Sex education has been the single most controversial debate in the United States education systems within the past few decades, but was first introduced as early as 1905 where there was a rally for sex education within schools in attempts to eradicate venereal disease (The Beginning of Sex Education in the U.S.: A Historical Perspective). There was not much support at this time though, until the 1980’s when there was the HIV/AID’s epidemic. This was when more people became aware of what was going on and tried figuring out how to put a stop to it, and quick. Surprisingly, in the early twentieth century, people were actually taught to be fearful of sex and that such contact could result in fatality. Many young boys and girls were actually taught …show more content…
They argue there is something simply wrong with the idea that teaching kids about risky behavior is something that could be avoided all together. Some advocates for abstinence-only programs argue that there should not be sex education taught in public schools because it is the parents place to talk about sex in that much detail with their own child (Should sexual education be taught in public schools?). However, what happens to the children who do not receive the same, well-educated treatment from their parents as others? Not all children have parents who know all the right information to tell them, the right answers to their questions, or maybe they just do not care to further explain to them what it is all about. That is where the school steps in, and teaches them everything they need to know to make the right choices. They also argue that it could make females a lot more promiscuous as well as males more curious for themselves. Though, in a study of 35 sex education programs around the world, statistics from the World Health Organization found there is no evidence that these comprehensive programs encourage any sort of negative promiscuity or sexual activity (Carnal Knowledge: The sex ed debate). Some students also say that learning that type of information in the classroom is sometimes uncomfortable which makes them distracted and not focused in on the main lesson of sexual education. And even though, according to research, teaching about sex education has positive impacts on children and provides them all with the information they need to make life-affirming decisions for themselves, opposing groups continue to stand by their beliefs that it has negative impacts and makes kids so much more tempted to actually do it. However, we still witness a large sum of teenage pregnancies each year. Why is this? The whole
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
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 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
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.
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
“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
The classes proved information about contraceptives, STDs and HIV prevention. It also is age appropriate and scientifically explained. Collins says it well that “by denying teens the full range of information regarding human sexuality, abstinence-only education fails to provide young people with the information they need to protect their health and well being.” Students when asked survey by the Kasier Family Foundation said that they knew more and felt better prepared to handle different situations. Abstinence only education just chooses to avoid it and does not take into account students who decide a different path. Abstinence only education supports say that by teaching the “abstinence-plus” education that they are sending mixed messages towards students. Current advocates for comprehensive education cite that “providing teens with contraceptive information does not encourage early sexual activity.” The Surgeon General David Satcher had said that based off of the information he had derived from both approaches “evidence gives strong support to the conclusion that providing information about contraception does not increase adolescent sexual activity….[it only] increased condom and contraceptive uses among adolescents who were sexually active.” (Collins 9)Most evaluations of many different types of
The Texas abstinence-only approach in school systems has failed to give information required to educate teenagers to what can happen to their life and future by engaging in sexual activity.
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
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
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.
Teenagers are notorious for being curious. Not every teenager has, but there are many who have tried drugs and alcohol despite all of the school’s and parent’s warnings. Why is sex any different? A study in 2015 reported that 41% of high school students have had sexual intercourse (Child Trends Data Bank). That number isn’t extremely concerning but what is the legitimate likelihood that all of those students were honest? Schools such as MCPS teach about contraceptives, but stress abstinence more than anything. By withdrawing information such as a minor’s rights when it comes to abortion or contraception, students could ruin their entire future. Everyone has made mistakes and has regrets, but withdrawing information from students in the hopes that they practice abstinence is not worth a student’s future. School systems should be teaching students their rights when it comes to sex.
Studies show that teenagers who’ve had sex later regret it. Abstinence only education should be the only education taught in schools instead of comprehensive education. The most popular ways of teaching about sex are abstinence teachings and comprehensive education. Abstinence education is a better option than comprehensive because it is the only effective way to avoid pregnancy, protects against sexually transmitted diseases, and proves the partner is interested for more than sex; comprehensive education teaches that there is a way for safe sex if students choose that path but teenage sex should not be an option. “…encouraging teens to just say no to sex may be the most effective at delaying early sexual activity”
If you have lived through the experience of being a teenager in the United States then you have probably been subjected to a sex education course at some point in your life. I, like the majority, attended an abstinence-only program in high school and most of what I remember from that experience is being uncomfortable. In fact, the clearest memories I have of the program taught at my school, or Worth the Wait, is of a video of a woman who creates a pancake in the shape of a vagina for her daughter and a montage of dozens of girls saying “No!” to emphasize what my response should be to sex. But, now that I am an adult woman and am close to the age where I might start thinking about motherhood I can see why these abstinence-only programs