What a fascinating study. It has potential but many changes would need to be made before publication. First, the focus of the study must be clear - it seems about sexuality and challenging sexual discussions within a group. If this is the heart or focus, most of the introduction and other writing must be focused on this focus/theme with review of the literature, discussion of challenging related to adolescent sexuality, WHY such group discussions and education are so important? The theoretical background, which seems to be the majority of the Introduction, should be a brief discussion within methods or within introduction as a theoretical background. social constructionism is a lens not the focus of the study, it seems. I also would clarify then specific methodology. Is it within focus group framework with social constructionism lens. In reading the manuscript, I feel confused about both the methods and then, the results. I would like to understand better, thematically, what it is that the study really found - what can be applied and shared with the readers and the community? Thus, the discussion offers very very little in terms of this summary or interpretation. How are these findings applicable? What is their contribution? How are they new or different than what is known? What must be done next? Lastly, most of the paper is not written in APA style. 