Safe Sex For the Catholic Student in a Public High School

Modern era sex education programs in the United States began in the late 1980s and early 1990s as a result of the AIDS/HIV epidemic. With the introduction of curricula teaching safe sex and the effectiveness of contraception, other curricula refuted these ideas thus creating a conflict about sex education in the U.S. Sex education in the U.S is divided into two categories: abstinence-only and comprehensive, the former being the most implemented among states nationwide. Abstinence-only programs stress the importance of abstaining from sex until marriage, fitting the “traditional” set of American morals. Covering more than just abstinence, comprehensive sex education programs not only teach students about the options they have when it comes

He starts his book off by explaining the school’s yearly play which has the topic of nerds becoming manly enough to steal back their girlfriends from the popular jock, but no mention of homosexuality relationships whatsoever. Even though it is assumed that the two male nerd actors could be gay for being in a play like that but not the actors that play the popular jocks. Since there is no mention of homosexuality relationships in a school theatrical production then I was not surprised to learn that the sexual health curriculum was the same exact way. Overall, the curriculum and the administrators who talk/teach students about it puts a large emphasis on abstinence, but when they do talk about safe sex it is no between a man and a man or a girl and a girl it's always between a man and a woman. I believe the reason for this is their religion, and simply the old conservative views that the administrators have been brought up in (sex is between a man and a woman) so they tend not to think that their students are (for the most part) open to the idea of homosexual relationships, and may even know someone or be someone who is evolved with someone of the same gender.

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

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.

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

The condoms thing is not it (but it is part of it). Let me get this out of the way, first. We are talking to the young people (and adults for that matter) like they are animals who have no control over their urges. Yes, we have sexual desires. Yes, sometimes it’s difficult to fight them. But we are not irrational beasts. We are human beings. We have the ability to control our urges. We cannot just tell our young people something is evil – but since they are weak, we expect them to do it anyway. That’s comprehensive sex ed in a nutshell; we tell the young people around us that we don’t trust them to be anything more than dogs in heat.

Opposition of the Abstinence-Plus program centers around the belief that by comprehensively informing students about sex, and responsible practices, in addition to supplying contraceptives, will send a message that not only is it okay to have sex but here have a condom to do it with. In some cases, they actually suggest the importance of telling students that condoms are “ineffective and do not work“ (Teenage Sexuality 205). Over the past few decades, several attempts have been made to “scare” teenagers away from sex. “In the sex-education video No Second Chance, a young man asks the teacher what if he does not to wait until marriage to have sex. She replies, “Well, I guess you’ll just have to be prepared to die” (Talk About Sex 117). The intended message was that condoms do not work in effectively preventing HIV. This is

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.

But, on the contrary I support safe-sex programs and believe that abstinent-only programs should be taken out of schools. Some parents truly believe that abstinent-only programs can lead their children into practicing sex only until after marriage. But the fact is that this is an irrational and in some instances even naïve way of thinking. Most Americans have premarital sex as shown by data from the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth which indicates that “by age 20, 77% of respondents had had sex, 75% had had premarital sex” (Finer). This shows that teenagers will more than likely have sex at some point. Parents who truly care for the future of their child and their well-being should then support a safe-sex program. Safe-sex programs teach children how to properly use contraceptives and are much more open to discussing questions or misguided myths teenagers have about sex all which leads them to have the tools to make the right choices for when they choose to engage in sex. Instead of uncomfortable experiences involving vagina pancakes teenagers can learn the truth about sex and contraceptives which can lead to far fewer unwanted teenage pregnancies which is what any parent should want. As for morality- having correct information, the right materials, and being able to make informed decisions for yourself are all essential tools that teenagers can use to make moral decisions for themselves.

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

Growing up I attended catholic school grades kindergarten through twelfth. This is a prime example of the teaching of sexual abstinence. In the sexual education classes I received through this time period there was no basic or standard teaching to us. I can remember when I was first presented the material in 8th grade, the teacher who was teaching the boys in my grade had never taught this class before. This resulted in major disputes for his teachings; he sent home a permission slip to our parents asking if he could teach us students the physical aspects of sexual intercourse along with the basic anatomy as well. In prior years the class had only been taught about the basic human anatomy of the body and that was it.

While I didn’t attend Catholic school, I kind of understand the reasons why they try to avoid any type of discussions that are sex related. In the past, sex has always been a taboo topic both in the public and in school. Teachers were unsure of whether it’s the appropriate subject to talk in front of their students and it’s somewhat due to the mentality that sex is something private and holy that we shouldn’t share with others. Besides, there was also a lot of pressure from parents to prevent explicit sex education. Most parents were afraid of explicit sex-education curriculum that will teach their child about masturbation, homosexual, oral sex, to question their gender identity and question about diverse structure family. This is why abstinence-only

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).

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,