Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Sexual pleasure and satisfaction are integral components of the human sexual experience, yet these crucial aspects of sexuality are rarely placed on sexual education agendas. The objective of this paper is to explore the ways in which various groups of Service Providers (SPs) participating in the Toronto Teen Survey (TTS) understand the role of pleasure in sexual education for youth, highlighting the challenges and benefits of teaching pleasure in diverse settings.
METHODS: The TTS employed a community-based research (CBR) methodology. Between December 2006 and August 2007, 1,216 surveys were collected from youth in over 90 different community-based settings across Toronto by youth peer researchers. In 2008, 13 follow-up focus groups were conducted with 80 service providers from 55 different agencies around the Greater Toronto Area. All transcripts were input into qualitative data management software, NVIVO. Coding and analysis of data employed the constant comparative method.
RESULTS: SPs had a number of competing opinions about the inclusion of pleasure in sexual health education and programming. These concerns can be divided into three major areas: placing pleasure on the agenda; the role of gender in pleasure education; and the appropriate spaces and professionals to execute a pleasure-informed curriculum.
CONCLUSION: Access to resources, training and personal background determine SPs’ willingness and ability to engage in the pedagogy of sexual pleasure. Medically trained clinicians were less likely to see themselves as candidates for instructing youth on issues of pleasure, believing that public health and health promotion professionals were more adequately trained and organizationally situated to deliver those services.
Key Words: Adolescent, sexual development, education, health personnel, Toronto, Canada
Résumé
OBJECTIFS: La satisfaction et le plaisir sexuels font partie intégrante de l’expérience sexuelle humaine; pourtant, ces aspects essentiels de la sexualité sont rarement au programme des cours d’éducation sexuelle. Nous explorons comment divers groupes de dispensateurs de services (DS) ayant participé à l’enquête Toronto Teen Survey (TTS) conçoivent le rôle du plaisir dans l’éducation sexuelle des jeunes, en soulignant les difficultés et les avantages d’enseigner le plaisir dans divers milieux.
MÉTHODE: L’enquête TTS fait appel à la méthode de la recherche communautaire. De décembre 2006 à août 2007, des jeunes chercheurs ont administré 1 216 questionnaires à d’autres jeunes dans plus de 90 milieux communautaires à Toronto. En 2008, 13 groupes de discussion de suivi ont été menés auprès de 80 dispensateurs de services issus de 55 organismes de la région du Grand Toronto. Les transcriptions de ces échanges ont été saisies dans un logiciel de gestion des données qualitatives (NVIVO). Pour le codage et l’analyse des données, on a fait appel à la méthode comparative constante.
RÉSULTATS: Les DS ont exprimé des opinions partagées au sujet de l’inclusion du plaisir dans l’éducation et les programmes de santé sexuelle. On peut classer leurs préoccupations en trois groupes: le fait même de mettre le plaisir au programme; le rôle des sexospécificités dans l’éducation au plaisir; et les endroits et les professionnels qui conviendraient pour instaurer un programme d’études qui tienne compte du plaisir.
CONCLUSION: L’accès aux ressources, la formation et les antécédents personnels déterminent la volonté et la capacité des DS d’enseigner le plaisir sexuel. Les cliniciens ayant une formation médicale étaient les moins susceptibles de se voir comme des candidats à l’éducation des jeunes au plaisir; ils considéraient que les professionnels de la santé publique et de la promotion de la santé étaient mieux formés et mieux situés sur le plan organisationnel pour offrir de tels services.
Mots Clés: adolescent, développement sexuel, enseignement, personnel soignant, Toronto, Canada
Footnotes
Acknowledgements: This study was supported by grants from the Ontario HIV Treatment Network, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Centre for Urban Health Initiatives, and the Wellesley Institute. It was hosted by Planned Parenthood Toronto. We thank the entire Toronto Teen Survey Research Team for their help in gathering, managing and analyzing the data: Susan Flynn, Crystal Layne, Dr. Robb Travers, Dr. Jason Pole, Hazelle Palmer, Adinne Schwartz, Roxana Salehi, our exceptional students, research assistants and our youth advisory committee. Finally, we express our gratitude to the community partner agencies that hosted workshops, and the youth and service providers who participated in our research.
Conflict of Interest: None to declare.
References
- 1.World Health Organization. Defining sexual health: Report of a technical consultation on sexual health. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO; 2006. [Google Scholar]
- 2.Institute of Development Studies. The Power of Pleasure. 2005. [Google Scholar]
- 3.Ingham R. “We didn’t cover that at school”: Education against pleasure or education for pleasure? Sex Education. 2005;5(4):375–88. doi: 10.1080/14681810500278451. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Flicker S, Flynn S, Larkin J, Travers R, Guta A, Pole J, Layne C. Sexpress: The Toronto Teen Survey Report. Toronto, ON: Planned Parenthood Toronto; 2009. [Google Scholar]
- 5.Fine M. Sexuality, schooling and adolescent females: The missing discourse of desire. Harvard Educ Rev. 1988;58:29–53. doi: 10.17763/haer.58.1.u0468k1v2n2n8242. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Fine M, McClelland SI. Sexuality education and desire: Still missing after all these years. Harvard Educ Rev. 2006;76(3):297–338. doi: 10.17763/haer.76.3.w5042g23122n6703. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Mueller L, Gavin L, Kulkarni A. The association between sex education and youth’s engagement in sexual intercourse, age at first intercourse, and birth control use at first sex. J Adolesc Health. 2007;42(1):89–96. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.08.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Gurevich M, Wright LW, Brown-Bowers A, Dang L, Wagner J. Are they doing desire differently?: Canadian youth developing sexual selves? Paper presented at the Centre for Urban Health Initiatives, Research Interest Group: Determinants of Sexual Health for Youth. Toronto: Ryerson University; 2009. [Google Scholar]
- 9.Tolman DL. Found(ing) discourses of desire: Unfettering female adolescent sexuality. Feminism Psychol. 2005;15:5–9. doi: 10.1177/0959353505049696. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Mitchell BA. Family Matters: An Introduction to Family Sociology in Canada. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press; 2009. [Google Scholar]
- 11.Valaitis V. ‘Righting’ Sex-Ed in Ontario: Adult Anxiety Over Child and Adolescent Sexual Knowledge and the Government’s Undemocratic Mismanagement of Ideological Pluralism [unpublished thesis] Kingston, ON: Queen’s University; 2011. [Google Scholar]
- 12.Markham C. The Facts About Ontario’s “Sex Ed” Curriculum: Why Ontario’s Students Need Quality Health and Physical Education. 2011. [Google Scholar]
- 13.Brown L. The Toronto Star. 2012. Ontario slammed for outdated sex ed and mental health curriculum. [Google Scholar]
- 14.Shoveller J, Johnson J. Risky groups, risky behaviour, and risky persons: Dominating discourses on youth sexual health. Critical Public Health. 2006;16(1):47–60. doi: 10.1080/09581590600680621. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Holmes D, O’Byrne P. Subjugated to the ‘apparatus of capture’: Self, sex and public health technologies. Social Theory & Health. 2010;8:246–58. doi: 10.1057/sth.2010.7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Lamb S, Peterson ZD. Adolescent girls’ sexual empowerment: Two feminists explore the concept. Sex Roles. 2012;66:703–12. doi: 10.1007/s11199-011-9995-3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Tolman D. Female adolescents, sexual empowerment and desire: A missing discourse of gender inequity. Sex Roles. 2012;66:746–57. doi: 10.1007/s11199-012-0122-x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 18.International Planned Parenthood. IPPF Framework for Comprehensive Sexuality Education. London, UK: IPPF Adolescents Team; 2006. [Google Scholar]
- 19.Minkler M, Wallerstein N. Community-based Participatory Research for Health. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2003. [Google Scholar]
- 20.Israel B, Schulz A, Parker E, Becker A. Review of community-based research: Assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Annu Rev Public Health. 1998;19(1):173–94. doi: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.19.1.173. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Strauss AL, Corbin J. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1990. [Google Scholar]
- 22.Dailey DM. The failure of sexuality education. J Psychol Human Sexuality. 1997;9(3–4):87–97. doi: 10.1300/J056v09n03_05. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 23.van der Meulen E, Oliver V, Flicker S, Travers R. Obstacles to sexual health services for youth: Service providers’ perspectives. Can J Human Sexuality. 2010;19(4):185–90. [Google Scholar]
- 24.Flicker S, Guta A, Larkin J, Fridkin A, Travers R, Pole J, et al. Survey design from the ground up: Collaboratively creating the Toronto Teen Survey. Health Promot Pract. 2010;11(1):112–22. doi: 10.1177/1524839907309868. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Tolman DL. Doing desire: Adolescent girls’ struggles for/with sexuality. Gender and Society. 1994;8:324–42. doi: 10.1177/089124394008003003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Bay-Cheng LY. The trouble of teen sex: The construction of adolescent sexuality through school-based sexuality education. Sex Education: Sexuality, Society and Learning. 2003;3(1):61–74. doi: 10.1080/1468181032000052162. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Higgins JA, Hirsch JS. Pleasure, power, and inequality: Incorporating sexuality into research on contraceptive use. Am J Public Health. 2008;98(10):1803–13. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2007.115790. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Cohen JN, Byers ES, Sears HA. Factors affecting Canadian teachers’ willingness to teach sexual health education. Sex Education: Sexuality, Society and Learning. 2012;2(3):299–316. [Google Scholar]
- 29.Trussler T, Perchal P, Barker A. ‘Between what is said and what is done’: Cultural constructs and young gay men’s HIV vulnerability. Psychol Health Med. 2000;5(3):295–306. doi: 10.1080/713690193. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Barker A. Building Gay Men’s Health: A Peer-Based Approach to Creating Community Change. Vancouver, BC: AIDS Vancouver; 2000. [Google Scholar]
- 31.Beitz JM. Sexual health promotion in adolescents and young adults: Primary prevention strategies. Holistic Nurs Pract. 1998;12(2):27–37. doi: 10.1097/00004650-199801000-00006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.DiClemente RJ. Development of programmes for enhancing sexual health. Lancet. 2001;358(9296):1828–29. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(01)06878-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Clark JK, Brey RA, Banter AE. Physicians as educators in adolescent sexuality education. J School Health. 2003;73(10):389–91. doi: 10.1111/j.1746-1561.2003.tb04182.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Kelts EAS, Allan MJ, Klein JD. Where are we on teen sex?: Delivery of reproductive health services to adolescents by family physicians. Fam Med. 2001;33(5):376–81. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Parish SJ, Clayton AH. Sexual medicine education: Review and commentary. J Sexual Med. 2007;4(2):259–67. doi: 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2007.00430.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Ferrara E, Pugnaire MP, Jonassen JA, O’Dell K, Clay M, Hatem D, Carlin M. Sexual health innovations in undergraduate medical education. Int J Impotence Res. 2003;15(Suppl5):S46–S50. doi: 10.1038/sj.ijir.3901072. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Braeken D, Cardinal M. Comprehensive sexuality education as a means of promoting sexual health. Int J Sexual Health. 2008;20(1):50–62. doi: 10.1080/19317610802157051. [DOI] [Google Scholar]