SexEd.com: values and norms in web-based sexuality education.

Given the increasing accessibility of the Internet and the opportunities it provides many adolescents to independently seek out sex-related information, sexuality education web sites are adding another, as yet unexplored, dimension to the transmission of sexual values and norms to adolescents. This study analyzes the messages conveyed to teens regarding sexuality and investigates the extent to which web-based sexuality education (WBSE) reflects its school-based counterpart, specifically in relation to the latter's limitations and flaws. Indeed, significant objections have been raised regarding school-based sexuality education from an interdisciplinary pool of scholars and practitioners from the fields of psychology, sociology, public health, social work, and education. These objections can be organized into three overarching themes: school-based sexuality education (SBSE) is overly problem-focused in its orientation to adolescent sexuality, citing the problems and risks associated with it to the exclusion of its healthy and positive aspects (Fine, 1988; Morris, 1994); SBSE delivers strongly gendered values and norms (Trudell, 1993); and lastly, SBSE narrowly defines adolescent sexuality, discussing it only in the context of heterosexuality (Redman, 1994) and coitus (Irvine, 1994; Welsh, Rostosky, & Kawaguchi, 2000). Each one of these critiques will be reviewed in detail following a brief overview of web- and school-based forms of sexuality education. It should also be noted that there also exist several criticisms of particular forms of SBSE. For instance, SBSE programs advocating abstinence are critical of curricula that include discussions of methods of contraception and protection against STIs, arguing that such programs deliver inconsistent messages to teens (Thomas, 2000). This study examines broader critiques of SBSE in general, rather than focusing on criticism leveled by some SBSE programs against others.

The use of a sample of web sites as the basis of this work is not only unique but also highly relevant, given the increasing accessibility of the Internet and the opportunities it provides adolescents to seek out sex-related information independently and discreetly. In a press release to announce the launch of Planned Parenthood Federation of America's teen web site, teenwire.com, it was predicted that within 3 years, 75% of teens will have Internet access ("Planned Parenthood," 1999). The importance and centrality of the Internet in the lives of many American youths has been recognized by the White House, which recently held a conference session on the impact of online media on adolescents and formed a task force to focus on these issues ("White House Conference," 2000).

There is also evidence that teens are not only using the Internet, but they are using it as a resource to find answers to their questions. According to a U.S. News On Line report on the growing number of online sexuality education resources, 25% of the questions received at www.drgreen.com, a site actually intended for parents' questions regarding pediatric care, are from adolescents (Melton, 1999). Moreover, a recent article from New York Times on the Web described the unique sense of privacy and anonymity teens feel on the Internet, making it easier to seek out information and ask difficult questions, such as those concerning sexuality (Morris, 2001). Indeed, the first and last elements of Cooper, Boies, Maheu, and Greenfield's (2000) "Triple A engine" (access, affordability, and anonymity) are particularly critical to teen users in search of sensitive information regarding sexuality.

By combining a focus on sexuality and the Internet as a vehicle of information and values dissemination, this study integrates two critical and central components of adolescents' lives. Moreover, the virtually unregulated scope and content of the Internet is in sharp contrast to the sexuality education curricula employed by schools, which are subjected to rigorous scrutiny by various governing bodies (e.g., legislators, administrators, parents). In order to describe the conceptual foundation of the current study, a basic overview of SBSE will be provided, followed by an exploration of the three critiques of SBSE: it is problem-focused, it reifies gendered constructions of sexuality, and it narrowly defines adolescent sexuality.

SCHOOL-BASED SEXUALITY EDUCATION

Moran (2000) provides a comprehensive and compelling survey of the history of SBSE, which was initiated at the beginning of the twentieth century. Over the past 100 years, it has cycled through multiple iterations and has been shaped by various cultural forces. Currently, there are three recognized types of sexuality education: abstinence-only, abstinence-plus, and comprehensive. Abstinence-only programs teach just that--abstinence only. Contraceptive and safer-sex methods are discussed only in the context of their rates of failure, and abstinence until marriage is posited as the only acceptable sexual choice. As evidence of national trends toward more conservative sexual values, in 1996 the federal government earmarked $50 million per year to support school-based abstinence curricula as part of welfare reform (Haskins & Bevan, 1997). Abstinence-plus (also referred to as abstinence-centered or abstinence-focused) programs present abstinence as the optimal but not the only choice, including some information regarding contraception and safer sex. Comprehensive sexuality education includes a full review of possible contraceptive and safer-sex methods. Thirty-five percent of school districts with a formal sexuality education program employ an abstinence-only approach, while another 51% use an abstinence-plus curriculum; only 14% of districts teaching sexuality education have a comprehensive sexuality education program (Landry, Kaesar, & Richards, 1999). Whereas abstinence sexuality education programs (both abstinence-only and abstinence-plus) emphatically promote a particular set of sexual values (those associated with chastity), comprehensive programs assume more of a values clarification stance. That is, they encourage the development of sexual values and ethics among students, but refrain from conveying a particular values system, focusing primarily on the development of individual values systems (Morris, 1994). For this reason, abstinence curricula are typically identified with a conservative agenda on sexuality, and comprehensive curricula with a more liberal one.

THE TROUBLE OF TEEN SEX

The ascendent popularity of abstinence in sexuality education is closely linked to the discoveries of the alarming rates of unwanted pregnancy and STD transmission among adolescents. Concern regarding the incidence of teenage pregnancy first entered public discourse in the 1970s, and was succeeded in the 1980s by the appearance of HIV/AIDS. Early, unrefined scientific knowledge and misguided popular hype surrounding AIDS combined to perpetuate a powerful sense of both its lethality as well as its omnipresence. This half-truth, half-myth specter of AIDS lent itself well to conservative SBSE agendas, which championed premarital chastity as the single defense against not only pregnancy and infection, but death as well. More recently, research has uncovered the frequency of physical and sexual assault among adolescents, and even consensual sexual interactions are now being targeted by experts as detrimental to teens' later emotional development and functioning (Jarrell, 2000). Although the work on such risks is certainly important and beneficial, it should be noted that it is characteristic of a crisis intervention orientation to adolescent sexuality (Morris, 1994). That is, approaches to adolescent sexuality have been swamped by a focus on the deficits and dangers associated with it. While these risks are certainly real and substantial, it is their domination of the discourse of adolescent sexuality, to the exclusion of other real and substantial positive aspects of sexuality, that is problematic (Ehrhardt, 1996; Kyman, 1998; Morris, 1994).

This uneven focus on the negative aspects of sexuality was first exposed by Fine (1988) in a groundbreaking analysis of sexuality education discourse. Over the course of Fine's observations of SBSE classes in an urban high school, three predominant themes emerged: Sexuality as Violence, the belief that sex is inherently coercive and violent; Sexuality as Victimization, which differs from the first discourse in that sexuality is not posited as inherently violent, yet nevertheless rife with possibilities for victimization by disease, unwanted pregnancy, and assault, as well as emotional and psychological harm; and lastly, Sexuality as Morality, which is infused by moral ideals such as self-control, willpower, and purity. In addition to identifying these three dominant discourses, Fine noted the omission of another significant discourse, the "discourse of desire." Indeed, the sexuality education curricula of the classes observed by Fine relied almost exclusively upon the troubles of teen sex, ignoring the existence and importance of its positive aspects and potential.

GENDERED SEXUAL VALUES

Embedded in Fine's (1988) analysis was specific attention to the ways in which these discourses are gendered, specifically aimed at adolescent women or men. Indeed, there is a growing body of literature dedicated to decoding the gendered sexual scripts at play in adolescent sexual interactions. This research was stimulated by the disappointing findings regarding the modest effectiveness of safer sex programming: Despite increased knowledge and awareness of STDs and precautionary measures, this knowledge frequently fails to translate into practice (Kirby & Coyle, 1997). In asking the question of what is obstructing the enactment of safer sex knowledge, researchers have exposed the powerful constraints of gendered sexual scripts (Hynie, Lydon, Cote, & Wiener, 1998; Laub, Somera, Gowen, & Diaz, 1999; Wight, 1992). As per the scripts available to them, adolescent men are cast in the role of sexual initiator, as desirous and pursuing (Fromme & Emihovich, 1998). Adolescent women, on the other hand, are burdened with the expectancies of sexual responsiveness to the male sex drive, as desirable and pursued (Holland, Ramazanoglu, Sharpe, & Thomson, 1999). According to Fine, "This discourse of sexuality [one in which desire is absent] mis-educates adolescent women. What results is a discourse of sexuality based on the male in search of desire and the female in search of protection" (p. 387). Indeed, via the discourses of sex as victimization and morality, adolescent women are instructed in ways to say "no," but are rarely allowed to engaged in discussions and explorations of their own sexual desire and impulses (Buzwell & Rosenthal, 1996). Wyatt and Riederle (1994) point out the ironic case that "... women are often encouraged to be knowledgeable about their partners' sexual needs, preferably in committed relationships, while at the same time being socialized not to pay much attention to their own sexual needs and desires" (p. 615).

DEFINING TEEN SEX

In a critical essay on sexuality education, Haywood (1996) discusses the role played by school-based sexuality education (SBSE) in the regulation and policing of adolescent sexuality through the prescription of norms and standards. In this way sexuality education is implicitly invested in controlling not only the occurrence of teen sexual activity, but the content and context of that activity, as well. Indeed, most discourses of teen sex are replete with presumptions of heterosexuality. Nevertheless, there appears to be a growing awareness of homophobic harassment in schools (Walters & Hayes, 1998) and suicide risk among queer (1) or questioning youth (Remafedi, Frendh, Story, Resnick, & Blum, 1998). Although these might be indicators of decreasing homophobia, such attention to queerness nevertheless occurs almost exclusively in specially designated domains. In a content analysis of sexuality education textbooks, Whatley (1994) noted that those texts that addressed nonheterosexuality immediately switched from the more familiar and inclusive "we" to the alien and exclusive "they" when discussing homosexuality, while characterizing homosexuality as a transient phase of experimentation. This tendency was dubbed the homosexual disclaimer by Whitlock and DiLapi (1983). The distinction between homophobia and heterosexism is key: Although overt homophobia may be decreasing in some environments, heterosexist biases clearly maintain a separate but equal stance toward sexual orientation. This segregation and marginalization of queer issues perpetuates the misguided notion that unless you yourself are questioning or queer-identified, these issues are not relevant (Redman, 1994).

The circumscription of "normal" sexuality extends beyond whether one is straight or not. It is not simply a matter of having other-gender partners, but of having relationships and sexual interactions with these partners that also conform to a particular set of standards. SBSE programs have been criticized for their exclusive focus on coitus in discussions of adolescent sexuality (Irvine, 1994; Trudell, 1993; Welsh et al., 2000; Whatley, 1992). Such a limited definition of sex does hot realistically reflect the sexual lives of many teens. Adolescents are having all different kinds of intercourse, with all different kinds of partners. In fact, a recent article in the New York Times highlighted the prevalence and incidence of fellatio among teenaged heterosexual partners (Jarrell, 2000). Teens also engage in nonpenetrative behaviors that result in orgasm as well as other forms of sexual gratification (Schuster, Bell, & Kanouse, 1996). By failing to acknowledge the existence and legitimacy of this wider range of sexual behaviors, educators miss out on two critical opportunities: to address the need for safer sex precautions, such as dental dams and condoms, in various forms of oral and anal sex; and to present safe and pleasurable alternative forms of sex, such as mutual masturbation.

OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY

This research assesses 52 teen-oriented sexuality education web sites for their reliance on deficit-focused discourses (using those proposed by Fine, 1988), gendered values, and narrow definitions of adolescent sexuality (i.e., exclusively heterosexual and/or coital). Additionally, these web sites represent two of the three primary categories of sexuality education: abstinence-only and comprehensive.

The following hypotheses drive the current study:

1. Given the preponderance of deficit-focused messages in SBSE, it is expected that comparable fear-based messages will be prevalent among all sexuality education websites.

2. All sites are predicted to rely on a gendered discourse of sexuality, resulting in girls being targeted more frequently than boys by deficit-focused messages and less frequently by messages of desire.

3. Similarly, it is expected that WBSE will reflect the narrow definitions of adolescent sexuality (heterosexuality as presumed default, restricted definition of sex) employed by SBSE.

4. In addition to these global trends among all sites, it is expected that abstinence-only sites, which are typically more conservative, will rely even more heavily upon deficit-focused messages and closely-bounded constructions of "normal" adolescent sexuality than their more liberal comprehensive counterparts, more of which will discuss positive aspects of sexuality (such as desire) and utilize a broader and more inclusive definition of adolescent sexuality.

5. It is also expected that the conservative orientation of abstinence-only sites will also translate into greater reliance on traditional gender norms, and will be reflected in their tendency to target adolescent women with fear- and morality-based messages, whereas fewer comprehensive sites will convey gendered messages of sexuality.

METHOD

Sample

The original sample employed in this study consisted of 61 web sites providing information to adolescents regarding sexuality. Twenty-four sites reflected an abstinence-only approach to sexuality education (see Appendix, Table A1, for a list including URL addresses), 9 were abstinence-plus (see Appendix, Table A2), and 28 of the sites used a comprehensive approach (see Appendix, Table A3). The majority of the sites are sponsored by organizations (27 not-for-profit, 10 for-profit) focused on adolescent sexuality. Eleven were sites that addressed a wide range of adolescent issues and concerns, sexuality and sexuality education being among them. Nine of the web sites were focused on health issues including sexuality. The 4 remaining sites were sponsored by organizations or individuals who included content on sexuality, though this was not their primary focus. Further information detailing the inclusion and exclusion criteria used to construct the sample is provided in the description of the procedure.

For the purposes of this study, only abstinence-only and comprehensive sites were included in analyses. Given the small number of abstinence-plus sites, it would be difficult to analyze these effectively as a separate subgroup. In order to test the option of aggregating abstinence-only and abstinence-plus sites, analyses were run using this aggregated sample and compared to those using only abstinence-only sites. Results from these analyses resembled those yielded by analyses using only the abstinence-only sites (the only difference was that one finding became significant at .05 when using the aggregated sample). Nonetheless, given the theoretical difference between abstinence-only and abstinence-plus sites, it was decided to use the abstinence-only sample for the purpose of maintaining conceptual clarity.

A brief discussion of the choice to use a unique, web-based sample is warranted. As described earlier, there is ample evidence that teens are using the Internet and that they are using it to seek out information about issues such as sexuality. In addition to this evidence of the likelihood that adolescents not only have access to the Web, but are disposed to use it for sex-related information, there is a wide range of sites representing a multitude of viewpoints. Contrary to the formal programs and curricula provided by schools and/or organizations, which are selected by administrators or parents who enroll their children in these programs, the Internet offers adolescents the opportunity to discreetly and independently visit a range of sites promoting a wide variety of values and positions regarding sexuality. Additionally, whereas in an analysis of the program materials or curricula of a SBSE program it would be necessary to consider the variance that is introduced by difference in pedagogical style, curriculum delivery, class/group size, demography, and so forth, these sites speak directly to teens, making it possible to eavesdrop and capture the information precisely as it is being conveyed. Of course, this ability to analyze the values present in sexuality education web sites does not permit for conclusions regarding how adolescents might be interpreting the observed values and messages. For all of the reasons given above, the use of an online sample of sexuality education resources for this content analysis of sexual values makes both good methodological and theoretical sense, and provides unique insight into a new and critical avenue of sexuality education.

Procedure

Web sites were collected through an exhaustive search using both computer- and human-based search engines over a 2-week period. Various permutations of the following words were used to perform the searches: adolescent, teen, sexuality, education, information. In addition to the engine-based searches, some sites were accessed through links from another site (in most cases, sites could be located through both engine searches and links). In the case of linked sites, only sites that could be located within two "link-jumps" from the original site were included in the study. As an example, if site A, located through a search engine, included a link to site B, both of these sites would be eligible for inclusion in the sample. Similarly, if site B included a link to site C, site C would also be eligible. However, none of the links from site C would be eligible, unless they were alternately located through a search engine, or within the acceptable range of "2 degrees of separation" from another site. This decision was motivated by the desire to duplicate, to the closest degree possible, the discoveries an adolescent might make if they were searching for sex-related information on the Internet. Lastly, sites that could not be accessed after 5 repeated attempts on different days, either because of a URL error or due to site construction, were not included in the sample.

Given the use of sexuality as a primary search word, it is not surprising that results yielded many pornographic sites. This is in keeping with the findings of Smith, Gertz, Alvarez, and Lurie (2000), who found that 63% of the sites returned in their web searches for sexuality information were pornographic. In the present study, these sites were easily distinguished from sexuality education sites, often based on the brief descriptions provided by the search engines. The descriptions of pornographic sites often included slang and vernacular sexual terms (which are frequently presented in all capital letters). None of the searches performed produced sites that were ambiguous or difficult to classify as pornographic or not.

Furthermore, because this study is focused on the sexual values being conveyed to adolescents, only those sites that directly address a teen audience regarding some aspect of sexuality were included in the sample. For instance, Advocates for Youth, a not-for-profit organization focusing on adolescent sexuality and sexuality education, was not included in the original sample because at the time of data collection, the organization's site (www.advocatesforyouth.org) did not include any content explicitly aimed at teens.

The example of Advocates for Youth segues well into one important caveat with respect to the exhaustiveness of the search: The availability of online resources for teens is increasing at an extraordinarily rapid pace. It is certain that since the completion of data collection, older sites have expanded their scope and multiple new sites have been launched. Advocates for Youth, for example, now has an extensive youth section entitled "Youth Shakers." In addition, within 1 week following the close of the data collection phase of the study, there was a press release announcing the launch of a brand new site dedicated to providing information to teens regarding their physical, mental, and sexual health. Given the speed of online development, it can only be said that at the time of data collection this search was indeed exhaustive.

For the purposes of the content analysis, all pages of a web site that directly addressed adolescents were printed out, and these printed hard copies were used for coding. One site was coded directly from the Internet because its text could not be printed. Once all sites had been collected, they were numbered randomly from 1 to 61. The first 15 sites were each coded by both a doctoral-level research assistant, who was unaware of the research hypotheses, and the author. Sites were coded based on the presence or absence of particular categories, which will be described in detail. The two coders achieved an interrater reliability coefficient of .86. The research assistant coded the remaining sites.

Coding Categories

Four of the coding categories were based on Fine's (1988) proposed discourses of sexuality in sexuality education: Sexuality as Violence, Sexuality as Victimization, Sexuality as Morality, and Sexuality as Desire. As described earlier, Fine poses Sexuality as Violence as the belief that sexual interactions are inherently violent and damaging, particularly to women. As a result, adherents of this position are typically strongly opposed to any form of extrafamilial sexuality education (Fine, 1988). Therefore, the logical expectation is that there will be no sites coded for endorsement of this discourse.

Sexuality as Victimization includes references to the risks and dangers of adolescent sexual interactions (e.g., disease, unwanted pregnancy, assault, social rejection, internal distress) to the exclusion of the pleasures and positive aspects of sexual interactions. This is a critical distinction, as it would be unconscionable for sexuality education not to provide information on these very real risks. However, when information about only the risks is presented, and the positive potential is neglected, this is an example of victimization discourse. If, in the context of discussing the risks associated with sex, there was no mention of the positive aspects of sex, sites were coded for this category. If a site included one sex-positive statement, but this was far removed from the discussions of STDs and pregnancy risks, then Sexuality as Victimization would be coded as present, as would Sexuality as Desire. An example of the alternative situation, one in which risk is discussed but without tapping the discourse of victimization, includes the following excerpt from one of the sites in the sample:

   In terms of the big picture, Sexually Transmitted Diseases, as well as
   normal vaginal infections, are nature's little way of telling you that joy
   comes with responsibility ... I'm not telling you this to scare you out of
   having sex, or even simply being intimate, but I am telling you this
   because if you aren't ready to take the precautions you need to keep
   yourself and your partners healthy, you aren't ready to be having sex,
   period. (www.scarleteen.com)

The discourse of Sexuality as Morality included the following elements: self-control, obedience to authority (e.g., parent, god, law), purity, and responsibility. For instance, one site offers a list of consequences associated with smart (i.e., abstinent) and risky (i.e., sexually active) sexualities (www.w-cpc.org/sexuality/teens). Some of those associated with the former include: "Retain self-respect; respected by others" and "Clean conscience." On the other hand, the following are thought to succeed the latter: "Disrespected by opposite sex" and "Guilt, shame, and secrecy." These items clearly pertain to conceptions of morality and ethics, and thus would be scored for this category.

Sexuality as Desire was coded as present if there was any discussion or references to sexual acts, interactions, and desires as positive and healthy aspects of life. Other examples of what might get coded as Sexuality as Desire include endorsements of exploration and experimentation (both with a partner or individually, through masturbation and fantasy), or advocating for the erotic and pleasurable potential of safer sex.

In addition to simply scoring the presence of each of the discourses described above, coders also determined whether a message was directed in particular at adolescent women or adolescent men, or if it was not gender-specific. Therefore, sites were scored for the presence or absence of each of the discourses of sexuality, and whether these discourses were gendered in relation to their intended audience. For instance, discussions of pregnancy risk might be framed in language that addresses both adolescent women and men (e.g., "Becoming a parent as a teenager can get in the way of your school work, your social life, and your dreams"). It might also specifically address women or men, such as the difficulties associated with being pregnant and giving birth as a teenager for girls and the material and emotional burdens of responsible fatherhood faced by boys.

Sites were coded for the presence or absence of two forms of diversity: Sexual Orientation Diversity and Broad Definition of Sex. Sexual Orientation Diversity was composed of two elements: Queer-Positivity and Presumed Heterosexuality. Queer-Positivity was assessed based on the presence of queer images and/or icons and positive references to LGBT identifies and the questioning of sexual orientation. Presumed Heterosexuality refers to the implicit assumption made by sites that the audience identifies as heterosexual. It is important to note that a site might be coded for both Presumed Heterosexuality and Queer-Positivity. This could occur in the case of a site that includes a specially designated section focused on positive discussions of LGBT-relevant issues, but in the remainder of the site's text the audience is presumed heterosexual. Given this possibility of co-occurrence, these two elements of Sexual Orientation Diversity were analyzed separately.

A site's definition of sex was coded as broad if sex was defined as more than coitus; that is, if a wide range of possible sexual behaviors were included and legitimized as forms of sex, and heterosexual penile-vaginal intercourse was not privileged, either explicitly or implicitly, as "real" sex.

RESULTS

Analysis Strategy

In order to test the hypotheses, chi-square tests were performed based on the presence of each of the coding categories, comparing abstinence and comprehensive sites. For each of the discourses of sexuality (victimization, morality, and desire), chi-square tests were also performed to reveal differences in the number of abstinence and comprehensive sites that specifically target adolescent women with some messages. An alpha level of .05 was used for all statistical tests, and Fisher's Exact Test was applied in those cases when the count in a cell was lower than five. Furthermore, frequencies of messages targeted at girls and messages targeted at boys were compared in order to examine the use of gender-specific messages.

In accordance with the ideological stance of its proponents, the discourse of Sexuality as Violence was hot found to be present in any of the web sites, and therefore was not included in any analyses.

Discourses of Sexuality

Chi-square tests comparing abstinence sites and comprehensive sites yielded a significant difference in terms of the discourse of Sexuality as Victimization. These results are shown in Table 1. There was no difference between the numbers of abstinence-only sites and comprehensive sites that rely on the discourse of Sexuality as Victimization. Over 95% of the abstinence-only sites and almost 80% of the comprehensive sites were coded for evidence of Sexuality as Victimization. There was no difference in the numbers of sites that aim these messages at young women.

Table 1 also shows that significantly more abstinence-only sites participate in the discourse of Sexuality as Morality than comprehensive sites. The difference is quite substantial (91.7% of abstinence-only sites compared to 14.3% of comprehensive sites). There was no difference in the numbers of sites that aim these messages at young women.

The results presented in Table 1 indicate that significantly more comprehensive sites are affirming of sexual desire and present sex-positive information. Once again, this is a sizable difference. Of the 24 abstinence-only sites, none directed sex-positive messages specifically toward girls, while half of the comprehensive sites did so, a statistically significant result.

Use of Gender-specific Messages

The results of camparisons of the frequency with which abstinence-only sites and comprehensive sites target specific messages to young women and men are presented in Table 2. Though the percentages indicate that young women are indeed targeted more frequently by messages regarding sexual values than young men, chi-square analyses did not show these difference to be statistically significant.

Diversity

Results of chi-square analyses performed on the presence of categories of diversity are presented in Table 3. With regard to inclusivity of diverse sexual orientations, significantly more comprehensive sites were identified as queer-positive. In addition, far more abstinence-only sites than comprehensive sites presumed the audience to be heterosexual. Significantly more comprehensive sites broadly defined sex to include behaviors other than coitus. However, it should be noted that of the 52 total sites, only 9 of these used such a broad definition of sex.

DISCUSSION

Multiple differences were discovered between the respective values-orientations of abstinence sites and comprehensive sites. However, it is also notable that both types of sites also share much common ground. Contrary to the original hypothesis, there was no significant difference between the numbers of abstinence-only sites and comprehensive sites tapping into this discourse. Rather, it is the similarity between these sites that is perhaps most provocative: Though slightly less than the number of abstinence sites doing so (95.8%), the vast majority of comprehensive sites, almost 80%, employ Sexuality as Victimization in their text. The predominance of scare tactics and fear-based values in SBSE has been previously noted (Ehrhardt, 1996; Fine, 1988; Morris, 1994; Trudell, 1993), and is clearly echoed in its Internet counterpart. The crisis intervention approach to adolescent sexuality is replicated in sexuality education web sites, exposing a continuing preoccupation with negative sexual outcomes. While these are certainly real risks and critical components of any conscientious program of sexuality education, it is not necessary to bar any mention of the positive aspects of sexuality, as evidenced by the handful of web sites in this study that successfully avoid the discourse of victimization. In fact, there is empirical evidence that adolescents who are exposed to more sex-positive and instructional messages are not only more sexually responsible, but also express greater sexual agency and satisfaction than their peers (Fisher, Byrne, & White, 1983; Kirby & Coyle, 1997; Thompson 1990; Ward & Wyatt, 1994). Indeed, it is inadequate to focus solely on the prevention of negative sexual outcomes--sexuality education must simultaneously embrace as a priority the promotion of positive sexuality, as well.

The importance of these results is reinforced by the finding that adolescent women are a primary target of these messages of risk and fear (and to a lesser degree, of morality-based messages, as well) among all sites (though there is no statistical difference between the numbers of abstinence-only and comprehensive sites which do so). Tailoring messages such as these reifies gendered sexual scripts that cast women as passive, as victims, and as gate-keepers of sex. Ironically, by reinforcing these gender role boundaries, sexuality education is ultimately binding women to positions of diminished power and agency, which place them at even greater risk of victimization.

The findings based on the presence of Sexuality as Morality confirm the association between comprehensive sexuality education and the philosophy of values clarification. As described earlier, comprehensive sexuality education embraces the need to help students develop and refine their own individual sexual value systems as a primary objective; however, it does not dictate the content of these value systems. This is borne out by these data, which indicate that fewer comprehensive sites rely on the discourse of Sexuality as Morality than abstinence sites. However, keeping in mind the 1996 legislation to support abstinence programs, and the fact that over 80% of SBSE programs are abstinence-only or abstinence-plus, it is clear that the use of Sexuality as Morality represents the current direction and popular position of sexuality education.

Hypotheses regarding the presence of Sexuality as Desire in the web sites were only partially confirmed by these data. As predicted, far more comprehensive sites evidenced Sexuality as Desire than abstinence-only sites. In fact, almost 80% of the comprehensive web sites presented Sexuality as Desire. However, a second hypothesis regarding Sexuality as Desire, that sex-positive messages would be more frequently targeted at boys than girls, was not supported. Breakwell & Millward (1997) found evidence of a trend toward equal acceptance of female and male desire among adolescents, and it is possible that this trend is also reflected in these findings. However, another possible explanation of these findings, which also points to the limited generalizability of research on SBSE to the Internet, is that compared to school-based programs, on which these study hypotheses were based, online sexuality education resources reflect more extreme positions, both conservative and progressive. This might be attributed to the relative lack of content regulation of Internet sites, particularly when compared to school-based curricula, which must be approved by various decision-making bodies: parent associations, school boards, and state legislators. The difference between web- and school-based resources is also demonstrated through the composition of the study's sample: Contrary to school-based programs, over 80% of which are abstinence-only or abstinence-plus, the sample of online resources was almost evenly split between abstinence and comprehensive sites. Based on the critiques of SBSE's tendency to focus on the problems associated with teen sex and its cited failure to acknowledge the positives associated with it, it appears that WBSE is somewhat more liberal and sex-positive in its approach to adolescent sexuality than school-based programs, at least in terms of the acknowledgement and validation of sexual desire. This is only a tentative observation, however, given the lack of any empirical comparison between SBSE and WBSE in this study.

Such liberalism was not extended to other aspects of adolescent sexuality. This is demonstrated through the majority neglect of issues of sexual orientation. Contrary to the findings of Smith et al. (2000), who found that over half of the 41 sex education web sites they surveyed made positive references to homosexuality, only 19 of the 52 total sites in this study addressed queer issues, identities, and/or experiences. A further distinction between the studies is that Smith et al. assessed the context in which these references were made. In the present study, even those sites that do include some positive discussion of nonheterosexuality often did so only in specially designated sections, participating in a form of the "homosexual disclaimer" described earlier. This is extremely problematic for several reasons. First, the segregation of queer issues from the mainstream discussions of sexuality inherently codes queer as "other," and promotes the overt and covert stigmatization of peers who are labeled as queer (regardless of self-identification or behavior) as well as the self-stigmatization of queer and questioning youth. This clearly does a great disservice to any attempts at developing tolerance and acceptance of LGBT-identified youth. However, additional repercussions of this presumption of heterosexuality become apparent when one considers the potent impact this could have, not only on those adolescents who do or will eventually identify as queer, but also on adolescents with family members who are queer, or adolescents who have experimented with a same-gender partner or who have simply ever mulled over the possibility that they themselves might be gay. Clearly, the importance of redressing heterosexist norms in out constructions of adolescent sexuality and the implicit message that some sexualities are better than others is much more than the special need of a minority population.

The web sites examined in this study also relied on a narrow definition of sex. Only 9 of the 52 sites used an expanded definition of sex, one that extended beyond heterosexual penile-vaginal intercourse. The remainder of the sites adhered to coitus as the equivalent of sex, with the test of the spectrum of sexual behaviors classified as foreplay, or left unacknowledged. As described earlier, such a restricted perspective is neither a realistic reflection of the sexual lives of many teens nor a facilitation of the provision of accurate and critical information regarding sexual health safety. Lastly, the reification of coitus as "real sex" might have the paradoxical effect of encouraging teens to engage in coitus (Morris, 1994). The reasoning behind this is founded in the cultural interpretation of sexual activity, and especially intercourse, as signifiers of adulthood: "For adolescents, sexual activity is far more than a biological need; it is also a key marker of adulthood. Entering a sexual relationship means one is no longer a child" (Netting, 1992, p. 974). When one considers the fact that adolescents are routinely deprived of power and voice in our society (Males, 1996), their attempts to gain legitimacy and status as adults, sometimes via sex, carry much meaning and significance in determining the future pathways of research and programs in the field.

Lastly, an interesting issue emerges when these results are synthesized. Among comprehensive sites, despite evidence of the discourse of Sexuality as Desire, most sites employed a restricted definition of sex, and the discourse of Sexuality as Victimization was pervasive. The combination of these three elements results in a very complex message, in which values conflict in many ways. Adolescents are inundated with a message that isolates sex to one specific act and equates sexuality with threat and risk, yet also validates sexuality as a normal and healthy aspect of life. Whatever the positive effect of the communication of the values of Sexuality as Desire may be, it seems likely to be mitigated by a strictly circumscribed definition of what sex is, exactly, and the equation of sexuality with risk.

Implications for Future Research and Intervention

The complex interaction between values and messages of sexuality illuminates one possible path of future study. As evidenced in this study, adolescents are presented with sexual messages that conflict and interact in multiple, complex ways. This is especially true in the context of online sexuality education sources, since an adolescent might visit multiple sites, each of which conveys a different set of values and messages. However, as a content analysis of the values present in sexuality education websites, this study is not designed to speculate on the ways in which adolescents might be receiving and interpreting these values, or negotiating conflicting messages conveyed by different sites. The questions of how youth manage and negotiate these messages, the strategies they employ, and the impact of these conflicts on their developing sexual selves are not only intellectually compelling, but also hold the promise of important contributions to applied work in this field.

It is also critical that work on adolescent sexuality take into consideration the intersections of adolescence and sexuality with other sociostructural dimensions such as gender, class, and race. The reliance on gendered norms and roles has been investigated to some extent, including by the present study, yet out understanding of these dynamics and possible remedies remains incomplete. Class and race, on the other hand, have received virtually no attention at all in the literature focused on sexuality education. This neglect has severely impaired our perspective on adolescent sexuality. Stereotypes and fetishized notions of sexuality based on class and race (e.g., lustful and loose lower-class women, sexually animalistic and base Black men and women, emasculated and impotent Asian men) permeate our cultural history and present. In this way, race, class, gender, and sexuality are inextricably entangled, making it impossible to fully comprehend one without the other.

Furthermore, there is a strong need for sex-positive research and programming that accurately reflects the actual experiences and expressed needs of adolescents (Kyman, 1998). Conventional sexuality education programs rely heavily on gendered sexual scripts and negative, fear-based discourses of sexuality. The online environment provides a fertile ground for movements away from this biased standard. Not only is the Internet a viable informational resource for adolescents, but it is also more free to present a wider range of positions and perspectives on adolescent sexuality than school-based resources, which must be approved by various authorities. However, unregulated online territory also brings with it the hazard of misinformation regarding sex. Further, the saturation of the Internet with pornography adds a problematic dimension to web-based searches, particularly searches using keywords such as "sexuality," which produce results littered with pornographic sites.

Limitations of the Study

The prospect of using the Internet as a sexuality education tool in the future segues well into a discussion of the limitations of this study. As mentioned earlier, the online environment is evolving at an extraordinary pace. As a result, within one week of the completion of data collection, an "exhaustive" search was no longer complete. New sites are being launched and existing sites are being expanded. Research methods and protocols for sampling online sources have yet to be developed.

There is also a need for more information on Internet use and how this differs between different demographic groups and communities, both in terms of the frequency of and reasons for usage. There might also be important distinctions between traditional web sites and more interactive chat rooms. For instance, this study examined the sexuality education information presented by web sites, as opposed to sampling the more peer-based sex-related conversations taking place in chat rooms. The content of the information being conveyed in each of these two venues might differ dramatically, as might the Web user who prefers one to the other. As more and more individuals turn to the Internet for information, communication, and entertainment, it will become increasingly critical that research methodologies be developed for use with this emerging facet of our society.

Although the Internet has certainly become a central feature in the households, schools, and lives of many American adolescents, online access is still a class privilege afforded by family income or well-resourced schools and libraries. Many adolescents in this country, arguably those most in need of sex-related information and resources, are not yet on line. In fact, an estimated 23.1% of impoverished households with children have no home telephone, much less a home computer with Internet access (Cooper, 1998). The viability of the Internet as a source of sexuality education information is predicated not only on a teen's access to the Web, but also that this access is somewhat private and discreet, which may not be the case for adolescents who do not have home computers. Although this study argues strongly for the emerging role of the Internet in sexuality education, it is not advocated as a substitute to print media resources and face-to-face interactions between adolescents, parents, and educators. Though the Web may serve as a useful and important supplement to other forms of sexuality education, we must continue to develop approaches and strategies that can meet the needs of youths from a variety of backgrounds.

Summary

This study has demonstrated the existence of several significant differences between the values and messages put forth by abstinence and comprehensive sexuality education web sites. It has also attempted to examine the ways in which gendered norms are encoded in the values conveyed by these sites. Although comprehensive sites evidence more signs of sex-positive information and views, the proliferation of fear- and morality-based messages throughout all sites is indicative of the negative and risk-based perspective that dominates public discourse on adolescent sexuality. The reliance on scare tactics, gendered sexual scripts, and narrowly-bounded conceptions of normal adolescent sexuality does a disservice to youth. In order to promote healthy, positive sexualities among adolescents, it is essential that sexuality education move beyond traditionally deficit-oriented and rigidly constrained constructions of adolescent sexuality.

APPENDIX

The following tables list the web sites studied and their
corresponding URL.

Table A1. Abstinence-only Sites

Site Name                              URL Address

Sexuality, Health, & Relationship
  Education (SHARE)                    www.share-program.com
It's Great to Wait                     www.greattowait.com
Aim for Success                        www.aim-for-success.org
Why kNOw                               www.whyknow.org
Adolescent Sexuality                   www.nnfr.org/adolsex/home
Passion 4 Purity                       www.passion4purity.org
True Love Waits                        www.truelovewaits.com
Life Athletes                          www.lifeathletes.org
Pro-Life America                       www.prolife.com
Free Teens                             www.freeteens.org
I.E. - Ideas & Energy                  www.frc.org/ie
Chastity Call                          www.chastitycall.org
Academy for Adolescent Health          www.healthyteens.com
Loving Choices                         www.ccideas.net/lccats
Straight Talk Online                   www.straight-talk.com
Abstinence                             www.members.home.net/esilver/
                                         abstain
Healthy Love                           www.geocities.com/Hearland/
                                         7783/healthy_love
Teen Health                            www.library.thinkquest.org
Abstinencedu                           www.abstinencedu.com
Not Me, Not Now                        www.notmenotnow.org
Wonderful Days                         www.days.org
Why Wait for Sex?                      www.gospelcom.net/iv/slj/sp95/
                                         sp95_why_wait_for_sex
National Week of Chastity              www.whylife.org/chastityweek
Sparklette's Teen Sexuality            www.members/tripod.com/
                                         ~Sparklette/teens/teens
Institute for Youth Development        wwww.youthdevelopment.org

Table A2. Abstinence-plus Sites

Site Name                              URL Address

Teen-Aid                               www.teen-aid.org
Teen Talk                              www.w-cpc-org./sexuality/teensex
Teen Health                            www.teenhealthissues.org
Health Insight: Adolescent Health      www.ama-assn.org/insight/
                                         h_focus/adl_hlth/teen/teen
Epigee Birth Control Guide             www.brainphysics.com/guide
National Campaign to Prevent Teen
  Pregnancy                            www.teenpregnancy.org
Teen Health Web Site                   www.chebucto.ns.ca/Health/
                                         TeenHealth
Teenage Health Interactive Network
  (THINK)                              www.library.thinkquest.org
Who's In Charge?                       www.whosincharge.org

Table A3. Comprehensive Sites

Site Name                              URL Address

Planned Parenthood (national)          www.plannedparenthood.org
Seventeen Online                       www.seventeen.com
All About Sex                          www.AllAboutSex.org
Coalition for Positive Sexuality       www.positive.org
Safer Sex Institute                    www.safersex.org
Dr. Drew                               www.Drdrew.com
Virtual Kid Puberty 101                www.virtualkid.com
Teen Advice Online                     www.teenadvice.org
Planned Parenthood of New York City    www.ppnyc.org
Teen Growth                            www.teengrowth.com
Kids Health                            www.kidshealth.org
AVERT: Young People's Section          www.avert.org
Sex, Etc.                              www.sxetc.org
Talk City: The InSite                  www.talkcity.com/theinsite
Duke University Healthy Devil Online   h-devil-www.mc.duke.edu/h-devil
Teenwire                               www.teenwire.com
Planned Parenthood of Connecticut      www.ppct.org
The Teen Files                         www.paramountstations.com/
                                         common/teenfiles
Campaign for Our Children              www.cfoc.org
Go Ask Alice!                          www.goaskalice.columbia.edu
Teen Sexuality                         www.intac.com/~jdeck/habib/about
Portsmouth Better Beginnings
  Coalition                            www.betterbeginnings.org
Dr. Paula                              www.drpaula.com
Adolescent Health On-Line              www.ama-assn.org/adolhlth/
                                         adolhlth
iwannaknow.org                         www.iwannaknow.org
scarleteen.com                         www.scarleteen.com
Its Your (Sex) Life                    www.itsyoursexlife.com
Quality L.I.F.E.                       www.qualitylife.org
Table 1. Prevalence (%) of Discourses of Sexuality Among
Abstinence-only and Comprehensive Sexuality
Education Web Sites
                             Abstinence-   Compre-
Discourse                      only        hensive
                              (n = 24)     (n = 28)   [chi square] (1)

Sexuality as victimization      95.8         78.6          3.31 *
  Aimed at young women          62.5         57.1           .15
Sexuality as morality           91.7         14.3         30.95 ***
  Aimed at young women          25            7.1          3.17
Sexuality as desire             16.7         78.6         19.81 ***
  Aimed at young women           0           50           16.42 ***

* p < .05.

*** p < .001.
Table 2. Prevalence (%) of Gender-specific Messages
Among Abstinence and Comprehensive Sexuality
Education Web Sites

                                Targeted audience

                             Adolescent   Adolescent
Discourse by type of site      women         men       [chi square] (1)

Sexuality as victimization
  Abstinence                    62.5        16.7           1.55
  Comprehensive                 57.1        35.7
Sexuality as morality
  Abstinence                    25           8.3            .63
  Comprehensive                  7.1         0
Sexuality as desire
  Abstinence                     0           0             0
  Comprehensive                 50          46.4

Note. Abstinence web sites - n = 24; comprehensive web sites - n = 28.
Table 3. Prevalence (%) of Characteristics of Diversity
Among Abstinence and Comprehensive Sexuality
Education Web Sites

                   Abstinence   Comprehensive
Characteristics     (n = 24)      (n = 28)      [chi square] (1)

Queer positivity       0           67.9            25.66 ***
Presumed hetero-
  sexuality           95.8         28.6            24.29 ***
Broad definition
  of sex               0           32.1             9.33 **

** p < .01.

*** p < .001.

(1) The term "queer" is used to refer to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered identities and experiences. This term is preferred due to its inclusivity and progressive political orientation.

REFERENCES

Breakwell, G. M., & Millward, L. J. (1997). Sexual self-concept and sexual risk-taking. Journal of Adolescence, 20, 29-41.

Buzwell, S., & Rosenthal, D. (1996). Constructing a sexual self: Adolescents' sexual self-perceptions and sexual risk-taking. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 6, 489-513.

Cooper, A., Boies, S., Maheu, M., & Greenfield, D. (2000). Sexuality and the Internet: The next sexual revolution. In L. T. Szuchman & F. Muscarella (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on human sexuality (pp. 519-545). New York: Wiley.

Cooper, M. (1998). Ensuring telephone access in the digital age. Washington, DC: Center for Media Education. Retrieved May 19, 2000 from the World Wide Web: http://www.cme.org/access/universal/telephoneaccess.html.

Ehrhardt, A. A. (1996). Our view of adolescent sexuality: A locus on risk behavior without the developmental context [Editorial]. American Journal of Public Health, 86, 1523-1525.

Fine, M. (1988). Sexuality, schooling, and adolescent females: The missing discourse of desire. Harvard Educational Review, 58, 29-53.

Fisher, W., Byrne, D., & White, L. (1983). Emotional barriers to contraception. In D. Byrne & W. Fisher (Eds.), Adolescents, sex, and contraception (pp. 207-239). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Fromme, R. E., & Emihovich, C. (1998). Boys will be boys: Young males' perceptions of women, sexuality, and prevention. Education and Urban Society, 30, 172-188.

Haskins, R., & Bevan, C. S. (1997). Abstinence education under welfare reform. Children and Youth Services Review, 19, 465-484.

Haywood, C. (1996). Sexuality education policy and the regulation of young people's sexual practice. Educational Review, 48, 121-129.

Holland, J., Ramazanoglu, C., Sharpe, S., & Thomson, R. (1999). Feminist methodology and young people's sexuality. In R. Parker & P. Aggleton (Eds.), Culture, society and sexuality: A reader (pp. 457-472). London: University College London Press.

Hynie, M., Lydon, J. E., Cote, S., & Wiener, S. (1998). Relational sexual scripts and women's condom use: The importance of internalized norms. The Journal of Sex Research, 35, 370-380.

Irvine, J. M. (1994). Cultural differences and adolescent sexualities. In J. M. Irvine (Ed.), Sexual cultures and the construction of adolescent identities (pp. 3-28). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Jarrell, A. (2000, April 3). The face of teenage sex grows younger. New York Times, pp. B1, B8.

Kirby, D., & Coyle, K. (1997). School-based programs to reduce sexual risk-taking behavior. Children and Youth Services Review, 19, 415-436.

Kyman, W. (1998). Into the 21st century: Renewing the campaign for school-based sexuality education. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 24, 131-137.

Landry, D. J., Kaeser, L., & Richards, C. L. (1999). Abstinence promotion and the provision of information about contraception in public school district sexuality education policies. Family Planning Perspectives, 31, 280-286.

Laub, C., Somera. D. M., Gowen, L. K., & Diaz, R. M. (1999). Targeting "risky" gender ideologies: Constructing a community-driven, theory-based HIV prevention intervention for youth. Health Education and Behavior, 26, 185-199.

Males, M. A. (1996). The scapegoat generation: America's war on adolescents. Monroe, ME: Common Courage.

Melton, M. (1999). Young and curious? Sex ed online and in print. U.S. News Online. Retrieved April 12, 2000 from the World Wide Web: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/990927/nycu/doc.b.html.

Moran, J. P. (2000). Teaching sex: The shaping of adolescence in the 20th century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Morris, B. R. (2001, March 20). Teenagers find health answers with a click. New York Times on the Web. Retrieved Match 20, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.nytimes.com.

Morris, R. W. (1994). Values in sexuality education: A philosophical study. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Netting, N. S. (1992). Sexuality in youth culture: Identity and change. Adolescence, 27, 961-976.

Planned Parenthood: Debuts web site for teens (1999). Kaiser Daily Reproductive Health Report. Retrieved April 12, 2000 from the World Wide Web: http://report.kff.org/archive/repro/1999/02/kr990222.7.html.

Redman, P. (1994). Shifting ground: Rethinking sexuality education. In D. Epstein (Ed.), Challenging lesbian and gay inequalities in education (pp. 131-151). Philadelphia: Open University Press.

Remafedi, G., Frendh, S., Story. M., Resnick, M. D., & Blum, R. (1998). The relationship between suicide risk and sexual orientation: Results of a population-based study. American Journal of Public Health, 88, 57-60.

Schuster, M. A., Bell, R. M., & Kanouse, D. E. (1996). The sexual practices of adolescent virgins: Genital sexual activities of high school students who have never had vaginal intercourse. American Journal of Public Health, 86, 1570-1576.

Smith, M., Gertz, E., Alvarez, S., & Lurie, P. (2000). The content and accessibility of sex education information on the Internet. Health Education and Behavior, 27, 684-694.

Thomas. M. H. (2000). Abstinence-based programs for prevention of adolescent pregnancies. Journal of Adolescent Health, 26, 5-17.

Thompson, S. (1990). Putting a big thing into a little hole: Teenage girls' accounts of sexual initiation. The Journal of Sex Research, 27, 341-361.

Trudell, B. N. (1993). Doing sexuality education: Gender politics and schooling. New York: Routledge.

Walters, A. S., & Hayes, D. M. (1998). Homophobia within schools: Challenging the culturally sanctioned dismissal of gay student and colleagues. Journal of Homosexuality, 35, 1-23.

Ward, L. M., & Wyatt, G. E. (1994). The effects of childhood sexual messages on African-American and White women's adolescent sexual behavior. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18, 183-201.

Welsh, D. P., Rostosky, S. S., & Kawaguchi, M. C. (2000). A normative perspective of adolescent girls' developing sexuality. In C. B. Travis & J. W. White (Eds.), Sexuality, society, and feminism (pp. 111-140). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Whatley, M. H. (1992). Goals for sex equitable sexuality education. In S. S. Klein (Ed.), Sex equity and sexuality education (pp. 84-95). Albany, NY: State University of New York.

Whatley, M. H. (1994). Keeping adolescents in the picture: Construction of adolescent sexuality in textbook images and popular films. In J. M. Irvine (Ed.), Sexual cultures and the construction of adolescent identities (pp. 183-205). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

White House conference on teenagers is an important first step (2000). Washington, DC: Center for Media Education. Retrieved May 19, 2000 from the World Wide Web: http://www.cme.org/press/000502.pr2.html.

Whitlock, K., & DiLapi, E. M. (1983). "Friendly fire": Homophobia in sex education literature. Interracial Books for Children Bulletin, 14, 20-23.

Wight, D. (1992). Impediments to safer heterosexual sex: A review of research with young people. AIDS Care. 4, 11-23.

Wyatt, G. E., & Riederle, M. H. (1994). Reconceptualizing issues that affect women's sexual decision-making and sexual functioning. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18, 611-625.

Manuscript accepted September 5, 2001

Laina Y. Bay-Cheng University of Michigan

The Author wishes to thank Abigail F. Stewart for her support and comments at all stages of the project, and Helen Kim for coding assistance

Address correspondence to Laina Y. Bay-Cheng, 68 Utica St., Hamilton NY 13346; e-mail: [e-mail].