wrtg2010 argument analysis first draft-1
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
University of Utah *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
1010
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Apr 3, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
5
Uploaded by MegaDanger8624
Adalyn Olthuis
Brandon Young
WRTG2010
19 October 2023
[title]
Jen Gilbert is a professor of education at York University in Toronto, Canada. In 2016, she delivered a keynote address at the “Schooling and Sexualities: 20 Years On” conference in Australia. She then turned this speech into an article for the journal Sex Education, published May 1, 2018. In her paper “Contesting Consent in Sex Education”, Gilbert offers up an argument
against the way in which consent is taught and handled in sex education classes. Gilbert does not argue against teaching consent, but instead claims that it is harmful to students to teach consent as it is defined in legal contexts (Gilbert 269). Gilbert brings up two main arguments against how
consent is currently being taught. First, she argues that it is harmful to teach consent in its legal context because age of consent laws are often unclear and teenagers then become too focused on whether or not they are breaking the law when engaging in sexual activity (273). Her second main argument is that current methods of teaching consent do not allow young adults to fully explore their sexualities, as decision making in sex is not as transparent as consent focused education programs make it out to be (276). In her paper, “Contesting Consent in Sex Education”, Gilbert calls attention to the potential negative effects that teaching consent in sex education classes can have on young adults, while still emphasizing the importance of teaching young adults how to engage in sex safely and in a healthy manner. At the start of her paper, Gilbert details the history of consent and how the teaching of consent has evolved over time. While she believes the current teachings and definitions are not
perfect, she does acknowledge the improvements made over time. Gilbert uses quotes from scholarly articles written in the past to illustrate to readers that sex education has not improved very much since the 1990s. She argues that the former rhetoric of “no means no” was harmful to young adults, especially to young girls because it, “invites the boys to begin a campaign of persuasion.” (Gilbert 270) Gilbert notes that in the 2000s, this shifted to teaching “yes means yes”. (271) While “no means no” meant that the emphasis was placed on women refusing sex, “yes means yes” shifted towards the idea that men must receive an affirmative yes in order to continue with sex. (272). In illustrating the history of the ways in which consent is taught in US schools, Gilbert illustrates that while the current standards are not perfect, they have improved. It
allows the audience to understand why she is advocating for more change in sex education curriculums by showing that while we have come a long way, there is still more work to be done.
Gilbert’s paper is broken up into two more sections to support her claim. The first of these two sections is titled: “Ages of consent” (272). In breaking down her arguments into subcategories, the audience is able to clearly see and distinguish between the reasons she believes sex education regarding consent can be improved. In this section, Gilbert introduces readers to various laws regarding the age of consent in the US and Canada, and explains that these laws vary greatly from state to state, or province to province (273). Gilbert explains the confusion regarding such laws so readers can understand why it is confusing for young adults to understand them. She writes that, “These laws… do not make it easy for young people to understand whether they are breaking the law by having sex with their partner” (273). Furthermore, Gilbert argues that rigid definitions of consent in the law do not take into account the individuals involved. She reminds readers that “age is not necessarily an adequate proxy for capacity or competence.” (273) In doing so, she urges her audience to consider the individual
experiences of these young adults that are not taken into account when consent is framed in its legal contexts. Her second section, titled “Curriculums of consent”, critiques the current standards of consent taught in sex education classrooms and how it affects the sexuality of young adults (274). Gilbert offers examples of teacher-student exchanges shown in curriculum guides to illustrate to her audience that it is taught in a rather “dull” manner. (274) She also illustrates other
ways in which schools are constantly emphasizing consent to their students, such as easy to read flowcharts and diagrams. (275) However, Gilbert argues that it is an idealist vision to believe such diagrams can, “protect vulnerable people from harm.” (275) In yet another argument against
such methods of teaching consent, Gilbert writes that these methods assume “young people can understand only uncomplicated, transparent instructions.” (275) This calls readers back to her claims mentioned earlier in regards to the individuality of each young adult involved, and how legal and educational definitions and teachings of consent disregard each young adult and their own experiences. Furthermore, Gilbert calls upon the readers to think of their own sexual experiences and to remember that it is important for young adults to learn and experience the “surprise” that comes with it. (275). Here, she is arguing the importance of young adults exploring their own sexualities that is often disregarded when teaching students how they must feel and respond to such situations.
Throughout each section of her paper, Gilbert includes questions for the reader to consider. She does not explicitly answer each question, instead giving readers an opportunity to question the ways consent is currently framed and taught. For example, she poses the question, “How might discussions of consent with young women also acknowledge the pleasures of not knowing, being surprised and taking risks?” (276) Gilbert does not go on to answer this, but
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
instead lists more questions for the reader to consider. In doing so, she is illustrating the complexities of the issue at hand while also emphasizing the improvements that need to be made.
It also gives the readers a chance to consider what changes in rhetoric or curriculum can be made
to improve the way consent is taught. While it is important to teach students how to properly consent, it is also necessary to acknowledge these teachings are not perfect and can still be improved upon. Gilbert does not advocate against teaching consent, but instead urges readers to consider how we can improve the dialogue to better benefit young adults. It is important to understand this distinction, as well as to
acknowledge that we have come a long way, but there is still change to be made. It would be easy to assume that Gilbert is completely against incorporating consent into sex education curriculums. However, when you examine the paper further and look into each argument, you can understand that she is pleased with the progress that has been made, but still believes there are ways in which we can improve.
Works Cited
Gilbert, Jen. “Contesting Consent in Sex Education.” Sex Education
, vol. 18, no. 3, 2018, pp. 268-279. EBSCOhost
, htpps://doi.org/10.1080/14681811.2017.1393407. Accessed 16 October 2023