Abstinence-Only And Comprehensive Sex Education In The United States

Additional research has explored the effects of abstinence based programs on actual behavior outcomes. Kohler, Manhart, and Lafferty (2008) compared the effects of abstinence-only and comprehensive sex education programs, operationalizing effectiveness in terms of initiation of sexual activity and teen pregnancy rates. They found that teenagers who received comprehensive sex education rather than abstinence-only or no education were significantly less likely to report a teenage pregnancy. In addition, their conclusions mirrored Sather and Kelly (2002), finding that abstinence-based programs did not reduce the likelihood of engaging in sexual activity. Kohler, Manhart, and Lafferty (2008) actually concluded that comprehensive sex education was more likely than abstinence based to reduce the percentage engaging in sexual activity. Overall, the researchers showed that comprehensive sex education, including but not limited to contraception, did not increase the prevalence of sexual activity in teenagers or the risk of teen pregnancy, while also showing the that abstinence only education produced a higher likelihood of pregnancy.

Since the HIV/AIDS epidemic began in the U.S. in the early 1980s the issue of sex education for American youth has had the attention of the nation. There are about 400,000 teen births every year in the U.S, with about 9 billion in associated public costs. STI contraction in general, as well as teen pregnancy, have put the subject even more so on the forefront of the nation’s leading issues. The approach and method for proper and effective sex education has been hotly debated. Some believe that teaching abstinence-only until marriage is the best method while others believe that a more comprehensive approach, which includes abstinence promotion as well as contraceptive information, is necessary. Abstinence-only program curriculums disregard

Clemmitt (2010) states that currently the most effective approach to prevent teenage pregnancy is evidence-based sex education programs. The primary debate about the best method of preventing teenage pregnancy is between abstinence-only courses and comprehensive sex education. The author says that after operating comprehensive sex education, the Obama approach, many communities and county areas have drastically reduced the rate of teenage pregnancy. Studies and statistics suggested that abstinence-only courses have not contributed to reduce teenage pregnancy rates. The author points out that the abstinence-only courses also include sexually transmitted diseases classes and discussions of unhealthy relationship and making decisions, and abstinence

Drilling into teens’ heads that sex is inherently bad will do no justice in the long run. Notwithstanding, abstinence-only programs do nothing but this, for they hold the opinion that making teenagers fear the consequences of precarious sex will prevent them from engaging in it. Advocates of both abstinence-only and comprehensive programs are worried that premature sex, even when wholly safe, will psychologically damage teenagers, but “there are no scientific data suggesting that consensual sex between adolescents is harmful”, yet abstinence-only education by itself continues to mandate the teaching that sex out of wedlock will do harm (Santelli et al. “Abstinence and abstinence-only education” 74). Unlike abstinence-only education, comprehensive sex-education attempts to focus on developing healthy mentalities for the benefit of their students. Promotion of healthy relationships between oneself and others will help make teenagers find trust between themselves and their sexual partners before participating in the act, furthermore causing them to make sure their partner does not have any STIs and is using contraception. Conversely, abstinence-only programs’ persistence with enthusiastically promoting abstinence leaves teenagers with little clue about their mental health. “Even those few individuals who remain abstinent until marriage are left

Abstinence only education is hindering the lives of teens in today’s world. Schools should stop teaching abstinence only education since, it increases the rate of teens having sexual relations with other people, it does not give students adequate lessons on preventing STDs, and the rate of teen pregnancy is higher for students who receive abstinence only education. As a nation we need to help teens protect themselves with this topic and most importantly approach it with caution. Many schools believe that abstinence only education is the most effective way to instruct students on the topic of sex when it clearly is not.

The controversial topic of whether or not sex education curriculum should teach contraceptive use or abstinence-only is heavily debated. In 2013, the U.S. totaled 273,105 babies born by teenagers, ages from 15 to 19 (“About Teen Pregnancy”). This raises the question: why is the number of pregnancies so high? Is the reason for that unsettling high, number because abstinence-only is being taught or contraceptive use is being taught? Students who are taught abstinence-only are more likely to wait to have sex, which results in the lowering of teen pregnancy. The abstinence-only curriculum also reduces students sexual activity.The sex education curriculum in the U.S. should consist of abstinence-only education.

The fact that the United States does not actually require mandatory sex education is of utmost concern, seeing that places where sex education is not taught at all also experience the highest birthrates. In addition to places where sex education is not taught at all, areas in which abstinence-only education were taught also faced higher birthrates (Stanger-Hall and Hall 6). While abstinence only programs have shown no real statistical evidence of success, comprehensive sex education programs have, by combining the positives of both abstinence and information on how to engage in safe sex (Starkman and Rajani 314). In comprehensive sex education, students are taught not only how to use contraceptives properly, but also how to obtain them, as well as other aspects of practicing safe sex. Encouragingly, comprehensive sex education has shown a forty percent success rate in all of the following, “delaying the initiation of sex, reducing the number of sexual partners, and increasing contraceptive use.” Even more impressively, there was sixty-seven percent rate in these areas individually (Malone and Rodriguez 1). Teaching that abstinence is the only option, and providing no alternatives, leaves many teens vulnerable to engaging in unsafe sex out of pure incompetence (Starkman and Rajani 314). Despite many concerns, comprehensive sex education does not make a teenager more likely to be sexually active, and is surprisingly supported by the majority

However, controversy arises when the discussion as to what the proper method of teaching sexual education should be. In the school system of the United States sex education is taught in two main forms: abstinence-only sex education, which focuses on abstaining from sexual activity prior to marriage and does not provide contraceptive knowledge, and comprehensive sex education, which focuses on sexual health as a whole including knowledge about contraceptives and how to avoid STDs. Currently the only federally funded programs implemented in public schools are abstinence-only. But does Abstinence-only sex education work? In order to provide an answer this paper will discuss the basic principles and practices which constitute abstinence-only sex education, the proponents argument for abstinence-only sex education and how abstinence-only education affects teen pregnancy and STD

Sex education has always been a controversial topic, especially to the extent that it is taught to. Under the early years of the Reagan administration, the Adolescent Family Life Act was passed for abstinence-only education based on the presumption that talking about sex in school would promote sexual activities among teenagers. The two-point act was quietly passed in 1981, as it was not voted on by the House and was coded under Title XX of the Public Service Health Act. The first point was to provide at least two-thirds of funds to support pregnant teenagers, while the second point’s purpose was to use the remaining one-third or less to discourage sexual acts until marriage. Lawrence (2007) asserted that teenage pregnancy rates at the time of passing were rising, so the government wanted to stop everything all together. Since then, billions of dollars have been spent and more laws have been passed to promote abstinence-only education. Pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), and sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in the U.S. actually continued to rise, despite what was believed that the acts and funding could accomplish (p. 2). Though scientists and accredited researchers saw this coming, they continued with research to finalize conclusions with the majority hypothesis that comprehensive sex education would show the greatest improvement among teenage pregnancy. Comprehensive sex education

The theory of paradox is put into action when policymakers come up with policies centered on sex education. The theory of paradox is used to compromise on an issue at hand. There is one goal at hand, and two different, yet equally valid ways to reach said goal (Bogenschneider, 2014). There are two main approaches to lowering teen pregnancy and birth rates: abstinence-only sex education and comprehensive sex education. The federal government funds both different approaches but has more money available to states that choose to implement abstinence-only programs. Researchers look at teen pregnancy and birth rates in each state to calculate and observe the effectiveness of abstinence-only versus comprehensive sex education programs (University

In the United States, 61.6% of high school seniors have had sexual intercourse (Kittleson and Howard-Barr 115) and the rates of teenage pregnancy are the highest among developed nations (Weaver, Smith and Kippax 179). Despite the prevalence of teenage sexual activity, there is still wide support for abstinence only sex education programs, which teach that marriage is the only context within which it is appropriate and acceptable to have sex. These programs began in the late 1970s “as a way for conservative Christians to counter the spread of ‘comprehensive’ sex education” and have since come to receive federal funding, first from the Adolescent Family Life Act in 1981 and later from Title V, Section 510 of the Social Security Act (Greslé-Favier

Teenage pregnancy is a growing problem in the United States today. As of 2010, 57.84% of 15-19 year old girls will become pregnant, which is especially high as compared to the rates of other developed countries. (Kost, 3) Why are unplanned pregnancy rates in teenagers so high? There are various factors that contribute to these high teen pregnancy rates, but one major factor is the type of sexual education that teenagers receives. While attention to abstinence in sexual education can be beneficial, it is when sexual education focuses solely on abstinence that teen pregnancy rates increase. Comprehensive sex education in schools has been shown to lower the rates of teen pregnancy more than abstinence only sex education has, and therefore should

Author Bob Smith once said, “In America, when we decide to ignore a subject, our favorite form of denial is to teach it incompetently. Familiarity without true understanding is not only the basis of our families but of our educational system as well.” Smith refers to the inadequate sexual education of teenagers in the United States. Sexual education is the instruction on issues about bodily development, sex, sexuality, and relationships. Comprehensive sex education teaches about abstinence, condoms, and contraceptives to avoid sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and unplanned pregnancies. As well as, the skills needed to help young people explore their own values and options. Comprehensive sexual education should be taught in the United

Sexual education in public schools is one of the most controversial issues in education. In today’s society, it is almost impossible to ignore the responsibility of informing adolescence about the issues of sex. Since the lack of knowledge, leads to an array of issues ranging from teen pregnancy to sexually transmitted diseases. The debate over whether to implement sex education in American schools has ended. The question is whether comprehensive sex education classes are more impressionable than those stressing abstinence only.

It has been almost thirty three years since the first federal funding was put to use in “. . . sex education programs that promote abstinence-only-until-marriage to the exclusion of all other approaches . . .” according to the article “Sex education” (2010) published by “Opposing Viewpoints in Context;” a website that specializes in covering social issues. Since then a muddy controversy has arisen over whether that is the best approach. On one hand is the traditional approach of abstinence (not having sex before marriage), and on the other is the idea that what is being done is not enough, and that there needs to be a more comprehensive approach. This entails not only warning against sex, but also teaching teens about how to have