Abstinence is the Only Effective Method Essay

Sexual education in schools has become a highly controversial topic over the past few years. Some people believe students should be taught abstinence-only education, while others believe students need the full on “sex talk”. While the sex education controversy may seem silly, it is very important that students receive the most efficient education possible. When it comes to education parents want their children to receive the most effective kind. This is also very true in terms of sex education. Sex education is very debatable right now as to whether students should be taught abstinence-only education or comprehensive sex education.

Abstinence is the only form of birth control that is 100% effective – in both preventing pregnancies and most sexually transmitted infections. If you choose to be abstinent, then you have decided not to have any type of sexual relations. Learn some of the reasons why people choose to abstain as well as the benefits from this behavior. Discover the difference between continuous and complete abstinence. Read advice on how to stay abstinent and when to make the decision about using abstinence as your contraceptive method. Possible pitfalls people face when choosing this method are also examined.

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’

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,

While the department of education does include a recommendation for school districts to develop and implement age-appropriate sex education, it’s not mandated in many states. There is confusion among teenagers about the different methods they can use to protect themselves; for example, contraceptives (such as birth control) do not prevent STI’s, but do prevent pregnancies. In fact, almost 37% of "18-25 year olds incorrectly believe at least one of the following: transmission of HIV is possible by sharing a glass, kissing, or touching a toilet seat" (The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation 2006). Without the proper knowledge, teens simply cannot be expected to act accordingly. Abstinence-only education gives students an incomplete education, and expects students to disregard the gaps in teachings. This isn't just unfair; it is dangerous. In a study performed by the American Journal of Public Health involving 4,000 teens over a period of seven years, they found that adolescents who used condoms during their first intercourse had on average the same number of partners as those who did not use a condom. However, the former group was 30 percent more likely to have used condoms in their most recent sexual encounter,

Many advocates for abstinence-only education believe that its message is strongly intertwined with traditional values and religious faith; both of which they claim to have measurable influence in preventing teens from having sex (Collins, Alagira, and Summers 12-13). Christian conservative women believe that comprehensive sex education would encourage sexual activity and lesbianism, as well as undercut marriage and create social decay (Fields 24).

I believe that all schools should teach an inclusive form of sexual education. I believe that teaching abstinence is not working in the slightest because the rate of teenagers who are sexually active is gradually increasing. Since the fact is that teens are participating in sexual intercourse, we need to teach them how to have sex safely. Schools need to teach a form of sexual education that will fully cover how to prevent teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases and infections, because the abstinence-only-until-marriage programs contain inaccuracies and flaws, the popular opinion differs from state policies, and the government and tax payer’s money could be better allocated to a different cause. Ultimately teaching proper sexual education will help to lower the teenage pregnancy

Now in school instructors would take three options, abstinence-only, comprehensive, or no sex education program at all. There is two other places that talk about some type of sex, church and home. The church says that you should wait to have sex for marriage, that is if you believe in God. When your at home it’s up to your parents, planned parenthood says that it’s best to start talking with their children about sex when they are in their early childhood. I do not think that it is the church’s place to say weather you can have sex or not. [Jesus] said, "It is what comes out of a person that defiles. For it is from within, from the human heart, that evil intentions come: fornication, theft, murder, adultery, avarice, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, folly. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person." (NRSV, Mark

Those who wish for comprehensive education to be taught often correlate shame and abstinence only education. The argument is if sex is not shamed and instead normalized and properly discussed future adults will practice behavior that is safer. They also argue that because of the higher pregnancy rates among those taught in abstinence only states, abstinence only education is ineffective (Stanger-Hall). Laci Green, a YouTube public speaker and activist, argues that abstinence only education shames women specifically for unplanned pregnancy and not men. She also brings up that shame and sense of failure can create stigmas for young parents. Green also argues that Bristol Palin, abstinence advocate, has had two unplanned pregnancies and thus not only does abstinence education same women but it also is ineffective.

Where in the first world would one expect the teen pregnancy rate to be the highest? Surprisingly, it is the United States that has the highest teen pregnancy rate of any first world country, more than double the rate of twenty other first world countries and almost ten times greater than that of Switzerland. While some of the disparity can be attributed to factors such as income inequality, the presence of abstinence only education has a major impact on birth and STD rates in the United States in comparison to other countries with more comprehensive programs. It is clear that this difference in approaches has a significant effect, and the United States needs to act to ensure the health of its citizens. Urgent actions are necessary

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

Society has plugged information into young people’s mind for generations. This programmed, presumptive information has made youthful people, especially teenagers, and young adults think and act like robots. Buried deep in many teenagers thoughts ensued by their parents and society are the words, “No sex before marriage!”. Different people, have countless different reasons that they believe one should not have sex before marriage. Society, in lots of different places look poorly on those who engage sexually before being married. I’ve witnessed it happen more then once locally in my area, and its always ends with such a negative outcome. Even in schools kids are taught that sex is bad thing, and told not to engage in any sort of sexual activity. Rather then being taught about the importance of safe sex society is programing kids to just not have sex at all, especially in America. “Americans love to tout the value of waiting until marriage to have sex. We teach abstinence-only education in schools across the country, and even comprehensive sex-ed programs often point out that "abstinence is best."” (Jill Filipovic). People get married, most of the time, because the love each other but marriage is only a document. And when you love someone, you don’t need a contract to prove it. And you shouldn’t need a stamp of approval saying when and when you’re not allowed to be intimate with someone you love. Having sex before marriage should not be looked so poorly upon this day in age.

Teenage sexual activity has sparked an outcry within the nation. With such activity comes a high price. Studies have shown that there has been a significant rise in the number of children with sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), emotional and psychological problems, and out-of-wedlock childbearing. Sex has always been discussed publically by the media, television shows, music and occasionally by parents and teachers in educational context. Teens hear them, and as the saying goes, “monkey see, monkey do”, they are tempted to experiment with it. Therefore, it is important for every teenager to be aware of the outcome associated with premature-sex. If students are educated about the impact of

If schools had sex education classes and made them mandatory then they would actually learn about sex and sexuality like they are suppose to. “Sex education teaches them about their bodies, informs them of the risks of having sex, and teaches them about safe sex” (Blick). Learning about sex in school would be less uncomfortable for the student, because it would feel like a normal class they have to take, instead of a one on one talk with their parents, who makes it worse than it is since they do not know how to talk about it. Letting the school teach about sex and sexuality would take the pressure off of the parents, and they wouldn’t have to struggle thinking of something to tell their child. Sex education in school would be a sure way to be certain that students learn about everything they need to know.

There are problems with not teaching sex education at school. There are some parents that don't know how to talk to their children about sex. If the school doesn't children about sex, then they will learn it the "hard way", maybe by contraction of a sexually transmitted disease. One of the most deadly and well-known sexually transmitted diseases today is HIV. According to the Web page AVERT, HIV infection is increasing most rapidly among young people ("Does"). This disease is killing hundreds of children each year, because they had to learn it the "hard way".