The Book ' Harmful On Minors ' By Judith Levine

During 1920s, U.S. schools began to incorporate sex education to their courses. A 2002 study conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that “58% of secondary school principals describe their sex education curriculum as comprehensive programs provide factual information about birth control, sexual transmitted disease, and continue the message to children about waiting to have sex.” (Johannah)

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?

I think it is safe to say that no two words elicit more feelings of concern, anxiety, and anger in parents, and stirs up more controversy and debate than the words “sexual education”. This especially true with the implementation of the new, revised sexual education curriculum in Ontario schools. Consequently, this controversy has strongly divided individuals, families, and organizations between those who approved of and those who opposed and protested against school-based programs that providee sexual health education to children. But why so much opposition? This is due to the significant changes made to the sexual education curriculum and the sensitive nature of the topics being taught to children regarding sexuality as a whole, changes which are seen as both radical and “even more explicit and more age-inappropriate than before…” (“Ontario’s Radical,” n.d.).

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

Such a controversial vote ignited a great debate throughout the community: among parents, school officials, government officials, and religious leaders. It forced the community to discuss a topic that is still uncomfortable for many confer --youth sex education. “How should we go about teaching sex education to children?” When should children be exposed to this type of information?” These are the types of questions the community pondered while weighing in on the debate. Despite the sexual revolution of the 1900’s and into the 2000’s, discussing sex education is still a contentious topic even in 2015. The author Nancy Gibbs does a extraordinary job examining the various perspectives of the debate in “Birth Control for Kids?

During the 1950’s, many American educational videos were polarized towards the male gender, especially in sexual education videos for adolescents. After reviewing a sexual education video that was produced during the 1950’s, I can infer that society during this time period was very male-dominated and strictly abided by traditional gender roles since it prioritized the curriculum of a male’s reproductive system. Although today’s society no longer defines a woman as a passive, stay-at-home mother and has started to embrace the minority of individuals who identify with various sexualities and genders, I can deduce that there were no major changes in sexual education from the 1950’s and now. This is because there is a lack for comprehensive sexual

Oliver’s next line sums up why we need accurate and authentic comprehensive sex education in schools: “Kids have good questions that need good answers.” Oliver goes on to deliver startling statistics such as only 22 states have laws in place to mandate sex education and with only 13 of those states requiring the curriculum being taught to be medically accurate (LastWeekTonight, 2015; Avery, Carvell, Gondelman, Gurewitch, Haggerty, Maurer, Oliver, Sherman, Tracy, Twiss, Weiner, 2015). Oliver continues to spew forth important reasons why abstinence only sex education can be detrimental to adolescence. Some abstinence only sex education programs compares people that engage in pre-marital sex as “used toothbrushes” or “chewed up gum” (LastWeekTonight, 2015; Avery et al. 2015). A video clip of Elizabeth Smart, a well-known rape survivor, discussed how detrimental abstinence only education affected her mentally because all she could think of was being a piece of chewed up gum even though it was not her choice to have sex before marriage (LastWeekTonight, 2015; Avery et al. 2015). Before signing off with a celebrity filled sex education video, Oliver articulates another quote that is difficult to argue against; “Human sexuality, unlike calculus, is something you actually need to know about” (LastWeekTonight, 2015; Avery et al.

Many advocates for abstinence-only education believe that its message is strongly intertwined with traditional values and religious faith; both of which they claim to have measurable influence in preventing teens from having sex (Collins, Alagira, and Summers 12-13). Christian conservative women believe that comprehensive sex education would encourage sexual activity and lesbianism, as well as undercut marriage and create social decay (Fields 24).

“The ideal of what historian Anne Higonnet calls the Romantic Child, our modern image of a naturally asexual, pure child, is at the heart of century-long conflicts over sex education. By definition, the romantic child’s innocence depends on protection from sexuality” (Talk About Sex 13). Parents, in general, do not feel at ease thinking about their children having sex, nor do they want to encourage them to do so. The fact that most parents are not comfortable talking about the subject with their children only increases the importance of doing so in our schools.

The central theme in Jessica Valenti’s book is that America must begin moving away from traditional outlooks on virginity, along with the basis that there actually is no medical definition on what virginity really is. Furthermore, she protests that the burden to remain sexually pure is for the benefit men or women risk their dignity. The groups most often criticized and blamed for this perceived notion of “virginity” are Christian right leaning organizations who feel as though there is an a stifling amount of moral decay and obscenity plaguing our youth. Throughout the book Valenti provides ample examples of their advocacies and involvement in schools and similar outlets in conjunction with phenomena of purity balls. This along with the

Abstinence only education has been the most prevalent form of instruction in middle and high school courses for years in the United States. Instead of providing accurate scientific facts, it has been primarily based on ideology and what has been traditionally morally accepted: sexual activity within a heterosexual marriage. As a result, teenagers have been taught through biased information influenced by current heteronormative standards. Consequently, abstinence only education fails to acknowledge the minority populations of teenaged students who are different genders and sexualities other than a heterosexual male. Realistically, it can be inferred that a majority of the student bodies in America are rich in diversity. The classroom is no longer composed of homogenous individuals. Instead, classrooms are full of adolescents of various genders, sexualities, ages, and ethnicities. Abstinence only education strictly instructs through biological and reproductively compatible terms rather than addressing other methods of having sex, specifically pertaining to the LGBTQ community. The current curricula typically teaches that penile-vaginal sex is the “proper” way to have intercourse and that it is customary that sex occurs only between a man and a woman. Thus, emphasizing how genitalia should be used rather than having a more holistic approach towards sex. Ultimately, this disregards all of the possible mechanisms that exist when it comes to physical touch. As a consequence,

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) established certain rights for children, including health and the freedom of information. Many abstinence education programs violate these principles by providing false information, perpetuating stereotypes, and teaching moral messages rather than facts (Greslé-Favier 718). A 2004 report to Congress found that over eighty percent of abstinence programs have “false, misleading, or distorted information about reproductive health” including the effectiveness of contraceptives and the risks of abortion (Greslé-Favier 716), in a mission to frame abstinence as the only effective method of minimizing sexual risk. Furthermore, they promote gender stereotypes, both by presenting them as scientific fact (Greslé-Favier 716) and by framing female sexuality within terms of reproduction and male sexuality in terms of pleasure (Bay-Cheng 69). Supporters of abstinence programs argue that the rights of the child are not supreme. However, this should not disclude the child completely, but instead promote a balance between the needs of the child and other factors. Greslé-Favier investigated childism, or systematic discrimination against children, which stems from conservative beliefs that parents have high authority and children belong in the private sphere. Within the context of sex education, childism is a primary factor in programs that place the values of parents and society over the needs and rights of the child. While including discussions about the importance of personal and family values in sex education is reasonable, it is unreasonable to completely diminish the concerns of the individual. A prime example of the bias, value based approach, and violation of rights presented by abstinence education is the inclusion of religious messages. Faith based organizations have spent ten percent of the federal Title

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

The most valuable thing to me about America’s War on Sex was that it made me aware of the extent that government agencies such as the FCC, and other organizations, supporting Erotophobe goals and viewpoints are engaged in attempting to police sexuality by promoting the instillation of fear in the American people, while making money doing it. Many of these organizations promote factual premises that are dubious to achieve their goals. This may send the wrong message to people about what is actually happening. This book has taught me to know when my rights as an American citizen are being jeopardized by people who want nothing but to live by their standards and by what they determine is right, by controlling what you watch, do, and even think. A valuable lesson I learned is that children are victims and their welfare is being sacrificed when ineffective approaches are used. All so that some religious zealots insert their beliefs into government policy so that adults can feel better about themselves rather than employ the best and most effective means to protect children. Another valuable lesson this book also made realize is that a large part of the Erotophobe reasoning is because parents do not

There are many states that do not provide the kind of sex education that New Jersey strives to convey to its students. It more often than not ties in with the religious right proclaiming that students are too young to be exposed to sexual material, and thus sexualized as a result. These fundamental groups oppose any suggestion towards a comprehensive approach. Instead, they ask that their children be taught after grade school and additionally, they steer towards ‘abstinence-only’ education. Instead of teaching students how to protect themselves, they teach that the only way to protect oneself is by abstaining from sex. The problem arises, then, when these students decide to have sex. They are unaware of how to conduct themselves responsibly, how to take precautions to prevent against unwanted pregnancy and disease. What kind of ‘education’ are students receiving when they are withheld crucial information?