Sex Education in Schools: Abstinence-Only Programs Essay

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

In 1913, sex education became a topic that was found to be an important education tool. Since then, this form of education has been a hot and debatable topic among many Americans. The original reason for sex education classes was to reduce problems such as sexually transmitted illnesses and prostitution. In recent years, abstinence has become the focus of sex education curriculum. Abstinence means refraining from sex completely. Although, it is the only one-hundred percent way to prevent sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies, abstinence-only instruction should not be the only form of sex education taught. Our youth need to know about all aspects of sex. This intails how to protect them if they choose to become sexually

According to advocatesforyouth.org, “abstinence only education teaches students to abstain from sex prior to marriage.” These program has been proven to be ineffective. Abstinence only education is ineffective because it is not conducive in reducing teen pregnancy rates and sexually transmitted diseases rates. Abstinence only programs are less likely to teach students about birth control and contraception and how to access it. These programs has not been shown to reduce teen sexual activity.

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

The foundation of the abstinence-only policy was laid in 1981 under President Regan when the United States Congress passed the Adolescent Family Life Act (AFLA) administered by the Office of Adolescent Pregnancy Programs (OAPP) (Denny, 2006). The main purpose of this this proposal was to keep sexual relationships until marriage (Weaver, 2005). The AFLA became founded on the belief of funding and developing abstinence-only based curricula in public schools throughout the United States (Weaver, 2005).

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

Does “abstinence-only” programs mean abstinence-only lives for teenagers receiving this type of sexual education? There are those who fully support abstinence-only sex education while others deny its ability and believe it only under educates teenagers. From the latter, the author claims that abstinence only programs are not effective. He presents evidence to suggest this is valid, including that high school students need medically accurate information on how to decrease their risk of sexually transmitted infections and unintended pregnancy because they are sexually active. Though the underlying issue has merit and the argument is sound and is valid because of logical

“The United States ranks first among developed nations in rates of both teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases” (Stanger-Hall, Hall, “Abstinence-Only Education and Teen Pregnancy Rates”). According to several studies, this is mainly due to the fact that numerous states teach abstinence-only education, which usually does not include material on contraception, STIs, nor pregnancy. The alternative to abstinence-only education is referred to as comprehensive sex-education, where the practice of abstinence is promoted, but students are additionally taught about contraception, STIs, pregnancy prevention, and interpersonal skills. Despite the beneficial results of this alternative, abstinence-only education is still taught all over the

Policies should be put in place to make the young adults better educated, in all areas of physical intimacy. Under the abstinence-only approach students are given no information about contraception, and other ways of preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. We should educate the best habits of prevention, and state that abstinence is the best way to prevent unplanned pregnancy or the spread of STD’s.

The sex education program has two routes: one route would be the “Abstinence-only program” and the second is the “Comprehensive Program”.

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

Overall, sex education in U.S. schools should remain abstinence-only curriculum. Abstinence-only curriculum teaches students to wait to have sex. On the other hand, people believe that contraceptive use curriculum will teach students to have less unprotected sex. This leaves the possibility of the contraceptive failing, and having unplanned pregnancy. Abstinence- only curriculum teaches students that waiting is the best option for a good, healthy

The abstinence-only program teaches young teens aged 15-19 in particular to abstain from having sex until married as a means to prevent unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections and diseases. The National Abstinence Education Association (NAEA) claims that they also do encourage the teaching of other forms of contraception and how they can reduce the chance of an STI or STD. The NAEA believe the abstinence-only method is the best method as "many so-called comprehensive sex ed curricula mislead students by providing only clinical "perfect use" protection rates for condoms, giving students a false sense of security." The National Abstinence Education Association board of directors and advisory board members are responsible for improving and maintaining abstinence-only education nationally. Their abstinence-only programs are made to include "Those who are abstinent and those who have had sexual relationships, and those who have experienced brokenness and oppression about their sexuality." The NAEA believe that abstinence-only programs are needed for "Young people need to know “there is a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing” but they also require the skills to make moral and healthy decisions about relationships for themselves now and in their future adult

Statistics show that of these two choices, abstinence only is the better option. “…without an abstinence message, [students] were significantly more likely than the abstinence only students to be sexually active two years later” (Chavez 22). When schools teach abstinence, the only option the students learn is to wait till marriage. With this type of understanding, instead of comprehensive, it protects teenagers from many things both physically and emotionally. “According to the CDC, the number of high school students who claimed to have never had sex increased by ten percent…” (Marcovitz 18). More studies continue to show how abstinence education decreases many issues both emotionally and physically and increases healthy, stable relationships. Since comprehensive education has become more popular, studies show the increase in sexual activity and pregnancies. “Every year, 1 of every 10 teenage girls becomes pregnant, and more than 400,000 teenagers have abortions” (Lickona 84). Since comprehensive education has been taught a lot recently, “…certain STI rates are increasing” (Connelly 5). More studies also show that young girls are affected the most by schools not having an abstinent education program. “…young women aged 15 to 19 had the highest reported cases of Chlamydia and gonorrhea” (Connelly

Teenage sexual activity has sparked an outcry within the nation. With such activity comes a high price. Studies have shown that there has been a significant rise in the number of children with sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), emotional and psychological problems, and out-of-wedlock childbearing. Sex has always been discussed publically by the media, television shows, music and occasionally by parents and teachers in educational context. Teens hear them, and as the saying goes, “monkey see, monkey do”, they are tempted to experiment with it. Therefore, it is important for every teenager to be aware of the outcome associated with premature-sex. If students are educated about the impact of