Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Abstinence only vs comprehensive ed
The benefits of sexual education for adolescents
The need for a comprehensive sexual education
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Abstinence only vs comprehensive ed
Let’s Talk About Sex Abstaining from sexual activity is morally correct in preventing pregnancy and controlling transmitted diseases, but programs that advocate for abstinence only, such as public schools, often fail to prevent young students from having sex and the proper knowledge of their actions. Teaching abstinence-only based sexual education in a public school is ineffective because it does not delay the initiation of sexual activity, it does not prevent sexually transmitted diseases or pregnancy, and it promotes a socially conservative value. The two types of approaches to teaching sex education include comprehensive and abstinence-only. The Comprehensive approach teaches that sexuality is a normal, healthy part of life and stresses …show more content…
With this evidence, it is apparent that combining the two approaches has a more efficacious result on teenagers. A 1999 Gallup Poll found that most Americans were fine with teaching sex education at school: 60% of adults said it should be a required course in high schools, while another 32% said it should be offered but not required (Crabtree). Although sexual education has become a standard part of the curriculum in most american schools, the approach to teaching it is not nearly as …show more content…
The 1981 ALFA Act supported programs that promote “premarital chastity and traditional values.” This act had an original funding of $7 million dollars but was the platform for the idea of funding these programs and had potential in expanding. In the mid-1990s, the Title V Act went underway. This was signed into law by President Clinton and it was apart of the welfare reform. This bill appropriated $50 million dollars and elucidated that an eight point definition of requirements had to be met by abstinence only programs in order to receive funding. The CBEA Act also required that these programs meet the eight point definition of requirements and stated explicitly, “sex education programs that promote the use of contraceptives are not eligible for funding under this announcement.” Funding for these three acts grew rapidly from 1996 to 2009, especially during the George W Bush era. After almost three-decades of support for abstinence-only education, more money has been used to promote comprehensive based sexual
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 medical ethics and scientific accuracy, and have been empirically proven to be ineffective; therefore, comprehensive sex education programs which are medically accurate, science-based and empirically proven should be the standard method of sex education for students/children in the U.S.
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 “Safe Sex” (“Sex Education,” 2010).
Students should be informed about more than just “don’t have sex” because eventually it is going to happen and they need to be educated on the proper way to handle the situations. Because students are mostly taught abstinence it has created the situation to where researchers find” Abstinence-only education, instead of reducing the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, has made teenagers and young adults more vulnerable to ST...
Teenage sexual activity is a major problem confronting the nation and has led to a rising incidence of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and teenage pregnancy. The existence of HIV/AIDS has given a sense of urgency to the topic of sex education. The issue of sex education in schools especially in the formative years has been a subject of intense debate among parents, school officials, health scientists and religious authorities worldwide for a considerable period of time. The debate centers on comprehensive sex education versus abstinence-only sex education in school. Abstinence only sex education is a sex education model that focuses on the virtue of abstinence from sexual activities; therefore, encouraging sexual abstinence until marriage. This form of sexual education completely ignores all other elements of comprehensive sexual education like safe sex and reproductive health education issues like the use of contraceptives and birth control methods. Comprehensive sex teaching encourages promiscuous sexual activity as “a natural part of life.” Proponents of abstinence only education activists cite several reasons why this type of education is the best. It focuses on the upholding of moral virtues. They also claim that sex outside marriage hat is “encouraged” by the comprehensive sex education which as a result, has some emotional and physical downfall especially when done at a very young age. They blame the comprehensive sex education for failing to discourage premarital sex especially at this time when the HIV pandemic is busy devouring young people in various parts of the world (Deborah 2). In fairness, both programs were designed to decrease the incidence of STDs...
“Throughout the 1980’s these arguments began to lose legitimacy as the American republic reiterated its support (Fose)”. “Although this topic is highly debated, 93 percent of Americans support “sex or sexuallity” courses being taught in high school and 84 percent supports teachings in junior high (Fose)”. More people requested sex education because of the AIDs epidemic. The AIDs epidemic cau...
Congress hereby finds and declares that the sex education curriculum has been wrongly denied of pursuing a thorough course in order for high schoolers to achieve a better understanding of anything sex related. Sex education, or sex ed, is an instructional course built to instruct issues relating to human sexualiy, sexual anotomy, sexual reproduction, sexual activity, reproductive health, emotional relations, reproductive rights and responsibilities, and contraceptives. Out of the 50 states in the U.S, only 18 of them are required by law to include a sexual education course available in all high schools. Of the 18 states that are required sex ed however, their curriculum differs. In some states such as Utah, youths learn about sexual education, STD’s, and abstinence until marriage, but are not provided information about contraception. In other states like Washington, teens receive information ranging from homosexuality to contraception methods. States like Utah that promote ‘abstinence-only’ sexual education courses are less effective than those like Washington, where a more in-depth sex ed course showed evidence of no encouragement of sexual activity. Washington used the comprehensive sex education program. The method that Utah used, “Abstinence-only” or “Just Say No” teachings, in spite of the fact that it educates youth on how to reject sexual advances, promote self-sufficiency, instruct the psychological health of youths who have had sex, etc. are biased and prejudiced. This bill will lower the teen ...
What is acceptable when it comes to teaching kids about sex education? “What Schools Should Teach Kids About Sex” by Jessica Lahey uses more of a logical approach to the issues of sexual education given to adolescence, compared to “Sex Education Is One Thing” by Anna Quindlen which tells more of her personal story and opinion using pathos to connect to the audience. After reading both articles about sex education, it is clear that there are many different interpretations of what qualifies as sex education, who is qualified to teach it, and what should be included in the curriculum. Both writers believe that there should be more sex education taught to high school kids but they go about it in different ways, using rhetorical appeals of logic versus pathos.
Two drastic Emergency Room cases were handled in 1998 at Mary Washington Hospital. Concerned mothers brought their 12 year old daughters into the hospital thinking they were suffering from severe stomach pain or even appendicitis…both girls were actually in labor (Abstinence, 2002). The United States has the highest teen pregnancy, birth, and abortion rates in the Western world (Planned Parenthood, 2003). Are teens getting enough knowledge on sex and how to prevent STDs and unwanted pregnancies? Another heartbreaking statistic is that teenagers have the highest rate of STDs of any age group, with one in four young people contracting an STD by the age of 21 (Sex-Ed Work, 2003). Is sex education really working in school? Or do we need to change the type of curricula that is taught? There is no question that sex education should be taught in schools, but the question is how? The purpose of this paper is to determine which curricula of sex education should be taught in schools to be most effective in lowering STD and pregnancy rates among teenagers.
Sex education in public schools has been a controversial issue in the United States for over a decade. With the HIV and teen pregnancy crises growing, sex education is needed.
The government likes to pretend that if high school students get taught the “abstinence-only” method they would never think of taking part in sexual activities. Statistically this is incorrect. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, “56 percent of high school students are virgins”(Martin). For the 56 percent abstinence only is doing them well, but there are still 44 percent of high school students engaging in sex without knowing the precau...
Sexual education has been a heated topic for years. The topic started in 1912 when the National Education Association wanted teachers to begin lecturing in sex ed programs.(Pardini, Priscilla) In 1940 the U.S. Public Health Service labeled sexual education an “urgent need” and strongly advocated it in schools.(Pardini, Priscilla) Though sexual education had support from health officials and educators, there were many opponents.(Pardini, Priscilla) Conservatives and health advisors battled over how sex ed benefits and how it should be taught in schools.(Pardini, Priscilla)
Why should comprehensive sex education be allowed in schools? Should teens be exposed to comprehensive sex education? Sex education should be taught in school because it give children stable and accurate information , it informs them of the danger and diseases associated with sex, and it teaches them about safe sex options.
Before moving on, one must know that sex education is about, but not limited to the discussion of sexual intercourse. As a Buzzle article states, it involves a multitude of topics that introduce human sexual behaviors such as puberty, sexual health, sexual reproduction, sexuality, and more (Iyer). If formally received in school, these topics are brought up and discussed at age-appropriate times over the course of children’s junior high and high school education. Moreover, as I have introduced earlier, the way sex education should be taught is divided into two approaches. It is between taking either a conservative, abstinence-only approach or a more liberal, comprehensive approach. Abstinence-only education, approaches students by stressing the importance of “no sex before marriage” as be...
Sex education in our schools has been a hot topic of debate for decades. The main point in question has been whether to utilize comprehensive sex education or abstinence-only curriculum to educate our youth. The popularity of abstinence-only curriculum over the last couple of decades has grown largely due to the United States government passing a law to give funding to states that teach the abstinence-only approach to sex education. But not teaching our children about sex and sexuality is not giving them the information they need to make well educated decisions. Sex education in our schools should teach more than just abstinence-only because these programs are not proven to prevent teens from having sex. Children need to be educated on how to prevent contracting sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies and be given the knowledge to understand the changes to their bodies during puberty. According to the Guidelines for Comprehensive Sexuality Education: Kindergarten-12th Grade from the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), comprehensive sex education “should be appropriate to age, developmental level, and cultural background of students and respect the diversity of values and beliefs represented in the community” (SIECUS).
Sex education should be increased in schools. Nearly one million women under the age of 20 get pregnant each year. That means 2800 women get pregnant each day. If students are educated about the effects sex has on their lives, it lessens their chance of having children at an early age. Knowledge about sex can also lessen the chance of kids receiving STDS.