Abstinence-only: The Wrong Way, Research Paper Example

Abstract

Sex education in the United States is neither federally mandated nor regulated for public schools.  Each state creates or outlaws sex education in their schools.  When required by the state, the majority of sex education is abstinence-only in which the only form of birth control taught is abstinence.  This approach is not effective at reducing risky sexual behavior in adolescents and often increases risky behavior.  This behavior places a burden on society due to increased teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease rates.  The federal government must mandate sex education courses that address all facets of human sexuality if sex education is to have a positive effect on the United States’ youth.

Abstinence-only: The Wrong Way

In United States schools, sex education is not mandatory.  The federal government allows each state to make its own laws regarding sex education.  Some states make sex education courses mandatory, some states do not require any sex education, and some states require schools to teach only about sexually-transmitted diseases but not sex itself (Brigid).  The disparity between all the laws enacted by the different states results in a population of young adults that vary vastly in their knowledge of human sexuality.  To further complicate the matter, some states whose laws require schools to teach sex education do not require education on birth control.  These states allow schools to teach that the only form of safe sexual conduct is abstinence.  This policy is motivated by ethics specifically tied to religion and promoted by politically active groups that often represent a minority of the public.  To eliminate disparity, the federal government needs to mandate, for all public education students, courses in sex education that cover all matters related to human sexuality while also prohibiting the teaching of abstinence-only birth control.

Those people opposing sex education in public schools or promoting abstinence-only sex education frequently cite the argument that teaching sexuality in schools encourages students to have sex.  Their reasoning is that what the students do not know they will not be able to do, a dubious conclusion.  Research into the subject does not support this argument.  In a meta-analysis of 54 studies on the impacts of sex education courses on adolescents, Kirby (2007) found that “comprehensive [sex education] programs that encouraged both abstinence and condom/contraceptive use consistently did not increase sexual behavior, but about two thirds of them had a positive impact on delaying sex, reducing the frequency of sex or number of partners, or increasing condom or contraceptive use.”  Sex education that focuses on all the aspects of human sexuality, including multiple forms of birth control has the effect of reducing sexual activity in students.  This result is the opposite of what those opposing sex education assume and is based on an analysis of multiple studies, which lends the article validity.  Additionally, Kirby (2007) discovered that “sex . . . education programs that focused only on abstinence consistently failed to have any significant effect on sexual behavior.”  So, those programs promoting abstinence-only did not affect sexual behavior while those embracing a comprehensive curriculum actually reduced sexual behaviors.

Another argument endorsed by many opponents of comprehensive sex education is that parents, and not schools, should teach their children about sex.  Proponents of this argument believe that, when a parent teaches a child about sex, it has the effect of reducing sexual behaviors.  If a school teaches the child about sex, they believe that it increases sexual behaviors of students.  According to research, the converse is true.  In a study of 157 ninth through twelfth grade Midwestern students, Somers and Gleason (2001) found that “a combination of less education from school and more education from non-sibling family regarding sexual intercourse was predictive of more frequent sexual behavior.  Similarly, more education about birth control from relatives was predictive of more frequent sexual behaviors.”  The study suggests that sex education in schools reduces sexual behavior.  A parent, though wishing to do the best for his child by teaching the child about sex, has a greater risk of pushing the child into sexual behavior.  The objective nature of schools allows them to impart information without influencing the behavior of the students.

Having the knowledge that absence of sex education or inclusion of abstinence-only sex education does not lead to a decrease in sexual behaviors of students, the benefits of a comprehensive sex education course’s reduction in sexual behaviors addresses many issues that plague U.S. society.  One reason that the government should make comprehensive sex education mandatory is due to the teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease (STD) rates in the United States.  Currently, according to Stanger-Hall and Hall (2011), “the United States ranks first among developed nations in rates of both teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.”  Since the federal government does not require mandatory sex education, the current model of denying students sex education or abstinence-only sex education is not reducing the rates of pregnancy or infection.  Given that most developed countries have sex education requirements, it can be deduced that the U.S. model is ineffective.  Stanger-Hall and Hall (2011) also noted “that abstinence-only education as a state policy is ineffective in preventing teenage pregnancy and may actually be contributing to the high teenage pregnancy rates in the U.S.”  The data from the study suggest that since the U.S. government began funding abstinence-only sex education the teen pregnancy rate has only risen.  While there is no way to causally link the pregnancy rate to the predominance of abstinence-only sex education, the two seem to be correlated.  A reduction in teen pregnancy rates is beneficial for economic and social reasons.  Teen pregnancy is often a difficult pregnancy with a high risk for birth defects and other disorders.  Similarly, a reduction in STD levels results in fewer deaths due to the diseases as well as increased quality of life for young people.  As Dryfoos (1985) asserts, the only way to reduce and mitigate the risks of teen pregnancy is through comprehensive sex education.

Another reason for a government mandated comprehensive sex education course is that the period in which students are in school coincides with the period of life when risky sexual behaviors are at their highest.  According to the CDC (2009), it is clear that adolescence is a high-risk period for sexual risk-taking behaviors, such as early sexual activity (i.e., first sex at age 14 years or younger), unprotected sexual activity, and sexual activity with multiple and/or high-risk partners.  Without any type of sexual education during this period of life, these adolescents are likely to make decisions that will have an effect on their whole life.  Because of their limited brain development, adolescents are not able to fully understand the consequences of their decisions.  As Hall, Holmqvist, and Sherry (2004) note, “first and foremost, many adolescents, as well as young adults, have difficulty predicting the consequences of their actions and, therefore, frequently underestimate their risk for adverse consequences.”  Without proper education in human sexuality, these adolescents will likely continue to make bad decisions.

Given all these problems and the inadequacy of abstinence-only sex education in reducing sexual behaviors, a comprehensive sex education program must incorporate research-based methods in order to achieve success in reducing risky sexual behaviors among adolescents.  Fantasia (2008) identifies one of the most important components of a sex education program.  The program must teach adolescents to make proper decisions regarding sexual behavior.  Fantasia proposes a concept analysis approach, which advocates identifying the major concepts of a situation and then dealing with each concept independently.  Thus, sexuality can be divided into concepts such as desire for intimacy, fear of pregnancy, etc.  This approach results in adolescents making better decision regarding their sexual behavior.  This type of decision-making can only occur in a comprehensive sex education program.  In an abstinence-only program, the decision is reduced to only one concept, avoiding sex.  This approach does not teach students how to make appropriate decisions regarding sex.

Comprehensive sex education must teach more than just decision-making.  To be effective at reducing teen pregnancy, delaying initiation of first sexual encounter, encouraging condom use, and reducing the number of sexual partners, the course must “include clear health goals, focus on specific behaviors, creating a safe social environment, and employing multiple activities tailored to the culture, age, and experiences of the group” (Walcott, Chenneville, & Tarquini; 2011).  From the research, it is clear that sex education must address all aspects of human sexuality.  It must focus on specific behaviors.  One of those behaviors is the sex act.  To promote abstinence-only education is to ignore the sexual behaviors of adolescents.  It is akin to the ostrich with its head in the sand.

Lastly, comprehensive sex education must address all the aspects of human sexuality.  Too often, sex education just attempts to scare adolescents with fears of pregnancy and disease.  This approach denies all the social, physical, and emotional implications of sexual behavior.  If students are only taught to fear health consequences of the sex act, they are ill-prepared to deal with the rejection, isolation, and shunning that can follow risky sexual behavior.  As Gilbert (2010) asserts, sex education, even so-called comprehensive sex education, often does not address all the facets of human sexuality.  Students in U.S. schools deserve to understand human sexuality as well as they understand U.S. history, reproduction of cells, and other varied topics.

On a last note, the majority of parents favor comprehensive sex education in a school setting.  The promotion of abstinence-only sex education and the crusades against education have been largely the work of conservative, politically active minority groups.  As Jordan, Price, and Fitzgerald (2000) discovered in a study of the beliefs of 374 parents of school-aged children, “most parents (80%) believed that the majority of sexuality education should be provided by the family and supplemented by outside organizations, preferably schools. Almost all parents (92%) believed sexuality education should include information on birth control methods including condoms. Almost two of three parents (64%) believed schools should begin teaching sexuality education before students reach seventh grade.”  This evidence is compelling proof that parents approve of comprehensive sex education in schools and that the federal government should mandate it without bowing to political groups.

References

Brigid, M. (n.d.). State sex education laws. Retrieved from http://www.teen-aid.org/State_Resourses/State_Sex_Education_Laws.htm

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2009, July). Sexual and reproductive health of persons aged 10–24 years -United States, 2002–2007. MMWR Surveillance Summaries, 58(SS06), 1 – 58. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/std/publications/default.htm

Dryfoos, J. G. (1985). A time for new thinking about teenage pregnancy. American Journal of Public Health, 75(1), 13-14.

Fantasia, H. C. (2008). Concept analysis: Sexual decision-making in adolescence. Nursing Forum, 43(2), 80-90. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6198.2008.00099.x

Gilbert, J. (2010). Ambivalence only? Sex education in the age of abstinence. Sex Education, 10(3), 233-237. doi:10.1080/14681811.2010.491631

Hall, P. A., Holmqvist, M., & Sherry, S. B. (2004). Risky adolescent sexual behavior: A psychological perspective for primary care clinicians.  Topics in Advanced Practice Nursing eJournal, 4(1).

Jordan, T. R., Price, J. H., & Fitzgerald, S. (2000). Rural parents’ communication with their teen-agers about sexual issues. Journal of School Health, 70(8), 338.

Kirby, D. (2007). Abstinence, sex, and STD/HIV education programs for teens: Their mpact on sexual behavior, pregnancy, and sexually transmitted disease. Annual Review Of Sex Research, 18 143-177.

Somers, C. L., & Gleason, J. H. (2001). Does source of sex education predict adolescents’ sexual knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors?. Education, 121(4), 674.

Stanger-Hall, K. F., & Hall, D. W. (2011). Abstinence-Only education and teen pregnancy rates: Why we need comprehensive sex education in the U.S. Plos ONE, 6(10), 1-11. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0024658

Walcott, C. M., Chenneville, T., & Tarquini, S. (2011). Relationship between recall of sex education and college students’ sexual attitudes and behavior. Psychology in the Schools, 48(8), 828-842. doi:10.1002/pits.20592