Abstinence-Only Education Vs Sex Education

The classes proved information about contraceptives, STDs and HIV prevention. It also is age appropriate and scientifically explained. Collins says it well that “by denying teens the full range of information regarding human sexuality, abstinence-only education fails to provide young people with the information they need to protect their health and well being.” Students when asked survey by the Kasier Family Foundation said that they knew more and felt better prepared to handle different situations. Abstinence only education just chooses to avoid it and does not take into account students who decide a different path. Abstinence only education supports say that by teaching the “abstinence-plus” education that they are sending mixed messages towards students. Current advocates for comprehensive education cite that “providing teens with contraceptive information does not encourage early sexual activity.” The Surgeon General David Satcher had said that based off of the information he had derived from both approaches “evidence gives strong support to the conclusion that providing information about contraception does not increase adolescent sexual activity….[it only] increased condom and contraceptive uses among adolescents who were sexually active.” (Collins 9)Most evaluations of many different types of

Should schools only teach abstinence or is comprehensive sex education safer for teens? Many find that teaching abstinence is the only way to ensure students safety when it comes to sexual behavior. But, “A review of 35 school-based sex education programs found that abstinence based programs had no significant effect on delaying sexual debut, while some comprehensive programs were effective in reducing certain sexual risk behaviors” (Kirby and Coyle). Along with research showing the ineffectiveness of abstinence programs, “Critics of abstinence-only education claim that it violates human rights by withholding potentially life-saving information from people about other means to protect themselves from HIV, such as condom use” (Plos one). Comprehensive

As sexually-transmitted diseases and teen pregnancy numbers increase, arguments regarding sexual education classes being taught in high school have been continuously debated: Does abstinence-only sexual education classes work, or do they encourage students to become sexually active? Sexual education in high school has never really been as analyzed as much as it has been over the past decade due to the rise in sexual nature of the world today. Teenagers are exposed to the work of becoming a parent and the embarrassment of diseases through various types of media without explanation of prevention and actual consequence, such as the show 16 & Pregnant. Because of the constant display of the reprimands of unsafe sex, teenagers

In 1981, the Adolescent Family Life Act (AFLA) was signed into law by President Reagan. Through the act, the federal government first invested in sexual education programs, all of which encouraged “chastity and self-discipline.” After this came the Title V abstinence-only-until-marriage program, which was created in 1996 as part of the welfare reform legislation. Finally, the Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE), was created in 2000. Now, for over three decades, people are still debating whether the original approach of teaching abstinence should be kept or if schools should go into further detail in teaching how to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases and infections from happening.

One of the most taboo topics within the American culture is sex. It is considered inappropriate to speak of such a topic in any situation, especially around teenagers. Even in schools, many students’ education have been censored in order to teach a curriculum that aligns with the core beliefs of others who may not have the best interests of the students in mind. While the purpose of an education is to equip a student with knowledge, the information that is currently being given about sex education is not beneficial because it is focused on an approach that has been proven ineffective. In order to prepare teenagers for healthier and safer lifestyles, North Carolina students should receive a more comprehensive sexual education including contraceptives in contrast to the current at-a-glance abstinence based sexual education that is currently offered to students.

A subject that is talked about a lot in today’s society is whether or not kids should receive sex education in public schools. With rates of teen pregnancy and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases on the rise, it is essential that school aged adolescents receive appropriate sex education courses. Though many parents across the nation believe that it is crucial to curriculum, how much they should be taught and what exactly should be taught is up for dispute. Articles such as “Abstinence and Abstinence-only Education: A Review of U.S. policies and Programs” written by John Santelli, Mary A. Ott, Maureen Lyon, Jennifer Rogers, Daniel Summers and Rebecca Schleifer and “The Impact of Abstinence and Comprehensive Sex and STD/HIV Education Programs on Adolescent Sexual Behavior” Douglas B. Kirby analyze the two types of sex education in the U.S. and their effectiveness on teens. In “Abstinence and Abstinence-only Education: A Review of U.S. policies and Programs” Santelli et al. claims that even though sex education programs that only offer abstinence-only instruction are ethically flawed, abstinence from sexual activity is efficient behavioral choice for teenagers to make. In order to support their claim, the authors focus on the federal government’s involvement on funding for these abstinence programs and the censorship of the information that they portray. In “The Impact of Abstinence and Comprehensive Sex and STD/HIV Education Programs on Adolescent Sexual Behavior,”

When I was in the eighth grade, I remember attending a sex education course. At the young impressionable age of fourteen, I listened quietly as the lecturer showed us grotesque pictures of sexually transmitted infections and warned us that abstinence was the only effective way to not get pregnant. At the end of lecture, everyone at the assembly was handed a little card that read, “Virginity Pledge” and we were all required to sign them. Looking back on this memory, I am appalled by the severe lack of scientific foundation of the lecture, the use of misinterpreted statistics, and the use of peer pressure in requiring students to sign pledge cards. Many students my age probably have a similar experience with this type of sex education, which is referred to as abstinence-only sex education. Students deserve a better sex education than what the abstinence-only sex education programs provide. Abstinence-only sex education should be removed from all U.S. schools and replaced with comprehensive sexuality education.

Adolescence can be a very confusing and difficult time for many teens because they are pushed out of childhood and into adulthood. The push for the use of comprehensive sex education programs is causing the rates of unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) to increase. By providing teens with a comprehensive sex education program that can not only confuse them about their sexuality, but also lead them to engage in sex before they are mentally ready, is extremely harmful. Because abstinence is the only sure way to prevent the spread of STDs and stop unwanted pregnancies among adolescents, it should be the only curriculum taught to them.

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 AMERICA. 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 public schools in the United States to provide teenagers with an evidence-based approach to healthy decision making in their sexual lives.

Though I do agree with opinion number two in that schools should provide comprehensive sex education to children, it is not being taught effectively. A study found that teens who took a sex education course were more likely to initiate sex. Currently, the most prominent health class approach to teaching about sex is the “abstinence, but” model. The “abstinence, but” model sends a mixed message to children by telling them to not have sex, but if you do, this is the way to do it safely. Though this model is great at maintaining a neutral position about sex while teaching safe sex and the consequences that can stem from it, namely AIDS, it does not necessarily promote abstinence. Nevertheless, many health classes in the US take on this approach

“I don’t worry about sex education in the schools,” said comedian Milton Berle, “If the kids learn it like they do everything else, they won’t know how.” (Milton Berle Quotes About School). While incredibly witty, Berle’s comment perfectly exemplifies the ongoing issues with the way students in American public schools are being taught sex education. Misinformation, myths, and straight-up lies are being fed to students who carry the lessons they learn into their relationships, causing more harm than good. Courses that teach students sexual education should not be seen as a detrimental goal, but rather such curriculum should be utilized to create more mature, responsible adults, who are understanding of how to navigate the complexities of

In 2007, the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy created Emerging Answers 2007. In this work, research and numerous findings on the benefits of sex-ed were compiled. An example of one of these findings is that no programs that teach sexual education have any correlation to an increase in sexual activities. Research has also found that when students are taught about sex-ed they are more likely to practice safe sex. “Studies show that when teens are educated about condoms and have access to them, levels of condom use at first intercourse increase while levels of sex stay the same...According to a study by researchers from Guttmacher and Columbia University published in the January 2007 issue of the American Journal of Public Health, approximately 86% of the decline in teenage pregnancy in this country between 1995 and 2002 was due to dramatic improvements in contraceptive use, including increases in the use of individual methods, increases in the use of multiple methods, and substantial declines in nonuse. Just 14% of the decline could be attributed to a decrease in sexual activity” (“Comprehensive Sex Education”). These results make it very clear that sex-ed is what is best for America’s youths. In fact, America is somewhat conservative compared to other countries, as many

“Teaching only about abstinence is like teaching ‘a driver 's education course in which teachers show students grisly photos of traffic accidents but never tell them to stop at red lights or buckle their seat belts’" (Wagle). Sex education is often a hot topic of debate within the States, where high school teens often receive some form of sexual education. However, the quality of this information varies from state to state and even district to district. Although there are many different definitions, the one being applied here is that abstinence-based curriculum teaches that the only truly effective way to prevent sexually transmitted diseases, pregnancy, and other sex related risks is by not having sex. This includes severely limited or no information about contraceptives or ways to lessen the spread of disease. On the other hand, comprehensive sexual education includes information not found in abstinence curriculum and resources about STDs and prevention, various contraceptive methods, healthy relationships and rape, and are inclusive towards queer and trans experiences. Sex ed is an important part of education, and a comprehensive sexual education is critical in both reducing teenage pregnancies and STDs and promoting health and good choices.

Rates of sexually transmitted disease (STD), teen pregnancy, and teen births are higher in the United States than in the majority of other industrialized countries (Kohler, Manhart, & Lafferty, 2008), indicating the controversial role that sex education plays in the initiation of sexual activity. In contempt of teen pregnancy, birth and abortion rates are the highest among other developed countries (Kohler et al., 2008), and few public health evaluations on the effectiveness of formal sex education have been conducted. With a large social issue prominent in the United States, it is imperative to determine the differences based on formal sex education and whether abstinence-only education, comprehensive education or no education decrease health risks among adolescents (Kohler et al., 2008).

In 2002, Pamela K. Kohler, R.N. conducted a nationwide study regarding teens aged fifteen-nineteen years old, and the effects of the types of sex education that they received. She published a medical journal that found that those who were in programs that failed to provide accurate information such as abstinence-only programs, or who were not enrolled in a sex education course at all, reported higher teen pregnancy rates than those who had attended comprehensive sex education classes (Kohler 1). Kohler’s 2002 research also showed that teens who had completed a comprehensive sex education course were 60% less likely to be a teen parent (3). After publishing her journal, Kohler stated, "There was no evidence to suggest that abstinence-only education