Sex Education Essay

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.

Human sexuality can be fascinating, complex, contradictory, and sometimes frustrating. Sexuality is interwoven into every aspect of being human; therefore, having knowledge about sex is as essential as having education about human anatomy. However, it is highly recommended to pay close attention when sex education is delivered to youths. (Donatelle 171)

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).

Proponents for abstinence-only education believe that the abstinence-only message has contributed to the decline of adolescent sexual activity as well as negative related outcomes. In the 1990s there was a decrease in adolescent pregnancy, birth and abortion rates. These proponents attribute these declining statistics to the abstinence-only message and claim that the declines cannot be accredited to increased

Moreover the lack of knowledge of contraceptive usage and birth control leads to high pregnancy rates as well. Comprehensive does what abstinence only does not. It informs students of how to use condoms, how to get birth control, and the risks of unprotected sexual activity. Abstinence only is not realistic in American society in the twenty first century. If teenagers are not informed of what is happening in their bodies and how to control it, they have the potential to attract unwanted consequences.

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.

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

"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

Federal funding has played a large role in this increase, as monetary incentives have been the driving force behind much of the change. To put it in numbers, the amount of federal dollars going to schools that adopted abstinence only programs almost tripled in the seven years between 1998 and 2005, increasing from 60 to 168 million dollars a year (Santelli, 75). And among United States school districts that changed their policies, twice as many chose to adopt a curriculum that more heavily focused on abstinence only until marriage as moved towards a more comprehensive program (Landry). This disturbing statistic shows how effective the religious right has been in pushing abstinence only programs in face of a dearth of evidence as to their effectiveness. This effectiveness is mainly due to intense lobbying funded by individuals and organizations on the far right. One man, Raymond Ruddy, has personally put 1.5 million dollars towards advocacy and lobbying for abstinence only programs (Eaton). While lobbying like this commonly happens on both sides of the aisle, in this case public opinion goes against what people like Raymond Ruddy say is necessary. According to a recent study, "Ninety-eight percent of parents say they want HIV/AIDS discussed in sex education classes; 85% want 'how to use condoms' discussed; 84% think sex education should cover 'how to use and where to get other birth control,' and 76% want

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).

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 children grow, they accumulate knowledge over the years about a variety of subjects to prepare them for the future. Children learn from parents, schools, life experiences, what they watch and other influences around them, and it can be either positive learning or negative learning. There is one subject that is difficult to teach and have control over because of misunderstandings, lack of teaching, and publicity. Sex education has been a major debate for children under eighteen, because there are some parents that want it taught in schools and others that do not because of different reasons. There are currently eighteen states and the District of Columbia that require schools to provide sex education and thirty-two that do not require

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.

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

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.