Sex Education : Comprehensive Sexual Education

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

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

The issue of comprehensive sex education has sparked debates among parents, teachers and even lawmakers. Children have the right to knowledge and this right to knowledge should not be limited to what is taught in abstinence only sex education, and this is why comprehensive sex education should be taught in schools. Some parents believe that if they do not teach their children about sex, their children will not have sex, but this is not true. Comprehensive sex education better equips young adults to protect themselves, but it also respects their right to be given accurate information that will be used for their entire lives.

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

Author Bob Smith once said, “In America, when we decide to ignore a subject, our favorite form of denial is to teach it incompetently. Familiarity without true understanding is not only the basis of our families but of our educational system as well.” Smith refers to the inadequate sexual education of teenagers in the United States. Sexual education is the instruction on issues about bodily development, sex, sexuality, and relationships. Comprehensive sex education teaches about abstinence, condoms, and contraceptives to avoid sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and unplanned pregnancies. As well as, the skills needed to help young people explore their own values and options. Comprehensive sexual education should be taught in the United

More than 20 million cases of teen pregnancies and STD’s appear in one year. Comprehensive sexual education is a form of sexual education that teaches students about reproduction health, contraception, childbirth, and sexually transmitted diseases. Schools that have sexual education usually teach abstinence-only methods so students are not being informed on how to avoid the risks of sex if they decide to become sexually active. The average age for people to become sexually active is 17 so there are many pregnant teens or teens with an STD because they are not being informed on how to protect themselves. Comprehensive sexual education is extremely helpful because it can prevent negative effects of sex.

The debate surrounding sex education in America’s public schools system has been a heated one, especially since the early days of the 1980’s and identification of AIDS. The misinformation that surrounded AIDS in those days is still prevalent in the arguments that are being used to promote abstinence only sex education in the American public school system. In this paper you will be introduced to three of the key abstinence only until marriage sex education supporters. You will learn what they are basing their platforms on and you will see it contrasted to the comprehensive sex education programs that are proposed and supported by many educators, medical professionals and child advocates.

For decades, sex education has been under scrutiny. In the late 1970s heading into the 1980s teen pregnancy and STD rates hit an all time high. This caused more funding to be put into sex education but the focus had been on abstinence only until marriage programs. These abstinence only programs had been the most prominent during conservative presidential administrations, particularly during the Reagan and Bush administrations. This continued until the 2010s when a more liberal administration, the Obama administration, began to change sex education from abstinence only to comprehensive sexuality education by eliminating a large amount of abstinence only federal funding (SIECUS). While in the United States many believe that comprehensive sexuality

A seventeen year old girl wakes up in the night to comfort her baby. She lives a life of exhaustion, but she still wakes up early to attend her minimum wage job. There is not a good chance of her attending college, because she did not finish high school and must support herself and her child. This is due to the fact that this seventeen year old had no knowledge of contraceptives or birth control, and she lost her partner because she had not experienced the teachings of how to handle a mature, responsible relationship. Residing in Texas, her school has taught her that sex is wrong, for abstinence is her only option. As a result, this seventeen year old missed out on comprehensive

Of the fifty states and the District of Columbia, only twenty-four states require sex education, thirteen states require that any information given must be medically accurate. (“Sex and HIV Education”). Sex education in America is abysmal and horrific compared to other first-world countries. Many states do not give comprehensive sex-education, typically resulting in less use of safe behaviors during sex and a lack of awareness of STD and/or pregnancy prevention. Furthermore, sex-education is not held to the same high standards as math, english, or science, resulting in medically inaccuracies and biases to be slipped into the curriculum. Therefore, I believe it is in the best interest of America’s youth to require medically accurate information, give them a comprehensive education, and require higher standards of education.

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).

American school systems insist on continuing a toxic cycle. One that perpetuates confusion, shame, and unhealthy behaviors which could cause lifelong health risks. This cycle is the current sex education system. The current American sex education system is dangerously incomplete, and sometimes not available at all. It follows an outdated attitude that is still reflected throughout society. This perspective must be modernized, and can only be changed by providing complete sex education for all students. This is why by federal law, all children in public school, beginning in fifth grade, should receive sex education which requires the teaching / learning of safe sex and birth control. This mandated, long-term, sex education would allow a complete

Social trends, public health interest, politics, and various polemics have always affected the essence and teaching of sex education in the United States in different ways. Various sexual education methods exits, however comprehensive and abstinence-only programs are the most commonly know in public schools. Although many schools in the United States prefer to give an abstinence-only lecture, the results shown proof that these programs are ineffective because it simply does not fit the reality we live in, comprehensive sex education works better, and they do not offer honest nor accurate information about human sexuality.

America, being one of the leading countries for high rates of teen pregnancies and STI’s, has ensured that every state is somehow involved in sex education for students. Each educational institution however, has its own method of carrying out that education meaning that the effects vary virtually across every school. In terms of abstinence-only and comprehensive sex education, both sides argue that their approach is