Comprehensive, the Right Approach to Sex Education

During 1920s, U.S. schools began to incorporate sex education to their courses. A 2002 study conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that “58% of secondary school principals describe their sex education curriculum as comprehensive programs provide factual information about birth control, sexual transmitted disease, and continue the message to children about waiting to have sex.” (Johannah)

Sexual education in schools has become a highly controversial topic over the past few years. Some people believe students should be taught abstinence-only education, while others believe students need the full on “sex talk”. While the sex education controversy may seem silly, it is very important that students receive the most efficient education possible. When it comes to education parents want their children to receive the most effective kind. This is also very true in terms of sex education. Sex education is very debatable right now as to whether students should be taught abstinence-only education or comprehensive sex education.

Proponents for abstinence-only education believe that the abstinence-only message has contributed to the decline of adolescent sexual activity as well as negative related outcomes. In the 1990s there was a decrease in adolescent pregnancy, birth and abortion rates. These proponents attribute these declining statistics to the abstinence-only message and claim that the declines cannot be accredited to increased

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

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

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

The reason abstinence-education was pushed back in 1996 was because it became evident that the United States had the highest teen pregnancy rate of all industrialized nations (Sather & Zinn, 2002). But over 20 years later, after continued funding and support of abstinence-only education, the United States still remains the leader in teen pregnancies throughout Western society with a rate of 22.3 births per 1000 15-19 year old women in the US in 2015 (Reproductive Health, 2017). It is clearly time for a change in sex

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.

Sex education, most commonly known as family life, is any information about sex and sexual relationships taught to maturing young people as a part of a school’s curriculum. Currently, there is a constant political and ideological debate in the United States over the merits of abstinence-only and comprehensive sex education programs in the teaching of our youth. Abstinence only sex education has been the primary sex education taught in the United States. Although different in their approach, the overall goal is to help them build a foundation to be able to make healthy informed decisions as they mature into adults. The objectives of sex education programs are to help adolescents develop a positive view of sexuality, body image and make responsible decisions in relationships (Knowles, 2012). Ultimately, any sex education should be a partnership between parents, guardians and school personnel. However, in recent years, a large amount of information about sexuality is acquired through friends, music, books and the media instead of from their parents. For some individuals,

“Given that 47.4% of high school students have experienced sexual intercourse, advocates argue that abstinence-only messages provide no protection against the risks of pregnancy (Solomon-Fears).” The fact that this percentage is so high highlights how widespread this is, which indicates that many teenagers are prone to have sex. “Teens who break their virginity pledges were less likely to use contraception the first time than teens who had never made such a promise (Solomon-Fears).”The promise of abstinence seemed to have no effect on them because they had sex anyway. Furthermore, they did not even use contraception. The trend here seems to be that the abstinence programs are having the opposite of the intended effect. The government initiated

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

According to the Journal of Adolescent Health, “when comparing adolescents who reported receiving a comprehensive sex education with those who received an abstinence-only education, comprehensive sex education was associated with a 50% lower risk of teen pregnancy;” and “abstinence-only education did not reduce the likelihood of engaging in vaginal intercourse.” A sexually active teenaged girl that does not utilize contraception has a ninety percent chance of becoming pregnant within a year. Three out of ten American girls will get pregnant at least once by the age of twenty with nearly 750,000 teen pregnancies each year (Do Something). A great percent of these annual pregnancies are not the fault of the students directly involved, but rather the ignorance placed onto them by an abstinence only curriculum. According to Columbia University researchers, virginity pledge platforms increase pledge-takers’ risk of pregnancy. The study determined that 88 percent of pledge-takers instigated sex prior to marriage. Pledge-takers were less expected to use contraception when they did commence in sex (McKeon). If these young adults do not know how to protect themselves, while being taught that sex is a wrongful act out of wedlock and going against basic human nature, then they cannot protect

In the United States, sex education poorly informs students on how to protect themselves from both unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted disease. When one looks at data comparing the United States to countries with comprehensive sex education, you can see the significant difference in numbers relating to these issues. You can also see how the lack of education among students leads to more sexual harassment towards females. In order to combat these issues, the United States should put in place an education strategy that is more similar to those of the countries with these low rates. This should include information on how to have safe sex and prevent unwanted pregnancy and STIs, instead of stressing the importance of abstinence towards adolescents. These changes could begin locally, in New Hanover County, by changing the curriculum in schools from abstinence-based teachings to programs that include fact-based material and information on contraceptive methods other than just abstinence.

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