Available via license: CC BY
Content may be subject to copyright.
Academic Editor: Todd Michael
Franke
Received: 29 September 2024
Revised: 21 January 2025
Accepted: 24 January 2025
Published: 6 February 2025
Citation: Vrankovich, S., Hamilton, G.,
& Powell, A. (2025). “For Sustained
Change, WeNeed Everyone on Board”:
Australian Outsourced Provider
Perspectives on Relationships and
Sexuality Education for Young People.
Youth,5(1), 14. https://doi.org/
10.3390/youth5010014
Copyright: © 2025 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license
(https://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0/).
Article
“For Sustained Change, We Need Everyone on Board”:
Australian Outsourced Provider Perspectives on Relationships
and Sexuality Education for Young People
Sarah Vrankovich 1,2 , Gemma Hamilton 1,* and Anastasia Powell 1
1School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC 3001, Australia;
vrankovich.sarah@outlook.com (S.V.); anastasia.powell@rmit.edu.au (A.P.)
2Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society, La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC 3086, Australia
*Correspondence: gemma.hamilton@rmit.edu.au
Abstract: (1) Schools often rely on outsourced providers to deliver relationships and sexu-
ality education (RSE) to young people. However, there is limited research that has focused
on outsourced provider practices and perceptions of RSE, particularly as it relates to sexual
violence prevention. (2) The current qualitative study interviewed 15 outsourced providers
in Australia to glean their perspectives on the effective features of, and barriers to the
implementation of, RSE for young people, with a focus on sexual violence prevention.
(3) Through a reflexive thematic analysis, we found that outsourced providers valued a
whole-of-school approach to RSE and advocated for content on pornography literacy. They
raised conservative gatekeeping, precarious funding, and limited time as key implemen-
tation barriers. The findings also highlighted inconsistent views and approaches to RSE
among outsourced providers, with questions surrounding who should deliver RSE, which
theoretical framework underpins their work, and whether to take a gendered approach.
(4) Implications for educators, policymakers, and young people are discussed.
Keywords: relationships and sexuality education; sexual violence prevention; outsourced
provider; consent education
1. Introduction
Australian statistics show that over one third (39.5%) of young people have experi-
enced some form of unwanted sex in their lifetime (Power et al.,2022). Such experiences can
include those that are unwanted but acquiesced, through to pressured experiences, as well
as coercion and forced sex—what Liz Kelly has influentially described as the continuum of
sexual violence (Kelly,1987). To address this issue, various primary, secondary, and tertiary
initiatives must work together to prevent sexual violence among young people (Hooker
et al.,2021;McMahon,2000). One primary prevention strategy that seeks to address sexual
violence before it occurs is the implementation of relationships and sexuality education
(RSE). Various initiatives, such as the National Plan to End Violence against Women and
Children 2022–2032, recognize RSE as an important strategy for preventing sexual violence
among young people (Australian Government Department of Social Services,2022).
The objective of RSE programs is to equip young people with the knowledge, skills,
attitudes, and values necessary to enhance their sexual health and wellbeing (UNESCO,
2018). These programs aim to facilitate the development of respectful social and sexual
relationships, nurture healthy and positive attitudes towards bodies, puberty, relation-
ships, sex, and family life, encourage critical reflection on the consequences of choices for
Youth 2025,5, 14 https://doi.org/10.3390/youth5010014
Youth 2025,5, 14 2 of 19
themselves and others, and empower individuals to understand and advocate for their
rights throughout their lives (UNESCO,2018). Indeed, several systematic reviews have
identified the effectiveness of RSE in improving young people’s knowledge, attitudes, and
skills related to sexual health and sexual wellbeing (see Burton et al.,2023;Garzón-Orjuela
et al.,2021;Goldfarb & Lieberman,2021;Lameiras-Fernández et al.,2021). These reviews
consistently find that programs commencing in the early foundational years of schooling
can gradually introduce developmentally appropriate content, embrace diverse identities,
and emphasize skill-building, which has a positive impact on young people’s attitudes,
knowledge, and skills related to sexual health and wellbeing. These learnings can serve
as a protective factor against sexual violence by equipping young people with the tools
needed to make informed decisions about and critically reflect on their sexual preferences
and desires (Schneider & Hirsch,2020).
Research has long established that to be an effective sexual violence primary pre-
vention strategy, RSE must affirm young people’s human right to accurate information,
freedom from discrimination, and informed decision-making (Berglas et al.,2014;Camp-
bell,2016;Gruskin et al.,2019;Kismödi et al.,2017). Despite its potential, global research
consistently shows that young people are often disappointed in their RSE, describing it
as insufficient in meeting their needs, lacking in critical content such as personal wellbe-
ing, and being heavily focused on risk and harm prevention (e.g., Díaz-Rodríguez et al.,
2024;Vrankovich et al.,2024;Graham et al.,2023). Additionally, much of the existing RSE
literature has focused on teacher perspectives, highlighting persistent challenges such as
inadequate training, insufficient resources, and discomfort in addressing sensitive topics
(Burns et al.,2023;Crumper et al.,2023;Johnson et al.,2014;Lodge et al.,2022;Ollis,2016;
Walker et al.,2021). To ameliorate some of these challenges, schools can contract outsourced
providers to deliver RSE to students and/or upskill staff to engage with this content (Burns
& Hendriks,2018;Goldman,2011). However, there is limited scholarly knowledge on
outsourced provider perspectives regarding good practice in RSE. This study aimed to
address this gap by focusing on the perspectives of outsourced RSE providers, whose
specialized knowledge and experiences are critical for informing best practices in sexual
violence prevention among young people.
1.1. Outsourced Provider Perspectives of Relationships and Sexuality Education
Some international research has explored outsourced provider perspectives on ef-
fective RSE (Beres,2019;Black et al.,2024;Pound et al.,2017). For instance, one study
in the United Kingdom involved a one-day workshop with 19 experts and practitioners
engaged in RSE (Pound et al.,2017). The workshop sought participants’ feedback on
an evidence-based RSE program in the UK, as well as their views on key issues such as
effective approaches to RSE and responsibility for its delivery. While the data from this
workshop were not analyzed or treated as formal research data, the findings provided
insights into perceived evidence gaps and stakeholder priorities. Participants emphasized
the importance of moving beyond harm and risk-focused approaches, advocating instead
for comprehensive RSE that addresses sexual health and relationships. They also high-
lighted the critical role of teachers in delivering RSE, noting that although outsourced
providers bring valuable expertise, their sporadic sessions may undermine the consistency
and effectiveness of RSE (Pound et al.,2017). Other research with high school teachers and
students echoes these concerns, suggesting that schools may sometimes outsource RSE as a
‘tick the box’ exercise to appease parental and public expectations rather than prioritizing
best practice (Hayes et al.,2024).
Australian research on outsourced provider perspectives of RSE is also in its infancy
(Crocker et al.,2019;Heslop et al.,2020;Waling et al.,2023;Walker et al.,2023). One recent
Youth 2025,5, 14 3 of 19
qualitative study explored the perspectives of Victorian health professionals (such as nurses
and general practitioners) who encountered sexual and reproductive health-related issues
in their practice (n= 12) (Walker et al.,2023). The participants perceived health professionals
and outsourced providers with expertise in the field as best placed to deliver RSE. They
acknowledged that a collaborative approach across education and healthcare was important
for increasing young people’s access to consistent and comprehensive RSE (Walker et al.,
2023). Although these findings are specific to the perspectives of health professionals based
in metropolitan Victoria, they highlight the significant role of outsourced providers in
enhancing young people’s access to RSE.
Research by Heslop et al. (2020) shed light on the barriers and difficulties outsourced
providers may face regarding RSE (Heslop et al.,2020). They qualitatively explored stake-
holders’ perceptions (n= 16) of a youth-focused RSE initiative in rural Western Australia.
The study revealed insights from participants representing various sectors, including tradi-
tional health promotion (such as youth, education, and health services) and non-traditional
settings (such as library services, local media and government, sports, and recreation).
Many participants lacked knowledge on how to extend RSE beyond individual-level edu-
cation to address broader community needs. Those responsible for teaching RSE often felt
unprepared, lacking essential skills and professional development. Additionally, communi-
cation and collaboration among stakeholders in the rural town were described as notably
absent (Heslop et al.,2020). While this study holds specific insights into RSE-focused
initiatives within rural settings, the findings highlight some of the unique challenges faced
by outsourced providers in delivering RSE.
Despite the use of outsourced RSE programs across various countries, there remains a
lack of research exploring the unique, practice-based knowledge of outsourced providers,
particularly in the content and delivery of RSE related to sexual violence prevention (see
Deloitte et al.,2020;Hayes et al.,2024;Heslop et al.,2020;Sperling,2022;Waling et al.,2023;
Walker et al.,2023). Outsourced providers bring expertise to RSE and are often seen as
filling gaps left by school-based delivery. Unlike teachers, providers are not limited by the
constraints of the traditional school environment, allowing them greater flexibility to adopt
innovative and targeted approaches. Thus, their perspectives are particularly valuable
as they are uniquely positioned to identify good practices and barriers to effective RSE
implementation, especially in the context of preventing sexual violence. Further research is
needed to build the evidence base, given the growing prevalence of outsourced educational
programs and the heightened focus on using RSE to prevent sexual violence among young
people (Deloitte et al.,2020). Such research is important for informing policy, curricula,
and program decisions, ultimately enhancing the delivery and impact of RSE as a key
component of a multi-faceted strategy to prevent sexual violence.
1.2. The Current Study
This research explored professional outsourced providers’ perspectives on good prac-
tice in Australian RSE for young people. Specifically, it examined the core research question,
“What do Australian outsourced providers perceive to be the effective features of, and
implementation barriers to, school relationships and sexuality education for sexual vio-
lence prevention?” To address this question, outsourced providers who engage with RSE
were invited to participate in a qualitative interview to discuss their perspectives. Much
of the research to date on stakeholder perspectives of RSE is placed within the fields of
health promotion and education (e.g., Beres,2019;Black et al.,2024;Crocker et al.,2019;
Goldman,2011;Heslop et al.,2020;Pound et al.,2017;Walker et al.,2023). This study,
however, adopted a criminological lens by considering the structural and social factors that
contribute to sexual violence and the mechanisms that can be used within RSE to prevent it.
Youth 2025,5, 14 4 of 19
This perspective informed the analysis by focusing on how outsourced providers perceive
RSE as contributing to violence prevention outcomes and by identifying barriers to effective
implementation. The remainder of this article proceeds as follows: First, we provide an
account of the qualitative methods and data reported in this article. Then, we present and
discuss three overarching themes and associated sub-themes that respond to the research
question. Finally, we discuss the implications of these findings for RSE, with a focus on
sexual violence prevention among young people.
2. Methods
In accordance with ethical guidelines, this research received institutional ethics ap-
proval from the RMIT University Human Research Ethics Committee (project number
24798). This article reports on the first stage of a larger project that involved in-depth
interviews with both outsourced providers who deliver RSE and young people. Further
details of the second-stage interviews with young people are available in (Vrankovich et al.,
2024). While the broader project emphasized the critical knowledge and experience of
young people themselves in the development of sexual violence prevention, this article
specifically considers the insights of outsourced providers for two main reasons. First, as
schools often rely on outsourced providers to deliver RSE, exploring their perceptions of
good practice is essential to identifying potential gaps or inconsistencies in current practices.
Second, their insights can provide a valuable context for developing more effective and
inclusive sexual violence prevention programs that better serve young people’s needs.
2.1. Participants
Fifteen outsourced providers who engage with RSE in a professional capacity within
Australia participated in this research. They were recruited through purposive sampling by
using the Google search engine to identify organizations across Australia that delivered RSE
programs and were contacted using publicly available information. This sample size was
chosen to allow for an in-depth, qualitative exploration of perspectives while remaining
manageable within the constraints of the study’s scope and resources. The outsourced
providers have been identified as “capacity builders” or “external educators” to reflect their
primary roles in RSE. External educators were professionals who mainly delivered RSE
content to young people within educational settings. Capacity builders primarily worked
with parents, teachers, staff members, or other institutional staff to enhance their skills and
knowledge in delivering RSE.
The outsourced providers worked for a diverse range of organizations, including
government-based initiatives, entities providing outsourced RSE services for school and
tertiary education institutions, and organizations dedicated to enhancing the skills of
parents, teachers, or staff members in delivering and implementing RSE programs. The
organizations delivered RSE lessons in both regional and metropolitan areas in Australia.
Organization names are withheld, and pseudonyms have been used to protect the privacy
of participants.
2.2. Procedure
Qualitative interviews were conducted using Microsoft Teams (n= 15) and took place
between April 2022 and October 2022. A semi-structured approach was used to engage
outsourced providers in open discussions while addressing the research question. The
discussions focused on their perceptions of good practice in RSE, the barriers to RSE
implementation, and what theory of change underpinned the initiatives they were involved
with. All the interviews were audio-recorded using an external recording device. The
interviews ranged from 29 to 51 min, with an average duration of 39 min. All interviews
Youth 2025,5, 14 5 of 19
were transcribed verbatim using Microsoft Word by the first author, with the transcripts and
audio recordings stored on a secure drive. After the interviews, the outsourced providers
were given the opportunity to review their transcript to ensure their voices and pedagogical
expertise were accurately captured in the data. They were given a two-week period to
review their data. Five chose to review the transcript, with two requesting minor edits,
which were actioned. The storage and retention of the data is in accordance with the RMIT
University data management policy.
2.3. Data Analysis
The interviews were recorded using an external recording device and transcribed
verbatim, and all identifying information was removed before coding began. Using NVivo
12 Pro Software, a reflexive inductive thematic analysis was conducted (Braun & Clarke,
2019,2022). Reflexivity is a process of considering the researcher’s active role in producing
knowledge (Braun & Clarke,2019). The research team acknowledge their perspectives as
feminist criminologists, whose contributions to the field are motivated by a progressive aim
of promoting non-violence and gender equity. This, in turn, could influence our approaches
to data collection, analysis, and interpretation; for example, in our focus on prevention
and/or in identifying limitations of conservative approaches to prevention. Reflexivity
was further operationalized in the research by the first author maintaining a reflexive
journal, reading and re-reading the transcripts, and discussing each stage of the data
collection and analysis process with the research team (Braun & Clarke,2019,2022). The
data were organized into broad topic codes (e.g., RSE not being a priority, inconsistent/lack
of funding) and were then further developed into more cohesive themes (e.g., “The Purse
Strings are Very Stretched”: Precarious Funding and Limited Time). These themes were
data-driven and identified by their salience to the research question. The research team
met frequently to explore the themes and engage in discussion, familiarization, reflection,
and the interpretation of the data to engage in reflexivity (Braun & Clarke,2019). The
participants’ quotes have been lightly edited to enhance the readability of the findings;
however, the meanings remain unchanged.
3. Findings and Discussion
The outsourced providers reflected on their professional experiences and spoke pas-
sionately about the delivery of RSE. The findings are organized under broad umbrella
themes with key sub-themes. (1) Effective features of RSE: a whole-of-school approach;
content on pornography (porn) literacy. (2) Barriers to implementation: conservative gate-
keeping; precarious funding and limited time. (3) Various views and approaches to RSE:
who should deliver RSE; inconsistent theoretical underpinnings; and whether to take a
gendered approach.
3.1. Effective Features of RSE
When discussing the effective features of RSE in preventing sexual violence, out-
sourced providers highlighted both content and delivery methods. They agreed that a
whole-of-school approach should be adopted, and emphasized the inclusion of porn literacy
in classroom lessons.
3.1.1. Whole-of-School Approach
The outsourced providers agreed that a whole-of-school approach was essential to
enhancing the comprehensiveness of RSE. For example, outsourced providers emphasized,
“We know that for sustained change, we need everyone on board” (Emma, external educa-
tor) and “I insist on a whole school approach which is best practice, where all the adults
are educated and involved in the same conversation” (Lisa, capacity builder). A whole-of-
Youth 2025,5, 14 6 of 19
school approach provides young people with multiple exposures to messages across the
curriculum and in different areas of the school and the community (Bragg et al.,2022;Our
Watch,2022;World Health Organization & UNESCO,2021). It involves engaging students,
school staff, teachers, nurses, parents/carers, and the wider community in the process of
social and cultural change. Contrasting with curriculum-only strategies, a whole-of-school
approach extends beyond the individual level to address various systems of influence and
is recognized as best practice in RSE (Bragg et al.,2022;UNESCO,2018;World Health
Organization & UNESCO,2021). For instance, implementing a whole-of-school approach
might involve revisiting school policies and practices to better support student wellbeing.
Additionally, to ensure a whole-of-school approach, teacher training and professional
development opportunities were considered essential by the outsourced providers.
In support of the evidence base, most of the outsourced providers expressed that
teachers often feel underprepared and inadequately trained to teach RSE content to students
(see also, Crumper et al.,2023;Burns & Hendriks,2018;Hayes et al.,2024). Despite
recent reforms to the Australian curriculum mandating the inclusion of consent education
(Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority,2022), some outsourced
providers noted an absence of pre- and in-person training focused on delivering RSE:
We had to fight so much to get consent mentioned in the curriculum and, when
it does get released in the next month or so, I think you’ll find that word is
mentioned a lot. It’s a really important starting point, but that doesn’t mean it’s
actually going to happen in schools, because there’s no wrap-around support or
infrastructure, so teachers still aren’t being trained. There’s no money being put
into professional development. (Lee, capacity builder)
Professional development for teachers to receive and respond to disclosures of sexual
violence was also considered to be particularly important. For example, Ella (capacity
builder) highlighted, “Something that I’ve seen a lot in the [tertiary education] space is
people finding out for themselves after they’ve attended a session or read a resource.
They’ll say, oh, actually, I have been sexually assaulted three years ago, but I didn’t realize”.
Similarly, Sally (external educator) detailed the following:
We look at training up a dozen first responders within schools because what we
know is often in schools, people might have had a bad experience, and they speak
to a teacher they have rapport with. Well, of course, that teacher might not have
actually had adequate training in responding to disclosures or what to do when
they hear one.
Research shows that pre-service training can enhance teachers’ attitudes, knowledge,
and skills for delivering RSE confidently (Hendriks et al.,2024). Thus, teacher training
should also focus on building educators’ confidence to respond to sexual violence disclo-
sures in trauma-informed ways, in order to create safer school environments.
3.1.2. Content on Pornography Literacy
Most of the outsourced providers spoke on the negative influence that porn can have
on young people’s knowledge surrounding sexuality. Tyler (external educator) provided
an example, speaking about how they were asked “a lot of weird questions about animals”
at one school after a pornographic video was circulated that showed themes of bestiality.
Amy (external educator) also illustrated the following:
Porn is really impacting young people’s views on certain things. It’s actually quite
concerning. We’re starting to talk about things like choking and strangulation
being the expected thing from a young woman’s point of view in a heterosexual
Youth 2025,5, 14 7 of 19
relationship because that’s what young people see in porn
. . .
You often don’t see
consent being displayed in a lot of porn that young people are consuming.
Amy’s concern aligns with recent research suggesting that strangulation during sex
is becoming increasingly common among young people, often without their awareness
of proper practices or associated risks (Herbenick et al.,2022;Sharman et al.,2024). For
instance, research by Woodley and Jaunzems (2024) examined how teenagers view the
portrayal of sexual choking in pornography, highlighting concerns about the normalization
of risky sexual behaviors and the need for comprehensive RSE to address these issues.
Many of the outsourced providers recognized that young people are exposed to porn
from a young age, which can negatively influence their perceptions of sexual practices.
However, instead of advocating for young people to avoid porn entirely, they emphasized
the importance of incorporating porn literacy into RSE. For example, Bindi (capacity
builder) detailed that porn is “often the scapegoat” for harmful behaviors and people can
“just jump on the hating porn bandwagon”. They argued:
People will be like, this behavior is happening because of porn, you can stop all
the behaviors by stopping porn, but how about we just start having conversations
about it? People put the problem on [porn] when a lot of the problems are the
adults in the individuals’ life who can’t communicate about what sex could look
like, which is pleasurable and fun.
As Bindi suggests, the reliance on porn as an educational tool should motivate efforts
to enhance young people’s access to RSE, rather than restricting their access to porn entirely
(see also Crabbe & Flood,2021;Goldstein,2019;Setty,2023). Porn literacy in RSE should
empower young people to critically navigate the influence of porn, helping them to reduce
its potentially adverse impact on sexual experiences (Crabbe & Flood,2021;Woodley &
Jaunzems,2024).
3.2. Barriers to Implementation
There was agreement among outsourced providers regarding key barriers to the imple-
mentation of RSE. Their responses largely focused on conservative influences, precarious
funding and limited time, here discussed in turn.
3.2.1. Conservative Gatekeeping
The outsourced providers raised that RSE should begin early in young people’s
developmental years, but that they consistently faced conservative influences that gate-
kept what they could include in educational materials. The influence of governments on
young people’s access to RSE was discussed by a few outsourced providers. For example,
Amy (external educator) highlighted the tensions between aiming to deliver appropriate
and relevant content to young people, and sexuality being considered a taboo-laden subject;
Sex and consent are considered sensitive topics for lots of governments. So, when
people are funded to do this work, there is a bit of tension
. . .
It can sometimes
be challenging to balance the needs of what young people are wanting in the
content and what stakeholders are comfortable to include
. . .
It says something
that government organizations don’t want to talk about this stuff, like what are
the best sex positions. But that’s the kind of resource that would be great for
young people.
Conservative schools were also heavily discussed among the outsourced providers
as contexts that restricted young people’s access to good-quality RSE. Specifically, the
exclusion of pleasure and intimacy in conversations about sex was identified as an area of
key concern. Emma (external educator) illustrated this, stating, “As far as what schools
Youth 2025,5, 14 8 of 19
actually want, it’s really just prevention and damage control. I think that is a massive gap as
teaching about pleasure will make it easier for young people to have conversations around
consent”. Like Emma, other external educators shared their experiences of conservative
schools restricting the content taught to young people. For instance:
There are some limitations around being inclusive in terms of sexualities, it’s
always, sex only happens in a marriage, it can’t happen before marriage and
it’s only ever between a man and a woman. So, not allowing for exploration of
different sexualities
. . .
Even using a word like clitoris, it’s an anatomical body
part but it’s so taboo in certain circles, particularly in conservative schools. So,
using words like clitoris, testicle or masturbation can catch people off guard. (Jess,
external educator)
Similarly, other outsourced providers noted, “We’ve had schools who want to pull
the curriculum apart and are like, don’t do masturbation or anything about touching
themselves” (Bertie, external educator and capacity builder) and “Sometimes we’re in
religious schools, and they don’t even want us to acknowledge that young people are
having sex before marriage” (Hilary, external educator).
The use of imagery to support educators in delivering RSE to young people was
identified as a challenge for some of the outsourced providers. For example, Bindi (capacity
builder) provided an example of a website their team developed that featured anatomically
correct images for people across various age groups, reflecting:
It’s very hard to find appropriate educational images around sex and relationships
and a lot of teachers are trying to find pictures to support their teaching. But
they’re on the education login and lots of sites are blocked. So, having these
images makes it a lot easier for people to educate in an appropriate workplace-
relevant way.
In another example, Lee (capacity builder) described using an educational film to
prompt discussions about relationships, acknowledging, “It’s difficult because they’re
under 18. So, you’re trying to bring up these things but not be too graphic about it”. The
reluctance to engage with explicit yet educational materials could stem from institutional
concerns about offending community values or overstepping perceived moral boundaries,
reflecting forms of conservative gatekeeping. This gatekeeping may limit educators’ ability
to deliver accurate and age-appropriate resources and can perpetuate tensions between
protecting young people and addressing their developmental needs.
The tension between censorship and access to appropriate educational materials
highlights challenges faced by educators in navigating both ethical and legal boundaries
in the delivery of RSE. This raises deeper concerns about the balance between protecting
young people from exposure to explicit content and the need to provide them with realistic,
relevant resources for understanding sexuality and relationships in an educational context.
The challenge of balancing the needs of young people with the viewpoints of those in
positions of authority also translated to education settings beyond schools:
One of the biggest gaps is being able to get in a room in the first place and
past the institutional barriers. [Tertiary education institutions] can be afraid
to engage external providers or young people because they don’t see sexual
violence as a part of [tertiary education] life, and they say people have learnt this
in school. But sexual violence is rampant at [tertiary education institutions]. (Ella,
capacity builder)
Here, Ella highlights the institutional failures to recognize sexual violence as a systemic
and prevalent issue, which leads to an inability to engage with young people from the
outset. Certainly, the challenge of “getting into the school” (Tyler, external educator) was an
Youth 2025,5, 14 9 of 19
initial barrier that some outsourced providers typically faced in implementing RSE. Thus,
conservative gatekeeping can operate not only through restrictions on content, but also
through institutional reluctance to acknowledge the importance of comprehensive RSE as a
strategy to address issues such as sexual violence.
3.2.2. “The Purse Strings Are Very Stretched”: Precarious Funding and Limited Time
Most outsourced providers contended that school-based RSE is often not a priority.
For example, they detailed that “schools are under pressure to cover off the curriculum and
some very much just tick the box” (Tyler, external educator) and “across the jurisdictions
in Australia, there are uneven levels of commitment [to RSE]” (Jacob, external educator).
Furthermore, the limited time schools dedicate to RSE often resulted in the outsourced
providers’ lessons being delivered less effectively. For example,
Us delivering 13 lessons to 24 kids versus teaching one auditorium-style class to
250 kids is very different. There’s four days’ worth of work or two hours’ worth
of work. Schools often have to look at it on a monetary level
. . .
They have to work
within the constraints of what the system is. (Hilary, external educator)
Indeed, a lack of funding was the most significant barrier outsourced providers
encountered to implementing RSE. As Bertie (external educator and capacity builder)
stated, “The limit to sexual education is with the funding of the organization or school who
doesn’t have the funding to be able to have that type of education. . .The purse strings are
very stretched, but we have so much more to do”. Like others, Bertie went on to detail
the lack of consistency and continuity of funding, describing how RSE initiatives typically
receive short-term grants:
[RSE outsourced providers] get $10,000 to do a little bit and someone somewhere
else can get $10,000 and do a little bit
. . .
There’s not a consistent flow of funding
because even if you are lucky enough to secure some funding, it’s usually only
for 12 months. . .We need a whole-nation approach.
Similarly, Lee (capacity builder) argued that a more “sustainable funding model” was
imperative to ensuring that financial support “come[s] from more sources”:
There are only a few branches of the government funding for sexual education
and they’re all doing it in an ad hoc way without speaking to each other
. . .
They
take a bunch of people who are all very passionate about these topics and all
have great expertise, but they make us compete against each other for the same
pot of money. We are also on recurring two-and-three-year contracts, so it’s very
hard to get any forward momentum because we are continually trying to justify
our contract to keep hold of our money and are getting organized to get the next
piece of money.
Bindi (capacity builder) further highlighted how efforts to “be more sex-positive and
amplify people’s sexual experiences can often be seen as not necessary” and thus, it is often
“easier to get funding for protective behaviors or gender-based violence”.
The fragmented and inconsistent funding model could hamper the effectiveness of
RSE, limiting both the scope and sustainability of programs (Fine & McClelland,2023;
Quinlivan,2018). The reliance on short-term grants and competitive funding structures
undermines the development of comprehensive, long-term RSE initiatives that effectively
address sexual violence among young people. A sustained and coordinated funding model
is needed to implement evidence-based, comprehensive RSE programs. Without this, RSE
could remain constrained in its effectiveness to prevent sexual violence, perpetuating gaps
in young people’s knowledge and skills related to sexuality.
Youth 2025,5, 14 10 of 19
3.3. Various Views and Approaches to RSE
The interviews also revealed several areas of disagreement among the outsourced
providers when it came to the delivery and content of RSE. Questions were raised regarding
who is best placed to deliver RSE; which theoretical frameworks underpinned outsourced
RSE initiatives; and whether content should take a gendered or gender-neutral approach.
3.3.1. Who Should Deliver RSE?
All the outsourced providers concurred that a professional with subject matter ex-
pertise should deliver RSE to young people. However, there was disagreement regarding
the most effective delivery agents for this content. The capacity-builders emphasized the
importance of equipping classroom teachers with the necessary knowledge and skills to
educate young people about relationships and sexuality. Lisa articulated this viewpoint,
stating, “It is not the best, most effective way to teach this topic from an external educator
walking into a classroom and delivering an hour or two of content and walking out again”.
On the other hand, external educators strongly advocated for the benefits of their approach
to delivering RSE. For example:
We are subject matter experts and content experts, and we’re also actually educa-
tion experts
. . .
Very few people feel comfortable to stand in front of a room of 50
people and talk about masturbation. We’ve got a nuanced understanding of the
pedagogy and how to really create safe and supportive learning environments.
So, we can use our expertise from our teaching in conjunction with our expertise
in the subject matter and content. (Hilary)
Emma (external educator) also highlighted the advantage of being an outsider to the
school environment, stating, “I’m biased, but if it’s delivered by their teachers, that can be
really off putting because that’s someone [students] have to see every day or majority of
the year. They might not feel comfortable to talk to them about [sex]”. While the value of
privacy and anonymity was discussed, Bindi (capacity builder) shared a potential limitation
to outsourced RSE when engaging with some students living with disability. Bindi detailed
that one focus of their work involved education about the boundaries between private and
public spaces. They noted, “People talk [to young people] about not talking to strangers
about private matters, but then we have an external facilitator coming in to teach consent
for a one-off session, but we’ve told people not to talk to strangers about this stuff”. Here,
Bindi highlights how there are potential contradictions in external facilitators being invited
into private discussions about sensitive topics.
While the outsourced providers advocated for and worked within one form of delivery,
they often still acknowledged the importance and place of the other in RSE. For example:
I think teachers are best placed, so sometimes I tread on the toes of some external
providers whose job it is to go into schools and be the guest speaker. But I do
promote them and think they have a really important role. I know when I go
in as an external guest speaker, I can say things that are a little naughtier than
probably the average classroom teacher
. . .
However, I don’t want us to think
that’s what primary prevention is, that you can outsource it. It needs to be more
comprehensive than that. If you do have a guest speaker, there needs to be
follow-up. (Lee, capacity builder)
The “best educator” debate (see also Allen,2009) raises important questions about
who is best suited to deliver RSE. While a cohesive strategy could involve both external
educators and capacity builders, tensions exist with each approach. Empowering teachers
through capacity-building requires sustained support and training, which in turn depends
on institutional commitment and resources. On the other hand, relying on external edu-
Youth 2025,5, 14 11 of 19
cators for subject-specific expertise risks turning RSE into a series of disjointed, one-off
lessons, rather than fostering a comprehensive and sustained approach. If either method
is underfunded or poorly executed, students may receive inconsistent or inadequate RSE,
undermining its effectiveness in preventing sexual violence. This highlights the potential
for a “hybrid model”, where both external educators and teachers—supported by capacity
builders—play essential roles in ensuring young people have meaningful access to RSE
(see also Deloitte et al.,2020). A hybrid model can also work to instill a whole-of-school
approach to RSE by promoting collaboration, building teacher confidence, and embedding
consistent education throughout the school culture and curriculum.
3.3.2. Inconsistent Theoretical Underpinnings
During the interviews, outsourced providers were asked about the framework or
theories of change underpinning the initiatives they were involved with. Theoretical
frameworks are crucial for understanding the complexities underlying sexual violence and
directly inform prevention strategies (Allen,2009;Berns,2001). They guide the develop-
ment of initiatives, highlight key intervention areas, and shape the nature of prevention
efforts (Carmody,2009). Without a consistent theory of change, it becomes difficult to
identify the “active ingredients” necessary for effective RSE (Paulauskaite et al.,2022,
p. 611).
Firstly, participants identified a range of theories, frameworks, or models that guided
their work. These included a public health approach, a social model of disability, a human
rights perspective, a trauma-informed approach, a sex-positive approach, a health promo-
tion framework, an intersectional approach, a capacity-building framework, UNESCO’s
International Technical Guidance on Sexual Education, a whole-of-school approach, and
the social ecological model. While these theories and frameworks share some founda-
tional principles in relation to sexual violence prevention, the diversity of responses raises
questions about the effectiveness and consistency of theoretical underpinnings in RSE.
Participants’ responses to this question varied significantly, with few readily able to
outline a specific theory or framework. However, Bindi (capacity builder) provided a clear
answer, stating,
We work by the social model of disability, which is probably the first thing to
come to mind. It’s essentially that, the reason that people with disabilities are
excluded or find it hard to participate in life, community or work is not inherently
because they have a disability. It’s because of how our cities, our schools, our
education system, sexual health systems are designed, and all the stereotypes
that come along with that.
Others struggled to answer this question on the spot, with responses like: “It’s been
a long time since I’ve visited this” (Lisa, capacity builder) or “Not as an organization. I
wasn’t around at the time of writing the content, so there very well could be [a framework
or theory]” (Tyler, external provider).
When asked about theories or frameworks, some stakeholders noted that their work
was not underpinned by a formal theory, but rather by broader principles of practice.
For example, “in terms of theory of change, not necessarily, or not at this current point
in time
. . .
our core value is all around intersectionality” (Ella, capacity builder), “I don’t
know if it’s a framework so much, but we use an intersectional feminist approach” (Emma,
external provider) and “I wouldn’t say we have a framework that’s specific
. . .
I think we
probably use a few different ones” (Amy, external provider). The reliance on broader
principles rather than specific theoretical frameworks could reflect a flexible, practice-
informed approach to RSE among outsourced providers. While this adaptability could
allow for providers to address diverse needs and contexts, it also underlines potential
Youth 2025,5, 14 12 of 19
challenges in achieving consistency and rigor in the design and delivery of RSE initiatives
working to prevent sexual violence.
This finding—while not diminishing the valuable work of the outsourced providers—
highlights potential gaps in national leadership, policies, and systems that could facilitate a
more consistent and uniform theoretical model. It illustrates the need for a robust theoretical
foundation to ensure prevention efforts are grounded in a comprehensive understanding of
sexual violence. Establishing a standardized national framework for RSE could be a pivotal
initial step in addressing the multifaceted needs of young people and the prevention of
sexual violence (Carmody,2009).
Additionally, a potential issue arising from the use of outsourced organizations for
RSE delivery is the potential for inconsistency and variability in educational content and
approaches. Unlike standardized curricula, outsourced organizations typically develop
their own resources, materials, and teaching methods. While Australian guidelines exist
(e.g., Department of Social Services,2023), there are no national standards (other than
the curriculum) or evaluation processes that outsourced providers must adhere to before
teaching their content. This variation can result in disparities in students’ learning experi-
ences across Australia. This was highlighted by a recent national stocktake report on RSE
programs, which identified significant differences among 68 resources in terms of target
audience, quality, approach, focus, and evidence base (Pfitzner et al.,2022). The report
argued that while there has been an increased uptake of RSE, many school-based initiatives
have not been rigorously evaluated, or the evaluations are not publicly accessible. While
some Australian states and territories offer guidance for schools engaging with outsourced
providers, schools are responsible for selecting a suitable organization and ensuring they
meet the needs of the students, staff, parents, and the broader school community. This
responsibility may place additional burdens on schools, requiring them to allocate time
and resources to vet external organizations.
3.3.3. Whether to Take a Gendered Approach
The outsourced providers frequently spoke about the importance of de-gendering their
educational content, often describing their materials as “gender-neutral”. In its simplest
form, a gender-neutral approach implies that the content does not cater to a specific
gender. Several external educators described intentional efforts to use gender-neutral
pronouns during role-playing or case study examples to ensure inclusivity and encourage
participation. For example, Jess (external educator) stated that they use gender-neutral
pronouns to “leave it up to the participants’ imagination” and ensure that “everyone is
welcome to be a part of the conversation”. Tyler (external educator) also detailed, “We just
keep it very gender-neutral, culturally neutral. If I’m talking about how consent needs to
be ongoing, I don’t use any pronouns”. In summary, using gender-neutral content was
perceived to form the foundations of an inclusive approach to RSE.
When considering RSE as a strategy to prevent sexual violence—a phenomenon that,
while affecting all people, is deeply rooted in social and cultural ideas and notions about
gender—then the focus on de-gendering content can present complexities. To illustrate
this, the classroom-based experiences of external educators teaching about consent can
offer insights. A few external educators noted the distinct difference in how boys and girls
engage specifically with consent education. For example, Emma shared:
Something that is always reoccurring and whenever we hire new educators,
we’ve been into some single-sex boys’ schools recently and we’ll be talking about
consent. And then they will try and give you every single different context or
situation and ask, but what if? But what if? Just to try and see how far they can
push things.
Youth 2025,5, 14 13 of 19
In contrast, Emma emphasized how they were “so surprised and consistently blown
away by the intelligence and strength of the young, female single-sex schools”. Leeloo
(external educator) echoed this sentiment, describing how questions from boys in private
schools often reflected a problematic mindset:
Unfortunately, it pains me to say it but the questions coming out of the private
boys’ schools, the subtext is very much how do we have sex without getting
into trouble? They’re not thinking about their sexual partners as people. The
questions coming out of the private girls’ schools are very much along the lines
of, how do I say no without making someone angry? How do I keep my friends
safe? It’s really disappointing to see that disparity.
This disparity illustrates how gendered and heterosexual social norms may continue
to shape attitudes and behaviors related to sex and consent. As Lisa (capacity builder)
noted, de-gendering content can sideline critical discussions about power, privilege, and
patriarchal structures that influence sexual violence;
All of the content is inclusive and non-gendered as much as possible when
we talk about human sexuality. Except when we are talking about disrespect,
rigid gender-based stereotypes and patterns of behavior that are based on men’s
violence against women, then we actually acknowledge that is a gendered issue.
The current data is gendered
. . .
We do acknowledge that we speak about it in a
heteronormative and cisgender way because that’s what the data is telling us.
It may seem logical to enhance inclusivity by taking a gender-neutral approach to RSE
content. However, in line with feminist and queer theories, neutrality in RSE may do little to
promote inclusivity or prevent sexual violence. Feminist theories highlight the importance
of addressing patriarchal structures and gendered power imbalances that contribute to and
perpetuate sexual violence (e.g., Brownmiller,1975;Kelly,1988;Rennison,2014). Queer
theorists challenge the notion that gender-neutrality will be inclusive by emphasizing
how systemic power structures and heteronormative expectations are embedded in social
interactions, and thus, in sexual violence (e.g., Ison,2019;McCann & Monaghan,2019;
Mortimer et al.,2019). For instance, the disparity between boys’ and girls’ engagement
with consent education—where boys test boundaries and girls seek safety—highlights how
these norms might continue to burden girls with emotional labor and risk management in
relationships. A gender-neutral approach could ultimately ignore and potentially reinforce
these inequalities, rather than working to dismantle them.
Some of the outsourced providers also spoke on the limitations to a consent-centered
approach to RSE. A growing body of research has argued that, while it should be included in
RSE, focusing exclusively on consent can reduce sexual interactions to a binary framework
of “yes” and “no”, neglecting the broader socio-cultural factors that shape young people’s
sexual experiences (e.g., Beres,2019;Vrankovich et al.,2024;Woodley et al.,2024). As Leeloo
observed, boys questioning “how to have sex without getting into trouble” indeed reflects
this reductionist view, wherein consent is framed as a mechanism to avoid consequences
rather than part of a broader ethic of care, respect, and empathy. Ella (capacity builder)
asserted the need to situate consent within a broader framework;
Over the past couple of years, since there’s been quite some movement in the
space, people are particularly focusing on primary prevention and sexual consent.
But we need to incorporate the bigger picture of sexual wellbeing and attitudes
towards gender roles and sexual rights and ethics.
Centering relationships, sexuality, and consent education without integrating dis-
cussions on gender norms, power dynamics, and socio-cultural structures—such as het-
eronormativity and the patriarchy—risks offering an incomplete understanding of the root
Youth 2025,5, 14 14 of 19
causes of sexual violence. Ultimately, effective RSE must engage critically with the broader
systems—such as patriarchal norms, heteronormativity and gendered power imbalances—
that sustain sexual violence. Without embedding this critical lens, RSE risks reinforcing
rather than dismantling the societal and cultural norms it seeks to change (Beres,2019;
Burton et al.,2023;Hindes,2022;Marson,2021,2022;van Leent et al.,2023).
4. Implications
This study has provided unique insights into Australian outsourced provider perspec-
tives on RSE, with a focus on sexual violence prevention among young people. Overall,
the outsourced providers largely agreed that to be effective in preventing sexual violence,
RSE needs to involve content on porn literacy to help young people critically navigate
sexual content online. There was also consensus that RSE should entail a whole-of-school
approach, whereby parents, teachers, outsourced providers, and the community deliver
consistent messages to young people about sexuality and respectful relationships. Pre-
service training and professional development for teachers were thought to be crucial for
facilitating teachers’ delivery of RSE, particularly for responding to student disclosures of
sexual violence following RSE. The outsourced providers also identified key barriers to
the implementation of RSE. These involved conservative government policies and school
environments that restricted educational content about sex, as well as limited funding and
time dedicated to RSE in the curriculum.
There were also several points of difference among the outsourced providers when it
came to the content and delivery of RSE. They had different recommendations regarding
who should deliver RSE, emphasizing the unique strengths and drawbacks of delivery by
external educators, teachers, and capacity-builders, respectively. A hybrid model involving
all parties may be the best way to reconcile the different perspectives and capitalize on
the strengths of each educator (Quinlivan,2018;Waling et al.,2023). Such a model also
reaffirms the whole-of-school approach, which all outsourced providers valued. The inter-
views also highlighted many inconsistencies when it came to the theoretical frameworks
underpinning RSE initiatives in which outsourced providers were involved. Different
theoretical underpinnings can result in very different approaches to RSE content. In the
current study, for example, some outsourced providers took a gender-neutral approach to
the development of their materials, while others felt it was important to acknowledge the
gendered power dynamics that shape sexual experiences. While we are not advocating
for a one-size-fits-all approach, there is clearly room for more national leadership and
consistent theories of change to guide RSE, particularly if we want outsourced providers to
consistently address key attitudes, systems, and power dynamics that are associated with
sexual violence (Cameron-Lewis & Allen,2012;Waling et al.,2023).
Our findings have implications for both school and tertiary education contexts. Ed-
ucators, policymakers, and governments can leverage these insights to guide future im-
provements in RSE. These include refining teacher training, ensuring consistent theoretical
frameworks and comprehensive program delivery among outsourced providers, and ad-
dressing key social and systemic challenges, such as conservative influences, and funding
limitations that hinder the effectiveness of RSE programs. Such movements could help to
bolster both teacher and outsourced provider confidence in their delivery of RSE (Allen,
2020;Hendriks et al.,2024;Quinlivan,2018). Additionally, the research highlights the need
for a comprehensive, whole-of-school approach to RSE, and suggests the importance of
incorporating emerging topics, such as porn literacy, into the curriculum. While our study
is focused on the Australian context, outsourced providers are also frequently used in other
countries (e.g., England—Crumper et al.,2023; United States of America—Sperling,2022;
Canada—Action Canada for Sexual Health and Rights,2020; Zambia—Mbizvo et al.,2023);
Youth 2025,5, 14 15 of 19
therefore, the findings may help to inform RSE practices across the globe. By addressing
the inconsistencies and barriers to implementation, young people could derive improved
access to high-quality RSE. This will provide them with the necessary knowledge and skills
to navigate sexuality and relationships, ultimately playing a crucial role in preventing
sexual violence.
5. Future Research
The current qualitative study interviewed Australian outsourced providers and asked
them to recount the theories of change that underpin the RSE initiatives they are involved
with. While this provided initial insights into the varying theoretical frameworks followed,
future research should engage in a deeper exploration of the theoretical foundations,
perhaps through independent observation studies, by shadowing outsourced providers
or mapping and reviewing key materials. Furthermore, future research could collect
demographic data from the outsourced providers, such as their gender identity and number
of years working in the field, which could provider further nuances to the data. Our research
also highlighted that outsourced providers are keen to provide young people with content
on pleasure and sexuality, supported by educational imagery (e.g., anatomically correct
images of genitals). This is something young people themselves have also called for (e.g.,
Astle et al.,2021;Kantor & Lindberg,2020;Riggs et al.,2022;Vrankovich et al.,2024). Future
research could explore the legal challenges and parameters educators may face in providing
RSE that educates young people about the mechanics of sexual activity using imagery.
6. Conclusions
Schools often rely on outsourced providers to deliver RSE to young people. This study
has helped to build the evidence base on outsourced providers’ practices and perceptions
of RSE, particularly as it relates to sexual violence prevention. It shed light on key areas of
agreement regarding the effective features of and implementation barriers to RSE, as well
as inconsistencies in views and approaches among outsourced providers that need to be
addressed in policy and practice moving forward. RSE has been identified as a key strategy
to prevent sexual violence among young people. We hope that our findings will help to
maximize the potential of RSE in promoting positive sexual experiences for young people.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, S.V., G.H. and A.P.; methodology, S.V., G.H. and A.P.;
software, S.V.; formal analysis, S.V.; writing—original draft preparation, S.V., G.H. and A.P.;
writing—review and editing, S.V., G.H. and A.P.; supervision, G.H. and A.P. All authors have
read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: The first author was supported by the Australian Government through the provision of an
Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship.
Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was conducted in accordance with the National
Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research and approved by the Human Research Ethics
Committee of RMIT University (protocol code 24798 and 17 March 2022).
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement: The dataset presented in this article is not readily available in order
to protect the confidentiality and privacy of participants. Requests to access the datasets should be
directed to gemma.hamilton@rmit.edu.au.
Acknowledgments: We would like to acknowledge the 15 incredible outsourced providers who took
part in this research. Thank you for sharing your expertise, perspectives, and experiences with us.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Youth 2025,5, 14 16 of 19
References
Action Canada for Sexual Health and Rights. (2020, April 3). The state of sex-ed in Canada. Available online:
https://www.actioncanadashr.org/resources/reports-analysis/2020-04-03-state-sex-ed-report (accessed on 30 August 2024).
Allen, L. (2009). ‘It’s not who they are, it’s what they are like’: Re-conceptualising sexuality education’s ‘best educator ’ debate. Sex
Education,9(1), 33–49. [CrossRef]
Allen, L. (2020). Breathing life into sexuality education: Becoming sexual subjects. Philosophical Inquiry in Education,27(1), 1–13.
[CrossRef]
Astle, S., McAllister, P., Emanuels, S., Rogers, J., Toews, M., & Yazedjian, A. (2021). College students’ suggestions for improving sex
education in schools beyond “blah blah blah condoms and STDs”. Sex Education,21(1), 91–105. [CrossRef]
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2022, April 1). Health and physical education. Available online:
https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/health-and-physical-education/ (accessed on 30 August 2024).
Australian Government Department of Social Services. (2022) October 17. National plan to end violence against women and children
2022–2032. Available online: https://www.dss.gov.au/national-plan-end-gender-based-violence/resource/national-plan-end
-violence-against-women-and-children-2022-2032 (accessed on 30 August 2024).
Beres, M. (2019). Perspectives of rape-prevention educators on the role of consent in sexual violence prevention. Sex Education,20(2),
227–238. [CrossRef]
Berglas, N. F., Constantine, N. A., & Ozer, E. J. (2014). A rights-based approach to sexuality education: Conceptualization, clarification,
and challenges. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health,46(2), 63–72. [CrossRef]
Berns, N. (2001). Degendering the problem and gendering the blame: Political discourse on women and violence. Gender & Society,
15(2), 262–281. [CrossRef]
Black, S., Watt, S., Koenig, B., & Salway, T. (2024). “You have to be a bit of a rogue teacher”—A qualitative study of sex educators in
Metro Vancouver. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality,33(1), 109–120. [CrossRef]
Bragg, S., Ponsford, R., Meiksin, R., Lohan, M., Melendez-Torres, G. J., Hadley, A., Young, H., Barter, C. A., Taylor, B., & Bonell, C.
(2022). Enacting whole-school relationships and sexuality education in England: Context matters. British Educational Research
Journal,48(4), 665–683. [CrossRef]
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health,11(4), 589–597.
[CrossRef]
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2022). Toward good practice in thematic analysis: Avoiding common problems and be(com)ing a knowing
researcher. International Journal of Transgender Health,24(1), 1–6. [CrossRef]
Brownmiller, S. (1975). Against our will: Men, women, and rape. Simon & Schuster.
Burns, S., & Hendriks, J. (2018). Sexuality and relationship education training to primary and secondary school teachers: An evaluation
of provision in Western Australia. Sex Education,18(6), 672–688. [CrossRef]
Burns, S., Saltis, H., Hendriks, J., Abdolmanafi, A., Davis-McCabe, C., Tilley, P. J. M., & Winter, S. (2023). Australian teacher attitudes,
beliefs, and comfort towards sexuality and gender-diverse students. Sex Education,23(5), 540–555. [CrossRef]
Burton, O., Rawstorne, P., Watchirs-Smith, L., Nathan, S., & Carter, A. (2023). Teaching sexual consent to young people in education
settings: A narrative systematic review. Sex Education,23(1), 18–34. [CrossRef]
Cameron-Lewis, V., & Allen, L. (2012). Teaching pleasure and danger in sexuality education. Sex Education,13(2), 121–132. [CrossRef]
Campbell, M. (2016). The challenges of girls’ right to education: Let’s talk about human rights-based sex education. The International
Journal of Human Rights,20(8), 1219–1243. [CrossRef]
Carmody, M. (2009, November 30). Conceptualising the prevention of sexual assault and the role of education. Available online: https://
apo.org.au/node/19862 (accessed on 30 August 2024).
Crabbe, M., & Flood, M. (2021). School-based education to address pornography’s influence on young people: A proposed practice
framework. American Journal of Sexuality Education,16(1), 1–37. [CrossRef]
Crocker, B. C. S., Pit, S. W., Hansen, V., John-Leader, F., & Wright, M. L. (2019). A positive approach to adolescent sexual health
promotion: A qualitative evaluation of key stakeholder perceptions of the Australian Positive Adolescent Sexual Health (PASH)
Conference. BMC Public Health,19(1), 681. [CrossRef]
Crumper, P., Adams, S., Onyejekwe, K., & O’Reilly, M. (2023). Teachers’ perspectives on relationships and sex education lessons in
England. Sex Education,24(2), 238–254. [CrossRef]
Deloitte, Flood, M., & Shehadie, A. (2020). Stocktake of primary prevention initiatives in sexual violence and sexual harassment; Deloitte,
Department of Social Services. Available online: https://plan4womenssafety.dss.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/DSS
-Stocktake-Report.pdf (accessed on 30 August 2024).
Department of Social Services. (2023) January 20. The Commonwealth consent policy framework: Promoting healthy sexual relationships
and consent among young people. Available online: https://www.dss.gov.au/sexual-consent/the-commonwealth-consent-policy
-framework (accessed on 30 August 2024).
Youth 2025,5, 14 17 of 19
Díaz-Rodríguez, M. V., Perelló, V. B. I., Granero-Molina, J., Fernández-Medina, I. M., Ventura-Miranda, M. I., & Jiménez-Lasserrotte, M.
D. M. (2024). Insights from a qualitative exploration of adolescents’ opinions on sex education. Children,11(1), 110. [CrossRef]
Fine, M., & McClelland, S. I. (2023). Sexuality education and desire: Still missing after all these years. In A. H. Darder (Ed.), The Critical
Pedagogy Reader (4th ed., pp. 291–323). Routledge. [CrossRef]
Garzón-Orjuela, N., Samacá-Samacá, D., Moreno-Chaparro, J., Ballesteros-Cabrera, M. D. P., & Eslava-Schmalbach, J. (2021). Effec-
tiveness of sex education interventions in adolescents: An overview. Comprehensive Child and Adolescent Nursing,44(1), 15–48.
[CrossRef]
Goldfarb, E. S., & Lieberman, L. D. (2021). Three decades of research: The case for comprehensive sex education. Journal of Adolescent
Health,68(1), 13–27. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Goldman, J. D. G. (2011). External providers’ sexuality education teaching and pedagogies for primary school students in Grade 1 to
Grade 7. Sex Education,11(2), 155–174. [CrossRef]
Goldstein, A. (2019). Beyond porn literacy: Drawing on young people’s pornography narratives to expand sex education pedagogies.
Sex Education,20(1), 59–74. [CrossRef]
Graham, S., Martin, K., Gardner, K., Beadman, M., Doyle, M. F., Bolt, R., Murphy, D., Newman, C. E., Bell, S., Treloar, C., Browne, A. J.,
Aggleton, P., Beetson, K., Brooks, M., Botfield, J. R., Davis, B., Wilms, J., Leece, B., Stanbury, L., . . . Bryant, J. (2023). Aboriginal
young people’s perspectives and experiences of accessing sexual health services and sex education in Australia: A qualitative
study. Global Public Health,18(1), 2196561. [CrossRef]
Gruskin, S., Yadav, V., Castellanos-Usigli, A., Khizanishvili, G., & Kismödi, E. (2019). Sexual health, sexual rights, and sexual pleasure:
Meaningfully engaging the perfect triangle. Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters,27(1), 29–40. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Hayes, H. M. R., Burns, K., & Egan, S. (2024). Becoming “good men”: Teaching consent and masculinity in a single-sex boys’ school.
Sex Education,24(1), 31–44. [CrossRef]
Hendriks, J., Mayberry, L., & Burns, S. (2024). Preparation of the pre-service teacher to deliver comprehensive sexuality education:
Teaching content and evaluation of provision. BMC Public Health,24(1), 1528. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Herbenick, D., Guerra-Reyes, L., Patterson, C., Rosenstock Gonzalez, Y. R., Wagner, C., & Zounlome, N. (2022). “It was scary, but
then it was kind of exciting”: Young women’s experiences with choking during sex. Archives of Sexual Behavior,51(2), 1103–1123.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
Heslop, C. W., Burns, S., & Lobo, R. (2020). Stakeholder perceptions of relationships and sexuality education, backlash, and health
services in a rural town. Sex Education,20(2), 170–185. [CrossRef]
Hindes, S. (2022). Beyond consent. In M. L. Rasmussen (Ed.), The Palgrave encyclopedia of sexuality education (pp. 1–9). Palgrave
Macmillan.
Hooker, L., Ison, J., Henry, N., Fisher, C., Forsdike, K., Young, F., Korsmeyer, H., O’Sullivan, G., & Taft, A. (2021). Primary prevention of
sexual violence and harassment against women and girls: Combining evidence and practice knowledge—Final report and theory of change. La
Trobe University.
Ison, J. (2019). ‘It’s not just men and women’: LGBTQIA people and #MeToo. In B. Fileborn, & R. Loney-Howes (Eds.), #MeToo and the
politics of social change (pp. 151–165). Palgrave Macmillan. [CrossRef]
Johnson, R. L., Sendall, M. C., & McCuaig, L. A. (2014). Primary schools and the delivery of relationships and sexuality education: The
experience of Queensland teachers. Sex Education,14(4), 359–374. [CrossRef]
Kantor, L. M., & Lindberg, L. (2020). Pleasure and sex education: The need for broadening both content and measurement. American
Journal of Public Health,110(2), 145–148. [CrossRef]
Kelly, L. (1987). The continuum of sexual violence. In J. Hanmer, & M. Maynard (Eds.), Women, violence and social control (pp. 46–60).
Macmillan.
Kelly, L. (1988). Surviving sexual violence. University of Minnesota Press.
Kismödi, E., Corona, E., Maticka-Tyndale, E., Rubio-Aurioles, E., & Coleman, E. (2017). Sexual rights as human rights: A guide for the
WAS declaration of sexual rights. International Journal of Sexual Health,29(Suppl. 1), 1–92. [CrossRef]
Lameiras-Fernández, M., Martínez-Román, R., Carrera-Fernández, M. V., & Rodríguez-Castro, Y. (2021). Sex education in the spotlight:
What is working? A systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,18(5), 2555. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
Lodge, A., Duffy, M., & Feeney, M. (2022). ‘I think it depends on who you have, I was lucky I had a teacher who felt comfortable telling
all this stuff’. Teacher comfortability: Key to high-quality sexuality education? Irish Educational Studies,43(2), 171–188. [CrossRef]
Marson, K. (2021). Consent: A low bar? The case for a human rights approach to relationships and sexuality education. Australian
Journal of Human Rights,27(1), 161–169. [CrossRef]
Marson, K. (2022). Legitimate sexpectations: The power of sex ed. Scribe Publications. Available online: https://scribepublications.com.au/
books-authors/books/legitimate-sexpectations-9781922585516 (accessed on 30 August 2024).
Youth 2025,5, 14 18 of 19
Mbizvo, M. T., Kasonda, K., Muntalima, N.-C., Rosen, J. G., Inambwae, S., Namukonda, E. S., Mungoni, R., Okpara, N., Phiri, C.,
Chelwa, N., & Kangale, C. (2023). Comprehensive sexuality education linked to sexual and reproductive health services reduces
early and unintended pregnancies among in-school adolescent girls in Zambia. BMC Public Health,23(1), 348. [CrossRef]
McCann, H., & Monaghan, W. (2019). Queer theory now: From formations to futures. Macmillan Education UK.
McMahon, P. M. (2000). The public health approach to the prevention of sexual violence. Sexual Abuse,12(1), 27–36. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
Mortimer, S., Powell, A., & Sandy, L. (2019). ‘Typical scripts’ and their silences: Exploring myths about sexual violence and LGBTQ
people from the perspectives of support workers. Current Issues in Criminal Justice,31(3), 333–348. [CrossRef]
Ollis, D. (2016). ‘I felt like I was watching porn’: The reality of preparing pre-service teachers to teach about sexual pleasure. Sex
Education,16(3), 308–323. [CrossRef]
Our Watch. (2022). Respectful relationships education toolkit. Available online: https://www.ourwatch.org.au/education/resources/
toolkit (accessed on 30 August 2024).
Paulauskaite, L., Rivas, C., Paris, A., & Totsika, V. (2022). A systematic review of relationships and sex education outcomes for
students with intellectual disability reported in the international literature. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research,66(7), 577–616.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
Pfitzner, N., Ollis, D., Stewart, R., Allen, K. A., Fitz-Gibbon, K., & Flynn, A. (2022). Respectful relationships education in Australia:
National stocktake and gap analysis of respectful relationships education material and resources final report; Monash Gender and Family
Violence Prevention Centre. Available online: https://www.education.gov.au/student-resilience-and-wellbeing/resources/
respectful-relationships-education-australia-final-report (accessed on 30 August 2024).
Pound, P., Denford, S., Shucksmith, J., Tanton, C., Johnson, A. M., Owen, J., Hutten, R., Mohan, L., Bonell, C., Abraham, C., & Campbell,
R. (2017). What is best practice in sex and relationship education? A synthesis of evidence, including stakeholders’ views. BMJ
Open,7(5), e014791. [CrossRef]
Power, J., Kauer, S., Fisher, C., Chapman-Bellamy, R., & Bourne, A. (2022). The 7th national survey of Australian secondary students and
sexual health 2021. (Monograph Series No. 133); The Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society, La Trobe University.
Available online: https://www.latrobe.edu.au/arcshs/work/national-survey-of-secondary-students-and-sexual-health-2022
(accessed on 30 August 2024).
Quinlivan, K. (2018). Exploring contemporary issues in sexuality education with young people: Theories in practice (1st ed.). Palgrave
Macmillan UK. [CrossRef]
Rennison, C. M. (2014). Feminist theory in the context of sexual violence. In G. Bruinsma, & D. Weisburd (Eds.), Encyclopedia of
criminology and criminal justice (pp. 1661–1669). Springer. [CrossRef]
Riggs, D. W., Bellamy, R., & Wiggins, J. (2022). Erasure and agency in sexuality and relationships education and knowledge among
trans young people in Australia. Sex Education,24(2), 139–153. [CrossRef]
Schneider, M., & Hirsch, J. S. (2020). Comprehensive sexuality education as a primary prevention strategy for sexual violence
perpetration. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse,21(3), 439–455. [CrossRef]
Setty, E. (2023). Digital media and relationships, sex, and health education in the classroom. Pastoral Care in Education,41(3), 289–305.
[CrossRef]
Sharman, L. S., Fitzgerald, R., & Douglas, H. (2024). Strangulation during sex among undergraduate students in Australia: Toward
understanding participation, harms, and education. In Sexuality Research & Social Policy. Advance online publication. [CrossRef]
Sperling, J. (2022). Guest speakers and sexuality education: An ethnographic look inside one California high school. American Journal of
Sexuality Education,18(2), 261–281. [CrossRef]
UNESCO. (2018, January 10). International technical guidance on sexuality education: An evidence-informed approach. Available online:
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000260770 (accessed on 20 August 2024).
van Leent, L., Walsh, K., Moran, C., Hand, K., & French, S. (2023). Effectiveness of relationships and sex education: A systematic review
of terminology, content, pedagogy, and outcomes. Educational Research Review,39, 100527. [CrossRef]
Vrankovich, S., Hamilton, G., & Powell, A. (2024). Young adult perspectives on sexuality education in Australia: Implications for
sexual violence primary prevention. Sex Education,2024, 2367216. [CrossRef]
Waling, A., James, A., & Fairchild, J. (2023). ‘I’m not going anywhere near that’: Expert stakeholder challenges in working with boys
and young men regarding sex and sexual consent. Critical Social Policy,43(2), 234–256. [CrossRef]
Walker, R., Drakeley, S., Welch, R., Leahy, D., & Boyle, J. (2021). Teachers’ perspectives of sexual and reproductive health education in
primary and secondary schools: A systematic review of qualitative studies. Sex Education,21(6), 627–644. [CrossRef]
Walker, R., Guitera, J., Leahy, D., & Boyle, J. (2023). Sexual and reproductive health education in Australia: A qualitative study of
health professionals’ views. Sex Education,23(6), 647–661. [CrossRef]
Woodley, G., Cayley, G., Senior, I., See, H. W., & Green, L. (2024). ‘[Do] I have to get it in writing or something?’ What happens when
sexuality education is conceptualised through consent? Youth,4(4), 1739–1756. [CrossRef]
Youth 2025,5, 14 19 of 19
Woodley, G., & Jaunzems, K. (2024). Minimising the risk: Teen perspectives on sexual choking in pornography. M/C Journal,27(4). in
print. [CrossRef]
World Health Organization & UNESCO. (2021, June 22). Making every school a health-promoting school—Implementation guidance. Available
online: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240025073 (accessed on 30 August 2024).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
