Debate of Sex Education Programs Within the U.S
Abstinence education supporters say that the best way to help with teen sexuality problems is to teach them to not have sex at all. If they do not participate, then they can’t become pregnant and are dramatically less likely to get an STD. The supporters of abstinence claim that not only will abstinence prevent harmful psychological presumptions but will in fact build skills designed for improving a relationship.
While many feel that children should be taught with abstinence-based lessons, others believe in safe sex teachings. Primarily, these advocates feel that since many kids will still decide to have sex, it is more effective to teach them ways to protect themselves while doing so. They believe that preparing students for future intimate relationships is actually more important as it will not only assist those who are planning to be in a committed relationship in the future but also the teens that are going to engage in short-term sexual relationships.
Safe sex lessons do not teach the don’ts of sex, but the basic anatomy and strategy to one’s personal human sexuality. Studies have been conducted to find ‘successful’ sex education programs currently in use by Dr. Douglas Kirby. He has concluded that all eight programs he found successful were safe-sex programs. Ultimately, this teaching style seems more effective than telling them to refrain from such activity when according to a study by the Center for Disease Control, 47 percent of American teenagers are sexually active.
In President Bush’s 2006 Fiscal Year Budget, he proposed a near 33% increase in federal spending on abstinence-only education (Pope), resulting in nearly $170 million of added funding for the program. Those who believe in this method use the decline of teenage pregnancy, birth and abortion rates as a defining factor in the continuation of this teaching style. Research shows however increased abstinence among girls was a factor influencing only Ã?¼ of the drop in the teen pregnancy rate. However, they also report that the remaining factors within the decline align with the teens doing a better job of preventation themselves. This factor is most likely due to some safe sex lesson they were taught. While, both teachings seem to be effective; I believe that safe sex teachings should be implemented throughout all middle and high schools.
While, I do not agree with the basis for the teaching of abstinence, the curriculum itself is lacking other important components of the lessons. First of all, abstinence-based teachings do not talk about homosexuality, masturbation or abortion. The lessons also do not teach kids about condoms or birth control (Pope) either. These teachers tell the students that when they do become sexually active, they should immediately discuss their alternative options with a doctor. “When we talk to students, we tell them, ‘We’re not talking about morals, ethics or religion – we’re talking about your health,’ ” says Patricia J. Sulak, the obstetrician-gynecologist who created the “Worth the Wait” curriculum. While, the fact that religion isn’t being played in the curriculum, the fact that students aren’t being education on the bigger picture is the most disturbing aspect of the issue to me.
Many states have openly refused to conform to only abstinence-based teachings. For example in Maine, governor John Baldacci has declined $161,000 in funding from the U.S. government for abstinence-only sex education programs. His ultimate reasoning aligns with the idea that the money cannot be used to teach “safe sex.” The state has actively accepted funding through 2004. However, in 2005 the state did not even apply to receive aid. Maine Public Health Director Dora Anne Mills said that under newly restricted federal rules, the money has to be used for abstinence-only programs, which would prevent the state from providing “comprehensive reproductive information (Medical News Today).”
A good example of safe sex teachings occur within the Big Apple. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced in February 2004 that city schools were going to revise the city’s curriculum referring to the HIV/AIDS part directly. His administration also decided to begin teaching students before eighth grade. According to Roger Platt, director of the city’s Office of School Health, the city schools’ sex education curriculum has not been updated for 20 years and the AIDS curriculum has not been updated in 10 years (Medical News Today).
With middle schoolers, the new curriculum would focus on anatomy and the benefits of abstinence before marriage. However, safe sex lessons will be taught with the introduction of the condom and its use to prevent pregnancy and transmission of HIV and STDs. High school students will receive lessons based on sexual harassments and how to refuse sexual advances. The updated lessons involving HIV/AIDS would train teachers with a Health Teacher, a program which includes a sex education component.
According to one poll, 73.5% of parents approve or strongly approve of abstinence-centered sex education. 61.1% of parents disapprove or strongly disapprove of safe sex education. Ultimately while this poll probably reflects what parents want for their children – – more abstinence, less safe sex. The premise is that even parents remain divided on the issue. While this poll concludes that neither method is fitting in parents eyes; it is undecided what should be done to improve these parental beliefs. I believe sex should be fact-based teaching kids how things work, what diseases exist and here’s how to reduce your risk of being infected.
Public health advocates also warn that ignoring safe sex lessons may put more teens at risk of developing sexually transmitted diseases. One of every four people infected with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, are under the age of 20 according to a March 1996 report from the White House Office of National AIDS Policy (The Welfare Web). While, the risks involved with not having a safe-sex curriculum are apparent, many states still haven’t implemented this style of teaching.
Abstinence education and safer-sex training programs both reduce risky sexual behavior in teens at least temporarily, researchers found in a new federally funded study (Wetzstein). However, training in condom use did curb unprotected sex more effectively than abstinence education did. The study reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association had many believing that public health policy “should be empirically driven, not ideologically driven.”
I believe the implementation of safe sex education should be completed in all high schools. While sex is seemed as an adult act, the fact that teens are doing it at a younger age continuously, should have an immediate effect on its teachings. Ultimately, acknowledging that teenagers know what sex is and that nearly half of them are doing it, may be more respected by the students. If you talk to them as mature beings, they will more likely respond to the teachers that are put forth. Safe sex teachings remain the only sex education curriculum I see effective for the ultimate success of education with sex for teenagers.
