Sex Ed: social and cultural barriers in the implementation of progressive programs

Internationally, sexual education has brought about conflicts, resulting from society’s “anxieties about adolescent sexuality” (Gibson 2007, p. 239). In 2003, Gibson worked as the manager of South Australia’s “sexual health and relationships project (SHARE)” and had a prominent role in countering protests created by those who opposed the project. Campaigns ran by Christian Rights groups purposely instigated panic, through overexaggerations such as falsely saying the curriculum was inappropriate, pornographic, dangerous and “forcing” homosexuality (Gibson 2007). Gibson reasons that this was done for political and ideological purposes, aiming to restrict education around conservatism’s traditional gender, sexuality and relationship norms; essentially erasing any education on diversity, particularly for the LGBTQIA+ community.

Media played an important role in the diffusion of these campaigns, with the use of advertisements and press releases allowing for media outlets to give further voice to false information and controversial debates (Gibson 2007). Gibson (2007, p. 246) brings up the idea that media reporting presenting issues as two sides of a debate “reinforces a binary approach to complex issues”. As a response to this, the SHARE project members and Education Department focused on spreading the experiences of students who were participating in the project. Ultimately, the pressure created by opposers caused South Australia’s Education Department to heavily amend the program, consequently affecting some of it’s most important principles – most notably, a reduced representation of diverse sexualities, the removal of the words “harm minimisation”, and a greater focus on the abstinence values of past education (Gibson 2007, p. 247).

When “something or someone is defined as a threat to values or interests [and] easily identifiable by the media, there is a rapid building up of concern” which elicits a response from opinion makers, leading to social change aimed to diminish the panic (Rasmussen 2010, p. 119). This is represented in how progressive discussions in schools led opposers to initiate social movements aimed at spreading their anxieties to others. In the end, policy makers were pressured to refine their policies, and this combined with the feedback from students paved a way for less intense opposition and panic. In this topic’s context, moral panics are created because of “exaggerated discussion of the potential content of sexuality education” and societies’ existing “battle over moral hegemony” (Rasmussen 2010, p. 123).

Interrogating the challenges Australia has faced in updating a conservative system to reflect more diverse and inclusive environments, provides a foundation for how to enact change whilst understanding how and why individuals hinder progress societies. Through fostering open discussions that consider differing moral stances and cultural views, the content curriculums should include can be considered, which can them allow for potential solutions to be examined. This is where research into Netflix’s Sex Education (2019) content and audience response can be examined, which will be discussed in the next post.

References

Gibson, S 2007, ‘The language of the right: sex education debates in South Australia’, Sex

Education, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 239-250.

Rasmussen, M L 2010, ‘Revisiting moral panics in sexuality education’, Media International

Australia, vol. 135, pp. 118-130.

Sex Education 2019, television program, Netflix, America.