Reflections on Sexual Health Education
This article is dedicated to my fellow ABJ peers who I endured the abstinence-only sexual health education alongside. Thank you to those who engaged in this study. Please take care when reading, sexual health can be a difficult topic to discuss. Any and all emotions that may arise when reading are valid and normal. Please visit the resource page if you are seeking support.
Introduction
This article reflects on the opinions of 87 high school graduates in regards to the abstinence-only sexual health education they received at Archbishop Jordan Catholic High School from September 2009 - June 2012.
The topic of sexual health education is incredibly important because there are few nation-wide regulations on a subject that has lasting impacts on the lives of students as witnessed in this article, written approximately 8 years after high school graduation.
In Canada, each provincial government sets their own curriculum which includes what will be taught about sexual health. There are no specific federal regulations about what needs to be included, however The Sex Information & Education Council of Canada (SIECCAN) is a non-profit organization that creates Canadian Guidelines for Sexual Health Education (2019) meant to be used to assist educators and policy makers in crafting and delivering curricula across the country.
In Alberta, catholic schools are still publicly funded, meaning they are expected to teach from the Alberta curriculum, although are offered a bit more freedom when teaching certain health outcomes that relate to sexuality (Richard, 2020). Currently the Human Sexuality Education curriculum in Alberta, under the umbrella of Career and Life Management (2002), is fairly comprehensive and emphasizes safety, wellness, critical thinking, and respect, and the learning objectives are quite transparent and detailed.
The catholic school system is supposed to teach these, but is allowed to do so from a catholic perspective if the teacher feels comfortable doing so. Catholic school guidelines offered up within this Alberta-wide curriculum are vague and list just 5 procedures emphasizing that sexual health should be taught within a catholic, “ethical” context with an understanding of theology of the body (Human Sexuality Education, 2017) . Parents in both the public and catholic system have the option to exempt their children from any human sexuality education as indicated by a letter sent home in advance.
In 2017, the Council of Catholic Superintendents Association proposed a specific curriculum to be taught solely in catholic schools which was immediately shut down by Education Minister David Eggen. Some of the proposed concepts were:
Consent: Believing that all people are created in God’s image and the human body is sacred. Therefore, healthy relationships recognize this and treat each other with love and respect. Sexual relationships are not based solely on ongoing consent and pleasure, but rather the understanding that they are to occur in an authentic life-giving relationship within the sacrament of marriage.
Reproductive technologies: any reproductive procedure that involves something other than aiding sex and pregnancy within the context of marriage is something the Church insists misses the mark.
Contraception: The use of contraceptives prevents “total” giving of oneself and is problematic. Plan B or The Morning After Pill are considered abortifacients.
Same Sex Relationships: Homosexual acts are not biologically complementary and miss the mark of their intended purpose to create life.
Anal/Oral Sex: Any sexual acts not aimed towards directly creating life misses the mark of spiritual and physical communion.
Masturbation: Not part of God’s natural order as it does not support the procreative purpose of sexuality.
Gender, Gender Identity, Modern Gender Theory: Gender and gender identity are always linked to one’s natal sex. Gender theory ideology is termed “ideological colonization”.
Pornography: Does not respect the dignity of human life - pornography damages understanding of sexuality, harms human relationships, exploits individuals, undermines family life, fosters anti-social behaviour, and weakens society itself.
Although this curriculum proposal was not accepted, some of my classmates and myself would argue that these rejected concepts were not much different from what we were actually taught as evidenced by responses to the survey due to the open-to-interpretation catholic system learning objectives.
Current literature in this field indicates that parents overwhelmingly (90%) support sex education in schools that covers birth control, STIs, healthy vs. unhealthy relationships, abstinence, and sexual orientation (Planned Parenthood, 2014). Students feel the same way, advocating that sex-ed be “sex-positive” and delivered by experts who maintain clear boundaries with students who additionally realize that sex is a special subject with unique challenges and a vast range of expressions (Pound et al., 2016).
In 2009, Planned Parenthood Toronto released the Toronto Teen Survey which interviewed youth about sexual activity and their perception of the effectiveness and accessibility of sexual health services. The key findings of this survey were that teens are sexually active in a variety of ways, are not happy with the care they have received through community sexual health services, and that there is a large disconnect between what youth are learning and what they want to know (Flicker et al., 2009). A similar study was conducted in B.C. in 2018, centering youth perspectives on the state of sexual health education, not surprisingly, the findings indicated that youth are not being taught the information they need to make informed decisions about sexuality (Dbouba & Shannon, 2018). Specifically in terms of abstinence-only sexual health education, information is withheld from adolescents and scientifically inaccurate opinions are promoted and problems arise especially when abstinence is presented as the only choice (Santelli et al., 2006).
Action Canada for Sexual Health & Rights sums up these findings in their State of Sex-Ed in Canada (2019) article by saying that we need, want, and deserve better sex-ed, and that Canada has an obligation to ensure all young people have access to comprehensive sex-ed as outlined by the 2018 UNESCO Technical Guidance on Sexuality Education.
My aim in conducting this study was to observe the opinions and experiences of my peers and reflect on the perceived effects of our abstinence-only sexual health education and how that compares to current research.
Methods
According to the Tri-Council Policy Statement 2 (TCPS2) which governs research ethics in Canada, a study of this type which solely utilizes secondary use of anonymous information, falls under the category of Quality Improvement and therefore did not require a research ethics board review. The survey has been conducted following the A pRoject Ethics Community Consensus Initiative (ARECCI) Ethics Guidelines to ensure the safety and care of participants.
This study was created through the lens of my personal bias, although measures were taken to attempt to eliminate any bias from the survey. It is my belief that the abstinence-only sexual health education we received in high school was an inaccurate, judgemental, damaging form of religious indoctrination that purposefully neglected to teach factual information or arm students with critical thinking skills and was in fact complicit in perpetuating homophobia, transphobia, sex-negativity, racism, and rape culture.
Since high school, I have received a much more comprehensive sex-ed, initially beginning in a Human Sexuality course I took during my undergraduate degree in Kinesiology. In 2019 I completed a Graduate Certificate in Sexual Health, I have worked at the Sexual Assault Centre of Edmonton, volunteered at Compass Centre for Sexual Wellness, am offering courses through the Alberta Society for the Promotion of Sexual Health, and lived in Amsterdam working in a sex shop with the purpose of experientially expanding my understanding of sexuality.
Additionally, it is important to consider the context in a quality improvement study in order to further understand and characterize the findings. The survey was sent out to fellow 2012 ABJ graduates via facebook messenger in April 2020, in the midst of COVID-19 social distancing measures, approximately 8 years after high school graduation. Limitations to this methodology will be discussed at the end of the article.
Being qualitative in nature, this survey was crafted through my lenses and sexual values, however the format was designed to specifically reduce bias and allow for participants to fully express their perspective in their own language. The survey was formatted in Google Forms which kept all participant information anonymous and included mandatory informed consent at the beginning, 5 open-ended questions, 1 mandatory multiple choice question, and a list of resources upon completion.
The study was specifically designed to be open-ended to provide participants the freedom to respond as they think appropriate, using their own words, and potentially encouraging them to share more personal and genuine perspectives which was incredibly valuable when discussing something as vast and personal as sexuality and sexual health education. The survey was refined after initially only opening it up to a group of 6 close friends from high school who made suggestions that improved the survey such as the addition of empathetic languaging considering sex-ed can be an emotionally charged topic and a multiple choice question for ease of quantifying responses.
After the survey was closed, thematic data analysis was completed in order to categorize and quantify responses. Responses were read multiple times, general codes determining overarching ideas were identified, and larger themes were produced in order to turn raw data into insight which could be actionable or shareable.
Response
The informed consent outlined the purpose, the anonymous and confidential nature of the survey, and the option to opt-out at any time. After reading this, participants must have selected “yes” to participate in the survey. 87 out of 201 students contacted completed the survey, equating to a 43.28% response rate, perhaps so high due to the polarizing nature of the topic or the context it was sent out in.
Response themes that were repeated a minimum of five times have been highlighted in this article. Due to the open-ended nature of this survey, participants may have mentioned more than one theme in their response.
Question 1 had 86 responses and asked, “Archbishop Jordan Catholic High School teaches sexual health from the abstinence-only perspective, meaning that educators focus on promoting abstinence as the only acceptable contraceptive until marriage. In as many words as you would like, describe your general feelings towards this method of sexual health education.” The main themes in response were: that safe sex was not taught (27.9%), that the lessons were not realistic because not everyone practices abstinence (25.6%), that this method was lacking in diversity, not accounting for the complexity of sexuality (23.3%), and that it makes sense that a catholic school would teach this curriculum (19.77%).
Additional themes that were repeated over 5 times were: that this method of sex-ed is ineffective and actually leads to all the negative outcomes it is trying to avoid (15.1%), that it did more harm than good (11.6%), it is not based in fact (10.5%), did not receive any “sex-ed” (9.3%), informed decision making and critical thinking should have been highlighted (9.3%), it is critical to eliminate feelings of shame and stigma around sexuality (8.14%), and that students will consequently need to educate themselves elsewhere (7%).
There were of course, other responses that did not fit into these themes which have not been included because they were not repeated more than 5 times. However, out of 86 responses, there were 4 (4.7%) that had a positive response beyond the statement that it makes sense that a catholic school would teach from this perspective. 2 respondents mentioned that this teaching helped them learn that sex is a decision that should not be taken lightly. 1 respondent outlined that they are in agreement with the main teachings of abstinence, that people should wait until they are married or in a committed relationship to have sex. Another respondent in this theme supports abstinence, but believes it was taught from a very negative perspective.
Due to the descriptive nature of this question, many key adjectives were applied to voice respondents’ feelings, which have been mentioned if repeated more than 3 times: unrealistic (10), outdated (8), shame (7), damaging (5), fear tactics (4), disagree (4), irresponsible (4).
Question 2 had 80 responses and asked, “What is one standout memory of something that you were taught in a sexual health education class in high school? Please feel free to share multiple memories if more come to mind.” Thematic analysis reduced the response stories to categories, but deeper descriptions will be highlighted in the discussion section of the article. 23.75% of respondents said that sex-ed was not separate from religion class, 18.75% said they remember being taught that abstinence is the only option, 18.75% do not have any standout memories or do not remember being taught sex-ed, and 15% remember Pam Stenzel’s presentation. Other responses were: shown graphic videos (13.75%), there was no sex-ed/it was completely avoided (12.5%), and that there was no talk about contraception (10%).
1 respondent, out of 80, occupying a positive theme, said it taught them how to respect their partner.
Question 3 had 85 responses and asked, “How equipped did you feel leaving high school with the sexual health education that you received?” 50.59% of respondents said they did not feel prepared leaving high school. 31.76% said they learned elsewhere, 12.94% said they were adequately prepared, and 11.76% said there were major gaps in their knowledge.
While not over the minimum of 5 repetitions to make this discussion, 3 respondents (3.5%), said they learned everything they could in high school about sexual health education.
Question 4 had 82 responses and asked, “How has the sexual health education that you received in high school affected you?” 51.22% of respondents said they have been carrying around a lot of negative emotional effects that have taken a long time to unlearn. 26.83% said it did not affect them much. 25.61% said they had to do a lot of research on their own, while 9.76% said they were uneducated/uninformed/blind, and another 9.76% said they did not receive sex-ed. 7.32%, 6 respondents, said it affected them somewhat positively, with answers in this theme ranging from 2 respondents saying it inspired them to do better, 1 saying it helped to limit number of partners, 2 saying it has made them become hyper aware of sexuality as a sort of “pushing back”, and another respondent said it affected them better than if they received no sex-ed at all, although it is hard to compare without receiving other sex-ed.
Question 5 had 79 responses and asked, “If applicable, what do you wish you were taught about sexuality in high school? What would you have liked to learn?” Many topics were suggested such as, other contraception/safe sex (46.84%), consent/communication/boundaries (20.25%), factual anatomy and physiology (20.25%), body image/self-acceptance (18.99%), gender/sexual orientation (16.46%), pleasure/masturbation/sex-positivity (15.19%), further resources, services, testing (15.19%), sexual assault/unhealthy relationships, sexism, and toxic masculinity (13.9%), and a more broad overview with more diverse perspectives (11.39%).
Again, there were a handful of responses that differed from the overarching negative theme, but were not repeated over 5 times. 3 respondents (3.78%) said that no further information is needed in high school.
Question 6 had 81 responses and was a multiple choice format stating, “Overall, the sexual health education I received was effective.” The options were: strongly agree, somewhat agree, neutral, somewhat disagree, strongly disagree, prefer not to answer, or “other” in which participants could write their own response.
This question was mandatory but only had 81 (out of 87) responses because it was implemented after the original group of 6 friends reviewed the survey and made suggestions. 51.9% strongly disagreed that the sex-ed they received was effective, 23.5% somewhat disagreed, 9.9% were neutral, 7.4% somewhat agreed, and no one selected “strongly agree” or “prefer not to answer”.
However, 6 respondents (7.4%) selected other and left their own thoughts: “the sex education I received from school was awful. If it wasn’t for my parents, I would have been terribly misguided by my school”; “Overall Im pretty neutral towards it based on the school being a catholic school, but I do think they need to adapt and embrace that a strong majority of students that are in relationships wont follow the narrative we were taught”; “I believe we learned information about sexual education but I don’t think it was valuable information to me.”; “I disagree because I do not recall ever having a sexual aid class.”; “Effective in a sense that I stayed abstinent through high school. But I disagree in the sense that I don’t feel I got a good education on the topic.”; and, “didn’t exist”.
Discussion
After witnessing these response themes, it is important to ask: even if this is what the catholic church must teach children who attend catholic school, is this how we want students to feel 8 years later? Is this considered effective program delivery? How does the catholic school system quantify the success of abstinence-only sexual health education?
For question 1, where participants described their general feelings towards abstinence-only sex-ed, there were only 4 out of 86 responses that indicated they were at least somewhat pleased with the education they received. The remainder of the responses (95.35%) outlined that there was information missing, that they did not believe the teachings to be effective, and that many are still working through the harm that was done. Is this how people should feel about their sexual health education years later?
Question 2 asked participants to share any standout memories of their abstinence-only sexual health education. The thematic analysis reduced more detailed stories to categories for the sake of data analysis, however in this section specific stories will be presented for further understanding of participant experiences.
15% of students said they remembered Pam Stenzel, here are some of the memories from her presentation:
“Pam Stenzel stood in front of the student body and essentially used shame and religious morals to discourage us from engaging in sexual acts and I feel it played very fittingly into the narrative we were always taught, that girls are meant to be the gatekeepers of sex and boys cannot help themselves, and unless you have a ring on your finger, you will be damaged and disease ridden if you engage in sex.”
“A speaker that came to the school and taught us all about how having oral sex means you can no longer call yourself a virgin and that anal sex will cause your anal sphincter to no longer be able to hold your feces in, and when you move, it would just leak out of you uncontrollably.”
“Pam Stenzel did a talk and told (ALL THE VULNERABLE 15 YEAR OLD GIRLS IN HIGH SCHOOL) that they are "used tape" or "chewed up gum" if they've had sex before (MADE NO CAVEATS FOR THOSE SUFFERING SEXUAL ABUSE OR BEING IN CONSENSUAL RELATIONSHIPS!!!!) “
“Pam Stenzel came into to talk to us and literally screamed that we can DARE call ourselves virgins if we've had oral sex and also that women are dirty and used if we've had sex PLUS that boys only want us for sex in the first place.”
“Sitting in the gym listening to that abstinence speaker (I forget her name) preaching about not having sex until marriage and the intense shaming she was doing. I remember feeling bad about myself (even though I was practicing safe sex and had only had 1 partner) and looking around at my friend's and my peers who I knew had been active with multiple partners etc and noticing how bad they were feeling. I felt so angry and hurt by that day.”
“She did a demonstration where she stuck a piece of tape to different students' pant legs, and showed how the stickiness wore off, and said ‘this is what will happen to you. You will get used up and then no one will want you.’”
There were many more responses to the survey that cited Pam Stenzel. Although these shaming messages were not coming from the mouths of our teachers, I learned in my Graduate Certificate in Sexual Health that Pam Stenzel charges anywhere from $4000-$5000 USD per appearance, so our educators and that publicly funded money facilitated a presentation where many students left with damaging, false narratives about themselves.
23.75% of respondents mentioned that they felt sex-ed was not separate from religion class, Some of the more in-depth responses mentioned:
“I still remember one religion teacher discussing how ectopic pregnancies were a sin, and both the mother and baby should have died.”
“I do remember having a very hotly contested debate in religion class about abortion. The teacher was staunchly catholic and believed it was murder.”
“Religion class taught that people can have sexual thoughts but acting on them was a sin.”
“We were told that sex wouldn't be pleasurable if "God isn't involved" and it is a sin to "waste seed" (which also translated to it’s a sin to masturbate).”
“You should save yourself for marriage, and that person should be able to have the right to your body.”
“I remember them telling us that being a virgin had almost holy-like characteristics and that it was therefore better than ever engaging in any type of sexual activities.”
Although understandable to teach the sexual health learning objectives from a catholic perspective in a catholic school, these perspectives are not factual and are full of shaming, unpractical messages. For the 18.75% who had no standout memories, most mentioned it was telling that they took away no meaningful information, that this lack of memory was due to the fact that sex-ed was really just religion class. One final stand out that did not fit into a theme: “Teacher was unable to answer if you can get pregnant from having sex in a hot tub.”
For question 3, the majority of respondents said they did not feel equipped or prepared with the sex-ed they received when graduating from high school. It is a common belief, likely applied in catholic schools, that teaching factual information about sexuality will lead to students being sexually active at an earlier age, but that is completely false.
Comprehensive sex leads to better knowledge and attitudes around sexuality, including better communication skills and greater effectiveness when managing risk (Haberland & Rogow, 2015). In Action Canada’s The State of Sex-Ed in Canada article (2019), they discuss that sex-ed is a human right, that is not about opinions but rather about evidence, health, and gender equality and that governments are required to uphold all people’s rights to health and equality. In terms of sexual health, this requires the delivery of unbiased, scientifically accurate sex-ed.
Therefore it is incredibly important to recognize that most respondents did not feel prepared leaving high school. There are many negative impacts of sub-standard sex-ed including high rates of STIs among youth (Public Health Agency of Canada, 2014), prevalence of sexual violence (UNESCO, 2018), and LGBTQ+ health disparities (Action Canada, 2019).
Perhaps more telling than feeling unprepared, the majority of respondents to question 4 answered that the sex-ed they received at ABJ left them with many negative emotional effects that have taken time and effort to unlearn. Some examples of this are:
“I've spent a great deal of time overcoming a sense of shame that I acquired through catholic school. Public catholic school. Almost certainly due to my experience with sexual education through school is what encouraged me to no longer associate with the catholic church and faith in general.”
“I believe I would have been much more comfortable with my sexuality and my body if I had received a different sexual education. There was a lot of fear and shame to work through (that I am still working through) in accepting my sexual health and needs. I think it would have given me a much stronger and healthier ability to take agency of my body if I had not learned a terrifying, reductionist curriculum all my life.”
“It painted a very negative picture about sex that has been with me throughout my relationship with my [partner] that we had to seek counselling.”
“It kept me abstinent out of fear rather than a holistic understanding of human sexuality. I couldn't express that aspect with my partners for years. It led to strife down the line and had my sexuality not been a demon to face I may have had a healthier understanding of it much sooner.”
“leaving myself with panic after sexual encounters with anxiety of sexually transmitted infections and pregnancy.”
“It took effort to unlearn the subconscious biases that were the result of our abstinence-only education. I was never judgemental of the decisions of other people to be sexually active, but our education definitely prevented me from feeling comfortable about having sex. It took a few years to get to the point where I was comfortable enough to explore and learn about my own sexuality.”
“I think honestly it just scared the shit outta me, and made me feel like sex was a bad thing to do. I felt like I was doing something wrong every time I was intimate with someone and that is a hard thing to deal with because sex is so important in a relationship, but also important to discover so much about yourself/what your preferences are. I feel I missed out on opportunities to grow and discover my preferences and even now, intimacy is something I’m still having to work on because I was stunted and affected in a negative way.”
There were many more responses along the same thread.
Although many respondents (26.83%) mentioned not carrying any negative effects and a handful (7.32%) cited positive results, these negative effects should not be overlooked and should not be celebrated as an “effective” curriculum regardless of the religious motivation behind it.
Question 5 asked participants what they wish they were taught and answers included sex safe, gender/sexual orientation, pleasure, consent, sexual assault, further resources, body-image, more diverse perspectives, and factual anatomy and physiology. It is clear that information that is relevant and important for comprehensive sexual health education was purposefully left out, leaving students with large gaps in their knowledge.
For question 6, the majority of respondents answered that they strongly disagree that the sexual health education they received in high school was effective. It is important to listen to these opinions, years later. Learning should be student-centered and not based on opinions or religious beliefs, especially when information is purposefully left out or misrepresented. Sex-ed should be based in fact and free of biased teaching to allow students to build on their own values and make their own informed decisions.
In the future, research along this thread should survey larger populations and sample sizes to determine if findings are further generalizable. A survey conducted by a peer, although anonymous, may influence responses, so further research could be done by an organization or a researcher with fewer connections to participants. For the purposes of this study, facebook messenger was the most effective way to contact everyone, however it had its own limitations considering not everyone is on facebook, and I am not friends with everyone on that platform. Although I was able to contact some participants who were not on my friends list, not everyone was able to see the message and this reduced the response rate. I believe a diverse sampling within the ABJ 2012 graduate was taken, however, it is likely that people who were not on my friends list would share differing opinions to mine.
Future research should survey more students from different graduating classes, different schools, different provinces to be more generalizable. This survey was meant to discover the opinions of this specific group and therefore cannot speak to what other people who have received abstinence-only sexual health education have experienced.
Conclusion
Overall, there were very few responses that were in support of the abstinence-only sexual health education we received, and an overwhelming majority that needed more information and support from their sexual health education in school.
The education we have received has left lasting negative effects on students through large gaps in their knowledge and biased teachings. Comprehensive sexual health education is a right, and our governments need to create policies and curriculum that support this right, especially where catholic schools are publicly funded.
Many survey participants suggested a more holistic method of teaching sex-ed, where abstinence could be highlighted in catholic schools, but where there is space to provide factual information as well. Sexuality should not be taught by opinion or religious beliefs but rather by scientific fact, and unfortunately this was evidently not the case for the Archbishop Jordan 2012 graduating class.
References
Action Canada for Sexual Health and Rights. (2019). The state of sex-ed in Canada. https://www.actioncanadashr.org/sites/default/files/2019-09/Action%20Canada_StateofSexEd_F%20-%20web%20version%20EN.pdf
Career and Life Management (Senior High). (2002). Rationale and Philosophy. Alberta Learning, Alberta, Canada. https://education.alberta.ca/media/160199/calm.pdf.
Council of Catholic School Superintendents of Alberta. (2017). New Wellness Education Curriculum. https://postmediaedmontonjournal2.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/r_2017-g-0050-applicant-copy-release-2.pdf
Dbouba, G., & Shannon, A. (2018). Sex ed is our right! YouthCO. http://www.youthco.org/youthleadershipinsexed
Flicker, S., Flynn, S., Larkin, J., Travers, R., Guta, A., Pole, J., & Layne, C. (2009) Sexpress: The Toronto Teen Survey Report. Planned Parenthood Toronto. Toronto, ON. http://www.ppt.on.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/TTS_report.pdf
Haberland, N., & Rogow, D. (2015). Sexuality education: emerging trends in evidence and practice. Journal of adolescent health, 56(1), S15–S21.Retrieved from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25528976
Human Sexuality Education. (2017). Administrative Procedures Manual. Elk Island Catholic Separate Regional Division No. 41. https://www.eics.ab.ca/download/189025.
Planned Parenthood. (2014). Let’s Talk. Parents and teens talk about sexuality: A national survey. https://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/2914/1322/5667/NationalPoll_09-14_V2_1.pdf
Pound, P., Langford, R., & Campbell, R. (2016). What do young people think about their school-based sex and relationship education? A qualitative synthesis of young people's views and experiences. BMJ Open 2016;6:e011329. https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/6/9/e011329.
Public Health Agency of Canada. (2014). Population Specific status report: HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted and blood borne infections among youth in Canada.
Richard, N. (August 16, 2020). Personal communication.
Santelli, J., Ott, M. A., Lyon, M., Rogers, J., Summers, D., & Schleifer, R. (2006). Abstinence and abstinence-only education: A review of US policies and programs. Journal of Adolescent health, 38(1), 72-81.
SIECCAN. (2019). Canadian Guidelines for Sexual Health Education. https://sieccan.org/sexual-health-education/
Women, U. N., & UNICEF. (2018). International technical guidance on sexuality education: an evidence-informed approach. UNESCO Publishing.