Making ‘good girls’: sexual agency in the sexuality education of low-income black girls

Abstract

Critics argue that abstinence-only programmes reinforce gender inequality when they contain discourses that equate being a 'good girl' with sexual restraint. Yet they too often overlook how racial and class inequalities shape discourses about girls' sexual agency. This ethnography extends gender scholarship by analysing the racialised, classed and gendered dynamics of an abstinence-only programme for low-income black girls. It finds that black adults viewed the girls as sexually vulnerable because of racism and class inequality. They tried to mediate this vulnerability by transforming girls into sexual agents. They did so, though, by exaggerating the gendered discourses of the official sexuality education curricula that framed girls as victims and their sexual restraint as a matter of morality. Thus, the programme reinforced gender inequality while trying to disrupt race and class inequalities.

Stereotypes in Four Current AOUM Sexuality Education Curricula: Good Girls, Good Boys, and the New Gender Equality

“…If men have little control over their sexuality (biology stereotype) and women are vulnerable to their advances (danger stereotype), then girls need to be taught to prevent their own victimization and to screen possible rapists and potential dates (Schwartz, 2005). This reproduces a rhetoric of male entitlement (Froyum, 2009) that supports men as pursuers and women as pursued or, in other words, boys as sexual aggressors and girls as sexual avoiders (Fields, 2005;Froyum, 2009;Rose, 2005). Fields (2008) observes that in one sexuality education class, girls were given "assertive refusal" exercises whereas boys were taught how to politely break up with a girl.…”

“…More recent critiques of both abstinence and comprehensive sexuality education demonstrate that these curricula continue to focus on the danger versus the pleasure of sex for both boys and girls, with particular focus on danger for girls (Fields, 2005;Kendall, 2008;Schwartz, 2005). The overarching message of sexuality curricula still is that sexuality makes girls vulnerable to victimization (Froyum, 2009). Thus sexuality curricula teach "refusal skills" for two important reasons-to avoid abuse and to avoid intercourse.…”

“…For example, sexual desire and entitlement become associated with being "bad" or "slutty" (Tannenbaum, 2000). Among Black, low-income girls, exploring or expressing desire makes them further vulnerable to the stereotypes of being a "ho" (Froyum, 2009).…”

Leaving the street alone: Contesting street manhood as a gender project

“…In fact, Boys-To-Men officially omitted sexuality as a topic. Mighty Kids, the program for boys and girls, over-emphasized girls' subjectivity as potential reproducers who could get accidentally pregnant (Froyum 2010) and boys' subjectivity through accepting financial responsibility for offspring. During an activity in which males and females 'share responsibility equally', a role-play scenario positioned the boy actor as a sexual aggressor who would also resist paternity.…”

“…BW programs largely framed pregnancy as an emotional and social burden for girls (Froyum 2010). In fact, Boys-To-Men officially omitted sexuality as a topic.…”