School+Based+Sex+Education

=School Based Sexuality Education=

Introduction
In this section of the cross-cultural perspectives on sexuality wiki you will find descriptions of and comparison between school-based sex education systems in three places: Nepal, The Netherlands, and in Orthodox Jewish communities in the U.S. The anthropological lenses used in this investigation and comparison of these systems are structural functionalism and cultural ethos, informed by three of Koltko-Rivera’s (2004) worldview dimensions, chosen by relevance to the topic of school-based sex education.

Nanda and Warms (2014) described structural functionalism as the study of cultural norms, or rules of behavior for social relationships. This approach is interested in investigating society more so than the individuals, but specifically, how societal structures determine the ways in which people tend to relate to one another and to their environment (Nanda & Warms, 2014). We are interested here both in sexual behaviors students in each culture might enact, and also the ways in which sexual topics are taught in schools. These two are both examples of ways in which people relate to one another, influenced by the institutionalized structure that is school-based sex education.
 * Lenses, Aims & Approach **



Anthropology of cultural ethos refers to “the study of the underlying disposition, character, or guiding beliefs of a particular group of people and how members of that culture or society are motivated by the fundamental characteristics of their community” (J. Sitron & J. Galarza, personal communication, October 4, 2015). This is the lens being used whenever we share information about the attitudes and rationale behind how school-based sex education was designed and conducted in each place, and fills in some areas that the Koltko-Rivera worldview dimensions we chose might leave gaps in understanding.

According to Koltko-Rivera (2004), the sexuality dimension of worldview describes "belief about the proper primary focus, aim, or purpose of interpersonal sexual activity" (p. 34). It is characterized by four categories: procreation, pleasure, relationship, and sacral. We chose to use this dimension because the way a school teaches about sexuality is directly informed by the broader worldview its culture holds about the purpose of sex-providing insight into its cultural ethos. It also lends understanding to what school-based sex education influences people to believe regarding the meaning of sexual behavior, in the context of their culture.

Koltko-Rivera's (2004) relation to group dimension describes "belief about the natural priority of one’s personal agenda versus the agenda of one’s reference group" (p. 33). This dimension maps cultures between individualism or collectivism on a continuum. We chose this dimension to aid our analysis because, as per structural functionalism, the ways in which structures encourage people to relate with one another is exactly what we are interested in learning more about. It is useful to consider what the culture of school-based sex education within a given place might tell us about whether people from that place value their individual needs or the needs of their group more highly.

These first two dimensions both come from Koltko-Rivera’s interpersonal group of dimensions, making them ideal candidates for use within a structural-functionalist approach.

The sources of knowledge dimension refers to “beliefs about reliable sources of knowledge” (Koltko-Rivera, 2014, p. 32). The options here include the following: authority, tradition, senses, rationality, science, intuition, divination, revelation, and nullity. We chose this dimension from the cognition group, because identifying whom authority lies with, or where power is held in each sex education culture, generally informs our understanding of the broader cultural ethos in each place.

This set of pages aims to consider how school-based sex education in each of the three geographical locations, Nepal, The Netherlands, and Orthodox Jewish communities in the U.S., might determine the ways in which people interact and relate with one another in that place, through sexual behaviors and also through how sexual topics are taught (or not taught) in schools. In order to accomplish this, we describe what school-based sex education consists of in each place, followed by where it might fall within Koltko-Rivera’s (2004) sexuality, relation to group, and sources of knowledge dimensions of worldview. The three cultures of school-based sex education are then compared to one another, followed by recommendations about how to optimize intercultural sex-education work with people from these cultures, based on information gathered about both the function of sex-education in schools in their place of origin, and the cultural ethos of each place, as well.
 * Summary **

School Based Sexuality Education in Nepal
In accordance with structural functionalism (Nanda & Warms, 2011), the structure and content of Nepal's school-based sexuality education is a reflection of the country's cultural norms surrounding the topics of sex and sexuality. In effect, school-based sexuality education functions to support these cultural norms and expectations by educating young people in a particular way. After researching the methods and content of sexuality instruction in Nepal, one can make generalizations about some of the country's cultural values.

School Based Sexuality Education in The Netherlands
In accordance with structural functionalism (Nanda & Warms, 2011), the structure and content of the Netherlands' school-based sexuality education is a reflection of the country's cultural norms surrounding the topics of sex and sexuality. In effect, school-based sexuality education functions to support these cultural norms and expectations by educating young people in a particular way. After researching the methods and content of sexuality instruction in the Netherlands, one can make generalizations about some of the country's cultural values.

@School Based Sexuality Education for Orthodox Jews in the United States
In accordance with structural functionalism (Nanda & Warms, 2011), the structure and content of Orthodox Jews in U.S. community-based sexuality education is a reflection of the group's cultural norms surrounding the topics of sex and sexuality. In effect, community-based sexuality education functions to support these cultural norms and expectations by educating young people in a particular way. After researching the methods and content of sexuality instruction amongst Orthodox Jews in the U.S., one can make generalizations about some of the group's cultural values.

==Comparing Sexological and Cultural Worldviews of Nepal, The Netherlands, and Orthodox Jewish Communities in the U.S. & Some Recommendations for Educators ==

As you have may have noticed through reading the above pages, there are many similarities and differences between school-based sex education programs and worldviews in Nepal, The Netherlands and Orthodox Jewish communities in the U.S. Based on the analysis of each culture's worldview (as seen through Kolto-Rivera's (2004) dimensions of sexuality and relation to group (interpersonal), as well as sources of knowledge (cognition), listed below are some recommendations for educators working with people from these cultures.

Nepali and Orthodox Jewish sex education are similar in that they both involve an authority figure as the main source of knowledge- the teacher or health worker in Nepal, and the Rabbi in the Orthodox communities. While the books used to guide the education, a science-based textbook in Nepal and the Torah in Orthodox Jewish schools, are also considered sources of knowledge, it is also noteworthy that content is taught is through direct instruction. Given that these two cultures are also much more collectivistic than individualistic, it follows that class discussion, sharing personal opinions/preferences, and clarifying personal values are not part of sex education. There is more emphasis on learning the "party line," and conforming to cultural norms in order to maintain the status quo.

For people belonging to such collectivistic cultures, who value the group's needs over their own, direct instruction regarding sexual topics is likely to feel more comfortable than methods that would mark individual differences or preferences. By contrast, students from the far more individualistic Netherlands might thrive with instructional models including class discussion and emphasis on individuals' beliefs, and would likely resist too much didactic teaching.

Orthodox Jewish sex education in the U.S. and Nepali sex education both emphasize procreation as one of the main purposes of sex, while in the Netherlands leans much more toward pleasure and relationship. This also makes sense in the context of the former two's collectivism, and the individualism of the Netherlands. Pleasure is experienced by individuals, and can be pursued individually, after all, while procreation usually requires a pair, and is about creating a third person. Procreation for collectivistic cultures seems to be about forming and maintaining a new group that will reflect the cultural norms of the broader cultural group, and thus, ensure that they're carried on. An important note to add is that, based on their sex education, Orthodox Jews also consider sex to be sacred, whereas the Nepali and the Dutch do not. In Nepal, procreation seems to be more of a basic mechanical fact of life that must be dealt with, and in the Netherlands sex education focuses more on how relationships are strengthened through sex (and leave room for personal preference around whether procreation is part of the picture).

Educators should consider this aspect of worldview when working interculturally with people from any of these groups. Recognizing the underlying assumptions students are likely to have about the purpose of sex is useful. For the Nepali, highlighting pleasure too much might elicit discomfort. For American Orthodox Jews, acknowledging the sacral purpose of sex might support a more mutually respectful and trusting interaction. For Dutch students, freely talking about the pleasures of sex will be familiar.

Interestingly, all three cultures also place some value on sex as a relationship-building activity. In Nepali sex education this is evident because sex is only taught as acceptable after marriage, as something that maintains the health of that relationship. It is similar for Orthodox Jews in the U.S., but with the added component of God's involvement. The Dutch often spend entire units on relationship-building skills in school-based programs, view sex as an activity that can enhance a relationship, and also view building relationship as a means to more pleasure through sex.

When working interculturally with any person or group of people, it is an act of basic respect for educators to take the time to understand their worldviews. What are their beliefs about the individual vs. the group? The purpose of sex? Where knowledge and truth truly come from? Take time to consider their desires and their needs, //as expressed by them,// so as to truly allow yourself to be useful and impactful for their learning.

References

Koltko-Rivera, M. E. (2004). The psychology of worldview. // Review of General Psychology, 8(1), // 3-58. doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.8.1.3

Nanda, S. & Warms, R. (2011). Cultural anthropology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.