Kirsten Spears. Mrs. Hohl/4. English 112. Classical Argument.

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 1913, sex education became a topic that was found to be an important education tool. Since then, this form of education has been a hot and debatable topic among many Americans. The original reason for sex education classes was to reduce problems such as sexually transmitted illnesses and prostitution. In recent years, abstinence has become the focus of sex education curriculum. Abstinence means refraining from sex completely. Although, it is the only one-hundred percent way to prevent sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies, abstinence-only instruction should not be the only form of sex education taught. Our youth need to know about all aspects of sex. This intails how to protect them if they choose to become sexually

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?

Abstinence teaching only is not effective when trying to prevent STIs in teenagers. According to "Life123" (2012), ”While abstinence-only education programs have the support of many major national religious groups, a comprehensive sex education program in schools has the backing of a wide range of educational and medical organizations. Most proponents of comprehensive sex education argue that teens should be encouraged to abstain, but should also get information about contraceptives, sexually transmitted diseases, and how to prevent HIV” (Family).

Many advocates for abstinence-only education believe that its message is strongly intertwined with traditional values and religious faith; both of which they claim to have measurable influence in preventing teens from having sex (Collins, Alagira, and Summers 12-13). Christian conservative women believe that comprehensive sex education would encourage sexual activity and lesbianism, as well as undercut marriage and create social decay (Fields 24).

“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

However, more and more studies are proving that Abstinence-only programs are do not effectively prevent any of the above listed issues. One such study was conducted by Pamela Kohler, Lisa Manhart and Dr. William Lafferty, which utilized surveys given to never-married heterosexual adolescents between the ages of 15 and 19 and compared those who received abstinence-only sex education, those who received comprehensive sex education and those who received no formal sex education. It was found that Abstinence-only education did little to nothing to prevent teenage pregnancy and that adolescents who received abstinence-only sex education were up to two times more likely to report teen pregnancy than adolescents who received comprehensive sex education. The study also found that abstinence-only programs did not reduce the likelihood of adolescents engaging in premarital sex. Abstinence-only sex education was also proven to have no effect on reducing the likelihood of STD diagnoses among

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 current abstinence-only education is not only a funding scheme created by the government, but has also proven detrimental to students. On the other hand, a comprehensive sex education has accomplished its primary goal of giving young people the opportunity to receive a full sex education by allowing them to examine what beliefs they want to follow and allowing students to resist becoming sexually active, preventing the transmittance of sexually transmitted diseases and infections and allowing them to become responsible, sexually healthy

Sex education in the United States has many different opinions on the most effective ways of teaching. Social trends, public health concerns, politics and various controversies have all, at different times and in different ways, affected the substance and teaching of sex education (Future of Sex Education). 15 percent of Americans believe abstinence-only sex education should teach only about abstinence and nothing else, however 46 percent believe abstinence and ways to prevent unwanted pregnancies STD’s should also be taught (Future of Sex Education). Abstinence-only sex education programs are ineffective compared to comprehensive sex education programs and are very costly within the government.

Abstinence-only sexuality education does more harm to students than good, and is shown to have adverse effects on its students. The CDC Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance study showed that 10% of youth in the US have never been formally taught about HIV or AIDS, the majority being students in abstinence-only programs. (as cited in Mallone and Rodriguez) With abstinence-until-marriage programs failing to provide vital information on STDs, millions of teeangers are at higher risk to engage in unsafe sexual activity. Bruckner and Bearman studies conclude that 88% of teens who pledge abstinence break that pledge, and of that 88%, ⅓ less likely to use contraception. (as cited in Taverners) Abstinence-only education does not only fail to enforce its ideals, but also fails to educate its students properly in comprehensive sexuality aspects. This lack of proper education can come with drastic consequences, resulting from a huge lack of vital information. A study conducted by Henry Watman found that “80% of federally funded abstinence until marriage

Sex education has historically been a controversial topic in the United States. Questions like: Is sex education bad for adolescents? How much should young adults know about sex? And will sex education lead to increased sexual activity? Have been argued about passionately for decades. Parents, politicians, academics, religious conservatives and feminists alike have debated the topic. There is a pervasive fear that sex education leads to higher sexual activity that contradicts the popular belief that individuals should only engage in sex after marriage. Many religious conservatives support abstinence-only programs. Organizations such as the American Family Association and the Abstinence Clearinghouse put forth funding to ensure that abstinence-only programs are taught. (“National Opponent’s…” 2008) Yet, research shows that abstinence only programs are not actually helpful for young adults. Advocates for Youth, an organization committed to rights for young people argues that abstinence-only programs “ignore youth’s basic human rights and fundamental public health principle of accurate, balanced sex education” (Advocates for Youth 2016) They emphasis the fact that sex education is a “right” and not something for people to debate the legitimacy of. Furthermore, according to a 2004 report by Government Reform Committee, much of the curricula used in abstinence-only programs “distort information about the effectiveness of contraceptives, misrepresent the risks of abortion, blur

Across the United States of America there is wide spread support for abstinence-only education. A majority of states require that abstinence-only education be the only form of sexual health education provided, or requires that abstinence be stressed above other forms of sexual education. These highly stressed abstinence-only programs are under fire as research comes out against the efficiency of these programs, and as new forms of sexual health education appear. These new programs teach that abstinence is the best method for avoiding sexually transmitted diseases and unintended pregnancy, but also teaches about using contraceptives to reduce the risks of contracting sexually transmitted diseases, and/or the Human Immunodeficiency Virus. These programs also teach interpersonal skills to allow students to explore their inner selves. Not surprisingly, it is comprehensive sex education programs which help adolescents remain healthy and avoid negative sexual health outcomes.

The United States sex education poorly educates 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 of 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 a better education strategy that teaches young adults how to have safe sex that prevents unwanted pregnancy and STIs, instead of stressing the importance of abstinence.

Sex education in public schools here in the United States has, for at least the past decade, supported and utilized abstinence-only sex education programs to be taught throughout both intermediate schools and high schools. Though during the entire time that abstinence-only programs have been used, there has been a constant debate among both parents and educational authorities how to