Should Abstinence Only Sex Education?

Abstinence education strives to create an environment in which students will be prepared to remain abstinent because it is the “only completely effective form of birth control. Creating an appeal to religious groups with the same ideology, these programs promote “the idea of sexual activity inside the context of marriage [as] the only proper behavior. ” (“Comprehensive Sex Education vs. Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage-Programs”) In the TED talk “Why We Shouldn’t Shy Away From Sexual Education”, Dr. V. Chandra-Mouli adds that “one of the main reasons for resistance to sexuality education is the concern that it plants the idea in children’s minds to have sex before they are ready…” Parents fear the idea of their children being influenced to have sex out of wedlock because it brings a higher risk of getting a sexual transmitted disease (STD) or becoming unintentionally

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

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.

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?

Studies have also shown that abstinence-focused programs have failed to reduce STI rates. The American Sexual Health Association states, “More than half of all people will have an STD/STI at some point in their lifetime,” (“Statistics”). Comprehensive sex education would teach teenagers how to improve their sexual health, prevent unwanted pregnancies, and prevent sexually transmitted diseases and infections. Providing students with this information does not encourage them to participate in sexual activity sooner. Several findings show that, “[Comprehensive sex education] effectively promotes abstinence and may delay sexual debut, reduce sexual frequency, reduce the number of sexual partners, reduce STI risk, and increase the likelihood of consistent contraceptive use,” (Jeffries 173). Comprehensive sex education will be beneficial to students by teaching them how to have sexual intercourse safely, if they choose to not remain abstinent.

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

Even though sex education has been proven to lower pregnancy and abortion rates among teens, for years people have argued that comprehensive or safe-sex education encourages early sexual activity instead of steering the thought away. However, the main issue is not education about sex but specifically what kind of education. In 1986 Planned Parenthood commissioned a poll to determine how comprehensive sex education which teaches about abstinence as the best method for avoiding STDs and unintended pregnancy, when affected behavior. Much to the agency’s disappointment, the study showed that kids exposed to such a program had a 47% higher rate of sexual activity than those who’d had no sex education at all. In contrast, a 1996 study on “Project

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 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

According to a poll done in 2006 that recorded the “Adult and teen preferences for type of sex education needed,” 14% percent of the adults interviewed thought that teens should get more information about abstinence, 8% that they should get more information about birth control, 73% that they should get more information about both abstinence and birth control or protection, 4% didn’t know, and 1% refused to answer. For teens (12-19), 7% percent thought that they should learn more about abstinence, 9% that they should learn more about birth control, 56% that they should learn more about both abstinence and birth control or protection, 22% didn’t know, and 7% refused to answer (“Adult and teen preferences,” 2010).

Reports display that abstinence-only curriculums do not decrease sexual intercourse by adolescent students. The United States Division of Health and Human Services publicized a report of abstinence curriculums. The authors revealed that conclusions from the study provided no indication that abstinence curriculums applied in elementary and middle schools are successful in decreasing the rate of adolescent or teenagers having sexual relations. Actually, teenagers did not benefit from all of the work and the millions of dollars that have been used into these curriculums. An additional study by Peter Bearman of Columbia University shows that over eighty-five percent of middle and high school students who vow to remain virgins until

I found that states that only have abstinence only education had similier teen sex rates and higher STD and unwanted pregnancy rates compared to states that had comprehensive sex education. From this I realized that if Christians really wanted to lower teen pregnancy and STD rates I would support comprehensive sex education in public schools.

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).