The Problem with "Abstinence-Only"

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

People such as President George W. Bush has made no secret of his view that sex education should teach teenagers "abstinence only" rather than including information on other ways to avoid sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy. Unfortunately, despite spending more than $10 million on abstinence-only programs in Texas alone, this strategy has not been shown to be effective at curbing teen pregnancies or halting the spread of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. (2010 Union of Concerned Scientists) In addition, the Bush administration distorted science-based performance measures to test whether abstinence-only programs were proving effective, such as charting the birth rate of female program participants. In place of such established measures, the Bush administration required the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to track only participants' program attendance and attitudes, measures designed to obscure the lack of efficacy of abstinence-only programs. (Federal Register 65:69562-65, November 17, 2000). This

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.

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.

“Don’t have sex because you will get pregnant and die!” (Mean Girls). This famous quote said by Coach Carr, the health teacher, in the movie Mean Girls swarms the brains of teenagers all over the world. While this quote is quite extreme and is making a mockery of abstinence only programs, it’s analogous to what teachers across the nation are reciting to brainwash our youth. Abstinence-Until-Marriage programs are implemented in numerous high school and junior high schools across the country. While the title seems promising, “Mathematica [Policy Research Inc. (on behalf of U. S. Department of Health and Human Services) found that through] evaluation, [there’s] no evidence that abstinence-until-marriage programs increased rates of sexual abstinence” (What the Research Says…). Teaching a course that isn’t beneficial is meaningless and merely a waste of time. These curriculums use fear tactics to scare children away from sex, reinforce gender norms, and provide inaccurate medical information. Schools that provide abstinence only programs are denying our youth factual, substantial knowledge and survival skills. Instead, these schools should consider an abstinence-plus program, also known as a safe sex contraception education, for their students.

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

Since about the fifth grade we were always told to not have sex, that abstinence is the best thing for us. My sister told me once before, to not have sex “because I will get pregnant and die”, why would I listen to a 10 year old? Researchers from Georgetown University says that sexual education starts as early as age 10, her age doesn’t make her right, though. There is two types of sex education programs the abstinence-only program and the comprehensive. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) have conducted studies of the sex ed program and what kinds of effects it has on students who are enrolled in it.

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

Long before the development of iconic male-dominated American culture, the ideals of a patriarchal society have been implemented within the foundations of multiple civilizations, serving to dictate the actions of its individuals under the black-and-white confines of social constructions like gender roles, gender binary, sex roles, and many other aspects of everyday life that are still present at this very moment. One of the most crucial elements of contemporary American society that these limiting patriarchal values have latched onto is the comprehensive sexual education of it's youth. Undoubtedly, those who need it most are almost always doomed to receive the short-end of the stick with the introduction of Abstinence-Only education—a method that has been consistently proven to embed misogynistic and gender-discriminatory ideals within its shame-based and fear-centered curriculum, in addition to being profoundly ineffective in preventing the negative aspects that go along with unsafe sexual activity; much less effective than it's counterpart, Comprehensive Sexual Education. This unbiased, fact-based, and health-focused method of sex-ed serves to inform students about a number of topics in an age-appropriate context, allowing them to make choices they are comfortable and familiar with when it comes to a time they feel they are ready to make them, regardless of what sex, gender, or orientation they happen to identify with.

Many people, mostly women wanted to see a change in their community involving alcohol. The American Society for the Promotion of Temperance called for total abstinence from liquor. Many just simply started to pull and decrease away from the consumption of alcohol. After the call for total abstinence from liquor change was beginning to show. By 1835 two million had taken the “pledge” to not drink hard liquor. It helped women but also the men. Men were benefitting from this pledge as well. They were no longer beating their wives and were actually learning what it was like to not be constantly intoxicated. What was specifically accomplished was the blessing of the consumption of alcohol. The substantial decrease of men drinking was becoming extremely

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.

In a busy and complicated landscape of sexuality and gender, it is generally recognized that children need instruction in how to behave. Unfortunately, the way that adults wish young people to be introduced to sexuality is governed by diverse worldviews and values, and the subject is seen as so important that this disparity leaves little room for neutrality, much less reasoned compromise. In many cases, the education of children in sexuality is regarded on all sides as a life-and-death issue, involving fundamental assumptions about the role of public and private institutions and even the very stability of society, to say nothing of the potential risks to individuals. As When Sex Goes to School puts it, there is very little within the domain of American politics and the infamous “culture wars” that is not touched by or based in the realm of sexuality and gender, and sex education is an arena where each side seeks to have its values publicly established for the benefit of students.

When I was in China, my friends and I resisted engaging in sexual activity, and we knew little about the sex and our bodies. However, in the U.S., my peers encouraged me to learn more about my body and sexual health because they are essential parts of my life. Under their influence, I began to learn to identify unintended pregnancy, HIV, sexual abuse and assault, sexual harassment, or other problematic behaviors. I am not prepared to engage in pre-marital sex; however, this knowledge will help me make responsible choices about sexual activity in the future. Therefore, even though I experienced a difficult time dealing with the gender stereotypes and sexual double standard, school has helped me demonstrate awareness of gender equality and explore the ways of responding to diverse perspectives linked to gender identity, allowing me to become a responsible advocate for feminism; my peers have influenced me to be a mature woman who understands the importance of good sexual health and recognizes the diversity of sexual

Social trends, public health interest, politics, and various polemics have always affected the essence and teaching of sex education in the United States in different ways. Various sexual education methods exits, however comprehensive and abstinence-only programs are the most commonly know in public schools. Although many schools in the United States prefer to give an abstinence-only lecture, the results shown proof that these programs are ineffective because it simply does not fit the reality we live in, comprehensive sex education works better, and they do not offer honest nor accurate information about human sexuality.