It is an undeniable truth that young teens are having sex. Brainwashed by dishonest and sex-charged propaganda in the media, kids start believing at a young age that their futures as young adults must necessarily include promiscuous sexual behavior. Without even realizing it “the average kid today is immersed in sexual imagery” (Masland, MSNBC). In fact, CBS News released an article which found that youth exposed to high levels of media are more than twice as likely to engage in sexual intercourse (Lagorio).
Think about it; almost every popular song on any contemporary radio station has a provocative message. Practically every movie that is targeted for teens includes some allusion to (or explicitly shows) teens having sex. Magazines created for American youth carry graphic articles and advertisements that beguile the young reader into thinking that rampant and reckless sexual activity is merely the natural and expected behavior of people their age. And one musn’t underestimate the power of peer-pressure; think of the insanely cliché but still-relevant stereotype of high schoolers loosing their virginity on prom night. In light of the philosophies that our youth hold, sometimes the concept of refraining from sex is ruthlessly ridiculed in these settings.
Besides some religious organizations, there is virtually no institution anymore that promotes the idea of abstinence. And with this constant bombardment of sex (from the media, their peers and even their role models) what are kids to think in this world? How are they to even know that abstinence exists as an alternative option to sex?
For this reason, schools need to be the place where kids hear about abstinence. The programs that they endorse should be based on abstinence-only sexual education. While the governmental administration between 1998 and 2003 put a large quantity of federal dollars (250 million in fact) towards the Title V initiative which promoted abstinence (Advocates for Youth 1), the current Obama administration did not renew this grant in the 2010 budget (Kliff, Newsweek) and our nation’s children are at risk of losing this last, sex-free safe haven. For the good of our youth in a poisoned society, this cannot happen.
There is currently little congruence and conformity regarding nation-wide sexual education; it varies between school districts and states. While some kids sing songs about abstinence and talk about ways to date without having sex, other kids (myself included in this latter category when I was a tot) are handed a banana and a condom and are shown how to put it on. What these pubescent, hormonally-uncontrollable teens need is NOT the know-how and the necessary tools to go wild (one could say that’s like giving a drug addict a needle and then asking him or her not to use it), but rather a consistent emphasis on waiting for sex until they are actually physically, mentally and emotionally ready for it. And all schools should be promoting this uniform mentality; the fact that comprehensive programs out there are sending mixed signals to kids is what could potentially undermine the impact of abstinence-only education.
You may be thinking but most would agree that abstinence-only education is ineffective. This is not true; the undisputed fact remains that the most certain way to stop STDs from spreading and from teen pregnancy occurring is by abstaining entirely from sex. The Planned Parenthood Website states that “used continuously, abstinence is 100 percent effective in preventing pregnancy. It also prevents STDs.” Like I said earlier, the key to its success will be promoting it in a collective and organized way. But how is abstinence only education going to benefit those who are already sexually active? you say. It would be entirely wrong to presume that these students would not be positively affected; the article by Collins, Alagiri and Summers states that “some students choose abstinence after initiation of sexual activity with about one in four student who report having had sex also reporting current abstinence.” If anything, abstinence-only education can only benefit all young individuals.
Perhaps you are thinking but what about the facts; numbers and statistics show that thousands of teens out there get pregnant and contract STDs to which I say “Indeed, let’s look at the facts”…
According to the article “Abstinence Only Vs. Comprehensive Sex Education”, The U S. has the highest teen pregnancy and STD rates in the developed world (Chris Collins, Alagiri, Summers, 2); there are up to 850,000 teen pregnancies every year (Advocates for Youth: Effective Sex Education 1). Additionally, “the great majority of the 10,000 annual new HIV infections among people under 22 occurs through sexual activity” (Collins, Alagiri, Summers 1) and 3 million teens contract STDs each year (Rector 1).
These numbers, rather than hurt my argument, show exactly why abstinence is so important. “Abstinence education programs for youth have been proven to be effective in reducing early sexual activity…[and] provide the foundation for personal responsibility” (Rector 1). In this same article, the author brings up the point that besides just eliminating those astonishing statistics, abstinence also prevents youth from incurring severe emotional and mental injury, and simultaneously reduces their likelihood of engaging in other high-risk activities. The article also evaluates the success of such programs as Virginity Pledge Programs, Not Me, Not Now, Operation Keepsake, and Postponing Sexual Involvement. When schools offer these supportive resources, and encourage youth to seek alternative activities to sex, abstinence-only education is both beneficial and effective.
For those of you who still aren’t quite convinced, and that think that comprehensive sex-ed is a good idea, consider the ‘age of consent’ law (recall that this is a state’s legal age limit of when youth can engage in sexual activity). The youth below this age who are receiving comprehensive sex-ed are essentially being encouraged by the school to break the law. If sex is illegal at this point in their lives, why should they even be talking about it? Rather, abstinence only education is the only way to comply with this regulation.
Thus, it is for many reasons that schools should be using abstinence-only education programs; if not to provide youth with alternative options to intercourse in a sex-ridden society, to halt the STD epidemic and reduce teen pregnancies. After all, “True abstinence education programs help young people to develop an understanding of commitment, fidelity, and intimacy” (Rector 8 ) which will positively affect all aspects of their lives.
Collins, Alagiri, Summers. “Abstinence Only vs. Comprehensive Sex Education: What are the arguments? What is the evidence?” Progressive Health Partners, 2002.
“Effective Sex Education”. Advocates for Youth
Kliff, Sara. “The Future of Abstinence”. Newsweek Oct. 2009 < http://www.newsweek.com/id/219818/page/1>
Lagorio, Christine. “Media May Prompt Teen Sex.” CBSNews April 2006 <http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/03/health/webmd/main1464262.shtml>
Masland, Molly. “Carnal Knowledge: the sex ed debate.” MSNBC News 2009 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3071001/
Rector, Robert E. “The Effectiveness of Abstinence Education Programs in Reducing Sexual Activity Among Youth.” http://www. Heritage.org/Research/Ramily/BG1533.cfm
I wanted to address this particular paragraph of Karen’s debate:
“Besides some religious organizations, there is virtually no institution anymore that promotes the idea of abstinence. And with this constant bombardment of sex (from the media, their peers and even their role models) what are kids to think in this world? How are they to even know that abstinence exists as an alternative option to sex?”
I would like to disagree first with her argument that religious organizations are nearly the only institutions that promote the idea of abstinence. Karen later contradicts this very argument by discussing that “the governmental administration between 1998 and 2003 put a large quantity of federal dollars (250 million in fact) towards the Title V initiative which promoted abstinence (Advocates for Youth 1).” Many schools in America do in fact have abstinence-only education, because as Karen pointed out, there is no standardized “sex ed” in America. I would also argue that while the constant bombardment of teens with sex from the media is an issue when talking about abstinence, I would not go so far as to say that this would disallow teens from recognizing that abstinence exists as an alternative to sex.
In addition, I would like to point out that many comprehensive sexual education programs actually include an abstinence component, for example the sexual education course I took at Chaska High School. Also, in the article Effective Sex Education, it is stated that “evaluations of comprehensive sex education and HIV/STI prevention programs show that they do not increase rates of sexual initiation, do not lower the age at which youth initiate sex, and do not increase the frequency of sex or the number of sex partners among sexually active youth” and that “Between 1991 and 2004, the U.S. teen birth rate fell from 62 to 41 births per 1,000 female teens,” and that this drop was at least partially due to delayed initiation of sex and increased use of birth control.
Let’s face the facts folks, no matter what kind of sexual education program you give high school students, at least some portion of them are going to have sex. Wouldn’t you rather have them be informed and be able to engage in sexually healthy behavior and be able to prevent the spread of STD’s and HIV, rather than have no knowledge of what to do except what the media tells them? (Which, by the way, isn’t much beyond “sex is fun and cool”).
I love the idea of abstinence-only education, I really do, but realistically it does not work. Karen tried to fight for abstinence only education, but there were a few key gaps in her argument.
1) Karen asks “How are (kids) to even know that abstinence exists as an alternative option to sex?” and arrives at the conclusion because we live in such a sexually saturated world, “schools need to be the place where kids hear about abstinence”. I agree that abstinence should be part of the message schools send, but to trade that in for abstinence-only education seems to be a huge leap that does not logically follow. While it is true that abstinence is 100% effective at stopping pregnancy and STDs, just because you teach abstinence does not mean that kids will follow the doctrine. You are only teaching one side of the story with abstinence only education. How would you like it if the teachers skipped over some of the misgivings in American history such as slavery, Japanese interment camps, nuclear weapon use? By leaving out the other half of the story you are not giving kids the knowledge they need to succeed after graduation.
2) Karen did a great job of anticipating arguments against abstinence only education, yet I found that when she addressed how abstinence only education would benefit those kids already having sex, that her argument that abstinence-only education could help them become abstinent from here on out. But this makes the assumption that they want to be abstinent. What about those teens who embrace their sexuality? Once they turn 18 they can legally have sex with another consenting adult, what happens then? Are you going to tell them they are wrong to have sex?
3) In Rector’s article he repeatedly makes reference to “early sexual activity”. What does that mean? Does that mean before marriage? before consenting age? While it is great that “Abstinence education programs for youth have been proven to be effective in reducing early sexual activity” (Rector 1) – but what happens after they move past the arbitrarily set “early” time of adolescence?
4) Lastly, the concept of teachers encouraging kids to break the law through providing them with the knowledge to have safe, conceptual, yet pre “of age” sex, was intriguing but we can use DARE as a counterexample. At my school we had a program called DARE which promoted “say no to drugs” policy. Yet, in DARE they did not just tell us say no if any one offers you anything from this list “alcohol, cigarettes, pot, heroin…” they informed us about what they drugs were, how they worked and what they did to the body. This program did not enable people to do drugs, they simply provided them with the tools to know what the drugs were and how to say no. In the same way, sex ed should teach kids all the basics of sex and equip them with the ability to say ‘no’.
Finally, public education is funded by the people and thus should represent the needs and desires of both the kids and the parents. The kids need to know the facts about sex, not be read a sermon about abstinence. Furthermore, according to Planned Parenthood “81% of Americans and 75% of parents want their children to receive a variety of information on subjects including contraception and condom use, sexually transmitted infection, sexual orientation, safer sex practices, abortion, communications and coping skills, and the emotional aspects of sexual relationships.” Therefore abstinence-only education does not represent the will of the parents or society nor the needs of the kids. How is this justified in a democracy?
In response to Karen’s statement about insisting that children wait to have sex until they are emotionally and psychologically ready to have sex, how are these children supposed to have sex “safely” if they have no education about birth control, condoms, and other means of contraception. On page four of The Planned Parenthood Fact Sheet stated that “It is known, however, that when they do become sexually active, teens who have received abstinence-only education often fail to use condoms or other contraceptives.” I understand that kids could go to their parents if they were having questions about safe sex, but who actually talks to their parents about sex? I know my parents never talked to me about it, I just understood that their take on sex was that I should remain abstinent until I was out of high school and in a serious relationship. I agree that students should be receiving their sex education in school because I know from my personal experience, that I would not have received this education anywhere else.
On another note, I would have to say that I agree with Kaitlyn’s point when she cites the DARE program. My school also participated in this program in order to prevent us from trying drugs. Obviously being 10-11 years old we are not old enough to legally buy alcohol or tobacco but it is also well known that this is the age where kids are very exposed to peer pressure from older kids who have already been exposed to these drugs. What is the difference when it comes to sex? I don’t think I would like my child to be having sex while in high school, but if he/she chooses to participate in sexual activity, I hope that he/she did so safely.
It is clear that the surest way to prevent pregnancy and STD infection is to abstain from sex, but for those who do participate in sex they need to know about the STDs out there, the damage that can result from being infected with one, and how to prevent contracting an STD. It’s obvious that our curriculum is lacking somewhere when the Abstinence Only vs. Comprehensive Sex Education stated that 21% of students who received the abstinent only education believed that birth control (not condoms) was effective in preventing HIV. I have no objection to stressing abstinence in our education program, but the fact remains that people need to know about STDs and how to protect themselves should they decide to have sex.
Karen’s argument is one that many people have debated in the past. She does a nice job laying out a solid argument backed up with fact. However I would argue that the facts do not actually back up her claims. Take for instance:
“You may be thinking but most would agree that abstinence-only education is ineffective. This is not true; the undisputed fact remains that the most certain way to stop STDs from spreading and from teen pregnancy occurring is by abstaining entirely from sex. The Planned Parenthood Website states that “used continuously, abstinence is 100 percent effective in preventing pregnancy. It also prevents STDs.” Like I said earlier, the key to its success will be promoting it in a collective and organized way.”
All of these facts are true. It is true that to stop from getting pregnant the most certain way is to abstain; however this fact has nothing to do with the effectiveness of abstinence-only education. In fact, according to Debra Hauser in Five Years of Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Education: Assessing the Impact, “[abstinence-only programs] show some negative impacts on youth’s willingness to use contraception, including condoms, to prevent negative sexual health outcomes related to sexual intercourse.” Karen’s facts rarely back up her claims.
Secondly, in our sexually charged pop culture, how is feasible to convince teens to not engage in something that the media tries so hard to sell? Abstinence-only education only tells students that they cannot engage in this really fun activity they see everywhere. What is the point of even telling them? It is like a mother telling a child that there is a really fun but dangerous amusement park, but he cannot go there. Now the park is fun and it is mysterious. There is a danger factor. What child would not desire to go there? Wouldn’t it have been better for the mother not to mention the park at all? The more it is talked about, the more it is at the forefront of their minds.
A main assumption that Karen makes throughout her argument is that people prefer to not talk about or include sex, because it is capable of having harmful effects on teens. She talks about no longer having abstinence-only sexual education and “our nation’s children are at risk of losing this last, sex-free haven. For the good our youth in a poisoned society, this cannot happen.” This assumes that the best response to the media’s constant bombardment of sex is not recognizing and analyzing, with an adult, the false statements in the bombardment; her sentence assumes that sexual education classes should be sex-free. However, how effective would sexual education be when it is “sex-free,” as Karen suggests it happens in abstinence-only sex education classes? A good indication is the current effectiveness of abstinence-only sex education.
Karen says, “Abstinence-only education is both beneficial and effective,” but she fails to define what she means by beneficial and effective. In addition, Karen does not acknowledge that some abstinence-only programs contain misleading or inaccurate scientific information. The Waxman report “found that the curricula used by more than two-thirds of government-funded abstinence-only programs contain misleading or inaccurate information about abortion, contraception, genetics, and sexually transmitted infections” (Abstinence-Only Sex Education 3). How beneficial can sexual education be when some of the curricula used are not scientifically accurate?
While Karen cites Rector as saying abstinence-only education “prevents youth from in incurring severe emotional and mental injury, and simultaneously reduces their likelihood of engaging in other high-risk activities,” evidence shows that abstinence-only education doesn’t have quite that effect on youth. According to “Abstinence-Only Sex Education,” “there is little evidence that teens who participate in abstinence-only programs abstain from intercourse longer than others” (3). If youth are not abstaining from intercourse longer than people without abstinence-only education, then how does the abstinence-only sexual education prevent them from injury?
In addition, “Abstinence Only vs. Comprehensive Sex Education” also states, “The abstinence-only approach to sex education is not supported by the extensive body of scientific research on what works to protect young people from HIV/AIDS, sexually transmitted infections (STIs), and unplanned pregnancy” (ii). Even if one agrees that teenagers engaging in sex can have detrimental effects, then wouldn’t it be better for them to talk about their experiences instead of ignorantly suppressing their feelings or finding other resources, like probably equally uninformed peers, to talk about their sexual experiences?
Planned Parenthood, “Abstinence-Only Sex Education”
Collins, Alagiri, Summers. “Abstinence Only vs. Comprehensive Sex Education: What are the arguments? What is the evidence?” Progressive Health Partners, 2002.
Rector, Robert E. “The Effectiveness of Abstinence Education Programs in Reducing Sexual Activity Among Youth.” http://www.Heritage.org/Research/Ramily/BG1533.cfm
Karen makes a bold and very serious argument for many people. After hearing her talk in class, Karen’s argument kind of made me giggle. However it was not because it was a bad argument. Most parents would agree that abstinence is the best option for their kids, but I don’t think that many of them support abstinence-ONLY in schools, as Karen argued. In fact, Planned Parenthood pointed out that, “81% of Americans and 75% of parents want their children to receive a variety of information on subjects including contraception and condom use, sexually transmitted infection, sexual orientation, safer sex practices, abortion, communications and coping skills, and the emotional aspects of sexual relationships.” This is a hard fact to beat. I think that the majority of parents are too afraid to talk to their kids about anything besides abstinence. Perhaps that is because that is how they themselves were raised. I was raised not even mentioning sex at all. We just never talked about it. Of course I assumed that they didn’t want me to engage in any sexual activities, but I guess you know what they say when you assume. Either way, I agree that abstinence needs to be promoted somewhere (as it is in most schools) because it is the most effective way to prevent pregnancy and the spread of STI’s.
An extremely provocative point that Karen made was, “What these pubescent, hormonally-uncontrollable teens need is NOT the know-how and the necessary tools to go wild (one could say that’s like giving a drug addict a needle and then asking him or her not to use it), but rather a consistent emphasis on waiting for sex until they are actually physically, mentally and emotionally ready for it.” I would like to take her argument a little further. Let’s say a teen has been abstinent their whole life, and now they are 17 and feel that they are “mentally and emotionally ready for” sex. Where are they supposed to go for their questions on how to put a condom on? Who’s going to tell them their options for birth control and how they work? The Planned Parenthood Fact Sheet states that “It is known, however, that when they do become sexually active, teens who have received abstinence-only education often fail to use condoms or other contraceptives.” Karen asks in her argument, “If sex is illegal at this point in their lives, why should they even be talking about it?” I would like Karen to tell me what happens after a person has been abstinent but would like to be sexually active when they are ready for it.
Since virtually all of the commenters are taking the stand against abstinence-only sex education, I would like to break the ice and argue alongside Karen. In Kaitlyn’s comment she discussed the DARE program and stated that this program “informed [students] about what they drugs were, how they worked and what they did to the body. This program did not enable people to do drugs, they simply provided them with the tools to know what the drugs were and how to say no. In the same way, sex ed should teach kids all the basics of sex and equip them with the ability to say ‘no’.” I would like to argue, however, that this is not a logical comparison.
The DARE program teaches kids about drugs, the effects of drugs, and how not to use drugs. Sex education programs take this education process one step further, however. They do not simply teach kids what sex is, the effects and consequences of sex, or how to say ‘no’ to having sex, they teach kids ways to engage in sex. For instance, sex education guidelines developed by the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SEICUS) include “informing youths aged 16 through 18 that sexual activity can include bathing or showering together as well as oral, vaginal, or anal intercourse, and that they can use erotic photographs, movies, or literature to enhance their sexual fantasies when alone or with a partner” (Rector 2002). I would say this is more than simply teaching kids “all the basics of sex”, as Kaitlyn puts it.
I would also like to help defend Karen’s argument for the effectiveness of abstinence-only sex education. An Arkansas program called “Abstinence by Choice” reduced the sexual activity rates of girls in 7th-9th grade by nearly 40% and reduced the sexual activity rates of girls in 7th-9th grade by nearly 30% in comparison with a control group. Another abstinence-only sex education program called “Sex Respect” in Utah was shown to be effective as well. In a sample size of 7,000 it was shown that the rate of initiation of sexual activity among at-risk students decreased by 25% when compared with a control group. In order to more precisely control the effect of initial differences between the two groups, statistical adjustments were employed, thus increasing the accuracy of the results (Rector 2002).
We cannot ignore the variety of effective abstinence-only sex education programs simply because we personally support comprehensive sex education. We must actively search for supportive data from both sides to be truly informed about the effectiveness of different sex education programs.
Rector, R. 2002. The effectiveness of abstinence education programs in reducing sexual activity among youth. http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/BG1533.cfm
Abstinence education is only one part of a sexual education program. As you admit, there are many pressures on teens to engage in sexual activity from various media outlets and peer pressure. This is not going to change if a abstinence only sexual education is put into place. In fact, an abstinence only sexual education program would increase teen pregnancies and STD transmission rates. The forces of the media and peer pressures are not going to change overnight and with a abstinence only sexual education program teens will not be properly equipped with the knowledge to have safe sex. Abstinence only education would work in an ideal world where teens do what they are told by teachers and parents. This simply is not the world that we live in. For example, in drivers education students are told to drive with the radio low and make sure that the car is free of distractions. However, these are not the conditions under which most high school students drive. I think we should be realistic and teach drivers education programs that educate teen drivers on how to avoid distractions and drive with distractions.
Karen cites statistics about the transmission rates of STDs and the number of unwanted pregnancies. However, these numbers do nothing to prove that abstinence only education will work. Yes, the statistics do prove that America has a problem with STDs, unwanted pregnancies, and sexual education programs. These numbers do not, however, prove that abstinence only sexual education will lead to a dramatic decrease in STDs or unwanted pregnancies.
“True abstinence education programs help young people to develop an understanding of commitment, fidelity, and intimacy” (Rector 8). This quotation, however, does highlight the greatest benefit of teaching abstinence in sexual education. For those who are persuaded to choose abstinence as a means of contraception and STD prevention will benefit from the presentation of this method. However, we cannot assume that if abstinence only sexual education is enacted that all teens will buy into this program. For this reason I think abstinence should be presented in sexual education but not alone.