Sexual discourses and strategies among minority ethnic youth in the Netherlands

Abstract

This study explores the way minority ethnic youth in the Netherlands evaluate their sexual experiences, how they frame these experiences in different sexual discourses and how they deal with conflicts between different sexual discourses, both at home and in Dutch society. During 46 narrative interviews, Dutch young people (aged 12-22 years) from different minority ethnic communities shared their sexual histories and their dreams for the future relating to love and sexuality. Different sexual discourses can be identified in the language they used to describe their ideas and their experiences. Young people grow up with a variety of discourses but actively re-shape them according to circumstances and need. In many cases, young people experience a conflict between the discourses of the home and those that are prevalent more generally in Dutch society. Young people's ways of negotiating these contradictory discourses comprise four main strategies: (1) conforming to parents' values, (2) breaking up with parents, (3) leading a double life and (4) integrating competing discourses. By bringing together different sexual discourses and acknowledging diverse strategies, sexual health policies can become more effective in promoting sexual health for minority ethnic youth. Findings from the study add fuel to debate on understanding (sexual) agency among young people, exhibiting the social 'embeddedness' of individual agency.

New Interview Method for Sketching the Dynamic Relational and Sexual History of Young Adults

“…The newly developed RSH interview method fits within a tradition of various earlier (inter)national studies in which qualitative life history methods were used to collect data on the relational and sexual development of adolescents and young adults. More specifically, these methods have previously been applied to collect retrospective data, and analyze subjective experiences with developing intimacy and sexuality (Cense, 2015(Cense, , 2014Cense & Ganzevoort, 2017;Giordano et al, 2010;Jones & Furman, 2011;Lantagne & Furman, 2017;Luke, Clark, & Zulu, 2011;O'Sullivan, Cheng, Harris, & Brooks-Gunn, 2007). The used methods mainly consisted of in-depth interviews that were-in varying degrees-characterized as open (Cense, 2014;Cense & Ganzevoort, 2017;Giordano et al, 2010), semi-structured (Cense, 2015;Jones & Furman, 2011;Lantagne & Furman, 2017;Luke et al, 2011), or structured (O'Sullivan et al, 2007) interviews.…”

“…In the Toledo Adolescent Relationships Study (TARS), open-ended interviews were held with a subsample of the participants to collect relationship history narratives that provided qualitative data on relationship-sexuality connections from adolescents' own perspectives (Giordano et al, 2010). In the Netherlands, Cense held various types of narrative (Cense, 2014), biographic (Cense, 2015) and in-depth interviews (Cense & Ganzevoort, 2017) with Dutch youth (varying in age from 12 to 30 years) on their sexual history/biography; their experience and expression of sexual identity and same-sex desires; and their attitudes, motivations, and experiences regarding unwanted sexual behaviors. In some of these studies visual materials were used to support and structure the interview, such as lifeline drawings (Cense, 2014), or identity circles (Cense & Ganzevoort, 2017).…”

“…In the Netherlands, Cense held various types of narrative (Cense, 2014), biographic (Cense, 2015) and in-depth interviews (Cense & Ganzevoort, 2017) with Dutch youth (varying in age from 12 to 30 years) on their sexual history/biography; their experience and expression of sexual identity and same-sex desires; and their attitudes, motivations, and experiences regarding unwanted sexual behaviors. In some of these studies visual materials were used to support and structure the interview, such as lifeline drawings (Cense, 2014), or identity circles (Cense & Ganzevoort, 2017). Comparably, O'Sullivan and colleagues (2007) used a card system in an interview setting in which American adolescents (aged 12-21 years) were asked to chronologically order different events (e.i., social, romantic, and sexual), to gain insight into the different types of developmental trajectories of their intimate partner relationships.…”

“…The described RSH interview method was developed and tried out with a non-representative sample, consisting of highly educated young adults, with mainly Dutch ethnocultural backgrounds, and mainly heterosexual intimate relationship experiences. Follow-up studies should examine what adjustments may be necessary for the usage of this method with youth with a non-Western ethno-cultural background (e.g., Cense, 2014;Cense & Ganzevoort, 2017), from lower education levels, with cognitive or mental disabilities, or homosexual/lesbian/bisexual youth (e.g., Cense & Ganzevoort, 2017), and in what form this method can be used for target groups of different ages (younger adolescents or older adults). Also, the RSH interview method was developed to collect retrospective data, by asking participants about their experiences in the past.…”

Rethinking sexual agency: proposing a multicomponent model based on young people’s life stories

“…The study aimed to understand the strategic negotiation of sexual boundaries in intimate relationships (Cense, Bay-Cheng, and Van Dijk 2018). The second study took place in 2012 among ethnic minority youth (aged 12 to 22) in the Netherlands and aimed to explore the sexual discourses they used and the way they negotiated their choices and identities within these discourses (Cense 2014). The third study, conducted in 2013, involved young bicultural gay, lesbian and bisexual youth, aged 21 to 30, and explored their agency in navigating their identities (Cense and Ganzevoort 2017).…”