Y AIDS AROUND THE WORLD!

Ministry of Health and Social Welfare & United Nations Population Fund, 1996; Eggleston et al.,
1999; Rani et al., 2003).
Spurred both by the consistency of such findings and by the light that HIV/AIDS has directed on
this topic globally, policy-makers are increasingly citing the need for greater attention to gender
issues in efforts to promote sexual health. The 1994 International Conference on Population and
Development’s Programme of Action declared that ‘Responsible sexual behaviour, sensitivity
and equity in gender relations, particularly when instilled during the formative years, enhance and
promote respectful and harmonious partnerships between men and women’ (United Nations,
1995, par. 7.34; emphasis added). A decade later, on the occasion of World AIDS Day, United
Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan (2004) issued a statement calling for:
… real, positive change that will give more power and confidence to women and girls. Change that will transform
relations between women and men at all levels of society. Change that can only be brought about through the
education of girls, through legal and social reforms, and through greater awareness and responsibility among men.
Peter Piot (2004), Executive Director of UNAIDS and Under Secretary-General of the United
Nations, has advocated a similar course:
Prevention methods such as the ‘ABC’ approach—Abstinence, Be faithful, and use Condoms—are good but not
enough to protect women where gender inequality is pervasive. We must ensure that women can choose marriage, to
decide when and with whom they have sex, and to successfully negotiate condom use.
The World Health Organization has identified ‘gender differences’ along with ‘… the needs of
younger adolescents, exploring developmentally appropriate teaching and learning approaches,
and reaching vulnerable adolescents …’ as a ‘… primary factor that needs greater exploration and
attention in intervention development’ (2004, p. 2). One obvious avenue for enabling young
people to transcend traditional gender arrangements that endanger their sexual health—and to lay
the groundwork for satisfying sexual lives—is sexuality and relationships education (SRE).
Unfortunately, guidelines and curricula for sexuality education often have failed to reflect these
research findings and policy concerns (Sexuality Information and Education Council of the
United States [SIECUS], 1996; Swann et al., 2003;Centers for Disease Control, 2004).2
Programmes vary considerably, but in terms of both content and—particularly in developing
countries—of reach, many still neglect the realities of gender inequality.This article describes
these gaps in broad terms and argues for exploring new approaches to increasing and evaluating
the effectiveness of SRE.
Current gaps in content
Content is an issue in both developed and developing countries. To a great degree, sexuality
education programmes still do not reflect what has been learned about the fundamental role of
gender in shaping sexual attitudes and behaviour. A preliminary content analysis we have
undertaken of some more widely known or commonly used comprehensive sexuality education
curricula indicates that, among many, gender issues (if addressed at all) tend to be included in a
superficial manner.3
2 Notably, in its third edition of its Guidelines for Comprehensive Sexuality Education, SIECUS takes encouraging
steps toward greater incorporation of gender issues (SIECUS, 2004).
3 In the first phase, our primary criteria in selecting curricula were wide usage and/or documented effectiveness. (We
also sought out several extant non-traditional curricula that focused extensively on sexism.) As such, the analysis
Sex Education

in a large-scale survey in Indonesia 86% of unmarried 15-year-old to 19-year-old girls had heard
of HIV/AIDS, compared with only 59% of married girls (Achmad & Westley, 1999).
Even among those female adolescents who are in school, many have not yet reached the middle
or secondary school levels where SRE typically is offered. In Kenya, for example, 36% of girls
aged 15–19 are still in primary school (Population Council, 2001b). Mensch and Lloyd (1998)
found that this delay is due in part to non-payment of school fees and other demands on time that
lead many young people (especially girls) to begin schooling late and/or to attend irregularly, so
that they fall behind and must repeat grades. In their study of three districts in Kenya, these
authors found that between 79% and 94% of 12–18 year olds were in primary school. Hence,
even those girls who manage to attend school are unlikely to be present for SRE classes in this
context.
Unfortunately, as currently configured, community-based projects may also fail to reach
adolescent girls. A study in Zimbabure, for example, found that males outnumbered females by 2
to 1 in centres integrating recreational activities and reproductive health services (Erulkar, 2003).
Moreover, many youth centres seem to reach a cohort of young adults rather than adolescents. A
recent assessment by the Population Council of 26 youth centres across four sub-Saharan African
countries found that the number of youth served was typically low and the centres tended to serve
older youth or even adults. In the catchment areas of the Kenyan centres, for example, 86% of the
clientele were over the age of 20, and 26% were older than the centres’ upper age limit of 24
years (Erulkar, 2003).
In summary, then, in many developing countries existing sexuality education programme models
may not be appropriate for reaching the vast majority of girls who are not part of the elite
segments of their societies. Given the paucity of resources for SRE, such gaps—in reach, as well
as in content—constitute a serious concern.
Toward a social studies approach
A review of these gaps suggests the need for a shift focused on both content and reach of SRE
programmes. There would be value in reframing such programmes with less emphasis on the
purely biological aspects of sexuality, in favour of stronger and earlier emphasis on the social
context in which sexual attitudes form, sexual decisions are made and sexual scripts enacted.
Such a reframed approach would most aptly be placed not (or at least not exclusively) within a
health/biology rubric, but as part of what might broadly be understood as ‘social studies’ or
civics.5
5 Schools structure academic disciplines in diverse ways, but it is the weaving together of social context and sexuality
that is important. That is, sexuality educators might incorporate defining modules on social context, or, conversely,
social studies curricula can serve as the point of entry for concurrent or subsequent ‘sexuality’ topics. Moreover, while
the term ‘social studies’ is rather widely used around the world, similar interdisciplinary approaches are instituted in
Sex Education
Vol. 5, No. 4, November 2005, pp. 333–344
5
A number of arguments exist for grounding SRE within such a framework. First, social studies
offers an effective ‘discipline’ for fostering analytic thinking and critical reflection, beginning in
the early grades. While social studies is often equated in peoples’ minds with history and
geography, it is also typically the home for interdisciplinary lessons about social movements,
communities, government, culture and contemporary social issues. For example, in many
countries, social studies may engage students on such topics as racial discrimination, population
growth and current political affairs. Moreover, such critical thinking skills—what Paulo Freire
(1974, p. 66) called ‘posing the problems of human beings in their relations with the world’—are
transferable to a broad range of subjects.
Even where more traditional pedagogic approaches predominate, however, social studies topics
may generate broad questions about the individual and society, self/others, democratic culture and
notions of equality/inequality.6 In many settings (including settings in the USA), specific
curricula or modules may enable teachers to supplement standard lectures and readings with more
interactive dialogue. For example, some of the most basic social studies lessons on citizenship, on
family structures and on community lend themselves to critical reflection about women’s roles
and gender equality.
Second, social studies lessons on gender provide a strong foundation for subsequent teaching on
explicitly sexual topics; this approach seems far more logical than the converse (i.e. tacking
lessons about social context and gender onto sex education). Issues such as girls’ and boys’
disparate reasons for having sex; the practice of exchanging sex for favours; the continuum that
exists between wanted, mutual sex and rape; the ways that norms about masculinity undercut
boys’ self confidence and result in performance pressure to prove their manhood and
heterosexuality; gender-based violence; sexual minorities; and female genital mutilation are
fundamentally social matters.
Moreover, as thorny gender-sensitive issues, these SRE topics are presently often ignored or
addressed ineffectively in many sex education curricula. Even a subject as ‘sex-specific’ and
technical as promoting condom use provides a case in point. It may do students little good to
learn about condoms if they have not explored and critically reflected on the ways that their
ability actually to use condoms may be impeded by gender relations; for example, the double
sexual standard that causes girls to feel embarrassment about buying condoms, and causes boys to
feel anxious anxiety about losing an erection while putting a condom on (Costa, 1998). If young
people can first learn to analyse the social forces underlying their intimate relationships, then
teaching about sex and relations would become far simpler.
some settings under such rubrics as Civics, Religion, Society, and Ethics (Csank, 2005; Lkhagvasuren, 2005; Marques,
2005; Rajani 2005; RamaRao, 2005).
6 Although social studies does not always imply an interactive pedagogy, as a discipline social studies has a long
tradition and extensive body of resources for fostering an open classroom culture, critical analysis and meaningful
reflection. Interestingly, drawing from multi-country analyses (World Values Survey and International Association for
the Evaluation of Educational Achievement), Pettersson (2003) concluded that an open culture in the classroom was
closely associated with positive attitudes toward ‘good citizenship’. Moreover, Pettersson compared the association of a
range of macro-level and social– environmental factors with adolescent attitudes toward gender equality; the strongest
correlation with favourable attitudes toward gender equality was having ‘an open classroom climate’. Indeed, ‘[t]he
more open the classroom climate, the more positive the attitudes towards gender equality’ (Pettersson, 2003, p. 20).
Exposure to news media was the second most tightly associated factor. Pettersson noted, ‘A change in classroom
climate from strict to open, together with increased media exposure from low to high increases the number of students
who strongly endorse gender equality by as much as 50%’ (2003, p. 21).
Sex Education
Vol. 5, No. 4, November 2005, pp. 333–344
ms reasonable to hypothesize that
tinkering with gender attitudes may ultimately prove vital to achieving significant change in
sexuality education indicators such as delaying sexual debut, promoting contraceptive and
condom use, and reducing rates of infection and unwanted pregnancy.
Discussion
Currently, many sexuality education programmes have mixed effects when evaluated on standard
behavioural outcomes (Kirby, 2001; DiCenso et al., 2002; Speizer et al., 2003). While some
lessons are being generated about relatively more effective programmes, we should not shy away
from exploring bolder approaches that reach many more young people, especially girls, and could
potentially lead to far better outcomes. The close links between gender and reproductive health
and other outcomes, along with the relatively small proportion in many settings of school-going
adolescent girls, argue for SRE that places gender and critical thinking at its heart, beginning in
early grades. The experience of community-based programmes, documented in a rich case-study
literature, can provide us with important lessons for the design of school-based programmes,
curricula and evaluation of such approaches.
Evaluating the impact of a social studies approach will require thoughtful methodological
approaches. Importantly, interventions that begin at younger ages will require longer-term followup.
Data from the occasional studies that assessed early childhood programmes suggest not only
that longer-term effects can be measured, but that such programmes may improve sexual and
reproductive health many years down the line (Campbell, 1999, as cited in Kirby, 2001).
Moreover, data on all outcome measures (including delay in sexual debut, frequency of
intercourse, and contraceptive and condom use) will need to be routinely disaggregated by
gender. Surprisingly, such disaggregation is not currently universal in sexuality education
evaluation research. Even standard ‘gender-blind’ curricula tend to have differential effects on
boys as compared with on girls. Impact of gender-specific content may vary even more; capturing
such comparative outcomes is essential to improving programme design.
Presumably, a social studies curriculum would also aim to influence a wider range of outcome
measures than those included in typical sexuality education programme evaluations. For example,
programme leaders and policy-makers might seek changes in specific attitudes and behaviours
related to gender equality and human rights. A number of concrete markers can be measured. For
example, depending on the local context, such outcomes might include leadership in school
activities; girls’ participation in sports; age at marriage; attitudes regarding males’ and females’
roles in the sexual, domestic and economic spheres; and prevalence of or attitudes toward genderbased
violence, sexual harassment, homophobic bullying and harmful practices. These measures
are important not only as antecedents to poor sexual health, but as outcomes in their own right.
Sex Education
Vol. 5, No. 4, November 2005, pp. 333–344
Help us improve Wikipedia by supporting it financially.
Sex education
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


An early 20th century post card documents the problem of unwanted pregnancy.
Sex education is a broad term used to describe education about human sexual anatomy, sexual reproduction, sexual intercourse, reproductive health, emotional relations, reproductive rights and responsibilities, contraception, and other aspects of human sexual behavior. Common avenues for sex education are parents or caregivers, school programs, and public health campaigns.
Contents
[hide]
1 Overview
2 Sex education worldwide
2.1 Africa
2.2 Asia
2.3 Europe
2.3.1 Finland
2.3.2 France
2.3.3 Germany
2.3.4 The Netherlands
2.3.5 Sweden
2.3.6 Switzerland
2.3.7 United Kingdom
2.4 United States
3 Morality of sex education
4 Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth
5 Scientific study of sex education
6 See also
7 Notes
8 External links
//
[edit] Overview
Sex education may also be described as "sexuality education," which means that it encompasses education about all aspects of sexuality, including information about family planning, reproduction (fertilization, conception and development of the embryo and fetus, through to childbirth), plus information about all aspects of one's sexuality including: body image, sexual orientation, sexual pleasure, values, decision making, communication, dating, relationships, sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and how to avoid them, and birth control methods.
Sex education may be taught informally, such as when someone receives information from a conversation with a parent, friend, religious leader, or through the media. It may also be delivered through sex self-help authors, magazine advice columnists, sex columnists, or through sex education web sites. Formal sex education occurs when schools or health care providers offer sex education.
Sometimes formal sex education is taught as a full course as part of the curriculum in junior high school or high school. Other times it is only one unit within a more broad health class, home economics class, or physical education class. Some schools offer no sex education, since it remains a controversial issue in several countries, particularly the United States (especially with regard to the age at which children should start receiving such education, the amount of detail that is revealed, and topics dealing with human sexual behavior, eg. safe sex practices, masturbation, premarital sex, and sexual ethics).
In 1936, Wilhelm Reich commented that sex education of his time was a work of deception, focusing on biology while concealing excitement-arousal, which is what a pubescent individual is mostly interested in. Reich added that this emphasis obscures what he believed to be a basic psychological principle: that all worries and difficulties originate from unsatisfied sexual impulses.[1]
When sex education is contentiously debated, the chief controversial points are whether covering child sexuality is valuable or detrimental; the use of birth control such as condoms and hormonal contraception; and the impact of such use on pregnancy outside marriage, teenage pregnancy, and the transmission of STIs. Increasing support for abstinence-only sex education by conservative groups has been one of the primary causes of this controversy. Countries with conservative attitudes towards sex education (including the UK and the U.S.) have a higher incidence of STIs and teenage pregnancy.[2]
The existence of AIDS has given a new sense of urgency to the topic of sex education. In many African nations, where AIDS is at epidemic levels (see HIV/AIDS in Africa), sex education is seen by most scientists as a vital public health strategy. Some international organizations such as Planned Parenthood consider that broad sex education programs have global benefits, such as controlling the risk of overpopulation and the advancement of women's rights (see also reproductive rights).
According to SIECUS, the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, 93% of adults they surveyed support sexuality education in high school and 84% support it in junior high school.[3] In fact, 88% of parents of junior high school students and 80% of parents of high school students believe that sex education in school makes it easier for them to talk to their adolescents about sex.[4] Also, 92% of adolescents report that they want both to talk to their parents about sex and to have comprehensive in-school sex education.[5]
[edit] Sex education worldwide
[edit] Africa


Youth seeking his father's advice on loveFrom the Haft Awrang of Jami, in the story A Father Advises his Son About Love. His counsel is to choose that lover who desires him for his inner beauty. See Sufi outlook on male love Freer and Sackler Galleries, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, (LGBT) youth, and those with other sexual practices, are often ignored in sex education classes, including a frequent lack of discussion about safer sex practices for manual, oral, and anal sex, despite these activities' different risk levels for sexually transmitted diseases.
Some people do not agree with comprehensive sexual education that references or discusses such practices, believing that including this additional information might be seen as encouraging homosexual behavior. Proponents of such comprehensive curricula hold that by excluding discussion of these issues or the issues of homosexuality, bisexuality, or transgenderedness, feelings of isolation, loneliness, guilt and shame as well as depression are made much worse for students who belong or believe they may belong to one of these categories, or are unsure of their sexual identity. Supporters of including LGBT issues as an integral part of comprehensive sexuality education argue that this information is still useful and relevant and reduces the likelihood of suicide, sexually transmitted disease, 'acting out' and maladaptive behavior in these students. In the absence of such discussion, these youths are said to be de facto forced to remain in the closet, while youths are left without guidance on dealing with their own possible same-gender attractions and with their LGBT classmates.
Supporters of comprehensive sex education programs argue that abstinence-only curricula (that advocate that youth should abstain from sex until marriage) ignore and marginalize lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth, who are often unable to marry a partner due to legal restrictions. Proponents of abstinence-only education often have a more conservative view of homosexuality and bisexuality and are against them being taught as normal, acceptable orientations or placed in equal footing to heterosexual acts/relations, and so they generally do not see this as a problem. Supporters of comprehensive programs feel that this is a major problem as it could lead LGBT youth to feel even more alienated and ashamed of their sexual orientation.
[edit] Scientific study of sex education
The debate over teenage pregnancy and STDs has spurred some research into the effectiveness of different approaches to sex education. In a meta-analysis, DiCenso et al. have compared comprehensive sex education programs with abstinence-only programs.[38] Their review of several studies shows that abstinence-only programs did not reduce the likelihood of pregnancy of women who participated in the programs, but rather increased it. Four abstinence programs and one school program were associated with a pooled increase of 54% in the partners of men and 46% in women (confidence interval 95% 0.95 to 2.25 and 0.98 to 2.26 respectively). The researchers conclude:
"There is some evidence that prevention programs may need to begin much earlier than they do. In a recent systematic review of eight trials of day care for disadvantaged children under 5 years of age, long term follow up showed lower pregnancy rates among adolescents. We need to investigate the social determinants of unintended pregnancy in adolescents through large longitudinal studies beginning early in life and use the results of the multivariate analyses to guide the design of prevention interventions. We should carefully examine countries with low pregnancy rates among adolescents. For example, the Netherlands has one of the lowest rates in the world (8.1 per 1000 young women aged 15 to 19 years), and Ketting & Visser have published an analysis of associated factors.[39] In contrast, the rates are:
· 93.0 per 1000 in the United States (85.8/1000 in 1996)
· 62.6 per 1000 in England and Wales
· 42.7 per 1000 in Canada
· 15.1 per 1000 in Belgium (1996)[40]
We should examine effective programs designed to prevent other high risk behaviors in adolescents. For example, Botvin et al. found that school based programs to prevent drug abuse during junior high school (ages 12–14 years) resulted in important and durable reductions in use of tobacco, alcohol, and cannabis if they taught a combination of social resistance skills and general life skills, were properly implemented, and included at least two years of booster sessions.
Few sexual health interventions are designed with input from adolescents. Adolescents have suggested that sex education should be more positive with less emphasis on anatomy and scare tactics; it should focus on negotiation skills in sexual relationships and communication; and details of sexual health clinics should be advertised in areas that adolescents frequent (for example, school toilets, shopping centres)."[38]
Also, a U.S. review, "Emerging Answers", by the National Campaign To Prevent Teenage Pregnancy examined 250 studies of sex education programs.[41] The conclusion of this review was that "the overwhelming weight of evidence shows that sex education that discusses contraception does not increase sexual activity".