape the sexual discourses, meanings and strategies used in early adolescence,
young adulthood and beyond, probably with important consequences. To take one
example relating to masturbation, for instance, being told as a young child that self-
exploration is wrong and dirty may provoke subsequent feelings of shame and guilt if and
when one wishes to practise it during teenage years; such negative feelings are generally in
direct conflict with any pleasurable feelings being experienced as well as possible comfort
with bodies and sexual partners (Coleman 2003; Hogarth and Ingham 2009; Ingham
2005).
Early exposure to good quality sexuality education has clear implications for
improving mental and physical well-being, as well as individuals’ ability to develop
appropriate competencies and skills, to understand and critically challenge assumptions, to
avoid sexual exploitation and abuse and to achieve healthy sexual development (Cook and
Fathalla 1996; Kirby 2002; Kirby and Lepore 2007; United Nations Committee on the
Rights of the Child 2003; UNPD 1994). Current literature, focused mainly on emerging
sexuality and sexual curiosity during adolescence and in the teenage years, suggests that
greater openness between parents and their children is protective (DiIorio, Pluhar, and
Belcher 2003; Miller, Benson, and Galbraith 2001; Noar, Carlyle, and Cole 2006;
Turnbull, van Wersch, and van Schaik 2008; Whitaker et al. 1999). For instance, in the
UK, parents’ reported general warmth and availability during their children’s primary
school years and throughout the teenage years are found to be a strong predictor of future
safer sexual behaviour, whilst willingness and ability to discuss sexuality openly
throughout their children’s lives appear to impart both competence and confidence. In
contrast, reluctance to talk about sexual matters and embarrassment in doing so appear to
reinforce negative messages of unacceptability, prohibition and mystification, and to be
associated with less effective contraceptive use (Stone and Ingham 2002). Ironically, those
who are reluctant to encourage greater openness about sex and relationships, for example,
may be contributing directly to poorer sexual health outcomes.
Despite the research literature and reports from various UN agencies, conferences and
consultations all emphasising the importance of, and rights to, early sexual education, the
belief that young children should be given such exposure is not universally accepted.
Children’s access to sexuality education and sexual knowledge is highly controversial and
hotly debated, as witnessed in public debates and media coverage. Access at an early age is
frequently considered ‘risky’ and dangerous; that it will give children ideas, which may
result in early sexual experimentation; that it will destroy their innocence and non-sexual
state; and that it may infer a link with sexual contact and abuse (see The Christian Institute
2011, for example).
Regardless of one’s individual standpoint in the debate, the transfer (either passively or
actively) of knowledge, attitudes and values from parents to their children regarding
sexuality is inevitable. Children, from an early age, begin building their own narratives
regarding relationships and sexual knowledge from their exposure in the family
environment, as well as from other sources of information such as peers and the media.
For example, Martin, Luke, and Verduzco-Baker (2007) have pointed to the sexuality
230 N. Stone et al.

messaging contained in the Disney movies many children consume from a young age. To
date, only a handful of studies internationally have explored these processes in any detail
and, in particular, parental concerns and anxieties associated with the sexual socialisation
and sexuality education of young children (Ballard and Gross 2009; Byers, Sears, and
Weaver 2008; Davies and Robinson 2010; Frankham 2006; Geasler, Dannison, and
Edlund 1995; Martin 2009; Walker 2001). So, despite its apparent importance (and the
presence of much anecdotal evidence and various self-help books), there has been limited
investigation into parents’ reactions to, and the techniques employed to deal with,
inquisitive questioning, behaviours and bodily exploration (Martin, Luke, and Verduzco-
Baker 2007).
Geasler, Dannison, and Edlund (1995) used focus group discussions with parents of
children between the ages of zero and five in the USA to identify concerns and
difficulties in the sexuality education of young children. They detected a tension between
parents’ own sexuality learning and their wish to communicate openly with their own
children; consequently, parental behaviours often contradicted their stated desires.
Ballard and Gross (2009) conducted a similar study also in the USA, reporting that
parental discussions focused on the biological aspects of sexuality (such as anatomy and
reproduction) rather than personal relationships, reflecting what parents believed to be
developmentally appropriate. Davies and Robinson explored this further in their focus
group discussion with parents and children (aged 3– 5 years) in Australia, concluding
that: ‘there is a disjuncture between parents’ perceptions of their children’s awareness
and knowledge of sexuality and relationships, and the knowledge many children already
have around these issues. Parents can underestimate their children’s capacity to
understand information about sexuality and relationships’ (2010, 259). Frankham (2006)
also found that parents she interviewed in the UK took a ‘child-centred’ approach to
sexuality education where disclosure of information was led by children’s questioning to
prevent giving them ‘too much’ and/or ‘too soon’. However, this frequently led to closed
or narrow responses.
With strong indicative evidence of a link between relative parental openness and
young people’s confidence, competence and sexual safety, then clearly there is a need for a
better understanding of the factors that inhibit and enable earlier communication between
parents and younger-aged children. With limited research having been conducted in the
cultural context of the UK, this study attempts to explore further some of the challenges
UK parents report to open sexuality communication, as well as some of the reasons they
cite for their efforts to restrict young children’s sexual awareness and access to knowledge.
This study was conducted during a period of heightened media activity in the UK
regarding the proposed introduction of statutory sex and relationships education into the
school curriculum (which has subsequently been dropped) and shortly after the publication
of a high-profile report examining the early sexualisation of young people in the UK
(Papadopoulos 2010).

Method
Purposive sampling techniques were used to recruit parents or guardians of children aged
between three and seven years for focus group discussions (Krueger and Casey 2009).
With the use of advertisement flyers, researchers made contact with eligible parents in a
number of settings including educational establishments and parenting groups in Southern
Central England. Once positive recruitments were made, additional recruitment was
achieved by way of snowball sampling through those individuals’ own established parent
 Sex Education 231

networks. Each of the focus groups was hosted in a home setting (typically volunteered by
the primary recruited participant) where light refreshments were provided. Given the
sensitivity of the topic being researched, the use of snowballing ensured that every
participant had personal linkage with at least one other within the group; the sizing of the
groups was also purposefully left small. Together this helped facilitate a relaxed
environment and generated an atmosphere of comfort and ease during which parents felt
able to reveal their experiences, concerns and anxieties; initial unease regarding the use of
non-neutral settings in which to conduct the groups proved unwarranted. Participants
received £10 remuneration for their involvement. The same facilitator was present at each
group along with a note-taker, and all discussions were digitally recorded with full
consent.
Twenty parents agreed to participate in five group discussions: 18 mothers and 2
fathers. The majority (n ¼ 18) were of White British ethnicity. The ages at which the
participants first became parents varied from 18 to 34 years and the sample covered a
broad family formation spectrum including two-natural-parent families, single-parent
households, step and adoptive parents. Three of the parents had only one child and,
overall, the sample cared for 44 children between them, 29 of whom were within the age
range of interest: 3 –7 years (12 boys and 17 girls). The employment status of the
participating parents was varied and included 14 parents in full- or part-time work, two in
full-time education and four full-time at home. Although no formal assessment was made,
the parents ranged in terms of socio-economic backgrounds.
Ethical approval was obtained through the University of Southampton ethics and
governance procedures.
Each discussion began with an ‘icebreaker’ question asking parents to recall memories
of their own sex and relationships education (SRE), a technique reported by Geasler,
Dannison, and Edlund (1995). This stimulated much discussion and amusement and put
participants quickly at ease. The discussion was then steered by the facilitator using a
question route schedule covering topics such as the role of parents as sexuality educators,
reactions and responses to childhood sexual curiosity, nudity in the home, naming of body
parts, genital touching, utilisation of resources and SRE in the school environment.
Selected age-appropriate educational materials (a story book, a reference book and a
workbook/comic) were also used as prompts and to elicit reactions throughout the
discussions (Cole 1995; FPA 2008; Harris 2006).
The discussion lasted for up to two hours. The digital recordings were transcribed,
participants were given pseudonyms and all references to names and places were removed.
Thematic network analysis was subsequently applied to the qualitative data collected as
described by Attride-Stirling (2001). There was high agreement between the two
independent coders, and any disagreements were resolved by discussion. The coded
concepts were then grouped to generate themes, and global themes were identified
including ‘roles and responsibilities’, ‘barriers to communication’, ‘facilitators of
communication’ and ‘strategies, methods and techniques’. This article focuses on just one,
that is, ‘barriers to communication’.

Findings
From the outset, all parents acknowledged that they had an important role to play as
sexuality educators of their children. As has been reported in other studies (Frankham
2006; Geasler, Dannison, and Edlund 1995), the parents expressed determination to do
better than had their own parents. A typical example is provided by Fran1:
232 N. Stone et al.

Fran: I want a very different relationship with my children, I want them to be able
to come and ask me whatever they want to ask me and I will answer them honestly.
(Aged 37)
Such openness and availability, it was felt, should be accompanied by ‘honesty’ and
‘truth’; for example:
Claire: It’s all about being honest and open when they ask you questions without making
something up that doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. (Aged 39)
Caroline: If I don’t explain things truthfully she’s going to have a lot of confusion and
questions . . . I’d rather she was the one that knew . . . if you explain it then there wouldn’t be
any secrets, and if she knew that I wasn’t embarrassed about it then she wouldn’t need to be
embarrassed about it with me. (Aged 23)
However, despite the good intentions expressed by many of the parents, boundaries
were clearly being placed in relation to the extent of honesty and openness. All the parents
revealed that they were, or have been, at times reserved about discussing sexual matters
with their children; restrictions were being placed on certain details or particular topics.
These tensions appeared to result in incomplete answers and half-truths being given; for
instance (FAC indicates the group facilitator intervention):
Steph: When they ask we try and tell them as honestly and as appropriately as we can. My
children have a view on where babies come from and it’s not completely right but they know
it’s the man and a woman and love is involved. They think it comes through with a kiss, and
I’m happy for them, you know. I sort of fed them a lie and they’ve gone with it and they’ve
never questioned it.
FAC: What was that lie?
Steph: When you have young children, you know, they ask about babies. We’ve always said,
‘They grow in your tummy, they come out of your fan-fan’. ‘Where do they come from?’ and
I just said, ‘You have to love someone, you have a special cuddle, then the father gives you the
gift of life’ . . . ‘The gift of life, and a baby then grows in your tummy’. So, you know, it’s not
lying, but it’s not very whole hog. (Aged 39)
On some occasions, parents actively avoided answering children’s questions by
quickly changing the subject. Further, as in this report by Gail, untruths were also told on
occasions:
Gail: I’ve completely avoided telling him what periods are, because he’s seen blood in the
toilet when it hasn’t flushed properly and asked, I actually said to him, ‘Oh, I had some
beetroot at lunchtime and it’s coloured the water’. (Aged 35)
Parents were (gently) challenged both by the group facilitator and, in some instances,
from within the group as to why they chose to limit or withhold explanations of a sexual
nature to young children. Four basic themes emerged from the thematic analysis of
participants’ responses, namely: ‘innocence’, ‘age appropriateness’, ‘fear of others’
reactions’ and general ‘discomfort’.

Innocence
Childhood is often regarded as a period of purity (James and Prout 1997). The notion
that the knowledge regarding sexual matters would destroy a young child’s innocence
was strongly held by some parents and used to justify the withholding of information.
For example, Jenny linked innocence with lack of sexual activity:
Jenny: Going back to the sex bit . . . I just think at the moment they are completely innocent,
they have no need, it’s not like they are older and there is a need to learn it yet, because my
feeling is that they still don’t need to know about ‘that’. (Aged 38)
 Sex Education 233

Parents tended to express their fears through the potential of lost childhood and
shielding their children from ‘corruption’, noting that they are non-sexual and that they
did not want prematurely to assist them to cross over into the ‘world of the grown-ups’.
In particular, there were fears that children would start thinking and behaving in sexual
ways that are regarded as being reserved for adulthood:
FAC: Can you explain more about this notion of innocence?
Sarah: That’s a little bit of a difficult word isn’t it really, ummm, it’s about that they have no
inhibitions at the moment and they’re flinging their clothes off and they’re talking about
boobies and they’re, you know all of that . . . (Aged 49)
Anita: As you get older you know that if you’re flinging your clothes off you’re sending
signals to people, whereas at the minute they’re just so blissfully unaware and just carefree.
(Aged 28)
This apparent shielding appeared to be particularly pertinent for parents with young
daughters, as illustrated by comments made by Zoe:
Zoe: I just think she’s too innocent, she doesn’t need to know . . . and because I think if
you tell them they’re going to experiment . . . It’s purely down to the fact that she’s so
little and I just don’t want to, not corrupt her because it wouldn’t and I’m not saying that
it would, but I don’t know, I think it’s me . . . I just don’t want her to grow up ,laugh ..
(Aged 22)
The gender divide and the notion that girls’ and boys’ early sexuality education
requires different management were alluded to throughout all the discussions. As a general
rule, the desire for knowledge tended to be stronger among daughters, yet they were
deemed in greater need of protection:
Mark: (Son) doesn’t really want to know, he hasn’t asked. (Aged 36)
Nicola: That’s a boy thing though, it just doesn’t pick up on their radar at all.
FAC: So you think there is a big difference between boys and girls?
Nicola: Oh definitely, very big difference, girls are much more aware, take in a lot more
immediately whereas boys are oblivious. At least mine were ,laugh .. Yeah, there is just
such a huge difference. (Aged 44)

Caroline: I think there is this thing with girls, you want to keep them perfect and pretty and
cute. (Aged 23)
Katie: I think you’re absolutely right. If I had a little boy I wouldn’t want to explain it but
I would probably go more into it, more than I would with a girl. I think there’s different
complications because with a girl they’re just so innocent , laugh.. I’m not saying that boys
aren’t at all but . . . (Aged 40)
The participation in the group discussions revealed variations in the extent to
which parents felt they were interpreting particular behaviours and questions from their
children using adult sexual scripts rather than considering the context in which they were
occurring:
Elaine: (Son) kisses most of his friends and I think it’s wonderful. (Aged 43)
Sarah: I think we just need to be aware, it’s just showing affection. Children naturally hug and
kiss and I feel uncomfortable about how sometimes as adults behaviour can be sexualised,
whether it’s actually appropriate to sexualise it . . . , but they’re just kids and they’re just
having fun. (Aged 49)
Zoe: I think for me my mind is set, it sounds wrong, but it is set in a sexual mode. If (daughter)
decides to talk about something, in her little mind it is completely innocent, she doesn’t
understand. In my mind, because . . . as you get older you know what happens, and for me I just
think ‘oh my god’, but yet in her mind it’s absolutely, completely, innocent . . . I think there
are quite a few things I won’t tell her because I am like this. (Aged 22)
234 N. Stone et al.

Perceived age appropriateness of information

Linked to the notion of loss of innocence were the concepts of age-appropriate information
and explanations, as well as the perceived ability to understand explanations. Some
parents felt that children have little need for any sexuality education before the age of
eight, whilst others had already discussed specific topics and dealt with issues in some
detail. The act of intercourse and questions relating to how babies are made seemed to be
particularly challenging for parents and much discussion focused on what content is
considered suitable and how far explanations should go:
Gail: (Son) has asked how babies are made and I’ve said that a man has a seed and a woman
has an egg and they join together, and that’s all he knows. He doesn’t know how the seed gets
in and thankfully hasn’t asked me and it’s not because I don’t want him then to convey it.
Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t feel that he needs to know at seven years old . . . he doesn’t
need to know and wouldn’t understand what it was all about anyway. (Aged 35)
Nicola: I don’t think (daughter) is old enough to know in detail. You know she said, ‘a man’s
got a willy and a woman’s got this and they put them together’ and I said, ‘Yeah that’s right’
and then you know we leave it at that, and she said, ‘What else?’ and I thought when you’re
older, when you’re coming up to puberty, your periods then I’m quite happy to sit down and
explain in depth what happens when the man puts his willy , laugh .. But you know, at the
age of seven it’s just going to go whoosh, as much as she might think she understands, it’s
going to go way over her head. (Aged 44)
[Discussing a friend who had talked openly to their child]
Zoe: The one thing I kind of didn’t agree with was the fact she told her that her boyfriend
planted a seed in there with his , pause . ‘bit’ which I thought was, you know, for her
age . . . Personally I wouldn’t.
FAC: How old was your friend’s daughter?
Zoe: She was four at the time. I think saying, you know, the baby’s in here and then it comes
out and all that is fine but . . . to say that the bloke planted it in there goes beyond. (Aged 22)
Katie: Depends what she asked, what questions she asked? (Aged 40)
Steve: You have to make that choice don’t you once they ask, ‘How did it get there?’ (Aged 24)
Regardless of the extent and/or coverage, parents felt strongly that any sexuality
information that is given to children should be geared to each individual child’s level of
comprehension and cognitive ability:
Sarah: It varies with different characters doesn’t it, and where children are at, because the way
they develop, and whether they’re receptive. (Aged 49)
Fran: I find it hard using the right words to explain, the right terminology that they can
understand. (Aged 37)
One of the ways parents felt that they could determine their child’s cognitive maturity
was through their questioning. Consequently, in the main, much of the communication
occurring was reactive rather than proactive with the assumption that if they don’t ask,
they don’t wish – or are not ready – to know. This approach, which relies on children
asking first, enables reinforcement of the belief that children are innocent. In turn, it
reinforces parents’ ideas that it does not matter if full details are not given, as the child is
unlikely to fully understand what is being talked about. Passing the onus for questioning
onto the child means that parents’ explanations can legitimately be driven by the questions
asked and remain limited in detail:
Steve: I don’t think it’s something you can instigate with a child, as a parent to suddenly, like,
visit . . . but I think as soon as they start asking questions the more questions you answer.
(Aged 24)
[Discussing if any conversations have occurred]
Gail: No, not at the moment, but then he hasn’t asked me loads and loads of questions so it’s
 Sex Education 235

appropriate to your child and what stage they’re at. Maybe if he was asking me loads and loads
and I needed to explain it then it would be more appropriate, but I don’t want that choice taken
away from me. I want to be able to know my own son and when he needs to have it explained
to him, on a need to know basis. (Aged 35)

Fear of others’ reactions

During the group discussions it became evident that – despite unanimity regarding the
need for openness – there were no clear rules or specific shared understandings within
these parental friendship groups as to how to handle inquisitive questioning from young
children. Parents were subsequently left to determine how to react based on their own
personal judgements. Consequently, parents reported feeling exposed to, and nervous of,
criticism from others including, in a few instances, partners. For some parents,
conversations with children about sexual issues and intimate relationships were regarded
as risking contravening the ‘good parent’ discourse and, more worryingly for them, raising
concerns regarding child protection. This was particularly strongly felt by the young single
mothers in the groups who felt they were already under particular societal scrutiny by
virtue of their young motherhood status; some examples are provided by Caroline and Zoe
below:
Caroline: I kind of worry, for instance there was an incident lately where (daughter) was
convinced that babies come out of your belly button and so I tried to explain to her like, no
they don’t come out your belly button and she asked me, ‘Well how do they come out?’ and
I said, ‘I squeezed you out of my foofee’. And then she was outside and she was talking to the
next door neighbours’ kids, they were talking about how they’d had a little baby next door and
(daughter) screamed out across three gardens, ‘My mummy squeezed me out of her foofee’
and I’m just thinking these kids are younger than (daughter) and I’m not sure that their parents
want them to hear. You’ve got to consider other parents. (Aged 23)
Zoe: I didn’t want to say straight or gay. I was trying to think of something because it
just sounds too grown up. Can you imagine if she went to school and said, my uncle is gay?
(Aged 22)
Katie: Yeah, but that’s the whole thing isn’t it? What other people are going to think of what
you’ve said. (Aged 40)
Caroline: Exactly, and I think that you and I probably worry about that more because of this
perception . . . I feel personally that you get a lot of judgement being a younger mum. You get
looks walking down the round, you get looks about the choices you make every step of the
way. If you tell your child something other people don’t want their kids to know, you will be
blamed. (Aged 23)
Deciding how to handle tricky questions was considered particularly challenging if the
questioning comes from a child other than their own, as illustrated by the comment made
by Elaine:
Elaine: I personally wouldn’t feel comfortable explaining things to another person’s child
because I wouldn’t know how much they wanted them to know. It’s a very subjective thing,
I mean it completely depends on your views, your upbringing and your experiences I think as
to how much you want to disclose, and at what age, and why you make your decisions at a
particular time. But at the same time if I didn’t answer their questions I would probably give
them the impression that it was wrong to ask questions and I would be kind of stuck because
you don’t want to not answer them. (Aged 43)
Parents were equally concerned about providing knowledge that could make their child
stand out. For example, despite feeling able to be open with her own son, Gail clearly felt
anxious that he may be bullied if he was seen to use different terminology from the norm:
Gail: I would actually like to use that term [vagina] but I wouldn’t want him to feel that he was
unusual or he would go to school and use that and other parents think, ‘My god, (son)’s saying
236 N. Stone et al.

vagina’. And there’s nothing wrong with that, but you just don’t feel comfortable that other
parents would be unhappy that you had told your child the word vagina, where I’d be quite
comfortable with that . . . it would concern me, that. They would wonder, what on earth.
FAC: Do you think you might be judged?
Gail: Yeah, yeah and (son) also might be bullied by other children or be thought, ‘oh he’s an
odd child, he’s strange, he’s different’. It’s (son) rather than me. I couldn’t really give a stuff
what people think quite frankly.
Fran: But he’s only calling it by the right name though . . . It’s mad really. (Aged 37)
Gail: The same goes for vulva. No problem with him knowing it as long as he wasn’t picked
out as a complete freak because he was the only one calling it a vulva. (Aged 35)

Parental discomfort
Finally, parents reported that their own discomfort and embarrassment proved to be a
barrier to the desired open and honest communication with their children. They raised
concerns about having the right skills and, crucially, the right strategies in place to speak
effectively with their children about sexual issues. Previous research, albeit generally with
older children, reports lack of parental knowledge as a fundamental barrier to initiating
such conversations (DiIorio, Pluhar, and Belcher 2003). Lack of factual knowledge was
not commonly cited as a barrier among parents in this study – they typically knew ‘how
babies are made’; rather, parents were fearful of not knowing how to explain matters (what
words to use, how to phrase things and how far to go). For example:
Katie: I do get embarrassed talking about any of it because nothing was explained to me as a
child and I never asked questions . . . I think more than anything it’s knowing where to start
and what to say and like getting yourself stuck into a deeper hole when you start answering the
questions. (Aged 40)
This was particularly pertinent when parents attempted to initiate more challenging
conversations such as ‘private bodies’ and child abuse. Parents typically reported reverting
to non-disclosure as an escape, as illustrated by the following example:
[Discussing the issue of good touch, bad touch]
Ruth: Well I’ve thought about it and then I avoided it. (Aged 37)
FAC: Because you didn’t know what to say?
Ruth: Yeah, probably. The only times I’ve thought about saying something is when it’s sort of
news, but I’ve usually sort of found some other distraction tactic. News on the TV will often
bring up things. (Aged 37)
Steph: Well, I’ve started to explain that, ‘No, no, that’s very rare and it doesn’t happen’, but
I couldn’t, I didn’t know how to tell her that actually, I just didn’t know how. (Aged 39)

Discussion
Childhood is perceived as a time of presumed sexual innocence with a belief that children
do not or should not know anything about sexuality (nor, by implication, certain details
about their own bodies). But sexual innocence is a contested concept where contradictory
views both deny and acknowledge childhood sexuality; consider the examples of playing
‘mummies and daddies’ or the games of ‘kiss chase’ occurring in the school playground
(Jenks 2005; Renold 2005; Robinson 2008). The concept of childhood innocence is
socially constructed, in that adults define how children should behave, decide what they
know, when they should know it and how they should learn in order to protect and preserve
their ‘untarnished’ state (Granger 2007; James and Prout 1997; Mitchell, Walsh, and
Larkin 2004; Robinson 2008). In this discourse, what is felt to be sexuality-related
knowledge is generally deemed inappropriate and superfluous to the lives of young
 Sex Education 237

children, particularly when the strongest fears are associated with knowledge regarding
the physical act of intercourse.
The results of this research – consistent with those reported by Davies and Robinson
(2010) in Australia – illustrate how parental concerns regarding early sexual maturity
clearly threaten the childhood ideal and consequently place restrictions on children’s
opportunities for learning. This seems to be particularly evident among parents with young
daughters, who consider girls to be in need of greater protection in this regard than boys.
Furthermore, by adopting a narrow biological and reproductive-oriented view and approach
to sexuality education, some potentially critical issues involving gender perceptions, bodily
comfort and self-confidence are potentially being overlooked by parents.
As a consequence of this parental desire to safeguard their children from ‘unsuitable’
learning, any communication that does occur is generally a reactive process driven by
children’s inquisitive questioning (Frankham 2006). As such, parents can legitimately
limit knowledge, providing the excuse that if they don’t ask, they don’t want to know and
aren’t ready to know. Consider if all educational learning was based on this principle –
no anticipatory preventative advice would be offered concerning, for example, personal
hygiene, road safety or risks of burns and scalds. Once again, as in various other respects,
sexual health is treated as special.
The results further demonstrate that lack of parental preparation seems to result in
poorly considered or inconsistent answers being given to important questions, despite
parents’ prior best intentions. This appears to be reinforced when limited communication
and consensus are apparent between a child’s parents and/or when contact between parents
is restricted through separation or divorce. Associated with this are parents’ perceived
confidence and comfort in initiating conversations and in having the skills and the scripts
to communicate effectively and coherently. In support of earlier findings (Geasler,
Dannison, and Edlund 1995), parents in this current study appear unable to draw positively
on their own experiences of sexual education but, instead, are having to negotiate their
way past their own previously acquired taboos and prohibitions.
This study shows that parents frequently feel isolated in their decisions regarding the
best approach to adopt when handling challenging questions – be it from their own child
or someone else’s. Consequently, many feel open to, and nervous of, actual and/or virtual
criticism and judgements about being a ‘bad parent’ if they say ‘too much’ or use the
‘wrong’ terminiology and risk contravening the boundaries of ‘appropriate sexual
knowledge’ assumed for children of a particular age. With little consensus (and very
limited open dialogue) between parents as to the ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ ways to approach
matters, many choose conservative approaches. Adding to this complexity, among just this
small group of parents, opinions are clearly divided as to when sexuality education should
start and when particular topics should be addressed. Despite this, parents feel strongly
that they remain in control, so far as is possible, of the sexuality learning that their child
receives in the early years.
This study clearly adds to the knowledge that parental teaching about sexual matters at
an early age is fraught with anxieties and challenges, particularly since there are no clear
rules or agreements within parenting social groups as to how to deal with issues. However,
one would be misguided to assume that, as a result of parents’ fears, children know nothing
of sexuality; rather, from the day they are born they are exposed to implicit and explicit
sexual messaging from families, peers, media and early educational settings. Without
parental elucidation, however, these messages are likely to remain disjointed and
conflicting to children.
238 N. Stone et al.

The parents involved in this study were evidently aware of their responsibilities for
educating their children about sexual matters, but had not critically considered what
exactly this would involve (for instance, learning about identity, emotion and intimacy as
well as the physical aspects), and how best this might be achieved. As parents of young
children have so many developmental matters to be anxious about, it is perhaps not
surprising that the conscious teaching about sexuality is not high on their agenda.
Nevertheless, if an open and honest approach is considered and adopted early, it should
work to benefit future communication and the development of psychologically and
physically healthy sexual agency.
One example of how this area may be important for later sexual health is illustrated in
recent work on teenage women’s attitudes to their own bodies and, in particular,
masturbation (Hogarth and Ingham 2009). One of the identified sub-groups reported very
little early and open communication with their parents, held very negative attitudes
towards touching themselves in their genital region and reported that exercising any
control in sexual relations with partners was very challenging. Although that qualitative
research could clearly not ascertain any direct causal links, it is intuitively reasonable to
suspect that comfort with bodies is not helped by evasive and avoidant responses to honest
questions. A further issue that may be relevant to this area concerns the secrecy often
encouraged by child sexual abusers. If young children have had their genuine questions
responded to in evasive and/or misleading ways by their own parents, and/or if they are not
told the correct names for body parts, then it may be easier for potential abusers to exploit
this ignorance and mystification to their advantage (Elliott, Browne, and Kilcoyne 1995;
Kenny et al. 2008). Increasing anecdotal evidence suggests that this area is well worthy of
urgent research.
It has to be recognised that these data were derived from an exploratory study
involving a small number of parents in the south of England and, as such, cannot be
regarded as revealing any more than preliminary – and possibly localised – findings.
However, parents and society more widely are clearly concerned as young children appear
to be increasingly exposed to sexual messages, attitudes and values (either actively or
passively) through media and marketing; the recent reports on early sexualisation in the
UK are clear examples of this (Bailey 2011; Bragg et al. 2011; Papadopoulos 2010).
Consequently, the results obtained, given the importance of this area for healthy sexual
and emotional development, as well as its relative neglect, are of keen interest. They help
advance current understanding of the barriers to, and potential opportunities for, improved
sexuality communication and understanding between adults and children and, as such, aid
the development of appropriate policy and practice responses to support parents. For
instance, this could include the development of guidance, in terms of scripting and
appropriate narratives for young children, on acceptable terminology, and the introduction
of statutory, school-based early years sex and relationships education to support parents.
Those working in this field need to encourage parents to reflect on the possible negative
implications of, for example, using unsuitable terminology, telling lies about bodies and
reproduction, and worrying too much about what others may feel about them for being
truthful.
It is recommended that future studies explore which parents feel able and confident in
initiating conversations about sexual matters; and how ethnicity, religious affiliation,
class, family structure, parental sexual orientation and age may influence the sexual
socialisation and sexuality education of young children in the home; these issues were
beyond the scope of this study but should be explored further.
 Sex Education 239

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to express their gratitude to all the people who agreed to take part in this
study. This work was carried out as part of the requirements of a master’s in health psychology
degree by the third author, under the supervision of the second author.

Note
1. All names are pseudonyms.

References
Attride-Stirling, J. 2001. Thematic networks: An analytic tool for qualitative research. Qualitative
Research 1, no. 3: 385– 405.
Bailey, R. 2011. Letting children be children. London: TSO (The Stationery Office).
Ballard, S., and K. Gross. 2009. Exploring parental perspectives on parent-child sexual
communication. American Journal of Sexuality Education 4, no. 1: 40 – 57.
Bragg, S., D. Buckingham, R. Russell, and R. Willett. 2011. Too much, too soon? Children,
‘sexualization’ and consumer culture. Sex Education 11, no. 3: 279– 92.
Byers, S., H. Sears, and A. Weaver. 2008. Parents’ reports of sexual communication with children in
kindergarten to grade 8. Journal of Marriage and the Family 70, no. 1: 86 – 96.
Cole, B. 1995. Mummy laid an egg. London: Red Fox.
Coleman, E. 2003. Masturbation as a means of achieving sexual health. Journal of Psychology &
Human Sexuality 14, nos. 2 –3: 5 – 16.
Cook, R., and M. Fathalla. 1996. Advancing reproductive rights beyond Cairo and Beijing.
International Family Planning Perspectives 22, no. 3: 115– 21.
Davies, C., and K. Robinson. 2010. Hatching babies and stork deliveries: Risk and regulation in the
construction of children’s sexual knowledge. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 11, no. 3:
249– 62.
DiIorio, C., E. Pluhar, and L. Belcher. 2003. Parent-child communication about sexuality: A review
of the literature from 1980– 2002. Journal of HIV/AIDS Prevention and Education for
Adolescents and Children 5, nos. 3 –4: 7 – 32.
Elliott, M., K. Browne, and J. Kilcoyne. 1995. Child sexual abuse prevention: What offenders tell us.
Child Abuse & Neglect 19, no. 5: 579– 94.
Finan, S. 1997. Promoting healthy sexuality: Guidelines for infancy through preschool. The Nurse
Practitioner 22, no. 10: 79– 88.
FPA (Family Planning Association). 2008. Let’s grow with Nisha and Joe. London: FPA.
Frankham, J. 2006. Sexual antimonies and parent/child sex education: Learning from foreclosure.
Sexualities 9, no. 2: 236– 54.
Gagnon, J., and W. Simon. 1973. Sexual conduct: The social sources of human sexuality. Chicago,
IL: Aldine.
Geasler, M., L. Dannison, and C. Edlund. 1995. Sexuality education of young children: Parental
concerns. Family Relations 44, no. 2: 184– 8.
Granger, C. 2007. On (not) representing sex in preschool and kindergarten: A psychoanalytic
reflection on orders and hints. Sex Education 7, no. 1: 1 – 15.
Harris, R. 2006. Let’s talk: About girls, boys, babies, bodies, families & friends. London: Walker
Books.
Hogarth, H., and R. Ingham. 2009. Masturbation among young women and associations with sexual
health: An exploratory study. Journal of Sex Research 46, no. 6: 558– 67.
Ingham, R. 2005. ‘We didn’t cover that at school’: Education against pleasure or education for
pleasure? Sex Education 5, no. 4: 375– 88.
Jackson, S., and S. Scott. 2010. Theorizing sexuality. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill/Open University
Press.
James, A., and A. Prout. 1997. Constructing and reconstructing childhood: Contemporary issues in
the sociological study of childhood. London: Falmer Press.
Jenks, C. 2005. Childhood: Critical concepts in sociology. Vol. 3. Abingdon: Routledge.
Kenny, M., V. Capri, K. Thakkar, E. Ryan, and M. Runyon. 2008. Child sexual abuse: From
prevention to self-protection. Child Abuse Review 17, no. 1: 36 – 54.
240 N. Stone et al.

Kirby, D. 2002. Effective approaches to reducing adolescent unprotected sex, pregnancy, and
childbearing. Journal of Sex Research 39, no. 1: 51 – 7.
Kirby, D., and G. Lepore. 2007. Sexual risk and protective factors: Factors affecting teen sexual
behavior, pregnancy, childbearing and sexually transmitted disease: Which are important?
Which can you change? Scotts Valley, CA: ETR Associates.
Krueger, R., and M. Casey. 2009. Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Martin, K. 2009. Normalizing heterosexuality: Mothers’ assumptions, talk, and strategies with
young children. American Sociological Review 74, no. 2: 190– 207.
Martin, K., K. Luke, and L. Verduzco-Baker. 2007. The sexual socialization of young children:
Setting the agenda for research. Social Psychology of Gender. Advances in Group Processes 24:
231– 59.
Miller, B., B. Benson, and K. Galbraith. 2001. Family relationships and adolescent pregnancy risk:
A research synthesis. Developmental Review 21, no. 1: 1 – 38.
Mitchell, C., S. Walsh, and J. Larkin. 2004. Visualizing the politics of innocence in the age of AIDS.
Sex Education 4, no. 1: 35 – 47.
Noar, S., K. Carlyle, and C. Cole. 2006. Why communication is crucial: Meta-analysis of the
relationship between safer sexual communication and condom use. Journal of Health
Communication 11, no. 4: 365– 90.
Papadopoulos, L. 2010. Sexualisation of young people review. London: Home Office.
Renold, E. 2005. Presumed innocence: Young children, sexualities and schooling. In Girls, boys and
junior sexualities: Exploring children’s gender and sexual relations in the primary school, ed. E.
Renold, 17 – 39. Abingdon: Routledge Falmer.
Robinson, K. 2008. In the name of ‘childhood innocence’: A discursive exploration of the moral
panic associated with childhood and sexuality. Cultural Studies Review 14, no. 2: 113– 29.
Shtarkshall, R., J. Santelli, and J. Hirsch. 2007. Sex education and sexual socialization: Roles for
educators and parents. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 39, no. 2: 116– 19.
Stone, N., and R. Ingham. 2002. Factors affecting British teenagers’ contraceptive use at first
intercourse: The importance of partner communication. Perspectives on Sexual and
Reproductive Health 34, no. 4: 191– 7.
The Christian Institute. 2011. Too much, too young: Exposing primary school sex education
materials. Newcastle upon Tyne: The Christian Institute.
Turnbull, T., A. van Wersch, and P. van Schaik. 2008. A review of parental involvement in sex
education: The role for effective communication in British families. Health Education Journal
67, no. 3: 182– 95.
United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child. 2003. CRC General Comment No. 4:
Adolescent Health and Development in the Context of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
CRC/GC/2003/4. http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4538834f0.html (accessed January 25,
2012).
UNPD (United Nations Population Division). 1994. Report of the international conference on
population and development. New York: Department of Economic and Social Affairs, UNPD.
http://www.un.org/popin/icpd/conference/offeng/poa.html (accessed January 25, 2012).
Walker, J. 2001. A qualitative study of parents’ experiences of providing sex education for their
children: The implications for health education. Health Education Journal 60, no. 2: 132– 46.
Whitaker, D., K. Miller, D. May, and M. Levin. 1999. Teenage partners’ communication about
sexual risk and condom use: The importance of parent-teenager discussions. Family Planning
Perspectives 31, no. 3: 117– 21.
Copyright of Sex Education is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to
multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users
may print, download, or email articles for individual use.