Discussions of Pleasure: How Ontario’s New SEX EDUCATION Curriculum has Failed to Live Up to the Hype

Tweet In 2017, a 23 year old woman left a date with celebrity comedian and self-described feminist, Aziz Ansari, in tears. In an article by Katie Way for babe.net, and under the pseudonym Grace, she recounts in vivid detail Ansari’s not-quite-illegal but nevertheless non-consensual sexual conduct over the course of the evening. It is a story that is unsettlingly familiar for women in our society; Ansari repeatedly and forcefully asked for sexual activity until Grace felt she had no option other than resign her consent; Ansari continued to engage in activities with an unenthusiastic and visibly distressed partner; and after the fact, Ansari claimed that at the time, he was unaware that his actions were inappropriate (Way, 2018). Ansari clearly disregarded or was unaware of the necessity of willingly given, enthusiastic consent. He also prioritized his own pleasure over a mutually respectful experience and approached sex in a combative manner by attempting to take what he wanted from Grace and impose his expectations for the night on her, regardless of how she felt.

In the midst of movements like Time’s Up and Me Too, for which Ansari himself has been a vocal advocate, there have been two main responses to Grace’s story in mainstream discourse. The first suggests that Grace does not belong to these movements and that she is overreacting or ‘crying wolf’-she gave consent and therefore Ansari should not be penalized as he did not break any laws. The second is that Grace’s consent was incomplete and unwillingly given, therefore Ansari’s actions were a violation and he should be called out or shamed in a manner similar to Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey. I would suggest a third response, that Grace’s story is representative of a systemic injustice that starts with the way we frame discussions of sexuality in our society. Too often, the importance of mutual pleasure and informed, ongoing, enthusiastic consent are overlooked, and experiences like Grace’s dismissed as merely bad sex. However, it is often much more, it is disrespectful sex, and it disproportionately effects women. Rather than impose further guilt on Grace or penalize Ansari, I would argue that we have an obligation to the the next generation to reshape our understanding of sexual experiences and include not only the legal framework of consent, but also expectations of thorough communication and discussions of mutual pleasure. Without these, consent is a weak legal construct with limited benefit to individuals and their lived experiences of sex.

In my opinion, discussions about the importance of mutually pleasurable sex should take place before adolescents are sexually active, in order to establish it as a norm to which every sexually active individual is entitled. They should be included in sexual education classes alongside discussions of consent and healthy relationships. In 2015, the government of Ontario had the opportunity to enact a great deal of change in this area when they released the updated provincial sexual education curriculum. However, the updates fell short and among the gaps that remain in the curriculum is a failure to address pleasure as a priority or reality of sexual activity.

This omission is clearly intentional, and the reasoning for it understandable. Many stakeholders, particularly parents and religious groups, fear that addressing pleasure in the context of sexual activity is an endorsement that will encourage students to have sex. However, these students likely will engage in sexual activity eventually, and by avoiding discussions of pleasure out of fear, we rob students of the tools they need to engage in healthy sexual relationships throughout their lives. They may not have another opportunity to learn these skills as it takes immense courage, as well as a certain level of health and internet literacy and research skills to seek out accurate sexual health information outside of school.

Another reason not to allow parents’ fears to dictate the sexual education curriculum is that Ontario students are already highly exposed to sexuality, through various forms of media, from a young age. However, this exposure is biased in favour of heteronormative and sexist notions of sexuality that are rooted in dominant discourse. These norms perpetuate unrealistic and often unhealthy ideals about sexuality, such as the double standard that exists between women and men regarding masturbation. This double standard has had devastating consequences on women’s feelings and expressions of sexuality, and often results in associating sexual experiences with guilt and shame. These ideals also contribute to the competitive approach to sexual activity that has become normalized in our culture. People like Aziz Ansari have been socialized to believe that in order to have a satisfying sexual experience, they must take from their partner something which they do not want to give, rather than work together to create a mutually pleasurable experience.

Furthermore, adolescents are exposed to sexually explicit material that is contributing to their perception and expectations of sexuality. If sexual education does not adequately address the realties of sex, including pleasure and appropriate behaviour, students may not understand that the lens through which they view sexuality is distorted and will likely develop unattainable expectations of themselves, their partners, and their sexual experiences.

Although the Ontario sexual education curriculum is unlikely to address these concerns in the near future, they are being tackled in other ways. Pornhub, one of the largest websites for sexually explicit content in the world, has recognized that their material contributes to problems which are exacerbated by the inadequate sexual education that most North American youth receive. As such, they have chosen to use their platform to promote healthy, inclusive, sex-positive sexual education through the Pornhub Sexual Wellness Centre, a branch of their main website. Although the site is not perfect, it is challenging to navigate and not as well marketed as had been hoped for, it does approach this issue in a potentially revolutionary way. It was developed by a clinical sexologist and is one of the first websites to provide accurate, inclusive, and easily accessible sexual information internationally, to people who would otherwise not be exposed to it. Though Ontario’s new sexual education curriculum has not lived up to expectations and has failed to address pleasure as a reality of sexuality, exciting alternatives such as the Pornhub sexual wellness centre may engage students with this information in new and exciting ways.

Sophia Christopher, BSc, Queen’s University

References

Pornhub Sexual Wellness Centre. (2018). https://www.pornhub.com/sex/

Ontario Ministry of Education. (2018). Sexual health education by grade. https://www.ontario.ca/page/sex-education-ontario.

Way, K. (2018). I went on a date with Aziz Ansari. It turned into the worst night of my life. Babe.net. Retrieved from https://babe.net/2018/01/13/aziz-ansari-28355

Spreading Compassion, Empathy and Love: The Evolution of our Language

Tweet The words we use have great power.  With the mere inscription of symbols, one can build up or tear down ideas, manipulate the minds of the masses, and include or exclude whole groups of people.  Freedom of speech is a fundamental right that allows us to express unpopular opinions without fear of punishment, and is a necessary liberty in a free and open democracy.  Notwithstanding, it is crucial to be mindful of the words one uses, in order to show respect and compassion to our fellow humans.  Recently, Dr. Jordan B. Peterson, a psychology professor at the University of Toronto, has been thrust into the media limelight by posting a series of videos on political correctness. In these videos, he defends his right to call students by whichever pronoun he feels is suitable, without the school or the state taking punitive measures, as would be allowable after the passing of Bill C-16, which would add gender identity and gender expression to the current list of prohibited grounds of discrimination.  Despite the good intentions of this bill, censoring people through punitive measures does not tackle the real roots of this issue: ignorance and misinformation.  By teaching people about the diverse spectrum of gender expressions. identities and their importance, we can spread respect, dignity, compassion and empathy, and provoke a greater social shift that will make inclusive language the norm.

Using a pronoun that honours a person’s identity is a simple way to show that person that you respect them.  It can help curb dysphoria, make people feel included, and show support and solidarity for a group that is so often misunderstood, abused and ignored. Unfortunately, many people are uncomfortable with the unfamiliar, and may dig their heels in, clinging on to outdated language and refusing to empathize with the plights of oppressed and marginalized groups, sequestering themselves in boxes of privilege. We need to break people free of these comfortable enclosures of binary language, and allow them to see how their words can impact others.

It is not always the dictionary definition of language that is important; semantics, context, and intentionality play a huge role in how a particular word may make us feel.  Sometimes, someone may slip up and use an incorrect pronoun.  However, there is a huge difference between someone maliciously branding a trans-identifying individual with an invalidating pronoun, and someone making a genuine effort and occasionally reverting back to old ways, out of habit rather than hate.  These two groups: one purposefully hateful, the other trying to break free of the bonds of years of cis-normative indoctrination in a language where binary gender is often so salient, should not receive the same punishment for using incorrect pronouns.

Yes, words have power, and yes, we should be able to use them to express our ideas, elicit social change, and debate the popular opinions of the time.  However, by purposely using the wrong pronouns, a person is prioritizing their own comfort, over someone’s feelings, wellbeing, and their very sense of self.

If someone introduces themselves as Thomas, you wouldn’t intentionally call them James when addressing them, just because you don’t feel like the name Thomas suits them.  Likewise, if someone informs you of their preferred pronouns, you should not implement your own based on what is convenient to you.  Freedom of speech should never be an excuse to spew hate, spread ignorance, and further divide people. Calling someone by the right pronoun should not make a trans-identifying person sigh with relief – it should be quintessential and commonplace to communication.  We, as a society, need to make using incorrect pronouns as taboo and socially unacceptable as using a racial slur.

We fear what we do not know.  This age-old adage is one way of explaining the hesitancy that people like Dr. Peterson have in using unfamiliar pronouns, but with all the tools our language has to offer, why not strive to build each other up, instead of knocking each other down?  We are at a turning point in history, one where we can choose to progress a society or remain mired in social conventions of the past.  By teaching children to use “Hello everyone” instead of “Ladies and gentlemen”, we are abandoning outdated embedded phrases and choosing to move forward, acknowledging the vast array of gender identities and making it less black-and-white.  By not assuming someone’s gender, we are giving them the right to express their own true self.  When it is so easy to use inclusive language, why do people still insist on using gendered expressions and incorrect pronouns?  Perhaps they don’t realize the pain that this may cause people, or maybe they simply don’t care, separated from the difficulties of this minority group by veiling them with “otherness”, making it a case of us vs. them.   Maybe they want to prove their freedom of speech, like Dr. Peterson, using the preferred pronouns of trans-identifying individuals as scapegoats for “politically correct” ideologies.  Yes, we can use whatever pronouns we want when addressing someone, and yes, we should be able to express ourselves freely.  Similarly, we can also cut people off in traffic, chew with our mouths open, and sneer at people who pass us by, and yes, we should be allowed to do this.  But these are simply not respectful ways to behave, and people need to understand the colossal impact words and attitudes can have on someone’s psyche.

Ideally, we shouldn’t have to have “politically correct” language, or “language police”, we should have a world of humans that are mindful of the experiences of others and strive to honour their feelings and desires.  Unfortunately, we live in the real world, where people are constantly seeking out conflicts, always pitting causes against each other, creating strawman arguments to facilitate their antiquated use of our evolving language.  Regardless, by educating people, and by implementing new choices in how to address others, instead of censoring people, we might be able to see a true shift in the zeitgeist of how we treat people.  We are all humans, and we are all deserving of dignity and esteem, regardless of what’s between our legs, the clothes we put on our bodies, and the gender we feel on the inside.  Language has power, and we, as a society, must use that power for good, to teach respect, compassion and love, so that future generations will communicate with xir heads held high.

Kyla Mayne, BAH Psychology, Queen's University, Class of 2018