Sexual Education Vs Comprehensive Sex Education

The US teen pregnancy rate is at 72.2%, which is larger than any rate in Western European countries. Sex education can solve the problem that we see, and possibly lower that rate. It can benefit kids by informing them about everything involving sex instead of sheltering them from the truth. Abstinence-only education is the other option that is typically used, but creating a program to cover everything and not exclude some children who have different beliefs is the overall goal. This program should be offered for all students as a mandatory course because of the amount of information that is to be gained by teaching about sex, relationships, protection, STD’s, and sexual orientation.

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

People such as President George W. Bush has made no secret of his view that sex education should teach teenagers "abstinence only" rather than including information on other ways to avoid sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy. Unfortunately, despite spending more than $10 million on abstinence-only programs in Texas alone, this strategy has not been shown to be effective at curbing teen pregnancies or halting the spread of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. (2010 Union of Concerned Scientists) In addition, the Bush administration distorted science-based performance measures to test whether abstinence-only programs were proving effective, such as charting the birth rate of female program participants. In place of such established measures, the Bush administration required the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to track only participants' program attendance and attitudes, measures designed to obscure the lack of efficacy of abstinence-only programs. (Federal Register 65:69562-65, November 17, 2000). This

The teenagers and children of today read about, listen to and watch all sorts of information about sex. While most adults have had some form of sex education, we must ask if this new generation is learning anything new or helpful from their sex education classes. The American culture and way of living is so absorbed in sex that children should be taught about it, people just can not agree on how to teach them. In her article New Sex ed Funding Ends Decade of Abstinence-Only, Kelli Kennedy proves that abstinence-only sex education classes and programs are not as good as regular sex education classes better than Shari Roan does in her article Teen pregnancy rates rises. Are abstinent-only programs to blame?

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

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

“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

Everyone remembers having to go to a sex-ed class in late middle school or early high school. Most people remember it as extremely awkward and slightly terrifying. The difference between comprehensive sex-ed and abstinence only education can be life or death. Comprehensive sex-ed teaches people about contraception, sexual orientations, which needs to be updated, and how to be safe in general. Abstinence-only sex-ed basically only teaches to wait to have sexual interactions until married, and the benefits of it. The United States has some problems. Teen pregnancies here are two times as high as other industrialized countries (Harris), and half of all STI cases are

Abstinence is a remarkable topic to be taught, however, should not be the only choice taught, and it’s impractical to expect the youth to hold out until marriage. Abstinence, along with STD and pregnancy prevention is imperative for the youth in the nation. It is factual that accepting promiscuity as part of our culture might cause a rise in STD's, teen pregnancy, and Aid’s. These increases are the reason we must begin early in educating children about the diseases, how to prevent them, and how to practice safe sex. Schools are insane for not lecturing the importance, or proper use of

The controversial topic of whether or not sex education curriculum should teach contraceptive use or abstinence-only is heavily debated. In 2013, the U.S. totaled 273,105 babies born by teenagers, ages from 15 to 19 (“About Teen Pregnancy”). This raises the question: why is the number of pregnancies so high? Is the reason for that unsettling high, number because abstinence-only is being taught or contraceptive use is being taught? Students who are taught abstinence-only are more likely to wait to have sex, which results in the lowering of teen pregnancy. The abstinence-only curriculum also reduces students sexual activity.The sex education curriculum in the U.S. should consist of abstinence-only education.

To understand the shortcomings of the current sex education curriculum, one must first examine the structure of the present system and those who create it. The idea of an abstinence-only curriculum became a dominant force within the education system in the early 1970’s when nearly half of the states voted to restrict and or abolish sex education. It was not until the mid-1980’s and the

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).

According to ncsl.org, “As of March 1, 2016: 24 states and the District of Columbia require public schools teach sex education. 33 states and the District of Columbia require students receive instruction about HIV/AIDS. 20 states require that if provided, sex and/or HIV education must be medically, factually or technically accurate. State definitions of “medically accurate" vary, from requiring that the department of health review curriculum for accuracy, to mandating that curriculum be based on information from ‘published authorities upon which medical professionals rely’” (“Comprehensive Sex Education”). Many other states propose abstinence only educations, in which students are taught that the best way to avoid unwanted pregnancies and STDs is to simply avoid sex altogether. Although the idea that avoiding sex is the solution to all these problems, abstinence only education has proven numerous times to be ineffective. According to the Public Library of Science, in 2005 a study was conducted on all states except South Dakota and Wyoming. The results of the study provided evidence that abstinence only education does little to prevent teen pregnancies. States that did not enforce abstinence programs had much lower pregnancy rates than states that heavily stressed abstinence. These results make it clear that simply encouraging students not to have sex does not work. With very few

In the early 1960’s the controversial issue of sex education started to become a more prevalent conversation among educators and parents alike when the Food and Drug Administration approved the sale of oral contraceptives(Szustek, 2009). Though the topic was previously being discussed as early as mid to late 19th century, it was not deemed completely necessary or an appropriate topic for school aged children prior to this point. In the United States more than 750,000 girls between the ages of 15-19 experience unexpected pregnancies annually and another 19 million of all newly reported Sexually Transmitted Infection (STI) cases are young adults between the ages of 15-25(Boonstra, 2013). The argument of whether or not sex education should be taught to students is moot since according to a recent survey by National Public Radio about 93% of adults believe sex education is needed (Anonymous, 2004). The more pressing issue is the content in which is to be presented to students. There are conflicting groups that argue the validity of the methods used to convey the importance of the apparently sensitive subject; one side of the divide are the supporters of abstinence only education which presents a very singular approach and on the other is those that believe in the importance of comprehensive sex education which explores a variety methods of sexual safety.

Teenage pregnancy rates are higher in American than they are in most other industrialized countries. This is a direct cause of the prominence of abstinence-only-before-marriage (commonly known as abstinence-only) education in United States schools. Besides teen pregnancy, abstinence-only education does a lot more harm to America’s youth. Even though abstinence-only-before-marriage education in schools promotes abstinence, a comprehensive sex education gives teenagers accurate information, has community support, and is empowering to youth.