Sexual Education Should Be Taught

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

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

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

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

While abstinence-only programs often show gruesome pictures of certain STIs, they do it as a means of scaring their students off from having sex, rather than to inform them of symptoms or to teach them how to prevent contracting one. These programs, as with pregnancy, argue that showing STIs in a non-negative light will only endorse having sex. Comprehensive sex-education, on the other hand, which widely and neutrally covers STIs in its curriculum, has been credited in reducing STIs amongst teenagers (Collins, Alagiri, Summers ii). Piling onto the numerous issues associated with abstinence-only education, a large percentage of its programs twist the information they teach. For example, Representative Henry A. Waxman reported that over eighty percent of federally-funded abstinence-only programs distort their curricula on the effectiveness of contraceptives and abortion, and tend to blur religion and science, often teaching rudimentary scientific errors (“Top Five Reasons”). For Goodness Sex, a book about sexuality in relation to teens, states that Representative Waxman’s report “…notes that one federally-funded program passed out materials that said HIV/AIDS could pass through a condom because the latex is so porous, which isn’t true”

Many believe that making the contraceptive available to teenage sends the wrong message and promotes promiscuity among teenagers. Teens should be better informed of options and will possibly make better decisions with adequate education regarding contraceptives and what they prevent. Advocates for youth states “Evaluations of comprehensive sex education and HIV/ STI prevention programs show that they do not increase rates of sexual initiation, do not lower the age at which youth initiate sex, and do not increase the frequency of sex or the number of sex partners among sexually active

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

The U.S. has the highest rates of sexually transmitted diseases and teen pregnancies of any industrialized nation that put young teenagers at risks. It is estimate that 20,000 new cases of sexually transmitted diseases reported each year comes from people under the age of 25 and 82 percent of all teen pregnancies are accidents that account for one-fifth of all unintended pregnancies annually (CDC 2006). As a result, the government needs to stop funding and promoting abstinence only programs and start focusing on comprehensive sex education. Comprehensive sexuality education according to Sexuality Information and Education Council of the US (SIECUS) provides a complete message by teaching age appropriate and medically accurate information

However, controversy arises when the discussion as to what the proper method of teaching sexual education should be. In the school system of the United States sex education is taught in two main forms: abstinence-only sex education, which focuses on abstaining from sexual activity prior to marriage and does not provide contraceptive knowledge, and comprehensive sex education, which focuses on sexual health as a whole including knowledge about contraceptives and how to avoid STDs. Currently the only federally funded programs implemented in public schools are abstinence-only. But does Abstinence-only sex education work? In order to provide an answer this paper will discuss the basic principles and practices which constitute abstinence-only sex education, the proponents argument for abstinence-only sex education and how abstinence-only education affects teen pregnancy and STD

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

The intentional withholding and misinformation given by AOUM programs threatens the fundamental human rights to health and information. Adolescents need complete and accurate information regarding sexual health in order to protect their health and lives (Santelli et al., 2017). The eight-point federal statutory definition of abstinence education requires programs to withhold information on contraception except to emphasize their failure rates. Keeping adolescents uneducated in regards to contraception and other aspects of contraceptive health is inherently trying to force them into abstinence (Stanger-Hall & Hall, 2011; Ott & Santelli, 2007). This contradicts the ethical principle beneficence as it may lead adolescents to engage in unprotected

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).

In the united states, there are two schools of thought when it comes to educating students on human sexuality. Sexual education is a broad term that applies to the teaching to information from basic contraceptive use, biological reproduction, the spread of infectious disease, and sexuality. One type of sexual education is referred to as Comprehensive Sexual Education. Comprehensive Sexual Education is curriculum rooted in health and life skills, that strives to teach students medically accurate information on healthy relationships, development, side effects and benefits of birth control methods, abstinence lifestyles, and how to avoid unwanted sexual advances. The other type of sexual education is referred to as Abstinence

Sexuality is a part of everyone’s life. It is important that children get the proper education they need so they are aware and are able to protect themselves. The way sex education should be taught is debated among parents, educators, religious groups, and society. Some people believe in abstinence only curriculum while others believe a comprehensive curriculum is more effective. Values, beliefs, and funds can affect how students are being taught. It is important that we pick a curriculum that works best for the students.

“If the Liberals' law is passed, will sex education in the schools, including elementary grades, include the same portrayals of sexual activity which presently exist in heterosexual instruction? Will there be the same presentation of homosexual activity? Of course there will.”