Persuasive Essay On Sex Education

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.

The philosophy behind abstinence-only policy implies that the greatest risk of informing students about their options for contraception would be that educators are condoning premarital sex. The risks that our students are already taking, however, are greater then policymakers are considering. It is generally accepted that the majority of sexual intercourse among young people remains unprotected (Westwood, 2006). Abstinence-only curriculum is not preventing adolescents from having sex; it is just making them naïve to the risks they are taking with their lifestyle choices.

While in high school, most teenagers between the ages 13-17, will have attended at least one sex education class. Instead of using the “Abstinence- Only” approach, schools should consider on teaching students the “Safe- Sex” approach to increase their knowledge on potential health risks involving sex. Increasing their knowledge not only increases their awareness, but lets them use their knowledge in the real world and let them form their own decisions, whether they be bad or good.

Other supporters think that sex education should not deviate from other teachings of other health curricula such as drunk driving, tobacco use, drug use, alcohol consumption, gun use, fighting; all things which are taught to just not do (Collins, Alagira, and Summers 12-13). They believe that it is the responsibility of a public institution which serves kids to teach them risk avoidance rather than harm reduction (“WebMD: Better Information. Better Health”).

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

While abstinence-only programs often show gruesome pictures of certain STIs, they do it as a means of scaring their students off from having sex, rather than to inform them of symptoms or to teach them how to prevent contracting one. These programs, as with pregnancy, argue that showing STIs in a non-negative light will only endorse having sex. Comprehensive sex-education, on the other hand, which widely and neutrally covers STIs in its curriculum, has been credited in reducing STIs amongst teenagers (Collins, Alagiri, Summers ii). Piling onto the numerous issues associated with abstinence-only education, a large percentage of its programs twist the information they teach. For example, Representative Henry A. Waxman reported that over eighty percent of federally-funded abstinence-only programs distort their curricula on the effectiveness of contraceptives and abortion, and tend to blur religion and science, often teaching rudimentary scientific errors (“Top Five Reasons”). For Goodness Sex, a book about sexuality in relation to teens, states that Representative Waxman’s report “…notes that one federally-funded program passed out materials that said HIV/AIDS could pass through a condom because the latex is so porous, which isn’t true”

Human nature has shaped and developed many different social norms in our society, however, they also create many social problems when conflicting views come under scrutinization. Sexual education in America has been problematic since the late 1900’s because there is simply a lack of it. Sexual education has transformed over a hundred years, abated by the effect of religious upbringings and conservative outlooks. However, as evolved as it is today, it is still a national issue because of the ongoing struggle of comprehensive sexual education against abstinence, and in the midst of the two, students are still not being exposed to proper sexual health.

However, controversy arises when the discussion as to what the proper method of teaching sexual education should be. In the school system of the United States sex education is taught in two main forms: abstinence-only sex education, which focuses on abstaining from sexual activity prior to marriage and does not provide contraceptive knowledge, and comprehensive sex education, which focuses on sexual health as a whole including knowledge about contraceptives and how to avoid STDs. Currently the only federally funded programs implemented in public schools are abstinence-only. But does Abstinence-only sex education work? In order to provide an answer this paper will discuss the basic principles and practices which constitute abstinence-only sex education, the proponents argument for abstinence-only sex education and how abstinence-only education affects teen pregnancy and STD

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

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,

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

Rates of sexually transmitted disease (STD), teen pregnancy, and teen births are higher in the United States than in the majority of other industrialized countries (Kohler, Manhart, & Lafferty, 2008), indicating the controversial role that sex education plays in the initiation of sexual activity. In contempt of teen pregnancy, birth and abortion rates are the highest among other developed countries (Kohler et al., 2008), and few public health evaluations on the effectiveness of formal sex education have been conducted. With a large social issue prominent in the United States, it is imperative to determine the differences based on formal sex education and whether abstinence-only education, comprehensive education or no education decrease health risks among adolescents (Kohler et al., 2008).

Controversy is rampant regarding the sexual education of grade school children. Some insist that it is prudent to educate children on this subject beginning as early as kindergarten. Others strongly disagree that earlier education has any effect at all on teen sex and pregnancy and, therefore, abstinence should be the focus. Lastly, we have those who believe advocating abstinence is appropriate, but agree that a more in depth sexual education is also necessary for those who are going to have sex anyway despite our best efforts to teach them otherwise.

Coinciding with the onslaught of the new millennium, schools are beginning to realize that the parents are not doing their job when it comes to sexual education. The school system already has classes on sexual education; these classes are based mainly on human anatomy. Most schools do not teach their students about relationships, morals, respect, self-discipline, self-respect, and most importantly contraceptives. Everyday students engage in sexual activity, many of them with out condoms. This simple act jeopardizes these students' futures and possibly their lives. An increasing amount of school systems are starting to combine messages involving abstinence from sexual activity,