From Birds and Bees to Real-World Experience: A New Approach to Sex Education

We need to talk. We must reach an agreement on how to provide sex education for youth. I can already feel the mixed reactions, awkwardness, or enthusiasm about the conversation. Let’s put the shame, guilt, or whatever other resistant feelings aside. Ultimately, choosing silence in the discussion only hurts us and, more importantly, the future generation. We’ll start the conversation by going over the current situation of sex education, its underlying assumptions, and how it affects sex practices. Specifically examining the ruling programs of abstinence-only and Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE), reviewing the factual content, and revealing the hidden truths of their values. Alternatively, let’s propose a sex-ed curriculum based on fun and safe sex that relates to the youth’s reality regarding sexual experiences.

Have you received any type of sex ed? Some maybe had the birds and the bees talk with their parents or a few classes at school. Others, like myself, never received any official sex education. What’s the deal? Many parents believe that reducing adolescent sexual activity is best achieved through omission, with their guidance prevailing over their children’s choices. Abstinence-based programs are often seen as the preferred approach, grounded in the notion that abstaining from sex until marriage is the sole morally acceptable option for youth and the most effective means of risk avoidance. Why only until marriage? Who decided on this? Abstinence is motivated religiously by Christianity. A naive belief that sex is safe within marriage because of the word of God. The religious approach frames sex education within a

moral framework to uphold its traditional values. As you might have guessed, these values include the promotion of heteronormativity, which entirely ignores LGBTQ+ (McNeill, 2013), endorsing homophobia, racism, and sexism. Let me get this straight. It is not an attack on Christians; within the history of sex education, Christians were never in the same boat, with some being more conservative and others being more liberal (Bialystok, 2023). We’re simply calling out excuses for hate.

Abstinence mentality uses fear-based approaches to scare teenagers from becoming sexual beings. However, in their eagerness to scare adolescents away from sexual activity, adults use exaggerated, misleading, or misinterpreted facts (Kelly et al., 2012). For instance, the distortion that condoms have a supposedly high failure rate. While it’s a personal choice to only have sex after marriage, it’s not an excuse to stigmatise premarital sex. Ultimately, most people have sex sooner or later. We’re all autonomous beings; if we want to do something, we find a way. The fear-based approach creates silence about sexuality. A sort of voluntary ignorance in the hopes that we will forget the skeleton in the closet. It simply means that people engage in sex without knowing its foundation or safe practices. Thus, without the necessary knowledge, individuals do not know how to reduce unwanted consequences such as STIs and pregnancy. It creates a hush on a natural and pleasurable activity. In the age of easy access to the internet, this approach can inadvertently lead to pornography consumption among young people due to the lack of comprehensive information, guidance, and natural curiosity. Some damaging effects of pornography for users include addiction, isolation, increased aggression, distorted beliefs and perceptions about relationships and sexuality, and negative feelings about themselves (Brower, 2023).

It’s not only common sense, but also evidence has shown that promoting abstinence alone does not effectively prevent sexual activity among youth (Bialystok, 2023). This approach to sex education has been widely recognised as ineffective and potentially harmful, as it may lead to unsafe sexual practices. In response, a new perspective on sex education,

known as Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE), has emerged. CSE aims to reduce undesired outcomes such as STIs and unplanned pregnancies by providing young people with accurate, age-appropriate information about sexuality and reproductive health (WHO, 2023). CSE’s effectiveness in delivering information can be hindered by varying implementation quality, misinterpretation risks, and concerns from parents with conflicting beliefs. Teachers become the middleman in providing scientific findings to their students, and the risk of misinterpretation arises from oversimplification, cherry-picking and the influence of personal values. Unfortunately, the delivery of face-value facts does not provide much of the reality of adolescents’ sexual encounters. A lot of teenagers leave their sex ed class being like, ‘Cool, I learnt a lot, but did I really learn anything?’

Kendall’s (2013) research on sex education programs in the US revealed that discussions in CSE classrooms often remain limited to abstract topics rather than addressing the actual experiences and social realities of sex in an attempt to stay objective. Thus, while CSE represents a step forward, its success depends on proper implementation and adaptation to contexts to provide a more comprehensive and cohesive approach to sex education. It’s a careless thought to believe that neglecting the teachings of sexual experiences protects its supposed unbiased stance. Is the discrepancy between theory and practice really that big of a problem? CSE’s flaw is in its scientific perspective. In theory, it sounds great to talk about everyone as equally agentic individuals. In reality, this approach provides no opportunities to practice critical thinking about inequities in sex experience. It is impossible to maintain a neutral stance within an already charged construct. All sex education involves values because it is a social construct based on identity, expression, and orientation. Undeniably, it is a political battlefield. No one can hide behind a waving white flag of objectivity.

No sex education speaks to what adolescents want or must understand about sex. Students may miss the chance to critically examine the gender- and sexuality-based ideologies underlying the curriculum and classroom practices. Most sex education curricula

assume a one-size-fits-all perspective, disregarding how historical traditional norms impact sexual dynamics. Sex education should explicitly acknowledge differences based on gender, sexuality, race, ethnicity, age, disability, and other identity categories to create an inclusive and empowering learning environment. One in which teachers guide students to identify and challenge underlying traditionalism. We cannot assure agreement but must learn how to manage disagreement. Omission, silence, and ignorance are no longer options. Education is a means to expose adolescents to the realities of sex within an understanding and controlled environment.

From what I’ve told you, you might think it hard to provide people with the necessary tools and information to practise safe sex. Luckily, I’m writing this article on sex education, and I’ve done my research to provide a curriculum. Let’s start at the foundation: consent. I’m talking about explicit, enthusiastic consent. Without it, there is no sexual relationship to be had. If both parties are on the same page, then we can get down to business. To relate to the reality of adolescents more closely, they should be provided with a guide to sexual acts. Don’t worry; we won’t go through the whole Kamasutra, but the basics, for instance, oral sex. It would include anatomy, pleasure points, potential risks such as STIs, and where to seek medical attention. I want to stress that when students are taught about dangers, the problem and solution are provided together. So, when talking about the risk of transmission during oral sex, we should also provide resources such as condoms or dental dams. It’s about providing all the information you wish you knew yourself.

We also want to address the omissions regarding identity intersectionality, social scripts and their dangers, and power. We need to focus on how we can present these complexities to students so that they understand and reflect on how they arise in their own lives. Kendall (2013) reported how a guest speaker showed student identity in five aspects: sexual identity, biological sex, gender identity, gender expression, and sexual behaviours. The spectrum and separate knowledge of these aspects allow students to better understand

themselves and others. We must move beyond simple definitions and recognise how society treats individuals based on their (multiple/multi-layered) identities. As such, personal challenges regarding sexual journeys can arise because of their identity. Therefore, teachers should have extensive training to address discrimination within the classroom, help students break down these thoughts and empower them with knowledge. Plus, to pull away from definitions and avoid the abstraction and dehumanisation of alternative, non-heteronormative cases, we should relate them to real-life experiences by inviting guest speakers to touch on their lived experiences.

Historically, we’ve made progress going from abstinence-based education to CSE. It was a choice in favour of proper sex education. But remember, the bar is still almost on the floor. Effective sex education should go much, much further. The next step is to reach adolescents’ reality and foster their understanding of identity politics. Instead of framing based on morality or science, we could shift to evidence-based and ethical education. It would combine the objective to inform from CSE and Sexual Ethics for a Caring Society (SECS-C) philosophy to promote a compassionate and respectful culture that embraces consent, diversity, inclusivity, and healthy relationships while challenging stigma and discrimination related to human sexuality (Bialystok, 2023). The classroom cultivates a middle ground and manages differences. Sooner or later, youth explore sex and, its identity, expression, practice, and orientation. Education can foster a safe space for everyone’s journeys. <<