Abstinence-Only Teachings

Modern era sex education programs in the United States began in the late 1980s and early 1990s as a result of the AIDS/HIV epidemic. With the introduction of curricula teaching safe sex and the effectiveness of contraception, other curricula refuted these ideas thus creating a conflict about sex education in the U.S. Sex education in the U.S is divided into two categories: abstinence-only and comprehensive, the former being the most implemented among states nationwide. Abstinence-only programs stress the importance of abstaining from sex until marriage, fitting the “traditional” set of American morals. Covering more than just abstinence, comprehensive sex education programs not only teach students about the options they have when it comes

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.

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.

In 2005, nearly half of all high school students have had sexual intercourse. Plainly stating that abstinence programs do not work (USA Today). Abstinence programs were beneficial many years ago, but since they are ineffective in delaying teen pregnancy, then teen pregnancy rate has increased. Abstinence programs teach the “no sex until marriage” clause, but they don’t teach teens about birth control and the consequences of having sex at before they’ve matured. Although many studies argue that abstinence programs are educational and beneficial, other studies will show that they don’t delay teen sex, they don’t prevent the spread of Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs), and are a waste of taxpayers’

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?

It’s safe to say that most of our school systems today use the “Abstinence- Only” approach. School systems teach sex education classes in middle school, where most students will not be in a situation where they must use the information used in these courses, such as contraceptives. In middle school, it is best to learn the Abstinence Only approach, while becoming a high schooler, it would be more effective to use the Safe- Sex approach to increase their knowledge on the consequences of sex. While reading an article, a high schooler engaged in a sex education class said,

Abstinence-only and comprehensive sex education follow vary different outlines in methods of teaching and the goals they hope to achieve. Controversy surrounding this topic focuses on what is being taught and how this relates to values favoring abstinence, with the belief that education on birth control encourages sexual activity (Abstinence Only Education, 2005). Planned Parenthood states the following: “Abstinence-only programs (also called abstinence-only until marriage programs) promote abstinence from sexual behavior” (Planned Parenthood: Implementing Sex Education, n.d.) Abstinence-only programs only teach abstinence, as per their name, and in fact, they purposely exclude information on “birth control, safer sex and sex orientation” (Planned

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.

Five seventh grade students in a New Orleans middle school were asked how to prevent HIV/AIDS and pregnancy. They believe, eating a hot pepper after sex will prevent STD's and unwanted pregnancy. These students attended an abstinence-only education school where they are prohibited to discuss condoms and other contraceptives to prevent STD and pregnancy (Woebse, 709-710). Since 2014 the U.S teen pregnancy birth rate dropped to 24.2 per 1000 women, 9% lower than 2013(Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). With abstinence-only education being taught, could abstinence-only education be credited for the decline? Does the thought of eating hot peppers after engaging in a sexual act scare teens enough to be abstinent? Or are teens learning

Studies show that teenagers who’ve had sex later regret it. Abstinence only education should be the only education taught in schools instead of comprehensive education. The most popular ways of teaching about sex are abstinence teachings and comprehensive education. Abstinence education is a better option than comprehensive because it is the only effective way to avoid pregnancy, protects against sexually transmitted diseases, and proves the partner is interested for more than sex; comprehensive education teaches that there is a way for safe sex if students choose that path but teenage sex should not be an option. “…encouraging teens to just say no to sex may be the most effective at delaying early sexual activity”

Advocates of the second program argued that the abstinences program do not provide protection against teenage pregnancy (Solomon-Fears). In 2015 According to the CDC, “we can prevent pregnancies by promoting teen friendly interventions aimed at both increasing the number of teens who abstain from or delay sexual activity, and increasing the number of sexually active teens who consistently and correctly use effective contraceptives methods” (Solomon-Fears, 2015). The message of abstinence is important, but the effectiveness of simply telling teenagers this or even expounding on this message, is questionable. In 2010, HHS secretary Kathleen Sebelius stated “we need to use the best science of what works to address it,” in reference to teenage pregnancy the useful ness of education over abstinence only. Teaching them about contraceptives, and giving tem understandable information they can use, seems to have better results in reducing pregnancy. Teenagers are more likely to choose a program that does not come across as all rules, like an abstinence only

Reports display that abstinence-only curriculums do not decrease sexual intercourse by adolescent students. The United States Division of Health and Human Services publicized a report of abstinence curriculums. The authors revealed that conclusions from the study provided no indication that abstinence curriculums applied in elementary and middle schools are successful in decreasing the rate of adolescent or teenagers having sexual relations. Actually, teenagers did not benefit from all of the work and the millions of dollars that have been used into these curriculums. An additional study by Peter Bearman of Columbia University shows that over eighty-five percent of middle and high school students who vow to remain virgins until

An alarming rate of Sexually Transmitted Infections and Pregnancy among teenagers has been an ongoing concern and could be linked to the lack of sex education in schools. Statistics show that 3 in 10 teenagers are becoming pregnant every year, and 1 in four teenagers are contracting sexually transmitted infections. There are numerous opposing views towards the teaching of comprehensive sex education in school districts. Many people are opposed to this because they believe that it encourages premarital sexual promiscuity in young adults, is destructive to religious belief, and is inappropriate and harmful. “Comprehensive Sex Education Is Inappropriate and Harmful” is and article that provides concrete evidence, for example, it states in the article that “Teens enrolled in these classes are given false information about how pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases can be avoided and may actually be encouraged to engage in activities that could lead to sexual intercourse” which is quite the contrary. My personal view is that as a nation we should be teaching students comprehensive sex education also known as abstinence plus, because it will better educate students and save money. Comprehensive sex education stresses the importance of abstinence, but also provides important information for the prevention of STI’s and unplanned pregnancies. I believe this needs to be taught in schools because I come from a school that taught abstinence only and nothing more, and the number of

Programs that encourage abstinence have become a vital part of school systems in the US. These programs are usually referred to as abstinence-only or value-based programs while other programs are called as safer-sex, comprehensive, secular or abstinence-plus programs which on the contrary promote the usage of effective contraception. Although abstinence-only and safer-sex programs disagree with one another, their core values and stand on the aims of sex education is to help teens develop problem-solving skills and the skill of good decision-making. They believe that adolescents will be better prepared to “act responsibly in the heat of the moment” (Silva). Most programs that have been currently implemented in the US have seen a delay in the initiation of sex among teens which proves to be a positive and desirable outcome (Silva).

     Sex outside marriage is at best, wrong; at worst deadly. Today's children are basing their decisions about sex on moral and social values. The accepted moral code is pretty black and white - don't. Our society, however, has always been able to bend the rules to suit the current trend. Right now that trend is, "young people shouldn't have sex outside of marriage, but if they do, they should do it safely." Herein lies the problem: Because most adults grew up in the "sexual freedom" era of the 1960's they don't feel that they should have to give up that freedom. Therefore they would be hypocrites if they taught abstinence as the only effective way to stay safe. This attitude is reflected