Contextualising the journey
Part 1: Gender, HIV and Sexuality in Education
3.3 Sexuality education debate
Sexuality education in schools has been an issue of intense debate in relation to the teaching and learning strategies employed. While schools are acknowledged as important in the production and regulation of sexual identities they, however, prohibit any expression of sexuality within their premises (Epstein & Johnson, 1998). According to Epstein, O‟Flynn and Telford (2003, p. 51), “Sex education is always about what a particular government chooses to permit the school to say officially about sexuality and what or whom must remain silent…” This highlights the value-laden nature of sexuality education and the politics surrounding what each government deems permissible in schools.
Consequently, there is a growing awareness among scholars (Glatthorn, Boschee, &
Whitehead, 2006; Iannaconne, 1983; Marsh & Wills, 1995) that what is taught in the classroom is influenced by demands from several and often conflicting social actors who express their collective or individual views about the kind of learning children should obtain in schools. These views vary according to social actors‟ specific value orientations (Christie, 1992; Cornbleth, 1990; Sutton & Levinson, 2001). Thus, Kelly (1999, p. 167) describes curriculum as “the battleground of many competing influences and ideologies.”
As such, the sexuality education curriculum is also not neutral but a hotly contested space and is a battleground for contesting societal ideologies.
The reality of what actually happens in schools shows that if at all sexuality education is addressed; it is not done effectively (Epstein, 1997; Epstein & Sears, 1999; Jones &
Mahony, 1989; Measor, Tiffin, & Fry, 1996; Renold, 2005; Wolpe, 1988). Bhana et al.
(2006), Morrell (2003) and Pattman (2006) argue that in many South African schools there is a culture of silence, because of the taboo nature of sexuality, which causes the inability and unwillingness of teachers and learners to personally reflect on issues of gender and sexuality. They argue that such a culture undermines AIDS prevention initiatives and places learners and teachers at risk of HIV and AIDS. This means that in order for AIDS prevention strategies to be effective, there is a need to challenge the prevailing norms and practices in our societies such that the environment is conducive for sexuality education.
Experiences of teachers being sexualised by their students have also been documented as creating challenges for effective teaching of sexuality education (Aapola & Kangas, 1996; Cunnison, 1989; Lahelma et al., 2000). In Canadian schools, Coulter (1995) has observed that it is not uncommon for male students to make nasty comments in relation to women teachers‟ bodies, how they are dressed and how they move. These kinds of comments are also common in Finnish schools (Kivivouri, 1997). This situation contributes to teachers‟ fears of addressing issues of sexuality within their classrooms. In African communities where children in rural schools often start school late in life, the sexualisation of female teachers is a common phenomenon as well (cf. Oshi & Nakalema, 2005). This situation creates fears in teachers who feel that they are not safe teaching about issues of sexuality, thus reducing their effectiveness.
Teachers‟ fears of teaching sexuality education have been recorded as one of the stumbling blocks in the effectiveness of classroom sex education. These fears include the fear of corrupting children‟s supposed sexual innocence (Epstein et al, 2003; Khau, 2009a; Mitchell et al, 2004). Khau (2009a) observes that teachers find it especially difficult to teach about sexuality in their own schools because they have to face the students daily. They would rather swap the teaching of sexuality education with teachers from other schools to reduce the feelings of guilt.
Sex and sexuality are supposedly „shameful‟ subjects hence some teachers feel uncomfortable delivering sexuality education in schools (Izugbara, 2005; Khau, 2009a;
Mturi & Hennink, 2005; Oshi & Nakalema, 2005; Peltzer & Promtussananon, 2002; van der Riet, 2009). It is dangerous and unnerving for teachers to find themselves having to be the ones to corrupt the innocent minds of children. Sex is socially constructed as an adult issue and hence children are protected from knowing about it before they become adults (Bhana, 2009; van der Riet, 2009). This has led to a society in which sex talk is problematic between an adult and a child, irrespective of the child‟s age (cf. Reddy, 2003, 2005).
This means that while schools and teachers remain silent, students learn about their sexuality from the informal „hidden‟ curriculum, particularly in the “social culture of the school” (Lesko, 2000 p. 76). Studies conducted in African countries by Mirembe and Davies (2001), Biersteker and Hermanus (2003), Dunne (2008) and Dunne et al (2005) have explored the „hidden curriculum‟ in schools and support Lesko‟s argument about how it encourages gender polarisation in the formation of sexual identities.
Sexuality education programs existing in schools are silent on sexual pleasure. They place more emphasis on the risks, girls and women‟s vulnerability and violation of their rights. Such programs position women as victims and men as perpetrators of violence (Correa, 2002; Fine, 1988; Forrest, 2000; Ingham, 2005; Jolly, 2007; Klugman, 2000;
Petchesky, 2005). Thus sexuality education becomes dangerous as it deals with the things that the school both explicitly and implicitly wants to exclude (Paechter, 2004, 2006).
Fine (1988) and Thompson and Scott (1991) also discuss in some detail the „missing discourse‟ of desire and female pleasure in school sex education. They note that female desire and pleasure do not play a significant part in the official discourses of the classroom even in sexuality education classes where sex is to be spoken about (see also Forrest, 2000). Pattman‟s (2005) study also claims that the popular stereotype that positions girls and women as lacking desire and sexual agency makes it difficult for many girls and women to talk about their feelings. In the context of the studies discussed above,
teachers are not sure how to deliver lessons without endangering themselves by being too frank and open thus supposedly promoting promiscuity, promoting homosexuality, or problematising heterosexuality.
There is evidence, however, that positive approaches to sexuality can help build confidence to make positive decisions, while stigma and scare tactics leave people feeling less able to assert themselves (Philpott, Knerr & Maher, 2006). In „Pleasure and danger‟
Carole Vance (1984) argues that male sexual violence and the ideologies and institutions that justify it create challenges for women to pursue their own sexual pleasures.
McFadden (2003) also argues that because of patriarchal concepts of women‟s sexuality as ‟bad‟ or „filthy‟ many African women are afraid of considering the possibilities for their own sexual pleasure. Pereira (2003), on the other hand, challenges McFadden‟s understanding of African sexuality. She points out that there is need for research to focus on African women and men‟s understandings of sexual power and pleasure. Despite this challenge, she is in agreement with proponents of sexual pleasure in education.
This literature shows that adolescents schooled within discourses of the dangers and risks of sex grow up to become adults who are unable to fully appreciate their bodies and the pleasures inherent in them. This has also been observed by Jolly (2007) who argues that schooling children within a discourse of sexual danger creates challenges for promoting safer sex practices as pleasurable in a bid to promote safer sex practices among the youth for HIV prevention.
Another major concern is that girls and women are brought up to believe that being sexually active is to transgress the rules of femininity. The quest for sex transforms good girls into bad girls, hence most women and girls “accept the cultural standard of minimalism” (Kimmel, 2004, p. 240) which Kimmel defines as less pleasure, less sex, fewer partners and fewer positions. These rules of female sexuality and femininity are enforced by other women and men, and institutionalised in churches, the state and schools. Thus this study sought to better understand how women teachers are implicated in the enforcement of gendered stereotypes in their teaching of sexuality education.
In addition, the social efficiency model of education argues that education must be organised based on the needs of the social order and that children must be trained to take their place in it (Block, 2001). Because society has constructed children as innocent, desexualised and in need of protection from sexual knowledge (Bhana, 2003; Epstein &
Johnson, 1998; Epstein et al., 2003; Mitchell, Walsh, & Larkin, 2004; Reddy, 2003, 2005; Renold, 2005), it means that children are expected to be ignorant of any „adult‟
issues such as sex and sexuality although this is not always the case. Epstein et al. (2003) argue that apart from being an excuse to keep children ignorant, the discourse of childhood innocence is dangerous to children because it denies them the knowledge they need to make informed decisions regarding their budding sexualities. This discourse is based on the notion that once children know about sexuality then they are no longer innocent (Epstein et al., 2003; Paechter, 2004). The arguments raised in relation to this discourse seem to equate sexual ignorance with sexual innocence. Thus, a child who is ignorant of sexual matters supposedly retains her innocence.
Children‟s previous experiences and local cultures strongly influence what they know and believe; and they bring to school different experiences in relation to sexuality (Epstein et al, 2003). Children learn from each other, not only the forms of policing their bodies, but also a variety of strategies for understanding and finding out about sexualities (cf. Bhana, 2007, 2009; Renold, 2005). This shows that children are neither ignorant nor innocent of sexual knowledge; hence the notion that not educating them about sexuality can act as a kind of protection of their innocence is misleading. Mitchell et al. (2004, p.
45) also argue that “presenting young people as children and hence as unknowing and being unprepared for their own sexuality, in this era of HIV and AIDS, is as good as gambling with their lives”.
Highlighting the sensitive nature of sexuality education, Epstein et al. (2003) observe that sexuality education is the only subject in which parental consent is required. In relation to all these arguments, Piot et al. (2008) observe that if we do not reach young people with the right information before their sexual debut, they might get this information while it is already too late for them to make the necessary behaviour changes or to adopt healthy
sexualities. They argue for a sexuality education program that is age-appropriate and brings forth all sexual choices and possibilities. This is of utmost importance in developing countries within sub-Saharan Africa where the prevalence of HIV and AIDS is very high (UNAIDS, 2008).
While most of the studies cited above focus on adolescent sexuality, van der Riet‟s (2009) study looks into preschool teachers‟ perceptions and constructions of childhood sexuality. She argues that most programs on sexuality education in South Africa target adolescents while preschool children are left out. Through a discourse analysis of a focus group discussion with eight preschool teachers, she highlights the major discourses that shape the teachers‟ constructions of childhood sexuality. Van der Reit (2009, p. 323) concludes that “younger children and some girl children were constructed as fairly
„asexual‟; older children and boy children tended to be accorded „sexual instincts‟.” She also posits that regarding childhood sexuality as dangerous creates challenges for teachers who feel they have to take charge of the situation and prevent the children from harm. In accordance with the discourse of childhood innocence, the teachers in van der Reit‟s (2009) study also believe that there are certain aspects of sexuality that children are not allowed. These perceptions and constructions of childhood sexuality in relation to young children and girls become a challenge when teachers have to teach about sexuality because teachers are in disagreement with young children exploring their sexuality.
This study therefore explored how sexuality education is being practiced in Lesotho schools and how the discourse of childhood innocence, teacher sexualisation by students and societal constructions of sexuality are implicated in this practice. It also looked into how the absence of homosexuality and pleasurable sexuality discourses impacts women teachers‟ ability to facilitate effective sexuality education in rural schools.