Bumping uglies, hiding the pickle, and rolling in the hay are all charming euphemisms for one of the world’s most debatable topics, sex. It is an activity found in every culture around the world, but is treated like a taboo that only creeps in basements participate in. It is no surprise that with such conflicting outside influences, such as sex crazed pop culture or sex repelled religious forces, that we have had such a difficult time putting together a beneficial sex education program. The way this problem has been handled so far is by handing the reigns over to Abstinence Only education. Abstinence is typically defined as the act of restraining yourself from indulging, and while choosing abstinence is a healthy lifestyle option many people live by, the health and safety risks that come by electing not to teach medically accurate sex education are extreme. The better choice lies with Comprehensive sex education. Comprehensive education allows access to basic human rights, lowers health risks, and is proven to be effective when looking at other countries.
One of the many things that makes American sex education such a hot topic, besides the subject matter itself, is it's arguable infringement on human rights from both perspectives. Most people who side with comprehensive sex education see it as a violation of rights by keeping potentially life saving information from young Americans. In court there is no way to present only half of the evidence and expect the jury to make an undiluted decision, yet we do this repeatedly by withholding information about basic human health and safety matters. With only 23 states requiring sex education and only 10 of those states requiring it to be medically accurate teenagers can not be expected to make the right choices for their bodies (Guttmacher 1). This is clearly evident when one in four sexually active teenagers in the United States will contract an STD/I (Mulrine 2). Comprehensive programs have proven to encourage and help adolescents to understand the uses and benefits of birth control, have less partners, and delay their first sexual experience altogether (Kantor 6). The argument can be made that knowledge of sexual health means power, not pregnancy.
Those who believe in abstinence only education see diversifying sex education as a completely different transgression in regards to human rights. They see comprehensive education as an attempt to bypass the views and morals of parents and guardians, or as a method to spread some sort of liberal agenda to impressionable youths. Programs designed to send the “abstinence only” message are presented with the intent of being educational programs that have the sole purpose of teaching abstaining from sexual activity is the key to gaining socially, psychologically, and health wise (Kantor 1). Though the overall viewpoint of the nation has been changing since the “sexual revolution” of the 1960s, there are still groups that view marriage as the only allowable stage for sex. It is the view of these people, that any sexual relations outside of marriage are an offense to the “sanctity of marriage” (Kantor 2). Allowing sex education that focuses on sexual health and personal well being, rather than strictly teaching abstinence, as the only option is believed to be a way of promoting and encouraging young people to throw away all inhabitations and engage in premarital sexual activity (Sullivan 1). This mindset is just simply outdated.
We cannot let the fear of slightly upsetting a small population get in the way of life saving information. It seems ironic that a country that so heavily prides itself by its use of majority rules democracy would ignore the 81% of parents who want and encourage schools teaching their children about condoms and other forms of contraception (Mulrine 6). Abstinence only education also tends to completely disregard any issue of sexual assault and make statements and accusations without any consideration to survivors of assault that may be listening. Statistics show that 1 in every 5 teens admit to a romantic relationship that involves abuse. Young girls that have experienced abuse in a romantic relationship are likely to lose their virginity before their peers. Both parties involved in an abusive relationship are less likely to use protection and more likely to partake in dangerous and reckless behavior (Kantor 5). This evident risk of mental, and physical safety seem to be a clear enough reason on its own for change.
Children are taught from a young age to avoid, and apply certain practices to keep themselves from getting sick or injured. You would not withhold this information because the idea of illness, or physical harm may be scary to this child. You do what you can to better inform them for the future and help them to avoid unnecessary risks. When uneducated about protective measures sex comes with potential health threats. These major health risks at stake are clearly evident when 42 out of 1000 teens in the United States will give birth between the ages of 15 and 19 (Sullivan 2). When twenty four percent of teens considering anal sex, and fifty percent viewing oral sex to be abstinent behavior the miscommunication is unavoidable (Mulrine 4). Most programs in use today are still only allowed to talk about failure rates of contraception without ever teaching about their proper uses or benefits (Mulrine 5). By the time of their first sexual experience only sixty two percent of females and fifty four percent of males had received any information about birth control (Kantor 6). Every year half of the country's nineteen million new cases of STIs are contracted by people between the ages of fifteen and twenty four (Comprehensive 2). That means every year lives are being damaged, ended, and altered in ways that could have easily been preventable.
To some these health risks seem to be a necessary evil to prevent any potential encouragement of sexual promiscuity. As stated by Oklahoma Republican Representative Ernest Istook, "Too often the government has failed to stand up for values held by most Americans." (Mulrine 2). This would be true if the values being referred to were one of wanting safe, healthy young adults. The government's involvement with abstinence only education has been one of major support. In 1996, four hundred and forty million dollars was budgeted by the Welfare Reform Act to be spent over five years for abstinence only education (Mulrine 5). Coleen Kelly Mast’s novel Sex Respect is written solely to teach students that abstinence is the only answer in regards to sexual activity, and is required in 1600 school districts across the nation. Mast’s book gives the point that AIDS is nature’s way of making a statement on sexual behavior (Kaplan 1). Which asides from being extremely medically inaccurate, is just an awful way to teach children about a terminal disease that affects millions of people across the globe. Just a few months ago in July of 2015, the U.S. House of Representatives put in place a restriction on funding for any "normalization of sexual activity as an expected behavior" being taught in sex education programs (Hauser 1). This is equivalent to the government banning the teaching of gun safety, because it would encourage civilians to start going on frequent shooting sprees.
The idea that an accurate sex education will turn teenagers into orgy frequenting, coitus crazed individuals is puritanical and blatantly wrong. Statistics show that the age at which students begin taking more risks peaks at 15-19 years of age. Comprehensive sex education has shown to delay sexual initiation and number of sexual partners both by forty percent. It has also proven to help reduce the amount of unprotected sex by sixty percent (Comprehensive 1). These regulations driven mainly by political gain dehumanized the population of our country by putting votes in front of lives (Kantor 2). As of January 2016 out of 50 states in the United States, merely 22 of them regulate sex ed. Out of those 22; only 13 states require the information being taught to students be medically accurate (Guttmacher 4). Abstinence only is very clearly having a negative effect on the whole country, whereas comprehensive would do the opposite and has for most developed countries.
“Sex is… perfectly natural. It’s something that’s pleasurable. It’s enjoyable and it enhances a relationship. So why don’t we learn as much as we can about it and become comfortable with ourselves as sexual human beings because we are all sexual?” (Sue Johanson). This best sums up the philosophies commonly found behind Comprehensive Sex Education programs in most developed Western countries. When compared to the Netherlands, Sweden, and France in regards to sexual health and safety we are decades behind, and millions of cases of STDs ahead. Teen pregnancy rates (all countries being compared are referring to ages 15-19) in the US currently stand at 54.4 per 1000, 8.2 per 1000 in the Netherlands, 7 per 1000 in Sweden, and 22 per 1000 in France (Lottes 2). As a country the United States is suffering from our own stubbornness.
It is very clear that no two countries have the same background or people, and this extends to the acceptance of sexuality. The United States cannot simply pick up another country’s Comprehensive program, slap a “Made in the USA” sticker on it, and call it a day. The United States is far more diverse and larger than most modern countries. This means there is no way to create a single Comprehensive program for the whole country to adopt (Labauve 3). Creating a unique program that is tailored to one state’s particular needs will take money, manpower, and oversight (Mabray 2). Why waste the energy and resources for this?
When the United States finally has an effective Sex Education system in place it will immediately start to see a difference. Trying to teach ineffective Abstinence Only will no longer waste money. Country wide sexual health will bring in sexually healthy generation, and actually save the taxpayers money. Millions of dollars will be saved when the need for STD/I treatment, and support for young moms goes down (Hauser 2). There are already groups, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, that are at work to remove materials containing under researched information about sexual health from schools (Kaplan 1). The stage is set for a third sexual revolution, but this time focused on educating the country.
A well-designed comprehensive sex education programs being implemented across the country can only serve to help improve the lives and well being of all Americans.
Sources
Darroch, J., Singh, S., & Frost, J. (2001). Differences in teenage pregnancy rates among five developed countries: The role of sexual activity and contraceptive use. Family Planning Perspectives, 33(6), 281-250.
Hauser, Debra. "What Teens Have to Know About Sex." CNN Wire Service. 31 Aug. 2015: n.p. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 21 Jan. 2016.
Kantor, Leslie M. "Abstinence-Only Education Violating Students' Rights To Health Information." Human Rights 35.3 (2008): 1. TOPICsearch. Web. 5 Jan. 2016.
Knijn, T. "A Comparison of English and Dutch Sex Education in the Classroom." ResearchGate. Utrecht University, Jan. 2001. Web. 14 Apr. 2016.
Labauve, B. J., & Mabray, D. (2002). A multidimensional approach to sexual education. Sex Education, 2(1), 31.
Lottes, L. L. (2002). Sexual health policies in other industrialized countries: Are there lessons for the united states? Journal of Sex Research, 39(1), 79-83.
Melker, Sasika De. "The Case for Starting Sex Education in Kindergarten." PBS. PBS, 27 May 2015. Web. 19 Apr. 2016.
McConaghy, M. J. (1979). Sex-role contravention and sex education directed toward young children in Sweden. Journal of Marriage & Family, 41(4), 893.
Mulrine, Anna. "RISKY BUSINESS. (Cover Story)." U.S. News & World Report 132.18 (2002): 42. MAS Ultra - School Edition. Web. 5 Jan. 2016.
Singh, S., & Darroch, J. E. (1999). Adolescent pregnancy and childbearing: Levels and trends in developed countries. Family Planning Perspectives, 32(1)
Sullivan, Amy. "How To End The War Over Sex Ed." Time 173.12 (2009): 40. TOPICsearch. Web. 5 Jan. 2016.
Weaver, H., Smith, G., & Kippax, S. (2005). School-based sex education policies and indicators of sexual health among young people: A comparison of the netherlands, france, australia and the united states. Sex Education, 5(2), 171-188.
