The Most Effective Method Of 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

Sexual education in schools has become a highly controversial topic over the past few years. Some people believe students should be taught abstinence-only education, while others believe students need the full on “sex talk”. While the sex education controversy may seem silly, it is very important that students receive the most efficient education possible. When it comes to education parents want their children to receive the most effective kind. This is also very true in terms of sex education. Sex education is very debatable right now as to whether students should be taught abstinence-only education or comprehensive sex education.

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?

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

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

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 controversial topic of whether or not sex education curriculum should teach contraceptive use or abstinence-only is heavily debated. In 2013, the U.S. totaled 273,105 babies born by teenagers, ages from 15 to 19 (“About Teen Pregnancy”). This raises the question: why is the number of pregnancies so high? Is the reason for that unsettling high, number because abstinence-only is being taught or contraceptive use is being taught? Students who are taught abstinence-only are more likely to wait to have sex, which results in the lowering of teen pregnancy. The abstinence-only curriculum also reduces students sexual activity.The sex education curriculum in the U.S. should consist of abstinence-only education.

Not only does abstinence only education exclude adolescents of various sexualities, but it fails to regard the health of teenaged girls as well. The repression of female representation in health courses has contributed to the magnification of the gender stereotypes, where women are ideally portrayed as pure vessels if they remain virgins until marriage. Therefore, young girls should remain chaste and pubescent boys naturally have a rampant sexuality due to their uncontrollable hormones. Traditional gender roles are then reinforced, disregarding female sexuality thus alienating them within their health courses since they are not educationally included. This form of instruction censors out necessary sexual guidance concerning their respective reproductive health. For example, details about contraception, abortion, human sexuality, and sexual assault specifically concerning females are neglected within the classroom. Health courses have long-established condoms as the popularized and primary way of having protective sex. But what school boards don’t incorporate in their curricula is that there are various methods of contraception, precisely for women. For example, there are birth control pills, hormone implants, cervical caps, and vaginal rings. Although these preventative measures do not safeguard for STI and HIV contraction, they can decrease the likelihood of having an unintended pregnancy by ceasing ovulation or preventing sperm flow in the vagina by increasing the hormones

Human nature has shaped and developed many different social norms in our society, however, they also create many social problems when conflicting views come under scrutinization. Sexual education in America has been problematic since the late 1900’s because there is simply a lack of it. Sexual education has transformed over a hundred years, abated by the effect of religious upbringings and conservative outlooks. However, as evolved as it is today, it is still a national issue because of the ongoing struggle of comprehensive sexual education against abstinence, and in the midst of the two, students are still not being exposed to proper sexual health.

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

There is much controversy over which form of sex education should be taught, comprehensive sex education, or abstinence-only sex education. The definition for comprehensive sex education is responsible and balanced sexuality education that seeks to assist young people in understanding a positive view of sexuality, provide them with information and skills about caring for their sexual health, and help them acquire skills to make decisions now and in the future. It is medically accurate and provides information about abstinence and contraceptives as tools to prevent unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. On the other hand, abstinence only sex education is a form of sex education that teaches abstinence from sex. This type of sex education promotes sexual abstinence until marriage and avoids discussion of use of contraceptives. Comprehensive sex education goes against some family morals and encourages teenagers to have sex. But abstinence only sex education does not teach students enough about sex or how to protect themselves from STDs and pregnancy. Comprehensive sex education should be mandatory in all of our nation’s schools.

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?

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,