Adolescents: Comprehensive Sex Education

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’

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

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.

Today, it is most common that conservative and religious families practice and teach abstinence more than families who are not religious (WebMD). School systems have always believed that the biggest contraceptive is abstinence, which is why they have been so consistent with that approach for so many years. “"Schools teach 'no smoking' and 'no drinking.' They don't say 'if you smoke, use a filter' or 'if you drink and drive, wear your safety belt.' Why should sex be treated differently?", said Peter Brandt, President of the National Coalition for Abstinence Education in Colorado Springs. It is imperative that school systems continue teaching abstinence but also inform students on the potential health risks of sex and how to prevent

Imagine if the United States said “Okay, we’re banning driver’s Education in schools. We don’t think a sixteen year old is mentally and physically prepared to drive safely, and we don’t want to encourage that”. So of course, schools start pulling driver’s ed classes, but also say “Wait wait wait, sixteen year olds may not be ready to drive, but they’re going to anyway. Why not make it safer for them instead of putting them out on the road with no safety knowledge?” But, the country continues to say “They’re not ready so we’re not going to encourage that in schools” Sex education isn't just about pregnancy, it's about avoiding STDs and other health issues. The highest teenage STD rates are normally associated with abstinence-only education. Some STDs will cause life-long problems, and should be taught about to teens. Although there is an attempt to minimize teen pregnancy and stds, the rate of teen pregnancy is higher in the U.S. than other Western countries, Among teens aged 18–19, 41% report that they know little or nothing about condoms, and 1 in 4 teens in the US receives information about abstinence without receiving any information or instructions about birth control.

Clemmitt (2010) states that currently the most effective approach to prevent teenage pregnancy is evidence-based sex education programs. The primary debate about the best method of preventing teenage pregnancy is between abstinence-only courses and comprehensive sex education. The author says that after operating comprehensive sex education, the Obama approach, many communities and county areas have drastically reduced the rate of teenage pregnancy. Studies and statistics suggested that abstinence-only courses have not contributed to reduce teenage pregnancy rates. The author points out that the abstinence-only courses also include sexually transmitted diseases classes and discussions of unhealthy relationship and making decisions, and abstinence

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

“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.

Drilling into teens’ heads that sex is inherently bad will do no justice in the long run. Notwithstanding, abstinence-only programs do nothing but this, for they hold the opinion that making teenagers fear the consequences of precarious sex will prevent them from engaging in it. Advocates of both abstinence-only and comprehensive programs are worried that premature sex, even when wholly safe, will psychologically damage teenagers, but “there are no scientific data suggesting that consensual sex between adolescents is harmful”, yet abstinence-only education by itself continues to mandate the teaching that sex out of wedlock will do harm (Santelli et al. “Abstinence and abstinence-only education” 74). Unlike abstinence-only education, comprehensive sex-education attempts to focus on developing healthy mentalities for the benefit of their students. Promotion of healthy relationships between oneself and others will help make teenagers find trust between themselves and their sexual partners before participating in the act, furthermore causing them to make sure their partner does not have any STIs and is using contraception. Conversely, abstinence-only programs’ persistence with enthusiastically promoting abstinence leaves teenagers with little clue about their mental health. “Even those few individuals who remain abstinent until marriage are left

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.

The issue of comprehensive sex education has sparked debates among parents, teachers and even lawmakers. Children have the right to knowledge and this right to knowledge should not be limited to what is taught in abstinence only sex education, and this is why comprehensive sex education should be taught in schools. Some parents believe that if they do not teach their children about sex, their children will not have sex, but this is not true. Comprehensive sex education better equips young adults to protect themselves, but it also respects their right to be given accurate information that will be used for their entire lives.

“Given that 47.4% of high school students have experienced sexual intercourse, advocates argue that abstinence-only messages provide no protection against the risks of pregnancy (Solomon-Fears).” The fact that this percentage is so high highlights how widespread this is, which indicates that many teenagers are prone to have sex. “Teens who break their virginity pledges were less likely to use contraception the first time than teens who had never made such a promise (Solomon-Fears).”The promise of abstinence seemed to have no effect on them because they had sex anyway. Furthermore, they did not even use contraception. The trend here seems to be that the abstinence programs are having the opposite of the intended effect. The government initiated

Considering that religion is Americas #1 social institution, it is no surprise that the most widely used sex education approach follows the beliefs of the church (Delamater, J. D. Lecture 9/29/14). The sex negativity of the Christian tradition stems from the philosophies of Stoicism and Neo-Platonism which both enforce that sex is solely for procreation. (Delamater, 2014, p. 483) The Christian belief that abstinence is the only moral way to avoid STIs and pregnancy has led to the incorporation of abstinence-only sex education courses in schools. The myth that abstinence-only sex education causes teenagers to have less sex has been in question for quite some time. Christians deem that teaching students about safe sex would lead to an increase in sexual behavior, thus it shouldn’t be discussed. In contrast, people who believe in humanism feel that comprehensive sex education is the most effective way to inform teenagers about sex (Delamater, 2014, p. 485).

The debate surrounding sex education in America’s public schools system has been a heated one, especially since the early days of the 1980’s and identification of AIDS. The misinformation that surrounded AIDS in those days is still prevalent in the arguments that are being used to promote abstinence only sex education in the American public school system. In this paper you will be introduced to three of the key abstinence only until marriage sex education supporters. You will learn what they are basing their platforms on and you will see it contrasted to the comprehensive sex education programs that are proposed and supported by many educators, medical professionals and child advocates.

When I was in the eighth grade, I remember attending a sex education course. At the young impressionable age of fourteen, I listened quietly as the lecturer showed us grotesque pictures of sexually transmitted infections and warned us that abstinence was the only effective way to not get pregnant. At the end of lecture, everyone at the assembly was handed a little card that read, “Virginity Pledge” and we were all required to sign them. Looking back on this memory, I am appalled by the severe lack of scientific foundation of the lecture, the use of misinterpreted statistics, and the use of peer pressure in requiring students to sign pledge cards. Many students my age probably have a similar experience with this type of sex education, which is referred to as abstinence-only sex education. Students deserve a better sex education than what the abstinence-only sex education programs provide. Abstinence-only sex education should be removed from all U.S. schools and replaced with comprehensive sexuality education.