Schools Should Not Be The Only Form Of Sex Education

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

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.

According to advocatesforyouth.org, “Abstinence-only-until-marriage programs are a waste of taxpayer money.” Since 1996 over one billion dollars has been spent on these programs. Because these programs are unsuccessful many people argue that it is a waste of money to spend billions of dollars on ineffective programs. However comprehensive sex education which teaches students about contraceptive usage and abstinence does not get the funding that abstinence only receives.

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

While in high school, most teenagers between the ages 13-17, will have attended at least one sex education class. Instead of using the “Abstinence- Only” approach, schools should consider on teaching students the “Safe- Sex” approach to increase their knowledge on potential health risks involving sex. Increasing their knowledge not only increases their awareness, but lets them use their knowledge in the real world and let them form their own decisions, whether they be bad or good.

Imagine if the United States said “Okay, we’re banning driver’s Education in schools. We don’t think a sixteen year old is mentally and physically prepared to drive safely, and we don’t want to encourage that”. So of course, schools start pulling driver’s ed classes, but also say “Wait wait wait, sixteen year olds may not be ready to drive, but they’re going to anyway. Why not make it safer for them instead of putting them out on the road with no safety knowledge?” But, the country continues to say “They’re not ready so we’re not going to encourage that in schools” Sex education isn't just about pregnancy, it's about avoiding STDs and other health issues. The highest teenage STD rates are normally associated with abstinence-only education. Some STDs will cause life-long problems, and should be taught about to teens. Although there is an attempt to minimize teen pregnancy and stds, the rate of teen pregnancy is higher in the U.S. than other Western countries, Among teens aged 18–19, 41% report that they know little or nothing about condoms, and 1 in 4 teens in the US receives information about abstinence without receiving any information or instructions about birth control.

Proponents for abstinence-only education believe that the abstinence-only message has contributed to the decline of adolescent sexual activity as well as negative related outcomes. In the 1990s there was a decrease in adolescent pregnancy, birth and abortion rates. These proponents attribute these declining statistics to the abstinence-only message and claim that the declines cannot be accredited to increased

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

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”

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.

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

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).