They’re Already Doing “IT”, Why Not Teach Them?
With the rise of feminism and LGBTQ liberation, why are Sex Ed curriculums keeping young people in the dark?
Abstinence-based teachings have remained a main focal point in sexual education curriculums, opting to focus on a more heterosexual point of view and failing to offer students a better understanding of sexual health, sexual orientation, gender identity, and healthy relationships.
In Rachel Giese’s essay, The Talk: A New Sex Ed for Boys, she explores what is missing in the sexual education curriculum in terms of teaching boys about sex and acceptance but also about shifting the narrative of masculinity.
In a research study conducted by L. Kris Gowen and Nichole Winges-Yanez titled Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Questioning Youths’ Perspectives of Inclusive School-Based Sexuality Education, they interview participants about how the curriculum is failing to educate students on sexual orientation and identity leaving a negative impact on the safety and well-being of students and society.
It is clear that not only is the curriculum failing to prepare students for these important factors of growing up but that students want to learn more about their bodies and how to interact with one another. While both articles offer solutions and benefits to their curriculum ideas, Giese’s solution hits the root of the issue.
In her essay, Rachel Giese introduces the argument that young straight men are the most ignored demographic in terms of sexual education. Giese spends time with WiseGuyz, a program in Calgary that educates 9th grade boys in sexual education.
Giese dissects the difficulties in teaching boys about sexual education stating that most educators have “given up” because of the boys’ immaturity. Educators choose to focus on more feminine issues, such as the consequences of getting pregnant and sexual violence, leaving the boys feeling left out and less likely to keep up with their own sexual health, such as, using condoms and getting tested regularly for sexually transmitted diseases.
The sexual education courses in schools tend to focus on abstinence, waiting until marriage to have sex, which increases risks and leaves kids to fill in the blanks themselves. With one note sex ed classes and a lack of programs like WiseGuyz, kids find answers in porn, which offers permission to have sex without waiting until marriage and covers sex ed taboos like anal sex. In the WiseGuyz curriculum, they discuss human rights and values, anatomy, sex, contraception, gender, sexuality, and healthy relationships. Giese’s idea is that by offering a more male-focused sex ed in schools we can further educate young men and create a more open society for everyone.
Rachel Giese effectively gives credible evidence for the need of programs geared toward helping young straight men understand sexual health and how society would benefit from this as well. A good illustration of this is the opposing statistics in terms of teenage pregnancy versus sexually transmitted infections:
“[…] as teenage pregnancy in Canada continues to decline, sexually transmitted infections are climbing […] more than two-thirds of chlamydia cases reported […] occur among those ages fifteen to twenty-four.”
Giese highlights the curriculum’s focus on teaching females students to avoid pregnancy rather than towards male students, or both, in regards to sexual health. Giese appeals to ethos when she states:
“Teaching young men to trust, communicate, negotiate, and empathize does not undermine or threaten their manliness. It expands their humanity.”
If young men are allowed to be emotive and expressive human beings, qualities that are negatively regarded as effeminate, it would create an open environment for every person; removing the fear of being less-than. Giese is persuasive because she explains what is missing in the sexual education curriculum and makes logical connections as to how this can be rectified.
I agree that there should be a sexual education program that focuses on young men because ignoring their needs only adds to the toxicity of masculinity, which is the aggressive measurement of manliness in strength versus emotions, the mistreatment of the female body, and the abuse of the those that have a different sexual orientation or gender identity. To add to Giese’s point, I believe educating young boys on these key subjects would also make it safer for youth that are LGBTQ.
Giese effectively gives credible evidence for the need of programs geared toward helping young straight men understand sexual health and the benefits of such programs.
In their research study, L. Kris Gowen and Nichole Winges-Yanez explore the exclusion of LGBTQ youth and how sexual education in schools can be made more inclusive. The abstinence-based curriculum is blatantly ignorant of LGBTQ and only associates healthy sexuality with heterosexual marriage.
Conducting five focus groups, Gowen and Winges-Yanez asked 30 youth of various sexual orientations questions about their experiences with sexual education. The participants discussed issues involving LGBTQ being silenced, decidedly heterocentric courses where sex was referred to as penis-vagina intercourse, and the use of contraception for pregnancy prevention only.
Some participants did experience limited inclusivity of LGBTQ issues in their curriculum but most teachers only opted to discuss LGBTQ issues outside of the classroom. Gowen and Winges-Yanez noted that without getting rid of the hetero discussion their participants would expand sex education to include all topics surrounding sexual health regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.
Gowen and Winges-Yanez conclude that requiring students to learn about all orientations and identities establishes a better understanding which could provide a safer environment for students.
L. Kris Gowen and Nichole Winges-Yanez emphasize the need for a broader sexual education curriculum by conducting a group study and, as a logical approach, allows the reader to focus on how a broader sexual education for the youth can benefit society.
Gowen and Winges-Yanez conclude that teaching youth about LGBTQ issues would conceive open-minded individuals and decrease bullying and suicide in young LGBTQ students. Gowen and Winges-Yanez’s incorporation of quotes from their study is valuable because it not only gives diverse perspectives, it strengthens their argument with credibility.
Like Giese, they agree that the current sexual education curriculum is flawed and missing vital information; however, they argue a shift away from the heterosexual narrative which can
“open the door to conversation around types of sexual behavior beyond vaginal intercourse, which cannot cause pregnancy but possibly can transmit STIs.”
Although some may believe teaching the youth about safe sex practices with an understanding of sexual orientation and gender identity is taboo, I argue that the points Gowen and Winges-Yanez present are valid and important because leaving young people uneducated raises their health risks and personal well-being no matter their sexual orientation or identity.
Abstinence-based teachings have remained a main focal point in sexual education curriculums, opting to focus on a more heterosexual point of view and failing to offer students a better understanding of sexual health, sexual orientation, gender identity, and healthy relationships.
Rachel Giese challenges the curriculum by exploring sexual education programs that concentrate on educating young men while L. Kris Gowen and Nichole Winges-Yanez build upon the lack of openness in sexual education curriculums and the negative effects it has on students.
Both pieces appeal to the reader’s credibility and logic, Gowen and Winges-Yanez use a more straightforward method of conducting a study group while Giese organizes her ideas in a research-driven essay. I am more drawn to Giese’s essay because it is more engaging in its narrative and offers a solution that not only benefits young men but people of other gender identities and sexual orientations.
