America's War on Sex

The HPV vaccine reception has been similar to that of the hepatitis vaccine in that both are seen as an attack on morality, and are considered by some as a license for promiscuity. In the book Vaccine Allen quotes, ‘ “ If a 10- or 12-year-old is given a vaccine to protect against a sexually transmitted disease, then it’s implied they’d be engaging in risky sexual behavior,” said Pia de Solenni, director of “life and women’s issues” for the Family Research Council’ (433). The fact that HPV lives in the sexual organs and is spread by sexual intercourse or intravenous drug use has caused many parents to come to the belief that their children are not at risk. Some parents go so far as to suggest that if

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

As of recently, the approval of the emergency contraceptive Plan B, for the use of girls as young as fifteen years old has stirred up quite some controversy (Belluck, 2013). Those who oppose it cite the diminishing moral values that this would impose on an already increasingly secular society. These individuals believe that having access to such a powerful substance would encourage young girls to engage in sexual promiscuity without any fear of repercussion (Belluck, 2013). However, proponents of this new law argue that giving full access to fifteen year old girls would discourage them from becoming pregnant at such an early age and gives them the opportunity to make wise decisions about their bodies. Aside from the two strongly opposing sides to this dilemma, the actual nature of the dilemma stems from the ease with which these young girls would be able to access the emergency contraceptive drug. Before the new law came into place, the emergency contraceptive was only available through the prescription of a doctor and could only be accessed through a pharmacist (Aleccia, 2013). With the new law, anyone fifteen or older would be able to access and purchase the drug over-the-counter. Granting such access to girls who may at times not be fully aware of the consequences of their actions is the nature of the dilemma.

Have you ever realized that the world you live in was not the same anymore? Like something is wrong, but you can never quite figure out why? This is what I felt after reading “America’s War on Sex” by Dr. Martin Klein. While reading this book I learned many different things about organization that do everything in their power to stop freedom of sexual expression.

Such a controversial vote ignited a great debate throughout the community: among parents, school officials, government officials, and religious leaders. It forced the community to discuss a topic that is still uncomfortable for many confer --youth sex education. “How should we go about teaching sex education to children?” When should children be exposed to this type of information?” These are the types of questions the community pondered while weighing in on the debate. Despite the sexual revolution of the 1900’s and into the 2000’s, discussing sex education is still a contentious topic even in 2015. The author Nancy Gibbs does a extraordinary job examining the various perspectives of the debate in “Birth Control for Kids?

Oliver’s next line sums up why we need accurate and authentic comprehensive sex education in schools: “Kids have good questions that need good answers.” Oliver goes on to deliver startling statistics such as only 22 states have laws in place to mandate sex education and with only 13 of those states requiring the curriculum being taught to be medically accurate (LastWeekTonight, 2015; Avery, Carvell, Gondelman, Gurewitch, Haggerty, Maurer, Oliver, Sherman, Tracy, Twiss, Weiner, 2015). Oliver continues to spew forth important reasons why abstinence only sex education can be detrimental to adolescence. Some abstinence only sex education programs compares people that engage in pre-marital sex as “used toothbrushes” or “chewed up gum” (LastWeekTonight, 2015; Avery et al. 2015). A video clip of Elizabeth Smart, a well-known rape survivor, discussed how detrimental abstinence only education affected her mentally because all she could think of was being a piece of chewed up gum even though it was not her choice to have sex before marriage (LastWeekTonight, 2015; Avery et al. 2015). Before signing off with a celebrity filled sex education video, Oliver articulates another quote that is difficult to argue against; “Human sexuality, unlike calculus, is something you actually need to know about” (LastWeekTonight, 2015; Avery et al.

Other supporters think that sex education should not deviate from other teachings of other health curricula such as drunk driving, tobacco use, drug use, alcohol consumption, gun use, fighting; all things which are taught to just not do (Collins, Alagira, and Summers 12-13). They believe that it is the responsibility of a public institution which serves kids to teach them risk avoidance rather than harm reduction (“WebMD: Better Information. Better Health”).

“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.

She ascertains that there is a direct correlation between the advances in communications technology and how people view information regarding sex. To set the stage for her argument she describes a sexual charged scene that any reader would expect to be a scene from some spring break party but then states that it is a scene from the 1800’s. In her argument she fully acknowledges that our culture is “sex crazed” but does not accept that the answer is to preach total abstinence. In contrast, she believes that society should recognize that our culture has and will continue to promote sexuality and the best offense is a good defense. She offers an option of arming our children with the good decision making skills and the right amount of moral fortitude to make the right decision when that time

The debate over the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines represents two very controversial topics in healthcare in America, mandatory vaccination and teenage sexuality. Currently the two approved vaccines, Gardasil and Ceravix, are designed to protect against the sexually transmitted virus HPV. Because these vaccines have their greatest benefit when given before a person becomes sexually active, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), recommends they are to be administered at age 12 (Colgrove). The arguments both for and against the vaccine are embedded with ethical and economic issues. From a public health perspective, mandating this vaccine is important in reducing communicable disease through mass immunization. However, parents question the issues of morality. Should HPV vaccination be mandatory, and if so, to whom?

Another popular argument against HPV vaccination is that some parents view it as a green light for their daughters to behave promiscuously (Thomas, 2008). Much like condom distribution at high schools, there are those that view HPV vaccination as another way to promote, and cause a rise in irresponsible sexual behavior (2008). Thomas (2008) goes on to describe a conservative political group called the Traditional Values Coalition and how they have publicly denounced the HPV vaccine and claim that genital warts, cervical cancer, etc. are not a national health concern, and “that HPV can be prevented through abstinence and marital fidelity.” This group attributes “monetary gain” by pharmaceutical companies as a motive for the mandate for HPV vaccination. Like most every ethical or moral dilemma going on in this country,

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

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

Often, sexual education can go against an individual's moral or religious beliefs. Many schools do not teach abstinence only but teach safe sex, whereas many religious groups and families do not value intercourse before marriage. Teachers may input their own beliefs or morals into the subject matter rather than stick with the facts if they are not properly trained on how to conduct a sex education course. Sex education classes are briefly focused on during a health class or physical education. This is not a long enough period to educate students on such serious material. These arguments does not take into account the fact that students will be taught on subjects such as, sexually transmitted diseases, the reproductive system, sexually and birthing issues rather than the stuff they learn through peers, television or the internet. Many of the myths learned by students about sex swill also are discussed, such as not being able to get pregnant the first time. Classes for those of a younger group are separated by gender, saving embarrassment amongst students and teachers. Teaching sex education can have a major impact on preventing unplanned pregnancy and other sexual problems in adulthood.

Students can now access any site on the internet that contains adult content or pornographic materials. That is why sex education should be implemented in schools. It is better for children to be informed earlier because they will still know about it when they grow up as they will be more exposed to it through their peers and the media (Cooper, n.d.). Through sex education, young people are able to communicate, listen, negotiate with others, ask for and identify sources of help and advice when it comes to sexual relationships. Through communication teenagers more confident and know better about the consequences of having sex before marriage.