Is there a gender difference in US college students’ desire for school-based sexuality education?

ABSTRACT

In a survey of instructors of human sexuality courses at 58 US universities and colleges, for 51 institutions the female/male ratio of enrolled undergraduate students ranged from 2/1 to 38/1, and typically 3/1 to 6/1. Most courses were offered in departments of psychology or health, which usually have high F/M ratios for majors. However, the high F/M ratios in sexuality courses could not be explained entirely by departmental or institutional F/M ratios, and were not related to the size of the course, the gender of the instructor, or the geographical area of the country. It is concluded that men are much less likely than women to enrol in a college sexuality course. Many instructors expressed concern about the high F/M ratios and some attributed it to stereotypes about masculinity. Research indicates that masculine ideologies result in many boys having a negative attitude about sex education. Many university men believe that they already know enough about sex, but there was some evidence that men were more likely to enrol when courses were offered on-line, allowing for some degree of anonymity and privacy.

KEYWORDS:

• Sexuality education
• college students
• enrolment
• Enrolments gender differences
• USA

Introduction

Many young people in the USA lack basic information about sexually transmitted infections and contraception (Frost, Lindberg, and Finer 2012; Lim et al. 2012). This includes college students (King 2012; Moore and Smith 2012). Studies have shown that college students in the USA benefit by taking school-based sexuality education. In addition to gaining increased knowledge about a wide variety of topics (King 2012; Pettijohn and Dunlap 2010; Rutledge et al. 2011), college sexuality courses result in greater comfort with one’s own sexuality and better self-image (Goldfarb 2005; Henry 2013; Pettijohn and Dunlap 2010), better communication with partners (Henry 2013; Pettijohn and Dunlap 2010) and with their own children in the future (King, Parisi, and O’Dwyer 1993), and better understanding and tolerance of sexual minorities (Rogers, McRee, and Arntz 2009).

A recent search of course listings at all 4-year (non-specialised) accredited universities and colleges in the USA revealed that over 80% of US public institutions and over 60% of private institutions offer a human sexuality course (King et al. 2017). However, even when there are no prerequisites and no restrictions on enrolment, most college students choose not to enrol (King et al. 2019). The most common reason is ‘not interested,’ with half of those students believing that they already know enough about human sexuality and many not enrolling because the course was not required. In that study, the female/male (F/M) ratio in the large-enrolment course was 2/1 even though there were more undergraduate men enrolled at the institution than women. In a 38-year career of teaching sexuality education to university students, the first author of this paper has consistently noticed F/M ratios of between 2–3/1 . This suggests that men, more so than women, are less likely to enrol in a human sexuality course.

Nearly all of the research on attitudes about school-based sex education have focused on teenage (i.e. pre-college) boys. Studies (primarily using interviews and focus groups) with young teenage boys in England find that many boys believe that the subject material in sex education courses is more relevant to girls than boys and often fear-based, focusing on reproduction, the menstrual cycle, pregnancy, birth control and sexually transmitted infections (Hilton 2007; see Buston and Wight 2006 for a review of other English studies). Other studies using similar methodology (i.e. interviews and focus groups) find that many teenage boys view their masculinity in terms of assertive heterosexuality, sexual prowess and gratification, and independence and lack of emotional relationships, which often results in poor engagement in school sex education (Limmer 2010) and limiting the extent of discussion about healthy sexuality (Knight et al. 2012). Taking a school sex education course often brings into question boys’ expertise in sexual performance, with those seeking support (including taking school sex education) considered by many male peers to be less masculine (Claussen 2019; Knight et al. 2012). In a recent focus-groups study of young teenage boys in Canada, Claussen (2019) similarly found that boys may not be as interested as girls in school-based sex education because of these masculine ideologies and their belief that course content focuses primarily on the needs of women.

It is unknown whether the negative attitudes by young teenage boys continue into the college years. Voluntary enrolment in university sexuality education courses offers an initial way to examine this. The purpose of the present study was to see if unbalanced F/M ratios are common for US college sexuality courses. The study surveyed a sample of instructors teaching at universities throughout the country.

Methods

King et al. (2017) examined the course descriptions at all US 4-year (Level II) colleges and universities accredited by regional accrediting agencies and found 440 public institutions that listed a sexuality education course in their course offerings. From this list, the first author selected a sample of 88 institutions (20% of the total), randomly selecting at least one institution from each state to ensure that all geographical areas were included. The same author then attempted to contact instructors by e-mail and asked each to provide the ‘typical female/male ratio in your course.’ No other questions were asked and no instructions were given on how to calculate the female/male ratio. On numerous anonymous surveys/questionnaires administered in the first author’s high-enrolment (700 per semester) course, fewer than 0.4% of students had ever self-identified as transgender or other, and thus it was concluded that this should not have affected overall estimates of the F/M ratio.

Of the 88 instructors sent e-mails, 34 did not respond and 2 others responded but declined to participate. A colleague solicited the participation of five additional instructors (including four private universities). Several instructors volunteered useful observations and comments, and these are included as personal communications in the Discussion section. Of the 34 e-mails for which there was no response, the authors do not know how many were actually received by instructors who recently taught a sexuality course. Institutional undergraduate F/M ratios were obtained primarily via the National Centre for Education Statistics database (https://nces.ed.gov/) and a few from official university websites. The survey did not involve human subjects and was given exempt status by Clemson University’s Institutional Review Board.

Results

Thirty-five members of faculty who responded to the survey provided exact course enrolment numbers, while ‘typical’ course F/M ratios were provided by faculty at 23 institutions. In 51 of the 58 institutions, the sex education course F/M ratios ranged from 2/1 to 38/1, and most were in the 3/1 to 6/1 range (see Table 1). Only West Virginia University (1/1), Arkansas State University (1.15/1), Northwest Missouri State University (1.36/1), the University of Washington (1.3/1 to 1.5/1), and Tennessee State University (1.5/1) reported typical F/M ratios of 1.5 or less. For three of these five, courses were taught on-line.

Table 1. Typical female/male (F/M) ratios in human sexuality courses at 58 US universities.

Institution	Institution Undergraduate F/M Ratio	Department	Course F/M Ratio
Arkansas State University	1.50/1	Health	1.15/1
Ball State University (IN)	1.48/1	Health	>3/1
Boise State University (ID)	1.27/1	Psychology	3.3/1 to 6/1
Bridgewater State Univ. (MA)	1.43/1	Health	5/1
California State University, Los Angeles	1.35/1	Psychology	3/1 to 4.4/1
California State University, Northridge	1.30/1	Psychology	3/1 to 4/1
California State University, Sacramento	1.27/1	Psychology	On-line 9/1
Clarion University of Penn.	1.77/1	Psychology	Classroom 4.5/1 on-line 8.5/1 to 24/1
Clemson University (SC)	0.96/1	Psychology	2/1 to 3.5/1
Colorado State University	1.08/1	Psychology	On-line 2/1 to 4.5/1
Columbus State University (GA)	1.44/1	Health	2/1 to 3/1
Daemen College (NY)	2.45/1	Psychology	2.3/1
East Carolina University	1.32/1	Sociology	38/1
Eastern Michigan University	1.52/1	Health	4/1 to 5/1
Indiana University	0.96/1	Health	3/1 to 4/1
Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis	1.31/1	Health	>3/1
Indiana State University	1.26/1	Psychology	10/1 to 15/1
Miami Dade College (FL)	1.33/1	Social Psychology	3/1 to 6/1
Miami University (OH)	1.00/1	Family Science & Social Work	2.5/1 to 3/1
Monmouth University (NJ)	1.38/1	Health	3/1 to 11/1
Norfolk State University (VA)	1.86/1	Psychology	3/1 to 4/1
Northwest Missouri State Univ.	1.32/1	Health	On-line 1.36/1
Oklahoma State University	0.97/1	Psychology	2/1 to 12.6/1
Rowan University (NJ)	0.84/1	Psychology	2.5/1 to 3.6/1 on-line 5.5/1
Sam Houston State Univ. (TX)	1.63/1	Psych & Phil.	1.5/1 to 2.3/1
State University of New York at Buffalo	0.77/1	Psychology	2.5/1 to 4.3/1
Tennessee State University	1.63/1	Psychology	On-line 1.5/1
Texas A&M University	0.92/1	Psychology	4/1
University of Arizona	1.08/1	Health	4/1; study abroad 100% F
University of California, Santa Barbara	1.17/1	Sociology	2/1 to 3/1
University of Connecticut	1.00/1	Psychology	2/1 to 3/1
University of Hawaii at Hilo	1.70/1	Psychology	5/1
University of Idaho	1.00/1	Psychology	>2/1
University of Kansas	1.11/1	Psychology	3/1
University of Maine	0.90/1	Human Development and Family Studies	2/1
University of Maryland, College Park	0.89/1	Health	7/1
University of Minnesota	1.15/1	Health	1.6/1 to 2.1/1
University of Mississippi	1.27/1	Psychology	9/1
University of Missouri	1.08/1	Psychology	>2/1
University of New Orleans (LA)	1.03/1	Psychology	>2/1
University of Northern Iowa	1.33/1	Family Services	3/1
University of Pittsburgh (PA)	1.05/1	Psychology	7/1 to 10/1
University of South Florida, Sarasota-Manatee		Psychology	6/1
University of South Florida, St. Petersburg	1.17/1	Social Psychology	4/1 to 8/1
University of Southern Calif.	1.08/1	Psychology	4/1
University of Southern Mississippi	1.70/1	Health	Classroom 14/1 on-line 3/1
University of Toledo (OH)	0.96/1	Health	3/1
University of Washington	1.13/1	Psychology	1.3/1 to 1.5/1
University of Wisconsin, La Crosse	1.27/1	Psychology	>6/1
University of Wisconsin, Superior	1.63/1	Health	On-line 3/1
Wake Forest University (NC)	1.17/1	Psychology	3/1
Washington State University	1.08/1	Psychology	3/1
Wayne State University (MI)	1.30/1	Psychology	6/1 to 10/1
Western Michigan University	0.98/1	Psychology	4/1 to 12/1
Western Oregon University	1.63/1	Health	0.5/1 to 8/1 typically 1.5/1 to 4/1
West Virginia University	0.89/1	Biology	On-line 1/1 Honours 2/1
Woodbury University (CA)	1.00/1	Psychology	3/1 to 4/1
Worcester State University (MA)	1.49/1	Psychology	3/1

High sex education course F/M ratios were found in all geographic areas of the USA, and at institutions at which undergraduate women outnumbered men and at those for which men outnumbered women (see Table 1). These ratios were found equally for high enrolment courses (>400, e.g. at Ball State University, Clemson University, University of California at Santa Barbara, Washington State University) and small enrolment courses (<40, e.g. at Clarion University, Eastern Michigan University, Oklahoma State University, Rowan University, SUNY Buffalo, University of Pittsburgh, University of South Florida, Wake Forest University).

High F/M ratios were also found equally for courses taught by women (e.g. at California State University Northridge, California State University Los Angeles, Clarion University, Indiana University, Indiana State University, Miami Dade College, Norfolk State University, Texas A&M University, University of Mississippi, University of Missouri, University of Pittsburgh, University of Southern California, Washington State University, Wayne State University) and by men (e.g. at Boise State University, Clemson University, East Carolina University, Rowan University, University of California Santa Barbara, University of Hawaii, University of Idaho, University of Northern Iowa, Wake Forest University, Western Michigan University).

The large majority of US college sexuality courses are offered through departments of psychology or health or health-related departments (King et al. 2017). Sixteen instructors said that the F/M ratio was high at their universities for students majoring in psychology (and social sciences, in general) or health and suggested that this may account, in part, for the high F/M ratios in sexuality courses.

Discussion

In order to determine whether the high F/M ratios in sexuality education courses were due to high F/M ratios in psychology and health programmes, an in-depth analysis was conducted of the large-enrolment Human Sexual Behaviour course (Psych 3060) at Clemson University, taught by the first author. The course is intended as a service-to-students course, with no prerequisites, open to all majors, and not required by psychology majors. The total enrolment is at or near 700 each semester and the F/M ratio is typically 2/1 – 3.5/1.

The university has more undergraduate men than women (F/M = 0.96/1), but during the 2018–2019 academic year the F/M ratio for psychology majors was 5.2/1. The F/M ratio in the undergraduate statistics course (required of psychology majors and rarely taken by students outside the major) was 6.1/1. At first glance, one might conclude that it is the F/M ratio in the psychology major that accounted for the high F/M ratio in the sexuality course. A closer inspection of the enrolment suggests otherwise. Only 12.3% of the students enrolled in the sexuality course in the Spring 2019 semester were psychology majors, and women majoring in psychology outnumbered men 7.5 to 1 in the course (greater than the departmental ratio). The F/M ratio for all College of Business majors enrolled at the university was 0.76/1, but among the 135 College of Business majors enrolled in the sexuality course the F/M ratio was 1.29/1. Similar discrepancies were found for the College of Architecture, Arts, and Humanities (F/M = 1.15 for all majors, but 2.29 for those enrolled in the course), College of Agriculture, Forestry and Life Sciences (F/M = 1.28 for all majors, but 2.33 for the course), and the College of Sciences (F/M = 1.65 for all majors, but 3.36 for the course). Thus, the high F/M ratio found in this sexuality course cannot be entirely explained by the F/M ratio within the psychology major.

The question is why do many university men avoid school-based sexuality education. In a recent study, 75% of the men in a large-enrolment sexuality course selected ‘It seemed like an easy ‘A’’ as one of their primary reasons for taking the course (55.0% of women gave this as a reason), and 40.4% selected ‘Other courses I wanted to take were full’ (only 25.6% of women listed this as a reason) (King et al. 2019). Few men indicated the desire for sexual knowledge as a reason for taking the course. When men who were about to graduate were asked why they had not taken a sexuality course, nearly 50% said that they already knew enough about sex (King et al. 2019). In a course of 39 students taught at another university, the instructor asked the lone man in class why he had enrolled and the response was, ‘There was nothing else to take’ (David Knox, East Carolina University, personal communication, 12 March 2019).

One instructor of a large-enrolment course hypothesised ‘Boys think they are learning lots about sex from porn so they think they do not need a course on the topic’ (John Baldwin, University of California at Santa Barbara, personal communication, 12 April 2019). Many college men do look at sexually explicit material regularly (Willoughby et al. 2014) and consider it a source of sexual information (Hald and Malamuth 2008).

Several instructors attributed the high F/M ratios to stereotypical masculine views of sex:

“I still think that men avoid the topic … . they don’t think there is much for them to learn in a course like that” (Jennifer Cousins, University of Pittsburgh, personal communication, 18 April 2019).

“I think there is cultural pressure that assumes men know about sex. How far from the truth this is for many college students” (Lee Ann Hamilton, University of Arizona, personal communication, 8 May 2019).

“The lopsided ratio might be due to so many topics that are of more interest to females than males (e.g. menstruation, pregnancy, contraception, gender roles, etc.)” (Donna Ashcraft, Clarion University, personal communication, 30 April 2019).

When another instructor asked a male student he knew why he had not enrolled in his sexuality course, the response was:

“Cos you would be talking about all those wierdos (gays and transgenders) and I didn’t want to be subjected to it” (David Knox, personal communication, 12 March 2019).

When the senior author shared the F/M results with his class, several women (but no men) volunteered their opinions. For example,

“ … .because of the way males view their masculinity. I think that males are taught by society to embrace their manhood and be very proud of their sexual abilities and taking a sexuality class may seem to undermine their preconceived view of themselves and their masculinity.”

“ … .masculinity! Guys could be self-conscious about sharing with their friends that they are taking a class on sexual behaviour because ‘Bro, you need a class on sex?’ or ‘You mean you don’t already know how to do it?’”

In a paper titled ‘Where Are All the Men?’ Quinlan and Bute (2013) have similarly attributed the low male enrolment in a college sexual health seminar to ‘entrenched gender biases.’ Claussen (2019) has suggested that for men to have a more positive attitude about sex education, educators must address men’s gender ideologies and peer-approved concepts of masculinity.

Regardless of the reasons for the high F/M ratios, some instructors felt that it was important to have more men in their classes:

“One semester I had 1 male and 34 females signed up for a section, so I quickly added the first male student who asked to join the class” (Phillip Batten, Wake Forest University, personal communication, 25 April 2019).

“My more memorable classes were those that had a greater number of males, regardless of the ratio. They tended to facilitate more discussion in comparing and contrasting attitudes toward sexuality” (Evan Jordan, Oklahoma State University, personal communication, 16 April 2019).

Most college students report having received little or no sexuality education from their parents (King 2012; Lindberg, Maddow-Zimet, and Boonstra 2016; Rutledge et al. 2011), and as a result turn to their peer group and the media to learn about sex (American Academy of Pediatrics 2010; Sprecher, Harris, and Meyers 2008). The Internet, in particular, has become increasingly popular among young people who desire information about sex (Guse et al. 2012; Simon and Daneback 2013; Swanton, Allom, and Mullan 2015). As a source of information, it allows for privacy and anonymity. If that is what some men require, then sexuality courses offered on-line might be more appealing to them. A recent study of ninth-grade students found that on-line sex education courses were preferred because they resulted in greater privacy and student engagement (Chen and Barrington 2017).

The results found for on-line university courses in the present study are mixed. One instructor stated, ‘Male enrollment in my courses has increased dramatically [F/M = 1.5/1] as I teach the course on-line’ (Gloria Lewis, Tennessee State University, Department of Psychology, personal communication, 24 April 2019). Another instructor stated, ‘I exclusively teach human sexuality on-line now and my ratio is typically 3/1. When I did teach the course in the classroom … it was not unusual to have just one or two male students in a class of 30 and sometimes the class would be all females’ (Susan Dobson, University of Southern Mississippi, Department of Public Health, personal communication, 25 April 2019). Low F/M ratios were also found for on-line courses taught at Northwest Missouri State (1.36/1, Health) and West Virginia University (1/1, Biology, compared to 2/1 in a classroom-taught honours section). However, relatively high F/M ratios were reported by instructors teaching sexuality on-line at Colorado State University (2/1 – 4.5/1, Psychology) and the University of Wisconsin Superior (3/1, Health), but there were no classroom-taught courses for comparison (and the ratios were lower than for many other psychology and health sexuality courses – see Table 1). At Clarion University, the F/M ratio for web courses (8.5/1 – 24/1; video-taped lectures) exceeded that for a classroom-taught course (4.6/1), but all these courses were also considered (and cross-listed as) Women and Gender Studies courses. High F/M ratios were reported by instructors teaching on-line courses at California State University Sacramento (9/1) and Rowan University (5.5/1, compared to 2.5/1 – 3.6/1 for classroom-taught courses).

Conclusion

Our recent survey demonstrates that high F/M ratios are common in sexuality courses taught in US universities and colleges, and that the ratios cannot be fully explained by institution or departmental enrolments, size of the course, or gender of the instructor. While many college students do not enrol in a sexuality course when one is available (King et al. 2019), it is difficult not to conclude that college men, more so than women, actively avoid classroom-taught human sexuality courses. Many instructors in this survey expressed concern about the high F/M ratios in their courses, and some said that based on their experience the course benefited when more men participated. The results presented here indicate that on-line courses, providing a greater degree of privacy (and anonymity) than classroom-taught courses, sometimes help to overcome some men’s reluctance to enrol in sexuality education, but future research needs to determine what factors differentiate those on-line courses with low F/M ratios from those with higher ratios.

Limitations

The present survey did not include junior colleges or private religious-based colleges, and did not include universities outside of the USA.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the following instructors for contributing information about their courses (those with an asterisk have granted permission to cite them by name): Peter Anderson (Walden University); DJ Angelone (Rowan University); Donna Ashcraft* (Clarion University of Pennsylvania); Laura Baker (University of Southern California); John Baldwin* (University of California Santa Barbara); Phillip Batten* (Wake Forest University); Victoria Beltran (University of South Florida St. Petersburg); Mindy Bergman (Texas A&M University); Brittany Bloodhart (Colorado State University); Tori Bovard (California State University Sacramento); Susanne Brummelte (Wayne State University); Sasha Canan (Monmouth University); Sandra Caron (University of Maine); Jennifer Cousins* (University of Pittsburgh); Lori Dawson (Worcester State University); Susan Dobson* (University of Southern Mississippi); Blythe Duell (Washington State University); Paul Finnicum (Arkansas State University); Anne Fisher (University of South Florida Sarasota-Manatee); Richelle Frabotta (Miami University of Ohio); Irene Frieze (University of Pittsburgh); Omri Gillath (University of Kansas); Gary Gute (University of Northern Iowa); Lee Ann Hamilton* (University of Arizona); Delinah Hurwitz (California State University Northridge); Evan Jordan* (Oklahoma State University); Seth Kalichman (University of Connecticut); Danielle Karvonen (University of Wisconsin Superior); David Knox* (East Carolina University); Jessica Lee (Sam Houston State University); Damon Leiss (Northwest Missouri State University); James Leone (Bridgewater State University); Gloria Lewis* (Tennessee State University); Kenneth Locke (University of Idaho); Shannon Lupien (State University of New York Buffalo, and Damien College); Emily Matson (University of Minnesota); Kimberly McBride (University of Toledo); Nicole McNichols (University of Washington); Toni Morris (West Virginia University); Dena Mullins (Ball State University); Heather Platter (University of Maryland); Roberto Refinetti (Boise State University); Pamela Regan (California State University Los Angeles); Judy Salvatierra (Miami Dade College); Shawn Sellers (Western Oregon University); Melanie Sheldon (University of Missouri); Carrie Smith (University of Mississippi); Megan Sterling (Eastern Michigan University); Joye Swan (Woodbury University); Nicole Teske (Indiana State University); Casey Tobin (University of Wisconsin La Crosse); Rebecca Toland (Columbus State University); Sheriyse Williams (Norfolk State University); Lester Wright (University of Western Michigan); Errol Yudko (University of Hawaii Hilo).

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.