Comprehensive Sex Education

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

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

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.

“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

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 fact that the United States does not actually require mandatory sex education is of utmost concern, seeing that places where sex education is not taught at all also experience the highest birthrates. In addition to places where sex education is not taught at all, areas in which abstinence-only education were taught also faced higher birthrates (Stanger-Hall and Hall 6). While abstinence only programs have shown no real statistical evidence of success, comprehensive sex education programs have, by combining the positives of both abstinence and information on how to engage in safe sex (Starkman and Rajani 314). In comprehensive sex education, students are taught not only how to use contraceptives properly, but also how to obtain them, as well as other aspects of practicing safe sex. Encouragingly, comprehensive sex education has shown a forty percent success rate in all of the following, “delaying the initiation of sex, reducing the number of sexual partners, and increasing contraceptive use.” Even more impressively, there was sixty-seven percent rate in these areas individually (Malone and Rodriguez 1). Teaching that abstinence is the only option, and providing no alternatives, leaves many teens vulnerable to engaging in unsafe sex out of pure incompetence (Starkman and Rajani 314). Despite many concerns, comprehensive sex education does not make a teenager more likely to be sexually active, and is surprisingly supported by the majority

Some parents argue that only abstinence education should be taught in schools, to protect their children from sexually transmitted infections, unwanted pregnancies, and potentially negative effects of being sexually active at a young age. Education that only promotes abstinence is not only potentially harmful to young people, but it commonly distorts accurate information to scare the children into abstaining from sexual activity. According to a 2004 report by the Government Reform

For instance, in an article written by Kathrin F. Stranger-Hall and David W. Hall, professors at the University of Georgia, titled “Abstinence-Only Programs are Ineffective in Preventing Teen Pregnancy”, states, “the more strongly abstinence is emphasized […], the higher the average teenage pregnancy and birth rate”. This article also states that many case studies prove that abstinence-only teachings show no sign of positive effect on teenage sexual behavior. In addition, in schools that taught Level One sex education (referred to as abstinence-plus), which includes comprehensive sex education and encouragement of condoms and contraceptive use and teachings of HIV awareness, proved to have the lowest rate of pregnancy in teenagers (Stranger-Hall).

Sex education has always been a controversial topic, especially to the extent that it is taught to. Under the early years of the Reagan administration, the Adolescent Family Life Act was passed for abstinence-only education based on the presumption that talking about sex in school would promote sexual activities among teenagers. The two-point act was quietly passed in 1981, as it was not voted on by the House and was coded under Title XX of the Public Service Health Act. The first point was to provide at least two-thirds of funds to support pregnant teenagers, while the second point’s purpose was to use the remaining one-third or less to discourage sexual acts until marriage. Lawrence (2007) asserted that teenage pregnancy rates at the time of passing were rising, so the government wanted to stop everything all together. Since then, billions of dollars have been spent and more laws have been passed to promote abstinence-only education. Pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), and sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in the U.S. actually continued to rise, despite what was believed that the acts and funding could accomplish (p. 2). Though scientists and accredited researchers saw this coming, they continued with research to finalize conclusions with the majority hypothesis that comprehensive sex education would show the greatest improvement among teenage pregnancy. Comprehensive sex education

The United States has some of the highest teen pregnancy rates among developed countries (Stanger-Hall, 2011). In states where abstinence-only sexuality education is very strict, there is no data to support decreasing incidences of teen pregnancies. In fact, teen pregnancies rates are almost twenty percent higher in states where abstinence-only education is heavily stressed compared to states with no mention of abstinence at all. Because teen pregnancy rates and stricter abstinence-only curriculums are directly proportional, this would indicate abstinence-only education is not having the desired effect on students that educators are hoping to have. Comprehensive sexuality education could possibly result in a decline in teen pregnancy rates by providing factual information about pregnancy and

Numerous individuals believe abstinence education is the essential key to “reducing out-of –wedlock childbearing, preventing sexually transmitted disease, and improving emotional and physical well-being among the nation’s youth” (Rector). In addition, 2010 study from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services shows that over 60% of teens believe sex should be reserved for marriage. Because of these numbers, abstinence education supporters believe it should be the go to sex education curriculum. Given that, abstinence

Comprehensive sexuality education has always been a focal point of the debate across the United States. Any topics related to sexuality education would make tremendous amount of people feel embarrassed and uncomfortable because sex education is fallaciously perceived as a stigma of the society on an increase rate of unintended pregnancy, the outbreak of sexual transmitted diseases, and other social ethical issues. From a U.S. review, however, “the overwhelming weight of evidence shows that sex education that discusses contraception does not increase sexual activity.” The understanding of sex education not only covers simply a part in reproduction, or how babies are conceived and born but also helps the teenager to have some basis understanding of virtually every aspect of sex by the time he or she reaches full maturity, and more importantly, it encourages confidence and improves communication skills, the social issues surrounding sexuality and reproduction as well as cultural norms, family

For decades, sex education has been under scrutiny. In the late 1970s heading into the 1980s teen pregnancy and STD rates hit an all time high. This caused more funding to be put into sex education but the focus had been on abstinence only until marriage programs. These abstinence only programs had been the most prominent during conservative presidential administrations, particularly during the Reagan and Bush administrations. This continued until the 2010s when a more liberal administration, the Obama administration, began to change sex education from abstinence only to comprehensive sexuality education by eliminating a large amount of abstinence only federal funding (SIECUS). While in the United States many believe that comprehensive sexuality