Comprehensive Sex Education Vs. Abstinence-Only 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

Did you know that 24 states in the US require their public schools to teach sex education and HIV education to their students (NCL.org)? Do they even need to understand sex or STDs? Well of course not. That’s why schools should not even teach these students sex because it’s just going to be too much for the high school students’ young mind, sex education will definitely motivate the students to have sex—regardless of their sexuality--, and it’s up to their not so busy parents to explain sex—and all its glory—to their children who are attending high school.

The teenagers and children of today read about, listen to and watch all sorts of information about sex. While most adults have had some form of sex education, we must ask if this new generation is learning anything new or helpful from their sex education classes. The American culture and way of living is so absorbed in sex that children should be taught about it, people just can not agree on how to teach them. In her article New Sex ed Funding Ends Decade of Abstinence-Only, Kelli Kennedy proves that abstinence-only sex education classes and programs are not as good as regular sex education classes better than Shari Roan does in her article Teen pregnancy rates rises. Are abstinent-only programs to blame?

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

It’s safe to say that most of our school systems today use the “Abstinence- Only” approach. School systems teach sex education classes in middle school, where most students will not be in a situation where they must use the information used in these courses, such as contraceptives. In middle school, it is best to learn the Abstinence Only approach, while becoming a high schooler, it would be more effective to use the Safe- Sex approach to increase their knowledge on the consequences of sex. While reading an article, a high schooler engaged in a sex education class said,

While the department of education does include a recommendation for school districts to develop and implement age-appropriate sex education, it’s not mandated in many states. There is confusion among teenagers about the different methods they can use to protect themselves; for example, contraceptives (such as birth control) do not prevent STI’s, but do prevent pregnancies. In fact, almost 37% of "18-25 year olds incorrectly believe at least one of the following: transmission of HIV is possible by sharing a glass, kissing, or touching a toilet seat" (The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation 2006). Without the proper knowledge, teens simply cannot be expected to act accordingly. Abstinence-only education gives students an incomplete education, and expects students to disregard the gaps in teachings. This isn't just unfair; it is dangerous. In a study performed by the American Journal of Public Health involving 4,000 teens over a period of seven years, they found that adolescents who used condoms during their first intercourse had on average the same number of partners as those who did not use a condom. However, the former group was 30 percent more likely to have used condoms in their most recent sexual encounter,

At this time in the United States, there is no federal law requiring sex education in public schools leaving the decision to mandate sex education at the state level (Planned Parenthood, n.d.). While the federal government does not require states to teach sex education, they do provide funding for sex education programs (Planned Parenthood, n.d.). The federal government has never provided any funding for comprehensive sex education while they have provided funding for abstinence only sex education since 1982 (SIECUS Annual Report, 2016; Donovan, 2017). However, within the last decade there has been an increase in funding for teen pregnancy prevention (Donovan, 2017). This could be largely due to the numerous studies that show a more desirable

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

“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 classes proved information about contraceptives, STDs and HIV prevention. It also is age appropriate and scientifically explained. Collins says it well that “by denying teens the full range of information regarding human sexuality, abstinence-only education fails to provide young people with the information they need to protect their health and well being.” Students when asked survey by the Kasier Family Foundation said that they knew more and felt better prepared to handle different situations. Abstinence only education just chooses to avoid it and does not take into account students who decide a different path. Abstinence only education supports say that by teaching the “abstinence-plus” education that they are sending mixed messages towards students. Current advocates for comprehensive education cite that “providing teens with contraceptive information does not encourage early sexual activity.” The Surgeon General David Satcher had said that based off of the information he had derived from both approaches “evidence gives strong support to the conclusion that providing information about contraception does not increase adolescent sexual activity….[it only] increased condom and contraceptive uses among adolescents who were sexually active.” (Collins 9)Most evaluations of many different types of

The “talk”. When I was in the fifth and eighth grade. I took a sex-ed course. Within this course I learned about the male and female reproductive system, the different forms of protection, transmitted diseases, the emotional and physical effects of sex, and the choice to become abstinent and also about pregnancy. After this course I was well aware of the human body and the effects of sex. Abstinence-only courses does not talk about half the information sex-ed courses talk about. States should establish a law for schools to teach sex-ed courses instead of abstinence only courses because it is more effective.

Not teaching students proper material gives them a disadvantage to making better choices. The issue with educating students such a narrow minded program shows in the number of teenage pregnancies. If we were to take a look at statistics of the program being taught and the number of teen pregnancies for each state there would most likely be a huge difference. “Study result indicated that most abstinence programs did not delay initiation of sex and only 3 out of 9 had any significant positive effect on sexual behavior. In contrast, two thirds of comprehensive showed strong evidence that they positively affected young people’s sexaul behavior, including both delaying the initiation of sex, and increasing condom and contraceptive use among important groups of youth.(Kirby

Actually, many states are paying more than ever for their students to receive an abstinence-based education. This leads to the next problem with abstinence-only education in America; cost. In 2015, $25 million in additional funding was granted for Title V, an 18-year-old federal program that doles out matching grants to states that agree to implement abstinence-only programs(thinkprogress). This program is not only harming the students, but also the tax payers! Tax payers who actually would prefer their students to be taught broad range of sexual education that would prepare them better for the real world. According to the results of a 2005-2006 nationally representative survey of U.S. adults published in the Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, more than eight in 10 of those polled support comprehensive sex education (siecus). So the question is, why do we continue to support a cause that is not providing our students any benefit and taking away so much

According to a poll done in 2006 that recorded the “Adult and teen preferences for type of sex education needed,” 14% percent of the adults interviewed thought that teens should get more information about abstinence, 8% that they should get more information about birth control, 73% that they should get more information about both abstinence and birth control or protection, 4% didn’t know, and 1% refused to answer. For teens (12-19), 7% percent thought that they should learn more about abstinence, 9% that they should learn more about birth control, 56% that they should learn more about both abstinence and birth control or protection, 22% didn’t know, and 7% refused to answer (“Adult and teen preferences,” 2010).