Comprehensive Sex Education

Modern era sex education programs in the United States began in the late 1980s and early 1990s as a result of the AIDS/HIV epidemic. With the introduction of curricula teaching safe sex and the effectiveness of contraception, other curricula refuted these ideas thus creating a conflict about sex education in the U.S. Sex education in the U.S is divided into two categories: abstinence-only and comprehensive, the former being the most implemented among states nationwide. Abstinence-only programs stress the importance of abstaining from sex until marriage, fitting the “traditional” set of American morals. Covering more than just abstinence, comprehensive sex education programs not only teach students about the options they have when it comes

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

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

Since the HIV/AIDS epidemic began in the U.S. in the early 1980s the issue of sex education for American youth has had the attention of the nation. There are about 400,000 teen births every year in the U.S, with about 9 billion in associated public costs. STI contraction in general, as well as teen pregnancy, have put the subject even more so on the forefront of the nation’s leading issues. The approach and method for proper and effective sex education has been hotly debated. Some believe that teaching abstinence-only until marriage is the best method while others believe that a more comprehensive approach, which includes abstinence promotion as well as contraceptive information, is necessary. Abstinence-only program curriculums disregard

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

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.

Abstinence is a remarkable topic to be taught, however, should not be the only choice taught, and it’s impractical to expect the youth to hold out until marriage. Abstinence, along with STD and pregnancy prevention is imperative for the youth in the nation. It is factual that accepting promiscuity as part of our culture might cause a rise in STD's, teen pregnancy, and Aid’s. These increases are the reason we must begin early in educating children about the diseases, how to prevent them, and how to practice safe sex. Schools are insane for not lecturing the importance, or proper use of

Human nature has shaped and developed many different social norms in our society, however, they also create many social problems when conflicting views come under scrutinization. Sexual education in America has been problematic since the late 1900’s because there is simply a lack of it. Sexual education has transformed over a hundred years, abated by the effect of religious upbringings and conservative outlooks. However, as evolved as it is today, it is still a national issue because of the ongoing struggle of comprehensive sexual education against abstinence, and in the midst of the two, students are still not being exposed to proper sexual health.

However, controversy arises when the discussion as to what the proper method of teaching sexual education should be. In the school system of the United States sex education is taught in two main forms: abstinence-only sex education, which focuses on abstaining from sexual activity prior to marriage and does not provide contraceptive knowledge, and comprehensive sex education, which focuses on sexual health as a whole including knowledge about contraceptives and how to avoid STDs. Currently the only federally funded programs implemented in public schools are abstinence-only. But does Abstinence-only sex education work? In order to provide an answer this paper will discuss the basic principles and practices which constitute abstinence-only sex education, the proponents argument for abstinence-only sex education and how abstinence-only education affects teen pregnancy and STD

Sex education, arguably one of the most controversial topics to surface in American politics over the past half century, poses a complicated problem to citizens and lawmakers alike. Following the AIDS epidemic and spike in teen pregnancy in the 1980s, lawmakers and educators began drafting and implementing more sex education classes and courses in public schools in an attempt to remedy the ever-growing issue. While few object to the idea in itself, the method and content of its teaching is highly controversial. Should we teach abstinence or safe sex? How early should children be exposed to this material? How effective are these classes? These are just a few questions surrounding the issue, which are often disputed.

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.

All three of these sex educators also spoke to different elements that make the current high school sex education system damaging to its students. Ms. Corrado related: " I think one of the big things is fear mongering around STIs. Which leads to higher incident rates instead of actually reducing incident rates, because fear will not actually stop them from "doing it", but it just leads to people not knowing safer sex techniques and not knowing they are transmitting [STIs].” This supports the CDC report mentioned earlier, about the increasing number of students engaging in sexual activity and becoming infected with STIs, despite being in abstinence-based programs. For Ms. Basler-Francis the main issue was something else entirely: she believes

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

As we discussed in class, in today’s society there is a heavy emphasis put on abstinence only sex education. Sex education is not mandatory in many states and only 37 states require abstinence only education at least to be taught with 26 of those states having to stress abstinence first and foremost. Abstinence only sex education often uses fear and scare tactics to discourage sexual behavior- essentially trying to scare kids into not having sex. The thing about this form of sex education, is that it has been proven to not work. Federal policy has provided a lot of funding for abstinence only education. Programs led by abstinence only ideology ignores young people’s basic human right and the fundamental public health principle of a balanced and knowledgeable sex education. In these programs, as we learned in lecture, anatomy and sexually transmitted disease

Sex education in schools is either Comprehensive sex education or Abstinence-Only approaches. The type of education students receive is based on the state they live in. California passed the California Healthy Young act, which mandates comprehensive Sex education at least once in middle school then again in high school. In states like Texas, about 60 percent of public schools use an abstinence-only sex education curriculum. Abstinence-only program is supported by conservative groups. Those same groups believe that teenagers are not fully developed in the ability to realize risk factors involved with sexual behaviors. Abstinence-only supporters believe the best way to educate teens is to avoid sex in the first place. Abstinence groups reference the avoidance of smoking, drinking and drugs to correlate with the abstain from sexual activity. However, comprehensive sex programs show the effectiveness of condoms in preventing STDs and pregnancy. Students who are enrolled in abstinence only program are not informed about the decisions about their sexual health. Comprehensive sex education encourages abstinence but teaches teens the effective contraceptive use. Comprehensive sex education also provides information about sexual orientation at schools. Although abstinence-only programs help lower teen pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases, allowing teens to make decisions about their own sexual health leads to better decisions when they decide to