Life, Especially That Of The Human Variety, Has Many Interconnected

The issue of the paper Misinformed and Unprotected is that Abstinence-only programs lack to inform teens about sexual contact because the system is current set up as only teaching teens to not have sexual contact till marriage, leaving out important information for teens who what to learn how to be safe with sexual contact. The writer’s position on the paper is that the education system should be changed to inform teens more than just wait till marriage to have sex. The evidence list is that Abstinence-only education advocates claim that abstinence-only programs prevent premarital sex, but that the programs need to stop being publicly funded because these programs may make those who have suffered from sexual abuse feel ashamed and unwilling

In a country founded for the desire of freedom of religion, it seems a large step back has been taken when the federal government holds the education of America’s youth to a Christian moral viewpoint. Several lawsuits have been successfully brought against abstinence only programs for forcing religious viewpoints. Perhaps not directly religious in nature, abstinence only education muddies the line between separation of church and state. While they are few and far between some religions do not discourage premarital sex, and others encourage polyamorous relationships with multiple women. These may be the minority but to force christian fundamentals on their children is a violation of their rights and breeds discrimination towards them.

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

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).

Everyone remembers having to go to a sex-ed class in late middle school or early high school. Most people remember it as extremely awkward and slightly terrifying. The difference between comprehensive sex-ed and abstinence only education can be life or death. Comprehensive sex-ed teaches people about contraception, sexual orientations, which needs to be updated, and how to be safe in general. Abstinence-only sex-ed basically only teaches to wait to have sexual interactions until married, and the benefits of it. The United States has some problems. Teen pregnancies here are two times as high as other industrialized countries (Harris), and half of all STI cases are

In 1981, the Adolescent Family Life Act (AFLA) was signed into law by President Reagan. Through the act, the federal government first invested in sexual education programs, all of which encouraged “chastity and self-discipline.” After this came the Title V abstinence-only-until-marriage program, which was created in 1996 as part of the welfare reform legislation. Finally, the Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE), was created in 2000. Now, for over three decades, people are still debating whether the original approach of teaching abstinence should be kept or if schools should go into further detail in teaching how to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases and infections.

Federal funding has played a large role in this increase, as monetary incentives have been the driving force behind much of the change. To put it in numbers, the amount of federal dollars going to schools that adopted abstinence only programs almost tripled in the seven years between 1998 and 2005, increasing from 60 to 168 million dollars a year (Santelli, 75). And among United States school districts that changed their policies, twice as many chose to adopt a curriculum that more heavily focused on abstinence only until marriage as moved towards a more comprehensive program (Landry). This disturbing statistic shows how effective the religious right has been in pushing abstinence only programs in face of a dearth of evidence as to their effectiveness. This effectiveness is mainly due to intense lobbying funded by individuals and organizations on the far right. One man, Raymond Ruddy, has personally put 1.5 million dollars towards advocacy and lobbying for abstinence only programs (Eaton). While lobbying like this commonly happens on both sides of the aisle, in this case public opinion goes against what people like Raymond Ruddy say is necessary. According to a recent study, "Ninety-eight percent of parents say they want HIV/AIDS discussed in sex education classes; 85% want 'how to use condoms' discussed; 84% think sex education should cover 'how to use and where to get other birth control,' and 76% want

Many researchers often ask the question, "Is sex more important than life itself?" In my opinion, I think it could very well be. The procreation and continuation of our species and it' s evolution in life will play powerful roles in our development of our lifespan, health and well-being. The desire and intimacy intinct of a male and a female also contribute to the species success. The measures we take to advertise ourselves to the other sex is what's very species specific but unique when viewing sexual appeal. Popular theory of reason for the differences in gender of a woman; is that she is to be selective in the choosing multiple willing suitors to her one egg or offspring. On the other end of the continumn is the competing or

Laurie feels strongly about people attacking her for writing about the reality of the world. She states,” Censorship is the child of fear and the father of ignorance.” She means that people who are ignorant and fear reality use censorship as a shortcut instead of explaining their experiences and knowledge. Furthermore, Anderson believes that adults and parents should be held accountable for teens who do not know the hardships and problems that they can get into if they are not careful. She does not imply that it is an adult’s fault for the child being in the situation, but their fault for their kids not knowing how to react to circumstances. Progenitors need to provide safe alternatives to information that needs to be learned.

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

Programs that encourage abstinence have become a vital part of school systems in the US. These programs are usually referred to as abstinence-only or value-based programs while other programs are called as safer-sex, comprehensive, secular or abstinence-plus programs which on the contrary promote the usage of effective contraception. Although abstinence-only and safer-sex programs disagree with one another, their core values and stand on the aims of sex education is to help teens develop problem-solving skills and the skill of good decision-making. They believe that adolescents will be better prepared to “act responsibly in the heat of the moment” (Silva). Most programs that have been currently implemented in the US have seen a delay in the initiation of sex among teens which proves to be a positive and desirable outcome (Silva).

Schools receiving money from the government, in sponsorship of the program, must teach the students to “just say no” to sex until legally married. The schools are also not permissible to teach students safe sex and “may not mention contraception except to point out failure rates of various methods” (Brody). There are a few states that have stood up to the government and refused funds, so the state has the option to determine their own ways to teach sex education. However, 43 states still take part of the program and promote it. Millions of dollars are pulled from the government each year for the program and many schools support the abstinence-only movement. The programs have encouraging titles, such as “Teens in Control” and “ReCapturing the Vision” (Impacts). Students are greatly encouraged take virginity vows until marriage, carry an ATM card (abstinence till marriage), and conceitedly wear “purity” rings (Kelly). Programs, such as these, are used to develop a strong self-worth and to teach about the negative consequences that could occur from sexual activity, but there is a major flaw: abstinence-only programs are inefficient.

In the United States, 61.6% of high school seniors have had sexual intercourse (Kittleson and Howard-Barr 115) and the rates of teenage pregnancy are the highest among developed nations (Weaver, Smith and Kippax 179). Despite the prevalence of teenage sexual activity, there is still wide support for abstinence only sex education programs, which teach that marriage is the only context within which it is appropriate and acceptable to have sex. These programs began in the late 1970s “as a way for conservative Christians to counter the spread of ‘comprehensive’ sex education” and have since come to receive federal funding, first from the Adolescent Family Life Act in 1981 and later from Title V, Section 510 of the Social Security Act (Greslé-Favier

Humans are an interesting species because of the strong need humans have to fully understand what it truly means to be human. Many fields such as history, psychology, and sociology all offer a perspective in the study of humanity, but there are distinguishable from anthropology. Anthropology differs from other humanities fields due to its holistic nature, comparative research methods, and the strong emphasis on fieldwork and participant interaction. Anthropology is the study of people throughout the world, their evolutionary history, how they behave, adapt to different environments, communicate and socialize with one another. In order for anthropologists to examine the full scope of human life, they employ the four field approach that embodies the holistic nature of the field.

There are many states that do not provide the kind of sex education that New Jersey strives to convey to its students. It more often than not ties in with the religious right proclaiming that students are too young to be exposed to sexual material, and thus sexualized as a result. These fundamental groups oppose any suggestion towards a comprehensive approach. Instead, they ask that their children be taught after grade school and additionally, they steer towards ‘abstinence-only’ education. Instead of teaching students how to protect themselves, they teach that the only way to protect oneself is by abstaining from sex. The problem arises, then, when these students decide to have sex. They are unaware of how to conduct themselves responsibly, how to take precautions to prevent against unwanted pregnancy and disease. What kind of ‘education’ are students receiving when they are withheld crucial information?