From missing to misdirected: young men’s experiences of sex education in Bangladesh
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Some sex education research in Bangladesh documents how young people receive sex education but the focus tends to be on the perspectives of teachers and parents; much less is said about how children and adolescents, especially boys, describe their experiences of sex education. This study begins to address this dearth of research. Using a Foucauldian, poststructuralist lens, the study discusses how nine Bangladeshi young men aged 19–24 learned about sex and sexuality during their adolescence, how they interpreted what they learned, and how their learning and experiences reproduce and/or disrupt dominant discourses related to sexuality and sex education. The paper highlights five themes derived from in-depth interviews: silence from parents, lack of school-based sex education, unreliable peer navigators, pornography as a negative force, and the relevance of embodied learning. Of these sources, peers, pornography and embodied learning were the most convenient and common sources of information about sex and sexuality. The study also reveals that what participants learned about sex and sexuality was often strongly gendered (e.g. reproducing hegemonic masculinity and undermining the need for girls’ consent), limited, partial, prohibitive, superficial and unreliable.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".