Abstinence And The Negative Consequences Of Sexual Education

Elizabeth Cochran, better known under her pen name, Nellie Bly, was an American journalist born in Cochran’s Mills, Pennsylvania on May 5th, 1864. She gained fame through her investigative journalism and began working for the New York World in 1887. Her first assignment, an expose on a local asylum, is covered by J.D. Ryznar in an episode of the Comedy Central TV series, Drunk History. While the facts given in Drunk History don’t precisely line up with the facts from outside sources, the story conveyed is entertaining and accurate enough to be a valuable resource for exposing viewers to history.

Abstinence only sexual education wouldn’t be such an alarming problem if those in charge didn’t insist on falsifying statistics to perpetuate fear. While simply not participating in sexual contact is the only one hundred percent effective way to avoid pregnancy and disease, preventive medical care should no longer be overlooked. The Waxman report reviewed the curriculum and concluded that over eighty percent of schools receiving federal grants contained false and misleading information, generally the exaggeration of contraceptive failure rates (Beh, and Diamond). The Choosing the Best curriculum states that over a four year period condoms have a failure rate of fifty percent (CITE THIS) while the Center of Disease Control states the failure

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

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

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

The theory of paradox is put into action when policymakers come up with policies centered on sex education. The theory of paradox is used to compromise on an issue at hand. There is one goal at hand, and two different, yet equally valid ways to reach said goal (Bogenschneider, 2014). There are two main approaches to lowering teen pregnancy and birth rates: abstinence-only sex education and comprehensive sex education. The federal government funds both different approaches but has more money available to states that choose to implement abstinence-only programs. Researchers look at teen pregnancy and birth rates in each state to calculate and observe the effectiveness of abstinence-only versus comprehensive sex education programs (University

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.)

In El Paso, just like many other cities in the conservative States, the chosen form of sex Ed. is abstinence only, thus making it so that most middle and high schools do not offer the option of even taking the comprehensive class. This causes issues of public and personal safety to arise, as well as reckless endangerment. Most people, especially teenagers, do not know their anatomy as well as they believe they do, nor of any diseases that may be transferred through menial tasks such as; sharing a toothbrush, sharing edibles, etc. Abstinence only teachings have been proven to be ineffective as they do not prevent teenage pregnancy, the start of the act, nor the number of partners a teen might take. Comprehensive abstinence classes have been

The intentional withholding and misinformation given by AOUM programs threatens the fundamental human rights to health and information. Adolescents need complete and accurate information regarding sexual health in order to protect their health and lives (Santelli et al., 2017). The eight-point federal statutory definition of abstinence education requires programs to withhold information on contraception except to emphasize their failure rates. Keeping adolescents uneducated in regards to contraception and other aspects of contraceptive health is inherently trying to force them into abstinence (Stanger-Hall & Hall, 2011; Ott & Santelli, 2007). This contradicts the ethical principle beneficence as it may lead adolescents to engage in unprotected

Should schools only teach abstinence or is comprehensive sex education safer for teens? Many find that teaching abstinence is the only way to ensure students safety when it comes to sexual behavior. But, “A review of 35 school-based sex education programs found that abstinence based programs had no significant effect on delaying sexual debut, while some comprehensive programs were effective in reducing certain sexual risk behaviors” (Kirby and Coyle). Along with research showing the ineffectiveness of abstinence programs, “Critics of abstinence-only education claim that it violates human rights by withholding potentially life-saving information from people about other means to protect themselves from HIV, such as condom use” (Plos one). Comprehensive

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 education can delay and reduce teen sexual activity, but there is no evidence for this

Imagine you’re sitting in your OBGYN office and they recommend putting you on birth control due to your periods being bad and you panic because you have little idea as to what they are putting you on because no one has talked to you about it. You understand that it will help with your periods and from what you can infer you also know that it will help preventing unwanted pregnancies, however you still sit there and wonder how it prevents pregnancy, how it will help with your periods, and all the side effects that could go along with it. This is what happens when there is only abstinence only education offered. Abstinence only sex education does not lower teen pregnancy, it highers the practice of unsafe sex, and it changes the way women view

For my whole life I've been a devout Christian and I believed that the bible was the word of God and used it to form my opinions. So naturally I was against sex before marriage and pro abstinence only education and thought it was the best way to lower the teen birth rate,STD, discourage sex before marriage and promote Christian values.

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.