Sex Education Essay

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).

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

Additional research has explored the effects of abstinence based programs on actual behavior outcomes. Kohler, Manhart, and Lafferty (2008) compared the effects of abstinence-only and comprehensive sex education programs, operationalizing effectiveness in terms of initiation of sexual activity and teen pregnancy rates. They found that teenagers who received comprehensive sex education rather than abstinence-only or no education were significantly less likely to report a teenage pregnancy. In addition, their conclusions mirrored Sather and Kelly (2002), finding that abstinence-based programs did not reduce the likelihood of engaging in sexual activity. Kohler, Manhart, and Lafferty (2008) actually concluded that comprehensive sex education was more likely than abstinence based to reduce the percentage engaging in sexual activity. Overall, the researchers showed that comprehensive sex education, including but not limited to contraception, did not increase the prevalence of sexual activity in teenagers or the risk of teen pregnancy, while also showing the that abstinence only education produced a higher likelihood of pregnancy.

According to advocatesforyouth.org, “Abstinence-only-until-marriage programs are a waste of taxpayer money.” Since 1996 over one billion dollars has been spent on these programs. Because these programs are unsuccessful many people argue that it is a waste of money to spend billions of dollars on ineffective programs. However comprehensive sex education which teaches students about contraceptive usage and abstinence does not get the funding that abstinence only receives.

Abstinence teaching only is not effective when trying to prevent STIs in teenagers. According to "Life123" (2012), ”While abstinence-only education programs have the support of many major national religious groups, a comprehensive sex education program in schools has the backing of a wide range of educational and medical organizations. Most proponents of comprehensive sex education argue that teens should be encouraged to abstain, but should also get information about contraceptives, sexually transmitted diseases, and how to prevent HIV” (Family).

The classes proved information about contraceptives, STDs and HIV prevention. It also is age appropriate and scientifically explained. Collins says it well that “by denying teens the full range of information regarding human sexuality, abstinence-only education fails to provide young people with the information they need to protect their health and well being.” Students when asked survey by the Kasier Family Foundation said that they knew more and felt better prepared to handle different situations. Abstinence only education just chooses to avoid it and does not take into account students who decide a different path. Abstinence only education supports say that by teaching the “abstinence-plus” education that they are sending mixed messages towards students. Current advocates for comprehensive education cite that “providing teens with contraceptive information does not encourage early sexual activity.” The Surgeon General David Satcher had said that based off of the information he had derived from both approaches “evidence gives strong support to the conclusion that providing information about contraception does not increase adolescent sexual activity….[it only] increased condom and contraceptive uses among adolescents who were sexually active.” (Collins 9)Most evaluations of many different types of

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.

"abstinence-only" sex education programs have been shown not to be successful in reducing adolescence sexual behavior. Just a few abstinence-only have been shown to change attitude towards abstinence over a short period up to six months. Educating youth with the skills and tools to make healthy choices about sex and relationship is more effective than denying it and telling them not to have sex. We need to give young people accurate sexual information if we want them to take responsibility for their well-being rather than eliminate information about condoms and birth control. Studies shows over two-thirds of Canadians have sexual intercourse before age 20 (Matika-Tyndale, Barrett, & McKay, 2001) so it is crucial that youth receive all the

With abstinence only sex education teens wouldn’t be learning about STD prevention or pregnancy prevention and if they did decide to have sex, they wouldn’t know much about STDs and how devastating they can be and that would eliminate their fear factor and they wouldn’t really worry about getting them. “At the moment the favored approach is called comprehensive sex education. The nation's highest-ranking health officer, Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders, has endorsed this approach as the chief way to reduce unwed childbearing and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) among teenagers.”(Whitehead). The big controversy is that parents don’t want some stranger teaching their children about sex, but instead they want to be the ones that educate their children when they feel like the time is right. Yeah that’s great and all but the problem is that when the teens parents teach them about sex, they often times miss some key information and that could leave the teen confused, or they could give information that is structured based on an opinion and could mislead the teen to perceive sex as a bad thing which can’t be true because it’s the root of life. When comprehensive sexual education is taught in school it’s information is 100%

As we discussed in class, in today’s society there is a heavy emphasis put on abstinence only sex education. Sex education is not mandatory in many states and only 37 states require abstinence only education at least to be taught with 26 of those states having to stress abstinence first and foremost. Abstinence only sex education often uses fear and scare tactics to discourage sexual behavior- essentially trying to scare kids into not having sex. The thing about this form of sex education, is that it has been proven to not work. Federal policy has provided a lot of funding for abstinence only education. Programs led by abstinence only ideology ignores young people’s basic human right and the fundamental public health principle of a balanced and knowledgeable sex education. In these programs, as we learned in lecture, anatomy and sexually transmitted disease

A lot of people feel that it is important to have abstinence-only programs. The reason why they feel it’s important is because abstinence education talks about the social pressure teens face on a day to day base and how abstinence education improves decision making skills while building self-assurance. People have lots of belief that abstinence-only programs is the way to go but they only believe that because they believe its effective, when in reality it’s not. People believe that abstinence-only education delays sexual

In the United States, rates of sexually transmitted diseases, teen pregnancy, and teen births are significantly higher than in most other industrialized countries. In fact, 4 out of 10 adolescent females have been pregnant at least once before the age of 20, 1 out of 4 sexually active teens contracts an STD each year, and 50% of new HIV infections occur in individuals under the age of 25 (Beh 22). This can partly be attributed to the state of sex education in the United States. Only 24 states require sex education be taught in schools and only 20 of those require the information to be ‘medically, factually, or technically accurate’ (“State Policies”). Abstinence-only education has been proven to be ineffective in reducing rates of teen pregnancies, STDs, and the consequences of both; has a lack of public support; and a large majority of the programs that are federally funded have been found to be factually and medically inaccurate. Proper and comprehensive sex education should be required in all states across the nation. States should also shift their focus from abstinence-based practices to more comprehensive ones that include information about contraceptive use, pregnancies, abortions, and sexually transmitted diseases.

No matter what information is distorted, teens will still have sex. “By the exact age of 20 years, 77% of individuals had had, sex and 75% had had sex before marriage,” (Lawrence 3). That fact proves that these teens could have been misled about the true facts of sex. They need straight facts about their bodies and how to have safer sex. Even with abstinence pledges, teens are still having sex. “Researchers found that over sixty percent had broken their vow to remain abstinent until marriage,” (Alford 4). The teens that pledged were less likely to get tested for sexually transmitted infections or to use a form of contraception than the non-pledgers. While the pledgers abstained for longer, they were more likely to engage in oral or anal sex (Alford 4). These teens were taking risks not obtaining contraception and engaging in anal or oral sex. While these forms of sex can help protect against pregnancy, they will not protect against any sexually transmitted diseases. Also abstinence, like other birth control methods, is only effective if it is used correctly and consistently. If a teen

Sex education should be increased in schools. Nearly one million women under the age of 20 get pregnant each year. That means 2800 women get pregnant each day. If students are educated about the effects sex has on their lives, it lessens their chance of having children at an early age. Knowledge about sex can also lessen the chance of kids receiving STDS.

Throughout the years of America, there has been tension regarding sex education with young adults. During the 1940s, is when the observances of teen pregnancy started to be studied. In 1941, was when the highest peak of teen pregnancy was, and has since then gone down. However, the United States still has the highest teen pregnancy rate in all the industrialized nations. In European education systems, they teach sex education in every way. They not only have comprehensive sex education classes, but they also support safe sex in advertisements and in other social issues discussed in classes. Because of this, the Netherlands has one of the lowest teen pregnancy rates in continental Europe. A few American states have also started comprehensive sex education, and have lower teen pregnancy rates. The current sex education that is implemented into schools is abstinence-only. The U.S. government should eliminate abstinence-only programs, because it will lower the risk against STDs (Sexually Transmitted Diseases) and STIs (Sexually Transmitted Infections) among young adults, drop teen pregnancy rates, and an older age when teenagers have sex. With the risk of HIV/AIDS, other STDs, and abstinence-only education programs, many LGBTQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transsexual, and Queer) young adults are confused on how they should interpret sex education.