The Debate For Comprehensive Sex Education

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)

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.

In 2005, nearly half of all high school students have had sexual intercourse. Plainly stating that abstinence programs do not work (USA Today). Abstinence programs were beneficial many years ago, but since they are ineffective in delaying teen pregnancy, then teen pregnancy rate has increased. Abstinence programs teach the “no sex until marriage” clause, but they don’t teach teens about birth control and the consequences of having sex at before they’ve matured. Although many studies argue that abstinence programs are educational and beneficial, other studies will show that they don’t delay teen sex, they don’t prevent the spread of Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs), and are a waste of taxpayers’

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

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

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

While abstinence-only programs often show gruesome pictures of certain STIs, they do it as a means of scaring their students off from having sex, rather than to inform them of symptoms or to teach them how to prevent contracting one. These programs, as with pregnancy, argue that showing STIs in a non-negative light will only endorse having sex. Comprehensive sex-education, on the other hand, which widely and neutrally covers STIs in its curriculum, has been credited in reducing STIs amongst teenagers (Collins, Alagiri, Summers ii). Piling onto the numerous issues associated with abstinence-only education, a large percentage of its programs twist the information they teach. For example, Representative Henry A. Waxman reported that over eighty percent of federally-funded abstinence-only programs distort their curricula on the effectiveness of contraceptives and abortion, and tend to blur religion and science, often teaching rudimentary scientific errors (“Top Five Reasons”). For Goodness Sex, a book about sexuality in relation to teens, states that Representative Waxman’s report “…notes that one federally-funded program passed out materials that said HIV/AIDS could pass through a condom because the latex is so porous, which isn’t true”

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.

Abstinence only education is hindering the lives of teens in today’s world. Schools should stop teaching abstinence only education since, it increases the rate of teens having sexual relations with other people, it does not give students adequate lessons on preventing STDs, and the rate of teen pregnancy is higher for students who receive abstinence only education. As a nation we need to help teens protect themselves with this topic and most importantly approach it with caution. Many schools believe that abstinence only education is the most effective way to instruct students on the topic of sex when it clearly is not.

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).

This is a familiar story that far too many young people go through every day. If she would have received more education about sex and pregnancy prevention, would this story have had a different outcome? We will never know, but can educate other young girls to prevent them from following in her footsteps. To accomplish this, we must incorporate comprehensive sex education into our school’s curriculum nationwide; that way the largest population of students possible is reached to ensure that they will have accurate information about protection and pregnancy prevention.

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?