Abstinence-Only vs. Comprehensive Sex Education Essay

Sexual education is a highly debatable topic, but many believe the information taught to students should be abstinence-only. Abstinence-only education has been put in place in order to educate students about the social, mental, and physical benefits of resisting from all sexual activity. It emphasizes the unsafe impacts of participating in sexual activity before marriage and having casual sex. It also promotes the idea that sexual abstinence is the only way to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease. Abstinence education only permits the discussion of contraception and condoms in terms of failure in order to utterly discourage casual sex (Wilgoren, 1). Along with teaching the physical dangers of sex, abstinence education also teaches the mental dangers of sex (Abstinence-Only Education, 1). Sex has many risks and dangers that are not

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.

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?

Sex education for American youth has been a topic of discussion across the nation since the early 1980s. Teen pregnancies and sexually transmitted disease are two major problems throughout the U.S.. Sexually transmitted infections have been an ongoing problem for American people since World War I. To combat the growing teen pregnancy and STI rates, the U.S. established organized sex education. Since sex education has been integrated in schools across the nation, it has been heavily influenced by religion. The federal government has funded abstinence-only education programs for over a quarter century. Abstinence-only

Does “abstinence-only” programs mean abstinence-only lives for teenagers receiving this type of sexual education? There are those who fully support abstinence-only sex education while others deny its ability and believe it only under educates teenagers. From the latter, the author claims that abstinence only programs are not effective. He presents evidence to suggest this is valid, including that high school students need medically accurate information on how to decrease their risk of sexually transmitted infections and unintended pregnancy because they are sexually active. Though the underlying issue has merit and the argument is sound and is valid because of logical

Abstinence is a remarkable topic to be taught, however, should not be the only choice taught, and it’s impractical to expect the youth to hold out until marriage. Abstinence, along with STD and pregnancy prevention is imperative for the youth in the nation. It is factual that accepting promiscuity as part of our culture might cause a rise in STD's, teen pregnancy, and Aid’s. These increases are the reason we must begin early in educating children about the diseases, how to prevent them, and how to practice safe sex. Schools are insane for not lecturing the importance, or proper use of

Federal funding has played a large role in this increase, as monetary incentives have been the driving force behind much of the change. To put it in numbers, the amount of federal dollars going to schools that adopted abstinence only programs almost tripled in the seven years between 1998 and 2005, increasing from 60 to 168 million dollars a year (Santelli, 75). And among United States school districts that changed their policies, twice as many chose to adopt a curriculum that more heavily focused on abstinence only until marriage as moved towards a more comprehensive program (Landry). This disturbing statistic shows how effective the religious right has been in pushing abstinence only programs in face of a dearth of evidence as to their effectiveness. This effectiveness is mainly due to intense lobbying funded by individuals and organizations on the far right. One man, Raymond Ruddy, has personally put 1.5 million dollars towards advocacy and lobbying for abstinence only programs (Eaton). While lobbying like this commonly happens on both sides of the aisle, in this case public opinion goes against what people like Raymond Ruddy say is necessary. According to a recent study, "Ninety-eight percent of parents say they want HIV/AIDS discussed in sex education classes; 85% want 'how to use condoms' discussed; 84% think sex education should cover 'how to use and where to get other birth control,' and 76% want

The reason abstinence-education was pushed back in 1996 was because it became evident that the United States had the highest teen pregnancy rate of all industrialized nations (Sather & Zinn, 2002). But over 20 years later, after continued funding and support of abstinence-only education, the United States still remains the leader in teen pregnancies throughout Western society with a rate of 22.3 births per 1000 15-19 year old women in the US in 2015 (Reproductive Health, 2017). It is clearly time for a change in sex

Half of all new human immunodeficiency virus, also known as HIV infections in the United States and two thirds of all sexually transmitted diseases (STD) occur among young people under the age of 25 (Starkman, Rajani). It’s estimated that by the end of high school, nearly two thirds of American’s youth are sexually active, and one in five has had four or more sexual partners (Starkman, Rajani). Despite these alarming statistics, less than half of all public schools in the United States offer information on how to obtain contraceptives and most schools teach "abstinence only" education (Starkman, Rajani). Even more alarmingly there is little evidence that abstinence only curriculums are successful in encouraging teenagers from delaying

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

Abstinence is not necessarily valuable for teens to acknowledge because “There is no evidence that an abstinence-only curriculum maintains abstinence any longer than the regular sex education curriculum taught in most schools. Morality needs to incorporate reality, and the reality is that young people are sexually active.” ("Do abstinence-only sex education programs work?" ).

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).

Research-based evaluation of comprehensive programs show that they are just as effective (if not more so) than abstinence-only programs at reducing the age at which sexual activity first occurs, reducing the frequency of sexual activity and number of sexual partners, as well as increasing the use of condoms and contraceptives among adolescents (Advocates for Youth). Researchers at the National Survey of Family Growth found that students who received comprehensive sexuality education were 50 percent less likely to become pregnant than those who received abstinence-only education. Additionally, these studies showed that those who received abstinence-only education were not any more or less likely to abstain from sex until marriage than other students; in at least 13 states, abstinence-only programs were proven to have shown no changes in sexual behavior over time. In addition, public polls routinely report that over 80 percent of Americans citizens would vote in favor of offering comprehensive sex education in high schools, middle schools, and junior high schools; in one such poll, 70 percent of participants opposed abstinence-only programs receiving government funding and 85 percent believed adolescents should learn about birth control and other forms of contraceptives and pregnancy prevention in school (Advocates

There are many states that do not provide the kind of sex education that New Jersey strives to convey to its students. It more often than not ties in with the religious right proclaiming that students are too young to be exposed to sexual material, and thus sexualized as a result. These fundamental groups oppose any suggestion towards a comprehensive approach. Instead, they ask that their children be taught after grade school and additionally, they steer towards ‘abstinence-only’ education. Instead of teaching students how to protect themselves, they teach that the only way to protect oneself is by abstaining from sex. The problem arises, then, when these students decide to have sex. They are unaware of how to conduct themselves responsibly, how to take precautions to prevent against unwanted pregnancy and disease. What kind of ‘education’ are students receiving when they are withheld crucial information?