The response to a sex education and consent book which was removed from the shelves of Big W stores shows how far Australia still has to go on sex education, a Senate committee inquiry has heard.
Welcome to Sex, co-authored by the former Dolly Doctor and adolescent health expert Dr Melissa Kang and feminist writer Yumi Stynes, became the target of an online protest campaign. The book was pulled from shelves at Big W after staff members were abused.
Author and advocate Jess Hill, who produced the SBS documentary Asking For It with Tosca Looby, told the legal and constitutional affairs committee inquiry into consent laws in Australia that the reaction to the book was a “good reminder” for the inquiry that “this kind of puritanical response is still broadly held in the Australian public, so not to get too confident that we’ve come a long way”.
“Certain sections of society have – and certain sections are quite happy to whip up a puritanical fervour over sex education for young people.”
Hill said evidence showed that almost half of Australian children aged between nine and 16 were being regularly exposed to porn, which was having a damaging effect “particularly for young boys and men”.
Chanel Contos, the founder of Teach us Consent, echoed those concerns.
“Young people are learning about sex from pornography, which – a phrase I always use is that is basically like learning how to drive a car by watching Formula One,” Contos said.
“It’s extremely unsafe. It’s extremely dangerous, and it is mainly young women who are being subjected to metaphorical car crashes.”
The hearing heard that one in five Australian women and one in 16 men over the age of 15 will experience sexual violence in their lifetime, with boys aged 15 to 19 representing the highest rates of offending of any age group.
But despite how common sexual violence is in Australia, Australians are more likely to believe women lie or exaggerate reports of sexual violence than any other western nation.
It makes it hard for principles such as “affirmative consent” – which has been legislated in New South Wales and about to become law in Victoria – to be more widely understood, Saxon Mullins, the director of advocacy at Rasara (Rape & Sexual Assault Research & Advocacy), said.
“We do see members of public getting confused and worried about what that means for them,” she said.
“But I think the main thing that we want to talk about about affirmative consent when talking to the public, is that what affirmative consent looks like in real life is you engaging in sexual activity with somebody you’re asking them continually do they want to be here?
“Are you having a good time, and they’re continually giving you that response that they do and that they are and when you break it down in that way, I think it seems as simple as it really is.”
Chief executive officer at Rasara, Dr Rachael Burgin, said the translation of affirmative consent from a principle to a law has not been without issue, including in NSW, which was seen as a trail blazer on the issue.
“The New South Wales approach is not gold standard, however, and that is because of the inclusion of the phrase ‘within a reasonable time before or at the time of the sexual activity’,” she said.
“Reasonable time before is a concerning phrase that is not borne out in the evidence.”
Burgin said there was no consensus about what a “reasonable time before” looked like, which created more legal ambiguity.
That provision has also been adopted by Victoria.
“It’s not gold standard. It’s the best we’ve got, but we have a ways to go,” Burgin said.
The inquiry will hold two more days of public hearings this week before reporting in September on how to improve Australia’s current and proposed consent laws.
