Should Abstinence Only Sex Education?

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

The philosophy behind abstinence-only policy implies that the greatest risk of informing students about their options for contraception would be that educators are condoning premarital sex. The risks that our students are already taking, however, are greater then policymakers are considering. It is generally accepted that the majority of sexual intercourse among young people remains unprotected (Westwood, 2006). Abstinence-only curriculum is not preventing adolescents from having sex; it is just making them naïve to the risks they are taking with their lifestyle choices.

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

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 and comprehensive sex education follow vary different outlines in methods of teaching and the goals they hope to achieve. Controversy surrounding this topic focuses on what is being taught and how this relates to values favoring abstinence, with the belief that education on birth control encourages sexual activity (Abstinence Only Education, 2005). Planned Parenthood states the following: “Abstinence-only programs (also called abstinence-only until marriage programs) promote abstinence from sexual behavior” (Planned Parenthood: Implementing Sex Education, n.d.) Abstinence-only programs only teach abstinence, as per their name, and in fact, they purposely exclude information on “birth control, safer sex and sex orientation” (Planned

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

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

Abstinence-only sex education teaches that the only morally right choice is to stay a virgin until you are married. Abstinence-plus education strongly encourages abstinence, but also teaches of the use of condoms/contraceptives(Advocates for youth). Both options include certain points that must be hit during the course including; must teach abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage as the expected standard for all school age children, teaches that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid out of wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other associated health problems, teaches that a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity; teaches that sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects; teaches that bearing children out-of-wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences for the child, the child’s parents, and society; teaches young people how to reject sexual advances and how alcohol and drug use increases vulnerability to sexual advances; and teaches the importance of attaining self-sufficiency before engaging in sexual activity (dshs). Out of all 50 states, 37 states require sex education that includes abstinence, 26 of which require that abstinence be stressed as the

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 from happening.

It has been almost thirty three years since the first federal funding was put to use in “. . . sex education programs that promote abstinence-only-until-marriage to the exclusion of all other approaches . . .” according to the article “Sex education” (2010) published by “Opposing Viewpoints in Context;” a website that specializes in covering social issues. Since then a muddy controversy has arisen over whether that is the best approach. On one hand is the traditional approach of abstinence (not having sex before marriage), and on the other is the idea that what is being done is not enough, and that there needs to be a more comprehensive approach. This entails not only warning against sex, but also teaching teens about how to have

After addressing that abstinence-only education alienates students of various sexualities and genders, I will point out some of the possible consequences that could occur because of this to promote the importance of incorporating comprehensive sex education in middle/high schools. Specifically, I note that during “puberty is when a majority of adolescents participate in sexual encounters”. Therefore, teenaged students who do not conform into traditional heteronormative identities that learn about their reproductive health from an exclusive, heterosexual point of view, are more likely to contract STIs, HIV, and have unintended pregnancies. To prevent teens from these minority populations from facing harmful health consequences, it’s important to spread awareness on treatments, medication, contraception, and places to receive medical attention on all sexual matters.

Sexual education and the methods we should use to get the point across has been debated heavily in the past few years. There are many issues within this broad topic, such as the fact that only 13 states mandate that the information given be medically accurate, and 4 states require that within a sexual education course, sexual orientation be spoken about in a negative manner. However, the overlying problem is abstinence-only (also known as level 3) sexual education. Abstinence-only sexual education is not substantial enough as a system because it fails to inform young people of the real risks that can be taken, and how to counteract these risks.

Coinciding with the onslaught of the new millennium, schools are beginning to realize that the parents are not doing their job when it comes to sexual education. The school system already has classes on sexual education; these classes are based mainly on human anatomy. Most schools do not teach their students about relationships, morals, respect, self-discipline, self-respect, and most importantly contraceptives. Everyday students engage in sexual activity, many of them with out condoms. This simple act jeopardizes these students' futures and possibly their lives. An increasing amount of school systems are starting to combine messages involving abstinence from sexual activity,