Human Sexuality Individual Paper
For this essay you are also required to read Young sexual citizens: reimaging sex education as an essential form of civic engagement by Judit Illes (2012) and answer the questions below. This reading is attached to the upload in DROPBOX.
Based on the reading,
Young sexual citizens: reimagining sex education as an essential form of civic engagement (Illes, 2012), answer the following questions.
- State the key arguments the authors make for viewing young people as sexual citizens
- What are your thoughts and feelings about this view?
- If you read this article before you completed your proposal and designed your workshop, how would it have impacted what you produced?
- How could this framework impact CYC practice?
Young sexual citizens: reimagining sex education as an essential form of civic engagement Judit Illes* Student, Faculty of Law, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada Sexually transmitted infections (STIs) pose a significant threat to the health and well-being of populations worldwide, and to young people in particular. Des]pite empirical evidence that comprehensive sex education is an important tool for prevention, the legitimacy and content of sex education in schools continue to be challenged by conservative narratives within society. This paper argues that sex education should be re-imagined as a form of civic training for children and recognised as an important corollary to public health efforts aimed at reducing the rate of STIs. The author’s claim builds on notions of sexual citizenship, which consider sexuality to be an essential aspect of citizenship and a form of civic engagement. Sexual citizenship can make three important contributions to the advancement of sex education. First, the model can lead to greater acceptance of the idea of sex education by challenging conservative notions about children and sexuality, which are at the root of the classic objections to sex education. Second, it can help shape the content of sex education by eliciting parallels between civic participation and sex education. Finally, by emphasising how sex education can address some of the social phenomena underlying the spread of STIs, the model can be used to facilitate the incorporation of sex education into public health agendas. Although the author uses sex education in Canada as the principal case study, the paradigm may be equally helpful in other countries. Keywords: young people; sexual citizenship; civic engagement; Canada; sex education; STIs Background: the picture of sexual health in Canada Sexually transmitted infections1 (STIs) represent a significant threat to the health of populations worldwide, and to youth in particular. In Canada, 854,817 people aged 15–49 reported ever having been diagnosed with an STI (Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada [SOGC] 2006). Health Canada estimates that 75% of sexually active men and women will contract human papilloma virus (HPV) in their lifetime (Health Canada 2006). Trends indicate that rates of infection for chlamydia, gonorrhoea and infectious syphilis, the three national reportable STIs, have been increasing since 1997 (Public Health Agency of Canada 2008b, 10). Among youth, chlamydia and HPV are the most common STIs (Sex Information and Education Council of Canada 2010). A study conducted by researchers at McGill University revealed that ‘56 per cent of young adults in a new sexual relationship were infected with Human Papilloma Virus (HPV)’ (McGill University 2010). STIs are often referred to as ‘silent’ or ‘hidden’ diseases because most individuals do not experience any symptoms, and may unknowingly pass them on to others. If left untreated, some STIs can cause serious health consequences such as genital warts, blisters, infertility, spontaneous abortion, cancer and death (SOGC 2006). ISSN 1468-1811 print/ISSN 1472-0825 online q 2012 Taylor & Francis http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14681811.2011.634152 http://www.tandfonline.com *Email:
[email protected] Sex Education Vol. 12, No. 5, November 2012, 613–625 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14681811.2011.634152 http://www.tandfonline.com Although sexual health indicators such as teenage pregnancy rates and abortion rates seem to indicate that the sexual health of Canadian youth is improving (McKay and Barrett 2010), Canadian youth represent the segment of the population most vulnerable to STIs (SOGC 2006). Despite their vulnerability, youth know relatively little about STIs, as well as other important issues linked to sexual health. For example, a 2002 study by the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada revealed that there is a serious level of misinformation among secondary school students about the implications of risky sexual behaviour (Boyce et al. 2003). According to their findings, ‘less than half of Grade 9 students and slightly more than half of Grade 11 students know that Vaseline is not a good lubricant’ (Boyce et al. 2003, 3).2 Even more troubling, two- thirds of Grade 7 students and one-half of Grade 9 students believe that there is a cure for HIV/AIDS (Boyce et al. 2003, 60). This knowledge gap seems to persist in adolescence, as the rate of condom use among sexually active teenagers actually declines as teenagers get older (McKay and Bissell 2009, 49).3 What is the cause of this knowledge deficit? And what can be done to remedy it? Youth continue to be most vulnerable to STIs because they lack the knowledge and social skills to be able to take responsibility for their sexual health. The implementation of comprehensive sex education is a necessary step to responsibilise youth about their sexual health and help them avoid situations that carry high risk. Despite solid evidence that sex education is an important tool for prevention (Kirby, Laris, and Rolleri 2005, cited in McKay and Bissell 2009, 51), the legitimacy and content of sex education in schools continue to be challenged (for example, Agrell 2008; Benzie 2010). Resistance to the idea of comprehensive sex education stems from various conservative narratives within society about children and sex (Benzie 2010). Mainstream public discourse is centred on the romantic misconception that childhood is a time of innocence and sexuality is a force that corrupts it (Levine 2002, xxviii). Due in large part to these ideological challenges, the quality and quantity of sex education in Canada remain insufficient (McCall and McKay 2004, 597). This article will argue that comprehensive sex education constitutes an essential part of civic training for children in Canada, as well as an important corollary to public health efforts aimed at reducing the rising rate of STIs among youth. The author’s claims will build on David T. Evans’ (1993) paradigm of ‘sexual citizenship’, which considers sexuality to be an essential aspect of citizenship and a form of civic engagement. By extension of this idea, it will be asserted that children and adolescents below the age of majority should be recognised as sexual citizens and encouraged to participate as such. Recognition for the purposes of this essay means acknowledging that children are sexual beings who have much to gain from an early education. Participation means giving children the freedom to ask questions about sex and allowing them to articulate their sexual desires early on. Health Canada’s comprehensive sex education programme (Public Health Agency of Canada 2008a), which promotes the development of children’s sexual autonomy, can facilitate this participation, so that when children are ready to embark on their sexual lives, they do so in a healthy and responsible way. More specifically, it will be demonstrated that the idea of sexual citizenship can make three important contributions to the advancement of sex education in Canada, as well as in other jurisdictions. First, it can lead to greater acceptance of the idea of sex education by demonstrating how traditionally negative discourse about children and sexuality originates from social constructions, which are rarely empirically backed and often misleading. Second, it can help shape the content of sex education by eliciting parallels between civic participation and sex education. Finally, it can be used to facilitate the incorporation of sex 614 J. Illes education into the public health agenda, by demonstrating how sex education can address the social phenomena which perpetuate the spread of STIs. Critiques of citizenship Before embarking on the merits of the sexual citizenship model and its potential contributions to the status of sex education in public discourse, it is necessary to provide the reader with an explanation of the model’s origins, which are largely derived from feminist critiques of traditional citizenship. The concept of citizenship per se is dynamic, context-specific and highly contested. Perhaps the most widely accepted definition can be found in the writings of T. H. Marshall, a highly influential British sociologist, who defined citizenship as ‘a status bestowed on those who are full members of a community’ (Marshall 1950, 28–9, cited in Plummer 2003, 51). According to Marshall, citizenship can be subdivided into three clusters of rights: civil, political and social rights. What is interesting about this definition is that it links ‘citizenship to membership in a community rather than to the State’ (Yuval-Davis 1997, 5). Consequently, it can be understood as a multi-layered idea, which expands as society evolves. In Intimate Citizenship, Ken Plummer comments on this expanding definition of citizenship. He observes that the newer forms of citizenship go beyond the basic premise that citizenship is a membership that is accompanied by rights and correlative obligations. Instead, current discussions on citizenship tend to be centred on issues such as identity, rights and duties, and boundaries, which are analysed in light of existing social inequalities (Plummer 2003, 65). For example, Marshall’s classic definition has been criticised for being too simplistic and exclusionary, as anyone who is labelled a non-citizen or ‘the other’ is excluded from participation in society (Plummer 2003, 51). As first highlighted by feminist critiques, Marshall’s formulation of the citizen is ‘strongly identified with white males’ (Plummer 2003, 53) and fails to recognise women and ethnic minorities (2003, 53–4). Another aspect of citizenship that feminists have been particularly concerned with is the public–private dichotomy that citizenship creates (Richardson 2000, 33).4 The public sphere is deemed central to the workings of a democracy because it is the space where people of civil society engage in discussions and debates about life. Historically, the home and family, also known as the women’s sphere, were relegated to the private spheres, whereas everything else fell within the public sphere, or the men’s sphere (Plummer 2003, 69). Feminists have been intent on understanding the meaning and consequences of this divide. The feminist critique seeks to show that it is not so easy to split up the personal and public spheres, since each shapes the other (Plummer 2003, 69–70). For instance, family life may be associated with private life, but in reality the family is ‘structured through laws and politics’ (Plummer 2003, 70). Far from being removed from public debate, the personal circumstances of individuals interacting within the family unit are often the products of collective political action and legislation on ‘marriage, child care, and pensions’ (Plummer 2003, 70). In addition to the practical effects of the law, legal recognition carries important symbolic meaning. The law’s recognition of family bonds and other social relationships are intrinsically valuable to the individuals concerned and cannot be exclusively assigned to one sphere (Leckey 2009, 4). The feminist critique seeks to expose the artificiality of the public–private divide. It asserts that the personal problems which originate from systemic inequalities can only be resolved if they are addressed in the public sphere (Pateman 1989, cited in Leydet 2006). Sex Education 615 Sexual citizenship The notion of sexual citizenship builds on these feminist critiques of citizenship. David T. Evans first coined the term in his work, Sexual Citizenship: The Material Construction of Sexualities (1993). At its most basic level, sexual citizenship implies ‘public discourse on the personal life/sexual life’ (Plummer 2003, 68). Although this may appear to be an oxymoron,