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.
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’
Multiple factors influence the rate of teen pregnancy. Some of the most important factors influencing pregnancy rates are socioeconomic status, education, and family income. With low socioeconomic status and income, parents may not always be present in their children’s lives in order to educate them on sex. School districts, then, take on the responsibility to educate teenagers on sexual intercourse and safe practices, but some fail. Stanger-Hall, K. F., & Hall, D. W. provided statistics showing that while many schools push abstinence-only programs, they show little to no positive impact on preventing teen pregnancies (Stanger-Hall, K. F., & Hall, D. W. (n.d.)). While abstinence may work for some, it is not realistic to believe that all teens will abide by it. Teens need a comprehensive sexual education with emphasis on safe sex practices, which is where Be Safe, Not Sorry comes into play. The comprehensive program will cover all
"Declines in teenage pregnancies can be achieved through two mechanisms--changes in sexual behavior and changes in contraceptive use. Some observers have claimed that the declines are the result of increased abstinence..."(Darooch 2016). The key to a decline in teenage pregnancy and an increase in higher education is through abstinence. Teens need to be exposed to ways to stay free from sexual behaviors and encouraged by peers to stay pure. To keep teens included in family life and sure in their future will encourage them to stay safe and secure their lives. No one can make a teenager choose to stay away from sexual activity except themselves but influences from the outside will determine their answer tithe inevitable question at a party or on a date. Abstinence is not old fashioned, it is current and real and what should be elevated in society. America needs to turn around and look at where they are headed with young people and evaluate whether or not it is what they want to be making the desk ions for the world in years to
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.
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
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
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
Many studies have shown that programs that focus on abstinence rather than contraceptive use are successful in reducing teen sexual activity”(Kim). She goes on to explain that abstinence is the best possible choice. Also that early sexual activity during teen years can have a risk of causing a contraction of a sexually transmitted disease, damage psychological constitution, lower academic achievement and cause unwanted teen pregnancy. All of these side effects are completely avoidable. The definition of “abstinence” is “Abstinence from sexual activity outside of marriage as expected standard for all school age children (Kim). It is emphasized as a healthy lifestyle and is explained by its effect on social, psychological, and health aspects. She cites that “Studies have shown that abstinent teens report, on average better psychological well being and higher educational attainment than those who are sexually active. She makes sure to repeat the claim that early sexual encounters can cause early irreparable psychological damage. A 2010 study in medical journal archives of pediatrics concludes that a abstinence only education reduced sexual initiation in the group of African-American adolescents. Two years later one third of the participants had initiated in sexual activity. “By
Policies should be put in place to make the young adults better educated, in all areas of physical intimacy. Under the abstinence-only approach students are given no information about contraception, and other ways of preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. We should educate the best habits of prevention, and state that abstinence is the best way to prevent unplanned pregnancy or the spread of STD’s.
Abstinence-only and comprehensive sex education follow vary different outlines in methods of teaching and the goals they hope to achieve. Controversy surrounding this topic focuses on what is being taught and how this relates to values favoring abstinence, with the belief that education on birth control encourages sexual activity (Abstinence Only Education, 2005). Planned Parenthood states the following: “Abstinence-only programs (also called abstinence-only until marriage programs) promote abstinence from sexual behavior” (Planned Parenthood: Implementing Sex Education, n.d.) Abstinence-only programs only teach abstinence, as per their name, and in fact, they purposely exclude information on “birth control, safer sex and sex orientation” (Planned
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).
Abstinence only education is hindering the lives of teens in today’s world. Schools should stop teaching abstinence only education since, it increases the rate of teens having sexual relations with other people, it does not give students adequate lessons on preventing STDs, and the rate of teen pregnancy is higher for students who receive abstinence only education. As a nation we need to help teens protect themselves with this topic and most importantly approach it with caution. Many schools believe that abstinence only education is the most effective way to instruct students on the topic of sex when it clearly is not.
Many think that teaching students about contraceptives will reduce teenagers from having unplanned pregnancies. Research confirms that “education provided by Planned Parenthood, which teaches contraceptive use, helps increase the use of contraceptives and condoms when students do become sexually active”(Neering). This means that they stress the use of condoms over the idea of waiting. What happens when condoms or birth control fail? The curriculum of abstinence-only believes that teaching contraceptive use just encourages teenagers to become sexually active (ProQuest). According to the Center of Disease Control, “waiting lowers the risk of unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases” ("Sex-Ed Must Stress Value of Abstinence."). If they are not in the situation of possibly having sex, then they do not face having an unplanned pregnancy.