In this sociocultural view of development, the theory looks at the individual within the context of the system of relationships that form his/her environment.

Sexuality Education and the debate around it, relates to all four levels of this theory.

In the Micro Level Environment, the teenager individual is directly affected by the scope, contents and the messages given within the sexuality education. In addition to the program provided by the school, the teenager is being impacted by his/her peers and friends, by the media and by his/her parents’ direct messages. All of those may impact his/her thinking, decisions, behavior, and consequences of that particular behavior.

In the Meso Level Environment, the teenager’s parents may agree or disagree with the type of sexuality education program provided by the school. They may try to influence it or at least comment on it. Another interaction is between the students themselves and the school or the students and their parents. Students may agree and identify with the type of program or protest and try, for example, to get more information than what is provided to them. A different behavior can lead to ignoring the provided program and the conveyed risks and engage in sexual activity after all.

In the Exo Level Environment the school and the district may be directly influenced in their choosing of the type of sexuality education program, by the fact that abstinence-only programs are the only ones that get federal funding. The geographical area and its diversity characteristics along with its history, may also impact the direction and trend of the provided programs. For example, a teenager in the southern states is more likely to get the abstinence-only education compared to a teenager on the east coast.

The Macro Level Environment reflects the impacts of sexuality education at the national level. The values, beliefs and attitudes held by the administration and the congress determine the direction and policies regarding sexuality education programs in schools. Funding of programs is one way to do that. Policy making and bills is another.