Summary: Abstinence-Only Versus Comprehensive Sex Education

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

Human sexuality can be fascinating, complex, contradictory, and sometimes frustrating. Sexuality is interwoven into every aspect of being human; therefore, having knowledge about sex is as essential as having education about human anatomy. However, it is highly recommended to pay close attention when sex education is delivered to youths. (Donatelle 171)

The issue of the paper Misinformed and Unprotected is that Abstinence-only programs lack to inform teens about sexual contact because the system is current set up as only teaching teens to not have sexual contact till marriage, leaving out important information for teens who what to learn how to be safe with sexual contact. The writer’s position on the paper is that the education system should be changed to inform teens more than just wait till marriage to have sex. The evidence list is that Abstinence-only education advocates claim that abstinence-only programs prevent premarital sex, but that the programs need to stop being publicly funded because these programs may make those who have suffered from sexual abuse feel ashamed and unwilling

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

Clemmitt (2010) states that currently the most effective approach to prevent teenage pregnancy is evidence-based sex education programs. The primary debate about the best method of preventing teenage pregnancy is between abstinence-only courses and comprehensive sex education. The author says that after operating comprehensive sex education, the Obama approach, many communities and county areas have drastically reduced the rate of teenage pregnancy. Studies and statistics suggested that abstinence-only courses have not contributed to reduce teenage pregnancy rates. The author points out that the abstinence-only courses also include sexually transmitted diseases classes and discussions of unhealthy relationship and making decisions, and abstinence

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

“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

“A mutually faithful monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity. Different people will disagree about the veracity of this statement, but we know that it does not reflect the experiences of the majority of young people” (Collins 1). Sexual education is a mandatory part of every grade school curriculum and is funded by the federal government. “The content of sexuality education curricula in America varies widely by region, by school district, and sometimes, by classroom” (Collins 1). I believe that because of this fact that it should be taught in a one consistent way.

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

Ever wonder why sex ed, comprehensive sex ed, abstinence education, silver ring thing, and nearly all the myriad of sexual education and chastity programs out there are miserable failures? (Let’s face it. Statistically, they are.)

Federal funding has played a large role in this increase, as monetary incentives have been the driving force behind much of the change. To put it in numbers, the amount of federal dollars going to schools that adopted abstinence only programs almost tripled in the seven years between 1998 and 2005, increasing from 60 to 168 million dollars a year (Santelli, 75). And among United States school districts that changed their policies, twice as many chose to adopt a curriculum that more heavily focused on abstinence only until marriage as moved towards a more comprehensive program (Landry). This disturbing statistic shows how effective the religious right has been in pushing abstinence only programs in face of a dearth of evidence as to their effectiveness. This effectiveness is mainly due to intense lobbying funded by individuals and organizations on the far right. One man, Raymond Ruddy, has personally put 1.5 million dollars towards advocacy and lobbying for abstinence only programs (Eaton). While lobbying like this commonly happens on both sides of the aisle, in this case public opinion goes against what people like Raymond Ruddy say is necessary. According to a recent study, "Ninety-eight percent of parents say they want HIV/AIDS discussed in sex education classes; 85% want 'how to use condoms' discussed; 84% think sex education should cover 'how to use and where to get other birth control,' and 76% want

Five seventh grade students in a New Orleans middle school were asked how to prevent HIV/AIDS and pregnancy. They believe, eating a hot pepper after sex will prevent STD's and unwanted pregnancy. These students attended an abstinence-only education school where they are prohibited to discuss condoms and other contraceptives to prevent STD and pregnancy (Woebse, 709-710). Since 2014 the U.S teen pregnancy birth rate dropped to 24.2 per 1000 women, 9% lower than 2013(Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). With abstinence-only education being taught, could abstinence-only education be credited for the decline? Does the thought of eating hot peppers after engaging in a sexual act scare teens enough to be abstinent? Or are teens learning

Advocates of the second program argued that the abstinences program do not provide protection against teenage pregnancy (Solomon-Fears). In 2015 According to the CDC, “we can prevent pregnancies by promoting teen friendly interventions aimed at both increasing the number of teens who abstain from or delay sexual activity, and increasing the number of sexually active teens who consistently and correctly use effective contraceptives methods” (Solomon-Fears, 2015). The message of abstinence is important, but the effectiveness of simply telling teenagers this or even expounding on this message, is questionable. In 2010, HHS secretary Kathleen Sebelius stated “we need to use the best science of what works to address it,” in reference to teenage pregnancy the useful ness of education over abstinence only. Teaching them about contraceptives, and giving tem understandable information they can use, seems to have better results in reducing pregnancy. Teenagers are more likely to choose a program that does not come across as all rules, like an abstinence only

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

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).