Abstinence Vs Sex Education

Abstinence vs Sex Education Teen pregnancy rates throughout the nation are very high, and many people are trying to figure out how to cut theses rates down. Teaching abstinence or sex education in school has been a major issue throughout the United States for years. Many high schools teach abstinence- only in an attempt to lower the teenage pregnancy rates throughout the country. Many people believe sex education is what needs to be taught in high schools so teenagers are not going in blind and wind up pregnant. “Studies show that sex education reduces the likeliness for teen pregnancy by 50 percent.” Are either of these programs the most effective ways to prevent teenage pregnancy and unsafe sex? The government is funding both types of educations
in high schools, trying to find the benefits from each view of teaching, and the impact of each education makes on high school students.
"Authentic abstinence programs are ... crucial to efforts aimed at reducing unwed childbearing and improving youth well-being" (Kim). This is the reasoning behind the abstinence only programs. Kim points out that studies have found that abstinence only programs are the best way for teenagers to abstain from pregnancy. The government funds these programs each year, so students know the dangers of having sex at young ages. Kim maintains that these programs not only provide the health risks but also the emotional and psychological risks. Many teenagers experience regret and depression after losing their virginities at young ages. These problems can be resolved by abstaining from sexual activity until their bodies are psychically and emotionally ready for the responsibility.
Millions of dollars are spent by the government on abstinence-only programs that have been found to be ineffective towards teens. “The Obama administration proposed budget for FY10 [Fiscal Year 2010] removed the streams of funding for abstinence-only programs, and created funding for programs which have been proven effective at reducing teen pregnancy, delaying sexual activity, or increasing contraceptive use” (Comprehensive). The government is now providing more than one option to high school students in sex education. Teenagers are not going to stop having sex because their teachers show them pictures of STDs. Teenagers need to be taught the dangers of sexual activity, and how to prevent these dangers. Many teenagers will turn to the internet for answers about sex, and who knows what they will find. Having both program types in public schools can teach teenagers why it is good to be abstinent, but for the ones who are already sexually active it can teach them how to stay healthy.
Abstinence-only programs have also been statically proven ineffective towards teenagers. “A major bombshell dropped two years earlier, however, when a systematic look at the federal abstinence-only effort concluded in 2007 that none of the programs it evaluated were effective in stopping or even delaying sex” (Boonstra). These programs do not give accurate information of human sexuality but also harm students emotionally.
“Using lessons that compare unmarried girls who have had sex to chewed-up pieces of gum or tainted glasses of water, abstinence-only education instills feelings of worthlessness and shame that can continue even after marriage.” (Boonstra).
These programs hurt girls more emotionally than having sexual relations before marriage actually does.
Because of these programs many girls feel as though sex makes them worthless to others if they are no longer virgins. The abstinence-only programs use scare tactics to prevent sexual activity in teen instead of teaching them how to be safe. Programs like this in the public school system should not be created to make students feel worthless. Suicide is already an epidemic among teenagers because they feel as though they are not good enough. How are abstinence-only programs with scare tactics and shaming going to help the students that already feel like they made a huge mistake in the first place? Sex education programs, however, not only teach how to have safe sex, but also the effects sex can have on you mentally and physically. These programs teach stedents “the importance of attaining self-sufficiency before engaging in sexual activity” (DeWitt) so students know that they have to know themselves and be confidence in themselves before taking such a big step at an early
age.
Castleman states that liberal sex education fares no better. Giving the students contraceptives and teaching them safe sex also did not delay intercourse, lower the teen pregnancies rate, nor rate of STDs spreading among teens. “As neuroscientists have shown—is that preteens and teenagers have not fully developed the ability to think ahead and assess any risk factors involved in such behaviors”(Kim). Sex education does not teach this scenario within its programs. Teenagers need to know that their bodies are not capable for handling the emotional toll of sexual activity. “Under normal conditions, the cognitive network can regulate the social/emotional network. However, when the social/emotional network is highly activated, they do not work together. The emotional network dominates the cognitive network. The result is that emotion, rather than reason, often influences teen decision making” (Abstinence). Their brains are not fully developed within the frontal lobe, so their emotions are more in control than their logical thinking. Rather than telling teenager that sexual relations is okay as long as they are being safe, they should be told about their bodies and why they are not ready yet. But Peter Dewitt defines sex education as "the process of acquiring information and forming attitudes and beliefs about sex, sexual identity, relationships and intimacy. Sex education is also about developing young people's skills so that they make informed choices about their behaviour, and feel confident and competent about acting on these choices." Many people see teenagers not ready for sex, that may be true, but that is not stopping them. Sex education at least teaches teenagers about sex and helps them to develop their own ideas rather than completely shaming students.
Castleman also stated that abstinence-only programs are highly popular within the south, but the south is where there are the highest teen pregnancies and STDs.
Also there has been fifteen year drop in teen pregnancies and STDs, but it is not because of contraceptive sex education. “Meanwhile, a large body of research reveals the real key to reducing teen sexual irresponsibility: parents' willingness to discuss their sexual values with their kids. If schools did away with sex education classes and instead sponsored seminars to help parents become better sex educators at home, it's clear that teen pregnancies and STDs would decline” (Castleman). Parents are able to encourage safe sex with their children and sexual responsibility. Teenagers are more likely to listen to their parents than their teachers about sexual activity. Castleman also explains that the fifteen year drop in teen pregnancy and STDs is not because of either sex education classes but because of the parents. It is clear that parents are the only one able to get through to their children not expensive sex education programs. Programs should be developed where both parents and teenagers can attend so parents know what is being told to their children and teenagers can discuss what they have learned with their parents. With programs like this the parents and teenager can decide what is best for them whether it is abstinence or the promotion of safe sex. DeWitt quotes the Advocates of Youth, “This basic human right
is also a core public health principle that receives strong endorsement from mainstream medical associations, public health and educational organizations, and - most important - parents."