Abstinence-Only Schools Vs Sex-Ed Schools

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.

The teenagers and children of today read about, listen to and watch all sorts of information about sex. While most adults have had some form of sex education, we must ask if this new generation is learning anything new or helpful from their sex education classes. The American culture and way of living is so absorbed in sex that children should be taught about it, people just can not agree on how to teach them. In her article New Sex ed Funding Ends Decade of Abstinence-Only, Kelli Kennedy proves that abstinence-only sex education classes and programs are not as good as regular sex education classes better than Shari Roan does in her article Teen pregnancy rates rises. Are abstinent-only programs to blame?

The philosophy behind abstinence-only policy implies that the greatest risk of informing students about their options for contraception would be that educators are condoning premarital sex. The risks that our students are already taking, however, are greater then policymakers are considering. It is generally accepted that the majority of sexual intercourse among young people remains unprotected (Westwood, 2006). Abstinence-only curriculum is not preventing adolescents from having sex; it is just making them naïve to the risks they are taking with their lifestyle choices.

In 1913, sex education became a topic that was found to be an important education tool. Since then, this form of education has been a hot and debatable topic among many Americans. The original reason for sex education classes was to reduce problems such as sexually transmitted illnesses and prostitution. In recent years, abstinence has become the focus of sex education curriculum. Abstinence means refraining from sex completely. Although, it is the only one-hundred percent way to prevent sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies, abstinence-only instruction should not be the only form of sex education taught. Our youth need to know about all aspects of sex. This intails how to protect them if they choose to become sexually

Everyone remembers having to go to a sex-ed class in late middle school or early high school. Most people remember it as extremely awkward and slightly terrifying. The difference between comprehensive sex-ed and abstinence only education can be life or death. Comprehensive sex-ed teaches people about contraception, sexual orientations, which needs to be updated, and how to be safe in general. Abstinence-only sex-ed basically only teaches to wait to have sexual interactions until married, and the benefits of it. The United States has some problems. Teen pregnancies here are two times as high as other industrialized countries (Harris), and half of all STI cases are

According to advocatesforyouth.org, “abstinence only education teaches students to abstain from sex prior to marriage.” These program has been proven to be ineffective. Abstinence only education is ineffective because it is not conducive in reducing teen pregnancy rates and sexually transmitted diseases rates. Abstinence only programs are less likely to teach students about birth control and contraception and how to access it. These programs has not been shown to reduce teen sexual activity.

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.

"abstinence-only" sex education programs have been shown not to be successful in reducing adolescence sexual behavior. Just a few abstinence-only have been shown to change attitude towards abstinence over a short period up to six months. Educating youth with the skills and tools to make healthy choices about sex and relationship is more effective than denying it and telling them not to have sex. We need to give young people accurate sexual information if we want them to take responsibility for their well-being rather than eliminate information about condoms and birth control. Studies shows over two-thirds of Canadians have sexual intercourse before age 20 (Matika-Tyndale, Barrett, & McKay, 2001) so it is crucial that youth receive all the

Teenagers are notorious for being curious. Not every teenager has, but there are many who have tried drugs and alcohol despite all of the school’s and parent’s warnings. Why is sex any different? A study in 2015 reported that 41% of high school students have had sexual intercourse (Child Trends Data Bank). That number isn’t extremely concerning but what is the legitimate likelihood that all of those students were honest? Schools such as MCPS teach about contraceptives, but stress abstinence more than anything. By withdrawing information such as a minor’s rights when it comes to abortion or contraception, students could ruin their entire future. Everyone has made mistakes and has regrets, but withdrawing information from students in the hopes that they practice abstinence is not worth a student’s future. School systems should be teaching students their rights when it comes to sex.

Sex education, most commonly known as family life, is any information about sex and sexual relationships taught to maturing young people as a part of a school’s curriculum. Currently, there is a constant political and ideological debate in the United States over the merits of abstinence-only and comprehensive sex education programs in the teaching of our youth. Abstinence only sex education has been the primary sex education taught in the United States. Although different in their approach, the overall goal is to help them build a foundation to be able to make healthy informed decisions as they mature into adults. The objectives of sex education programs are to help adolescents develop a positive view of sexuality, body image and make responsible decisions in relationships (Knowles, 2012). Ultimately, any sex education should be a partnership between parents, guardians and school personnel. However, in recent years, a large amount of information about sexuality is acquired through friends, music, books and the media instead of from their parents. For some individuals,

Not teaching students proper material gives them a disadvantage to making better choices. The issue with educating students such a narrow minded program shows in the number of teenage pregnancies. If we were to take a look at statistics of the program being taught and the number of teen pregnancies for each state there would most likely be a huge difference. “Study result indicated that most abstinence programs did not delay initiation of sex and only 3 out of 9 had any significant positive effect on sexual behavior. In contrast, two thirds of comprehensive showed strong evidence that they positively affected young people’s sexaul behavior, including both delaying the initiation of sex, and increasing condom and contraceptive use among important groups of youth.(Kirby

Often, sexual education can go against an individual's moral or religious beliefs. Many schools do not teach abstinence only but teach safe sex, whereas many religious groups and families do not value intercourse before marriage. Teachers may input their own beliefs or morals into the subject matter rather than stick with the facts if they are not properly trained on how to conduct a sex education course. Sex education classes are briefly focused on during a health class or physical education. This is not a long enough period to educate students on such serious material. These arguments does not take into account the fact that students will be taught on subjects such as, sexually transmitted diseases, the reproductive system, sexually and birthing issues rather than the stuff they learn through peers, television or the internet. Many of the myths learned by students about sex swill also are discussed, such as not being able to get pregnant the first time. Classes for those of a younger group are separated by gender, saving embarrassment amongst students and teachers. Teaching sex education can have a major impact on preventing unplanned pregnancy and other sexual problems in adulthood.

The hypothesis is that abstinence-only sex education does not cause teenagers to have less sex when compared to comprehensive sex education. In a comprehensive sex course, the students would learn that abstinence is the best method for avoiding STIs and pregnancy, but it would also teach about positive contraceptive use, sexual health, and sexual expression. By teaching the

Sexual education and the methods we should use to get the point across has been debated heavily in the past few years. There are many issues within this broad topic, such as the fact that only 13 states mandate that the information given be medically accurate, and 4 states require that within a sexual education course, sexual orientation be spoken about in a negative manner. However, the overlying problem is abstinence-only (also known as level 3) sexual education. Abstinence-only sexual education is not substantial enough as a system because it fails to inform young people of the real risks that can be taken, and how to counteract these risks.

Anyone who wishes to pass on information to another person, similar to the work that teachers do, will always delve into the information they feel is most important, but what is truly important can be perceived in many different ways. The safety issues that arise with abstinence only education are numerous. Young adults will not know anything about the action itself let alone the precautionary steps that every person should take before engaging in intercourse. It is almost impossible for teens to know the countless risks that threaten them when a condom is not in play. As well they have no idea how permanent a lot of those risks are. In abstinence only education it can only be hoped that they have heard something about sexually transmitted diseases, or pregnancy rates in relation to sexual activity and if they have this almost always would be very surface level information. With this situation being setup young teens, who will no doubt face their sexual urges during a very dynamic time in their bodily development, will then go in blind and act on impulse rather than accompanying their urges with cautious thought. Sex education