Persuasive Essay On Sex Education

While sexual education is mandatory in almost all secondary schools across Australia, the level of depth at which it is taught varies throughout every school. Many highly important areas of sex ed, such as learning about consent, contraceptive options and violence in relationships, are less commonly taught in high school, with puberty typically being the prime topic taught in PDHPE lessons instead. But when we look at the increase in things such as sexual assault, sexual violence, Sexually Transmitted Infections and teenage pregnancy among today’s youth, we must wonder why such imperative subjects to educate teenagers on are discussed so minimally.

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

I think it is safe to say that no two words elicit more feelings of concern, anxiety, and anger in parents, and stirs up more controversy and debate than the words “sexual education”. This especially true with the implementation of the new, revised sexual education curriculum in Ontario schools. Consequently, this controversy has strongly divided individuals, families, and organizations between those who approved of and those who opposed and protested against school-based programs that providee sexual health education to children. But why so much opposition? This is due to the significant changes made to the sexual education curriculum and the sensitive nature of the topics being taught to children regarding sexuality as a whole, changes which are seen as both radical and “even more explicit and more age-inappropriate than before…” (“Ontario’s Radical,” n.d.).

Since the HIV/AIDS epidemic began in the U.S. in the early 1980s the issue of sex education for American youth has had the attention of the nation. There are about 400,000 teen births every year in the U.S, with about 9 billion in associated public costs. STI contraction in general, as well as teen pregnancy, have put the subject even more so on the forefront of the nation’s leading issues. The approach and method for proper and effective sex education has been hotly debated. Some believe that teaching abstinence-only until marriage is the best method while others believe that a more comprehensive approach, which includes abstinence promotion as well as contraceptive information, is necessary. Abstinence-only program curriculums disregard

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

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

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.

The controversial topic of whether or not sex education curriculum should teach contraceptive use or abstinence-only is heavily debated. In 2013, the U.S. totaled 273,105 babies born by teenagers, ages from 15 to 19 (“About Teen Pregnancy”). This raises the question: why is the number of pregnancies so high? Is the reason for that unsettling high, number because abstinence-only is being taught or contraceptive use is being taught? Students who are taught abstinence-only are more likely to wait to have sex, which results in the lowering of teen pregnancy. The abstinence-only curriculum also reduces students sexual activity.The sex education curriculum in the U.S. should consist of abstinence-only education.

The fact that the United States does not actually require mandatory sex education is of utmost concern, seeing that places where sex education is not taught at all also experience the highest birthrates. In addition to places where sex education is not taught at all, areas in which abstinence-only education were taught also faced higher birthrates (Stanger-Hall and Hall 6). While abstinence only programs have shown no real statistical evidence of success, comprehensive sex education programs have, by combining the positives of both abstinence and information on how to engage in safe sex (Starkman and Rajani 314). In comprehensive sex education, students are taught not only how to use contraceptives properly, but also how to obtain them, as well as other aspects of practicing safe sex. Encouragingly, comprehensive sex education has shown a forty percent success rate in all of the following, “delaying the initiation of sex, reducing the number of sexual partners, and increasing contraceptive use.” Even more impressively, there was sixty-seven percent rate in these areas individually (Malone and Rodriguez 1). Teaching that abstinence is the only option, and providing no alternatives, leaves many teens vulnerable to engaging in unsafe sex out of pure incompetence (Starkman and Rajani 314). Despite many concerns, comprehensive sex education does not make a teenager more likely to be sexually active, and is surprisingly supported by the majority

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

America’s youth has always been, and will always be sexually active. Students need to be taught about sexual risks such as STI’s and unplanned pregnancies as well as how to counter those risks by correctly using condoms and birth control. Teenagers aged 15-19 who received comprehensive sex education had pregnancy rates 50% lower than teenagers who received abstinence only education (Kohler, et al. 348). By dispelling rumors and providing up to date information, society is arming its youth with the ability to make the safer and healthier choices. Also, teaching safe sex at school does not mean different moral values cannot be instilled at home or in places of worship. Parents and religious leaders can still encourage teenagers to practice abstinence only. Sexual education should be a dual effort between parents and teachers. If society does not ensure its youth has a comprehensive sexual education, then it is setting them up for

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

Because comprehensive sexuality education classes would encourage adolescences to abstain from sex but also concentrate more on social relationships, sexuality and a broader discussion of safe sex. Whereas, abstinence only programs prohibit or limit contraception information, therefore, aiding in the ineffectiveness of reducing the issues correlating to unsafe sex. Adolescence who receive accurate information about sexuality, including information about how to protect themselves from unwanted pregnancies and STD’s, are more likely to delay having

Most of us are familiar with the alarming statistics about teen sexual activity in the United States. Among high school students, 54 percent (including 61% of boys and 48% of girls) say they have had sexual intercourse. According to a 1992 Center for disease Control Study. The # of 9th Graders who say they 've had sex is 40%. In the past two decades, there has been an explosion in the # of sexually transmitted diseases. 12 million people are infected each year; 63 percent of them are under 25. Each year, 1 of every 10 teenage girls becomes pregnant, and more than 400,000 teenagers have abortions. 1 in 4 children is born out of wedlock, compared to 1 in 20 in 1960. We have realized that since they stopped teaching sexual education in high schools that the teen pregnancy rates have increased. Today, we will talk about the bad vs. good in sexual education and now it will benefit students in the future.

Many Americans have long and wrongfully assumed that the best approach to decrease teen pregnancy and spread of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) is by committing students to an abstinence-only sex education. However, professionals have repeatedly revealed that while abstinence-only sex education programs have good intentions, they have shown both consistent and positive correlations with pregnancy and STDs. In contrast, research has indicated that high schools who offer comprehensive sex education and provide access to contraceptives, such as condoms, are extremely effective at preventing both teen pregnancies and STDs without increasing teen sexual activity. However, “condom availability programs remain relatively rare” (qtd. in Eisenberg 417). While I am aware that these comprehensive sex education and condom provision programs are unpopular amongst many people, I truly do believe that these programs have the potential to drastically drop teenage pregnancies and spread of STDs.