| dc.description.abstract | Child abuse and neglect are a global public health problem, predominant throughout all generations and societies. Research on CSA is critical as CSA endangers the well-being of children due to immediate emotional and physical trauma and high rates of physical and psychological health issues that can be traced back to assault. However, research on CSA in Africa, including Kenya, is considered problematic. UNICEF urges the development of a properly researched information base for African countries to gain a deeper understanding of the context, mechanisms, and dynamics of CSA. Sexuality education has proved to be a powerful tool sexual violence prevention. An approach that has gained popularity among human rights advocating organisations is the concept of comprehensive sexuality education (CSE). CSE can promote gender equality, foster critical thinking, strengthen capacities for citizenship, address vulnerabilities to fight exclusion, recognise the complexities of young people's lives, and be gender inclusive. However, abstinence-only education (AOE) is predominant in sub-Saharan Africa, which does not promote informed decision making.
Therefore, this research addresses the question: What are the effects of sexuality education on children in Kenya? This question is answered through the lens of a case study intervention examining a niche intervention established by a Dutch NGO in Malindi District. By applying the theory of planned behaviour, it is analysed how community and students’ perspectives on gender equality, consent, and sexual abuse and harassment influence student display of protective behaviours against sexual violence. Qualitative data was gathered through participant observations and interviews.
Findings show a strong focus on abstinence and other patriarchal influences in the programme. While the programme does affect the understanding of gender equality, consent, and sexual abuse and harassment, the messages conveyed are not in line with the critical values of CSE. Data revealed that even though AY SEP promotes gender equality, the reality is a culture ingrained with GBD and violence, which also influences the content of lessons. Consent is taught and understood in the context of abstinence, ignoring the reality of sexually active students in the community. This harms students' bodily and individual integrity and discriminates against abuse victims by devaluing them based on their chastity. With a limited understanding of gender equality and consent and no stimulation of critical thinking, students are not taught to challenge harmful traditions and beliefs or question stigma. In return, the programme does not address vulnerabilities to fight exclusion by not actively dismissing stigma but stimulating the latter. Even though the programme is gender inclusive, stakeholders tend to have an unbalanced approach to gender equality by overvaluing female academic achievement over male achievements. The programme does empower children to engage in protective behaviours but does not teach them how to exercise agency. | |
