By Andie Rexdiemer
When I was 10, I was taught that a tampon would steal my ‘virginity’ and probably give me Toxic Shock Syndrome. When I was 13, my teacher told me that sex-ed was awkward and that as eighth graders, we didn’t really “need” to learn about this stuff in class. When I was 15, my gender segregated phys-ed class screened a thriller about intimate partner violence (IPV), featuring Jennifer Lopez, to demonstrate what a (stereotypical) abusive relationship looked like. Attending public school in Ontario, I grew up learning about sexual health via the 1998 Growth and Development curriculum. Needless to say, this version of sex-ed was sub-par.
After Progressive Conservative leader Doug Ford was elected as the Ontario Premier in June 2018, he followed through with his campaign promise to repeal the former ‘sex-ed’ curriculum developed under the Liberal Party in 2015. Ford has issued a temporary curriculum akin to the 1998 version to be taught in classrooms as of September 2018 until a new PC-certified curriculum is launched later this year. Consent is not mentioned once in the current curriculum, whereas it was a major centrepiece of the 2015 curriculum.
It’s not that any version of the Ontario sex-ed curriculum teaches anti-consent, it’s that the fundamental concept is neglected overall. I feel that the concept of “consent” is too often appreciated as the antithesis of “rape”. For this reason, conversations about consent can be tense, nerve wracking, and even intimidating. While this interpretation of this weighted word is not necessarily wrong, it is narrow.
Consent takes place beyond the privacy of the bedroom and is instead informed by everyday socio-political environments. An inclusive approach to education could combat systemic violence against minority groups by emphasizing mutual understanding and empathy in school communities, as well as through fundamentally integrating ideas of gender equity, antiracism, queer theory, religious multiculturalism, and respect for people with mental and physical exceptionalities. Likewise, an introduction to the concept of consent in early years may also reduce rates of sexual violence in later adolescence and adulthood. Moreover, fostering an understanding of mutual tolerance and respect in relationships may also reduce rates of IPV. Providing students with destigmatizing resources and information about IPV also proactively addresses dangerous situations that may be in children’s futures. What we learn during our impressionable formative years informs us of what we deserve and what other people should expect from us within intimate relationships as we grow up. Rape-culture will continue to pervade our classrooms unless ‘consent-culture’ is taught as an alternative. Sexual health education with few mentions of honest and contemporary experiences in Ontario runs the risk of raising ignorant students, consequently perpetuating socio-political hostility. A lack of exposure and awareness of human diversity increases the likelihood for young people to carry on negative stereotypes and reinforces discriminatory thinking—all which link to standards of respect of other people’s personhood.
Consent-oriented content normalizes mutual appreciation and stretches beyond explicit permissions and into implicit social interactions. Teaching sexual consent in elementary and secondary schools could reduce feelings of entitlement and stimulate empathy between students. Consent-culture celebrates personal choice and mutual respect. The significance of creating a consent-culture is not because consent is sexy or glamorous—it is because consent must be the fundamental expectation for human interaction.
Comments