Definition Of Current Sex Ed Curriculum

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

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’

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

Today, it is most common that conservative and religious families practice and teach abstinence more than families who are not religious (WebMD). School systems have always believed that the biggest contraceptive is abstinence, which is why they have been so consistent with that approach for so many years. “"Schools teach 'no smoking' and 'no drinking.' They don't say 'if you smoke, use a filter' or 'if you drink and drive, wear your safety belt.' Why should sex be treated differently?", said Peter Brandt, President of the National Coalition for Abstinence Education in Colorado Springs. It is imperative that school systems continue teaching abstinence but also inform students on the potential health risks of sex and how to prevent

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,

Imagine if the United States said “Okay, we’re banning driver’s Education in schools. We don’t think a sixteen year old is mentally and physically prepared to drive safely, and we don’t want to encourage that”. So of course, schools start pulling driver’s ed classes, but also say “Wait wait wait, sixteen year olds may not be ready to drive, but they’re going to anyway. Why not make it safer for them instead of putting them out on the road with no safety knowledge?” But, the country continues to say “They’re not ready so we’re not going to encourage that in schools” Sex education isn't just about pregnancy, it's about avoiding STDs and other health issues. The highest teenage STD rates are normally associated with abstinence-only education. Some STDs will cause life-long problems, and should be taught about to teens. Although there is an attempt to minimize teen pregnancy and stds, the rate of teen pregnancy is higher in the U.S. than other Western countries, Among teens aged 18–19, 41% report that they know little or nothing about condoms, and 1 in 4 teens in the US receives information about abstinence without receiving any information or instructions about birth control.

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

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

“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

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.

280-282. This journal discusses why abstinence-only programs are still taught in schools. It comes from a social work point of view and discusses the role the Bush administration played in promoting abstinence-only programs. Marx and Hopper call Bush the most religious president the country had ever had, and blame faith-based political decisions for the federal funding designated strictly to abstinence-only programs (281). They believe that the government needs to reevaluate the funding choices and put funding toward fact-based programs that work. As a conclusion,

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

Sex. You may ask, sex, why do we want to talk about sex? Well simply because if we don 't talk about sex now then when? We are sitting here watching teens get pregnant and yet we still are not talking about sex. Along with that more and more kids are sending nudes to be exact 13% of 14- 24 year olds have sent multiple naked photos (Indianapolis Recorder Newspaper). Then we have the fact that ages 15 - 24 are 25% of the sexually active population but obtain a little over half of all stds and stis (Indianapolis Recorder Newspaper). Sexual Education should be taught in school to help lower teen pregnancy rates, how much std’s and sti’s there are among people ages 15-24 (Indianapolis Recorder Newspaper)