I'm currently studying for a Master's in Education (Drama in Education) and for my dissertation, I am focusing in on sexuality education (sex ed) for upper secondary school students (15-19 year olds). My thinking is that drama could provide a really good alternative to deliver comprehensive, relevant sex ed programmes for teens. Sex ed through drama methods has been dabbled with internationally, both in extra-curricular settings such as community theatre groups and as outreach programmes tried out in mainstream schools (see external links). However, my argument is that it could be beneficial to implement drama programmes as a standardised approach to teaching sex ed to adolescents. From my study of drama methods in education, it would appear drama allows the students' voices to come through, and, to a certain extent, they can navigate the classes in the direction they want. In this sense, perhaps drama could assist in making sex ed more relevant to teens' lived realities.
This is all well and good in theory. But sex is still seen as an extremely sensitive topic, especially in school settings. I am studying for my master's in Ireland. What with the current Covid climate, as well as maybe a smattering of hesitation or reluctance when school establishments are faced with the words "sex ed"; I didn't manage to obtain a practical sample for empirical work in a mainstream secondary school. I wasn't planning on rocking up to schools like Gillian Anderson from Netflix's Sex Education... but the schools weren't to know that.
Interestingly, I managed to obtain a sample of teenagers in an extra-curricular drama school, with the principal's consent. I was very excited to begin my practical work with the students, exploring topics such as consent through drama. However, my project didn't get approved by my university's ethics committee. This is unfortunate, but as time was not on my side I had to opt for a desk-based study. So this means trawling through curriculum, policy / government documents, and white papers such as that... Yawn.Well... Maybe not so much! Some of the things that are cropping up during my study of the current Irish sex ed curriculum for students aged 16-18 are a little scary, in my humble opinion. This could be due to being swallowed up by a world of literature, articles, podcasts, policies etc. etc. which have affected and skewed my judgement of seemingly innocent curricula frameworks... However, I'm going to share my thoughts and see what you think...
An interesting note, which was brought to my attention by sex ed researchers Lamb & Randazzo,
is the nature of 'self-oriented' language in sex ed curriculum. This is very much alive and kicking in the Irish senior cycle sex ed and resource materials. Both the 1999 sex ed book and the current social, personal & health education (SPHE) curriculum are generously littered with terms like "self awareness and personal skills", "self-esteem" & "personal safety". I am by no means arguing that students' personal safety isn't important. Of course it is. I am not recommending that the classroom be a place where positive self-esteem is not promoted. I am simply unsure as to whether there should be a balance in terms of other-oriented objectives within sex ed curriculum. For example, more of a focus on the other person who you are engaging in sexual activities with and their safety. Because, after all, it takes two to tango.
Most shocking, however, was my discovery of a more ominous undercurrent in some main learning objectives. Take for example the objective:
“develop skills for coping with peer pressure, conflict, and threats to personal safety”
(NCCA, 2011, p26)
Whilst this objective might appear beneficial to students’ sexual well-being, one might read between the lines and find potentially problematic language. The use of the word “coping” indicates a personal responsibility for one’s own sexual safety. Furthermore, the promotion that teens must aim to cope with any threats to their own personal safety would appear problematic. This statement appears to be putting the onus on individuals’ who are victims to negative sexual experiences. Now, stop me here if I'm jumping to conclusions. I acknowledge this is a bit of a hot-take... So just bear with me...
Most shocking of all is that the senior cycle curriculum framework states that students should be able to:
“demonstrate skills for dealing with sexual harassment including how to access risk [and] design an information campaign highlighting safety tips to protect against rape and sexual assault”
(NCCA, 2011, p28).
I mean wow. I genuinely had to read that objective a few times to reaffirm what I was seeing. Is the current sex ed actively encouraging an onus on teens to protect themselves from rape? I'm sorry, but how exactly does someone protect themselves from rape?
A recent Rape Crisis Network Ireland (RCNI) report states that teens between 13 and 18 years old are most likely to experience rape, by a friend, acquaintance or neighbour, with the violence lasting for hours and taking place in outdoor or location other than the home. Therefore, in order to protect themselves from rape, should teenagers not be hanging out with their peers? Not going to locations other than their own homes? Both of which are really common past-times for that age group.
How does a student who has been sexually assaulted feel when this particular "protect yourself from rape" lesson is covered? This language could be problematic as it indicates that it is young people’s personal responsibility to protect themselves from forms of sexual assault and harassment.
Furthermore, the 1999 curriculum (which is still the most up-to-date Irish sex ed book btw) puts an emphasis on teens being "assertive". It describes assertiveness as "knowing what you want to say and saying it in a way that does not infringe upon the rights and dignity of another. It is an essential skill in human relationships". This is sound enough. I mean nothing too dodgy there, right? However, the curriculum goes on to say:
"Assertiveness means:
respecting myself
respecting other people
taking responsibility for myself
recognising my own needs and wants, independently of others
allowing myself to make mistakes
allowing myself to enjoy my successes
changing my mind
making clear ‘I’ statements
being able to say ‘no’ without unnecessary explanations
asking for what I want
setting clear boundaries
asking for ‘thinking it over’ time” (DES, 1999, p28).
Some objectives are helpful, such as respecting oneself and other people and being able to say 'no'. However, the curriculum gives little indication as to how exactly teenagers can respect other people in practice. I would question why there isn't an added objective to pair with this such as: "asking what the other person is comfortable with". Particularly problematic for me are the highlighted objectives. "Making clear "I" statements" and "asking for what I want" leave no room for what the other person wants / is comfortable with. Of course it is important to express what you want. I am not saying everybody needs to tend only to the other person's needs. However, I am suggesting that without the balance of an other-oriented objective, this could lead to some problematic consensual issues. Even in positive, consensual sexual partnerships it wouldn't be sound to be completely selfish and only ask for what you want. So why are we teaching teenagers this?
The acknowledgement that mistakes are ok also rang alarm bells for me. Of course, when you are young, you may be experimenting and learning through doing. However, this allowance of mistakes could be misperceived as a disregard for other people's sexual safety. It sends out the message "it's ok if you make a mistake". When actually, in regards to consent and sexual safety, there are (or should be) very serious consequences for sexual misconduct. Should we not be promoting safe, positive sexual experiences, rather than promoting 'mistakes'?
The self-oriented language in sex ed curriculum appears to reflect societal views linked to victim-blaming, whereby the victim of sexual assault is seen as partly responsible for their abuse (Boatclub, 2020; Jozkowski, 2015; Gallagher, 2018). For example, during the 2018 rape trial of a 17 year old girl in Cork, the defence lawyer told the jury:
"You have to look at the way she was dressed. She was wearing a thong with a lace front" (BBC News, 2018).
According to Jozkowski, in general “current sexual-assault-prevention initiatives … put the onus on women to avoid rape by being more sexually assertive, ... monitoring their alcohol consumption … [or] having a buddy system to look out for friends who might get assaulted” (2015, p21). Connell quotes Maccoby and Jacklin’s views on the liberal-feminist sex-role theory: “A society could for example, devote its energies more toward moderating male aggression than toward preparing women to submit to male aggression” (Connell, 1987, p73). This accurately sums up an alternative to problematic victim-blaming in sexual assault matters, which popular Irish artist Blindboy encapsulates decades later when he says in his podcast: “rather than having a society where the onus is on women to protect themselves… instead we have a society where men feel greater responsibility to not attack” (Boatclub, 2020). These references lack acknowledgement of male identifying people who are also victims to sexual assault (Pinheiro, 2006; D’Eath et al., 2020). However, if one takes gender out of the equation, the message is clear:
perhaps the emphasis in current sex ed curriculum should be on preventing sexual assault, rather than protecting oneself from it.
The RCNI report also pinpoints the importance of decreasing victim-blaming: “If we do not acknowledge and address this complex issue it may be that teenagers are left to absorb the signal that certain forms of abuse are their own fault, normal and not subject to a justice response” (2014, p8). Furthermore, this report suggests it is also the school's responsibility to respond accordingly to sexual assault. They suggest:
"enabling an appropriate response to a survivor would include survivors experiencing ‘a combination of a culture and society that is more open to disclosure, where there is less victim-blaming, bullying and shame experienced by the victim.’” (RCNI, 2014, p9).
The report also acknowledges that schools are not wholly responsible for their students' sexual safety. However, they do point out that the education system has an opportunity "to address incidents and social harms arising out of harmful cultural norms and the various forms of sexual violence” (RCNI, 2014, p9). My suggestion is that we can begin with a less victim-blamey curriculum, please and thank you.
Interestingly, the most recent sex ed (NCCA, 2011) has omitted the objective to:
“develop strategies for decisions and actions consistent with personal moral integrity and respectful of the rights and dignity of others” which is present in the 1999 book.
The language used in this objective would indicate a more other-oriented approach to sex ed. Perhaps this objective should be implemented back into and highlighted in the current sex ed curriculum. Alternatively, the potentially problematic objectives (as highlighted earlier) could be balanced by adding an objective which outlines the responsibility society has to care about other people's sexual rights as well as their own. For example:
“develop skills to minimize the pressuring of peers, taking personal responsibility for the safety of others, refraining from becoming a sexual threat to others as well as intervening when you witness possibly dangerous sexual behaviour from others”
These additions would not be presuming all teens are potential perpetrators of sexual assault. Rather, it would highlight the personal responsibility individuals’ have for other people’s safety when engaging in sexual activity. Which is something we should be advocating, right? As the presenters of the I'm Grand Mam podcast say: "Let's make consent sexy"
