Chigoziri Ene 

Writing for the Sciences 

Professor Zayas 

Annotated Bibliography 

April. 20, 2023

 

Annotated Bibliography 

1. Hakimi L. (2018, June). Differences In Sex Education For Boys And Girls. Retrieved from https://greatneckrecord.com/differences-in-sex-education-for-boys-and-girls/
   1. Discusses the difference in how sex is taught to boys and girls in a highschool in New York. When sex Ed is taught to boys, an emphasis is placed on the pleasures that boys will receive from sex. While, sex Ed for girls an emphasis is placed on the reproductive aspect of sex, and the likelihood of pregnancy. This difference in the way sex Ed is taught continues the cycle of objectification, as essentially implies that girls are there to satisfy the sexual desires of boys and give birth. No emphasis is placed on the sexual desires of women, insinuating that she either does not have sexual desires or it is not meant to be recognized or rather satisfied. 
      1. This is helpful because it provides a personal insight to the issue topic which helps this research to better understand the cultural influence of objectification that is discussed in my other peer reviewed source (Schneider, 2020) 
      2. Quotes 
         1. “The term “hookup” has different definitions for different people, but a survey I conducted of 94 heterosexual GNNHS [Great Neck North High School] students who hook up revealed that hookups are not always reciprocal: 23.4 percent of those surveyed reported that their typical hookups include oral sex performed by a female on a male, compared to a much smaller 12.8 percent who said their hookups include oral sex performed by a male on a female.” 
         2. “When I was in fifth grade at John F. Kennedy Elementary School, there was one day when the girls and boys were separated to learn about puberty. I remember feeling very shy as we learned about menstruation. After the program, when the girls and boys ate lunch together in the cafeteria, I was too shy to look at the boys, but I would later hear about what they had learned. While our presentation had been motherhood oriented, theirs had been pleasure oriented, encompassing erections and wet dreams.” 
         3. “To this day, Great Neck’s district-wide fifth-grade sex education program teaches boys about nocturnal emissions, but in the girls’ class it is not discussed, even though 85 percent of women reported experiencing nocturnal orgasm by age 21 in a study published in 1986 in the Journal of Sex Research by Barbara Wells. Great Neck’s elementary schools succumb to the taboo surrounding female sexuality, leaving girls feeling like it’s their job to satisfy their male peers’ desires.” 
         4. “When I looked back at my notes from 11th-grade health class, I found that they, too, presented the male and female sexual experiences very differently. Our teacher had taught us that the penis is the “primary sex organ” and the vagina is a “muscular passageway leading to the outside of the body, also known as the birth canal, because it is the passageway the baby uses to leave the mother’s body during the birth process.” ”
         5. “We learned irrelevant trivia about erections, but no fun facts about female sexuality. Once again, the male genitalia was defined in terms of pleasure and thus absolved from its role in creating life, whereas the female genitalia was defined in terms of motherhood and thus denied its sexuality.”
         6. “Combined with messages students receive from politicians, pornography and everything in between, the sex education curricula suggest that females exist solely for childrearing and for males’ sexual gratification. Girls and young women deserve sex education that reflects the facts that parenthood is a joint responsibility they may not even want to undertake and that women are entitled to mutual relationships in which their sexuality is honored.”
      3. General message : the differences in sex Ed for boys and girls influence how sex is perceived by both genders. Thus continuing the cycle of objectification 
2. Schneider M., Hirsch S. J., (2020). Comprehensive Sexuality Education as a Primary Prevention Strategy for Sexual Violence Perpetration. Sage. TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE 2020, Vol. 21(3) 439-455 DOI: 10.1177/1524838018772855 
   1. Discusses how sex is taught in the US and its correlation to the views on sexual violence prevention. As previously discussed by (Hakimi, 2018), we see the emphasis placed on men’s sexual desires and the given role of women. This difference in sex Ed significantly influences the culture concerning sex which is deeply embedded in objectification. As a result, we see a power imbalance and men’s sense of entitlement that understandably yields women’s fear of rape and sexual violences that occur on a frequent basis. Examining the foundation of our sexual beliefs as a society as opposed to the standard victim blaming, will prove to better curb the rates of these sexual violence. This source additionally provides possible changes to the curriculum to better inform the kids and hopefully the public. 
      1. This is helpful for this research because it provides a clear analysis of men’s ignorance concerning sex, and insights on the role this cultural influence has on adversarial sexual beliefs. 
   2. Quotes 
      1. “A 2010–2012 nationally representative survey of adults found that approximately one in three (36.3%) women and one in six (17.1%) men reported experiencing some form of SV [Sexual Violence] during their lifetime, with 19.1% of women and 1.5% of men experiencing completed or attempted rape and 13.2% of women and 5.8% of men experiencing sexual coercion at some time in their lives. Among women who have been raped, 41.3% first experienced that rape before the age of 18 and an additional 36.5% were first raped between ages 18 and 24 (Smith et al., 2017). There is strong evidence that SV affects individuals throughout the life course (Basile, Smith, Breiding, Black, & Mahendra, 2014).” p. 439 
      2. “A primary prevention of perpetration approach, instead of a focus on the risk factors that make someone likely to be victimized, places the onus for SV prevention on perpetrators.” p. 439 – 440 
      3. “While victimization prevention approaches should be part of a larger SV prevention strategy, the historical emphasis on preventing victimization neglects the role of the perpetrator in violence; this can fuel victim- blaming narratives, self-blame, and a focus on whether victims could have done something differently to prevent an attack (DeGue et al., 2012). Furthermore, a prevention focus on those at risk of being assaulted does not necessarily reduce attempts to perpetrate SV nor does it address the social norms that lie on the outer level of the ecological model that allows SV to con- tinue. In order to achieve measurable reductions in violence, perpetration needs to be the focal point of intervention (DeGue et al., 2012).” p. 440 
      4. “a sequential, K–12 program begins early on in the life course when many risk factors are only just beginning to develop, and by reaching young children while they are still in development, it presents the best opportunity to address the problem before it occurs.”
      5. “. In addition to the obvious human rights viola- tions described by the statistics above, experiencing SV has both immediate and long-term health consequences. Physical consequences include pregnancy (over 32,000 of which occur every year as a result of rape) as well as STI/HIV acquisition, chronic pain, gastrointestinal disorders, gynecological complications, migraines, cervical cancer, and genital injuries (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2017). Immediate psychological consequences of SV include shock, denial, fear, confusion, anxiety, withdrawal, guilt, shame, distrust of others, and post-traumatic stress disorder, and longer term psychological consequences include depression, generalized anxiety, attempted or completed suicide, diminished interest or avoidance of sex, and low self-esteem (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2017)” p. 440 
      6. “Research also shows a variety of subsequent health risk behaviors associated with having experienced SV including earlier sexual debut, unprotected sex, having multiple sexual partners, cigarette use, drunk driving, and illicit drug use. These behaviors put victims at risk of unplanned pregnancies, STIs, HIV, and cigarette, drug, and alcohol-related injuries and illnesses (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2017).” p. 440 
      7. “Indeed, CSE [comprehensive sexuality education] traditionally aims to prevent health outcomes such as unplanned teenage pregnancy and HIV/STI acquisition, not SV (Chin et al., 2012; Haberland, 2015a; Kirby, Laris, & Rolleri, 2007; Lindberg & Maddow- Zimmet, 2012).” p. 444
      8. “The largest category of risk factors found to be significant in Tharp et al.’s (2012) review fall under sex, gender, and violence (Table 3). At the individual level, these include having sexual fantasies supportive of SV, willingness to commit SV, engaging in victim blaming, rape myth acceptance, hostility toward women/adversarial sexual beliefs, traditional gender role adherence, hypermasculinity, acceptance of violence, dominance, and competitiveness. At the peer-relationship level, these include peer approval of forced sex, peer pressure for sexual activity, peer sexual aggression, membership in a fraternity, and sports participation. At the romantic- relationship level, these include having a casual relationship status and having interrelationship conflict. These risk factors are fundamentally tied to gender and sexual norms and cognitions (Casey & Lindhorst, 2009; Heise, 1998). Tharp’s review failed to find the structural-level risk factor for gender as significant for SV perpetration, despite the intrin- sic relationship between the broader social organization of gender and these relationship and individual-level manifesta- tions of gendered practices and beliefs. This failure to find empirical evidence for the structural concept of gender as a risk factor may reflect the review’s exclusion of qualitative and ethnographic research and their focus on biomedical rather than social scientific research.” p. 444 
      9. “Tharp et al. (2012) identify a number of sexual behavior– related factors that consistently demonstrate a strong association with perpetrating SV: having multiple sexual partners,impersonal sex, early initiation of sex, sexual risk taking, and being positive for an STI. One factor that the literature has attributed this association to is that enacting these behaviors are mechanisms to negotiate power, demonstrate masculinity, and display an emphasized heterosexuality (Courtenay, 2000; Grazian, 2007; Jewkes, 2012; O’Sullivan, Hoffman, Harrison, & Dolezal, 2006; Ott, 2010; Pleck, Sonenstein, & Ku, 1993; Santana, Raj, Decker, Marche, & Silverman, 2006; Shearer, Hosterman, Gillen, & Lefkowitz, 2005), all of which fall under the domain of gender inequity across the social ecology and have already been discussed as risk factors for SV perpetration above.” p. 448