Research Paper On Abstinence

Abstinence education strives to create an environment in which students will be prepared to remain abstinent because it is the “only completely effective form of birth control. Creating an appeal to religious groups with the same ideology, these programs promote “the idea of sexual activity inside the context of marriage [as] the only proper behavior. ” (“Comprehensive Sex Education vs. Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage-Programs”) In the TED talk “Why We Shouldn’t Shy Away From Sexual Education”, Dr. V. Chandra-Mouli adds that “one of the main reasons for resistance to sexuality education is the concern that it plants the idea in children’s minds to have sex before they are ready…” Parents fear the idea of their children being influenced to have sex out of wedlock because it brings a higher risk of getting a sexual transmitted disease (STD) or becoming unintentionally

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

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).

Even though sex education has been proven to lower pregnancy and abortion rates among teens, for years people have argued that comprehensive or safe-sex education encourages early sexual activity instead of steering the thought away. However, the main issue is not education about sex but specifically what kind of education. In 1986 Planned Parenthood commissioned a poll to determine how comprehensive sex education which teaches about abstinence as the best method for avoiding STDs and unintended pregnancy, when affected behavior. Much to the agency’s disappointment, the study showed that kids exposed to such a program had a 47% higher rate of sexual activity than those who’d had no sex education at all. In contrast, a 1996 study on “Project

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

“Don’t have sex because you will get pregnant and die!” (Mean Girls). This famous quote said by Coach Carr, the health teacher, in the movie Mean Girls swarms the brains of teenagers all over the world. While this quote is quite extreme and is making a mockery of abstinence only programs, it’s analogous to what teachers across the nation are reciting to brainwash our youth. Abstinence-Until-Marriage programs are implemented in numerous high school and junior high schools across the country. While the title seems promising, “Mathematica [Policy Research Inc. (on behalf of U. S. Department of Health and Human Services) found that through] evaluation, [there’s] no evidence that abstinence-until-marriage programs increased rates of sexual abstinence” (What the Research Says…). Teaching a course that isn’t beneficial is meaningless and merely a waste of time. These curriculums use fear tactics to scare children away from sex, reinforce gender norms, and provide inaccurate medical information. Schools that provide abstinence only programs are denying our youth factual, substantial knowledge and survival skills. Instead, these schools should consider an abstinence-plus program, also known as a safe sex contraception education, for their students.

“The United States ranks first among developed nations in rates of both teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases” (Stanger-Hall, Hall, “Abstinence-Only Education and Teen Pregnancy Rates”). According to several studies, this is mainly due to the fact that numerous states teach abstinence-only education, which usually does not include material on contraception, STIs, nor pregnancy. The alternative to abstinence-only education is referred to as comprehensive sex-education, where the practice of abstinence is promoted, but students are additionally taught about contraception, STIs, pregnancy prevention, and interpersonal skills. Despite the beneficial results of this alternative, abstinence-only education is still taught all over the

Morris’s statement, echoed by her fellow abstinence-only proponents, would make it seem as if the United States government has not funded or promoted abstinence-only education. However, funding for abstinence-only programs has been increasing since the 1980’s, when it first began; “The Adolescent Family Act…was signed into law in 1981…to provide support to teen parents and ‘to promote chastity and self-discipline’ through a ‘family centered approach” (Schwarz, 2007). Even recently, in 2007, President Bush proposed an increase in spending for abstinence –only education, going from $176 million to $204 million (Boonstra, 2007). Percentage wise, “In 2006-2008 most teens aged 15-19 had received formal instruction about…or abstinence (84%)” (Guttmatcher Institute, 2012). A review conducted by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services found that “youth who were assigned to the Title V abstinence “program group” were no more likely than youth assigned to the “services as usual” control group to have abstained from sex” (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2007). The amount of funding for abstinence-only education is astonishingly high,

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.

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 controversial topic of whether or not sex education curriculum should teach contraceptive use or abstinence-only is heavily debated. In 2013, the U.S. totaled 273,105 babies born by teenagers, ages from 15 to 19 (“About Teen Pregnancy”). This raises the question: why is the number of pregnancies so high? Is the reason for that unsettling high, number because abstinence-only is being taught or contraceptive use is being taught? Students who are taught abstinence-only are more likely to wait to have sex, which results in the lowering of teen pregnancy. The abstinence-only curriculum also reduces students sexual activity.The sex education curriculum in the U.S. should consist of abstinence-only education.

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.

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).

Sexual education is extremely important in informing youth about sex. More specifically, sex education “plays an essential role in preventing unplanned pregnancy and the transmission of sexual transmitted infections (STI)” (Grose et al., 2014, p. 742). Research shows that sex education in schools “may be well positioned to address social factors that are empirically linked to negative sexual health outcomes, such as traditional social norms surrounding genders and sexuality” (Grose et al., 2014, p. 742). Observing, the American ‘abstinence only’ sex education, it is not any form of education. It is telling children that they should not be having sex and that if they do there is a problem. Furthermore, it does not give the option to those that wish to have sex any information on how to practice safe sex, prevent pregnancy and