Sexual wellbeing in the context of religious and cultural diversity

Which assumptions and stereotypes around religion and migration influence sexual health care for (African) migrants in the Netherlands? In the blogpost below lead educators Brenda Bartelink and Kim Knibbe investigate health disparities in the Netherlands against the background of approaches to religious and cultural diversity.

A girl comes home and asks her mother: “What is sex?” Her mother responds startled: “We don’t talk about that.” “Okay”, the girl responds, “I will ask the guy who told me about sex.”

Are taboos really religious?

The Altar and main dome in Basilica of Our lady, Maastricht, the Netherlands. Dennis Jarvis via Flickr.

“Do you explain how homosexuals have sex?” The peer educator of COC Netherlands, an LGBTI advocacy organization shakes his head: “No, I have done that a couple of times, but speaking about sex invites such strong responses from students, it is not yet possible to discuss this”.

In these and other cases the option of not-speaking about certain aspects of sexuality was even preferred, not only because the issues are controversial in certain contexts, but also because sexuality is a private matter that needs a sensitive approach. By contrast, even though religious leaders sometimes struggled with how to give information on sexuality to young people, among adult populations and women in particular, sexual wellbeing was regularly a subject of conversation in private conversations as well as in religious gatherings and trainings.

2. Religious and secular approaches to sex are heteronormative

Part of the secular liberal approach to sexuality is the assumption that religions are violent and oppressive towards women and people with diverse sexual orientations (Bracke 2011). As the first nation allowing people of the same sex to get married, the acceptance of homosexual orientations in the Netherlands is often seen as a sign of cultural progress. The previous example demonstrates, however, that while homosexuality is discussed in terms of identity and tolerance in schools, the primary focus in sexuality education is based on heterosexual sex because of the strong reactions it invokes among younger populations. In religious contexts the focus was on heterosexual relationships within marriage. Thus, conversations about sexual wellbeing would exclusively take place in a heteronormative frame.

3. Religious and secular approaches are gender normative

At an annual women’s conference organized by a Nigerian-initiated church in Amsterdam, a female religious leader gives 250 women instructions on sexual positions that increase sexual pleasure. She stresses that it is important to have pleasure in marriage, emphasizing women’s responsibility to please their husbands and realize a stable marriage. During a secular sexuality education lesson in a high school, the teacher explains: “Guys always want sex, if you as a girl do not want to have sex, you just tell them that you have your period.” In both religious and secular health approaches we found the assumption that the sexual desire of men and boys is strong, overwhelming and that they have difficulty managing these urges themselves. Girls and women are made responsible for responding to male sexual desire, either by offering strategies to sexually satisfy their spouses or by offering strategies to avoid engaging in sex that rely on skilled communication or even, as in the example above, subterfuge.

Who made (the) difference?

These three findings suggest that the approach of sexual wellbeing in religious and secular contexts have more in common than the strong contrasts presented in public discourse suggest. Approaches to sexual wellbeing always include normative aspects, and as such are never entirely neutral or based on scientific evidence. The gender normativity in sexuality education in schools in the Netherlands, referred to above, is a case-in-point. However, when it is assumed that secular approaches to sexual wellbeing are morally neutral, this makes it difficult to discuss the normative frameworks underlying sexual health programming and perhaps find common ground.

At the same time, religious migrant actors in the Netherlands frequently experience being called to account by journalists, policymakers and NGOs (Knibbe 2018) for their approaches to sexuality and gender. There is little space for them to share their views and approaches as equal and respected partners in the conversations or for them to correct negative stereotypes. In addition, they are sometimes critical of the real and assumed moralities underlying secular approaches to sexual well-being in the Netherlands. However, as a minority, they do not have the power to address these moral issues in a setting where the moral subjectivity of secular approaches are routinely denied. When minorities do attempt to question secular moral frameworks around sexuality, secular actors and commentators see this as confirming the stereotypes of religion as backward, conservative and patriarchal.

Gay pride, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Carla P via Flickr.

While the research questions the assumed conflict between religious and secular approaches, it does confirms that a gap exists between health service providers and people with (African) migrant backgrounds, with regard to their sexual health needs. We have observed suspicion and critique of service providers, often rooted in negative experiences. Coming from different health and medical contexts, migrants may struggle with understanding the Dutch health system and do not feel that they are heard and respected. In addition, our interlocutors also shared their experiences of ‘feeling different’ or ‘standing out’ because of their bodies and / or language proficiency, while also sharing examples of experiences with racism and discrimination.

These findings invite critical and ethical questions, such as how do we distribute responsibilities in bridging this gap? This is an important question, as it comes down to people’s right to access (sexual) health care. In the Knowledge Agenda for the future, experts from academic and professional institutions have argued that the Dutch government should improve preventive healthcare by focusing on reducing health disparities in the population in the Netherlands. Based on our research we ask for caution in terms of how differences are understood and addressed. Our research and that of others suggest that focusing on religious, cultural or ethnic differences is counterproductive. However, health professionals in the Netherlands should consider the very real experiences of religious and cultural minorities with exclusion and ignorance and develop approaches to connect, build relationships and meet people where they are. Collaborating with mediators, such as Pastor Rachel Theodore Smith, maybe an important step in connecting to people in minority communities.

This blogpost was first published on The Religion Factor. It builds on a Policy Brief and Report that were presented on September 19 2021 at the NIDI in the Hague, and is accessible on the cultural encounters website.