Personal tools
 
Views

Debate: Abstinence-only vs. comprehensive sex education

From Debatepedia

Jump to: navigation, search
[Digg]
[reddit]
[Delicious]
[Facebook]

Is abstinence-only education or comprehensive sex education a better idea?

Background and context

The debate between "comprehensive sex education" (also just called "sex education") and "abstinence-only education" is long-standing in the United States, and exists in many other societies around the world that are split between more sexually progressive groups and generally those that oppose pre-marital sex.
Comprehensive sex programs teach teenagers, mostly in high school, a range of information related to their own sexual anatomy, the act of sex, the use of contraceptives, and the risks of pregnancy and STDs associated with having sex.
Abstinence-only programs, conversely, are much more conservative and limited in scope, teaching abstinence from sex, usually until marriage, as a means of avoiding the risk of pregnancy and STDs and of enjoying other considered benefits such as a more unique sexual bond with one's ultimate partner.

Many questions frame this debate: Is abstinence a good message? Is teen sex and pre-marital sex wrong? Or, is teen sexuality and possibly sex natural and acceptable? If the goal is to reduce sex rates among teens, does abstinence-only succeed? And, what about comprehensive sex education? If the goal is to reduce the spread of STDs among teens, is one approach better than the other? And, what about for the goal of reducing teen pregnancy? Are condoms effective at lowering these risks, and are comprehensive sex education programs doing a good job of promoting them? Is comprehensive sex education the job of schools, or should this role be reserved for parents? What about for kids that do not have parents, or whose parents are not responsible care-givers?

As is evidenced by these questions, one of the unique elements of this debate is how it brings together so many fields of study, including sexual culture, marital culture, faith, human instincts, pregnancy, disease, parental-school-state roles, and many other issues.

See Wikipedia's articles on comprehensive sex education and abstinence-only for greater background and history

Contents

[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]

Abstinence message: Is the abstinence-only message appropriate?

[Add New]

Yes


[Add New]

No

  • Abstinence-only wrongly teaches suppression of sexual impulses. Individuals should not deny their natural sexual impulses. If an individual has a strong desire to have sex, they should probably pursue that desire, albeit responsibly. Teaching teens that sex is wrong, forces them to believe that their natural sexual impulses are wrong - causing great confusion and self-doubt - and causing the needless and frustrating suppression of sexual impulses. Instead, teens should be taught that these impulses are natural and beautiful, and should be helped in the process of understanding and channeling these impulses. This will help teens live a more fulfilling life, opposed to a life of self-denial.
  • Abstinence-only sometimes encourages oral/anal sex alternatives. "[Teenagers making virginity pledges] were just as likely, the study found, to contract STIs as the teenagers who had sexual education in their history. Not only this, but the pledges were more likely to engage in risky behavior, such as anal and oral sex, because they associated virginity with vaginal sex."
  • Sex-ed empowers informed decisions about risks of sex "Editorial: Abstinence-Only Sex Ed". The Philadelphia Inquirer. 1 Sept. 2008 - "While teen pregnancies have fallen recently, sexually transmitted diseases, especially among young girls, have been on the rise [...] A study earlier this year by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that one in four young women ages 14 to 19 was infected with at least one of four common sexually transmitted diseases [...] To make good decisions, teenagers need to know all of their options - including abstinence. The state should not participate in encouraging programs that offer anything less."
  • Sex-ed teaches nothing new in a culture of sex. Increasing rates of teenage STIs, pregnancy and the shocking rise in abortion is more to do with the oft cited decaying fabric of society's values in relationships, family and life. Pop culture is increasingly sexualised. Just watch MTV for five minutes - there's nothing coy about anything children are exposed to from the media. While nobody is suggesting that this is an easy issue, perhaps we should address these attitudes rather than bashing the Western educational system for answering questions that many teenagers will raise anyway.


[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Sex rates: Which approach is generally more effective at reducing teen sex?

[Add New]

Yes

  • Comprehensive sex-ed often actually encourages sex Robert Rector. "The Effectiveness of Abstinence Education Programs in Reducing Sexual Activity Among Youth". Heritage. 8 Apr. 2002 - "many of these programs also implicitly encourage sexual activity among the youths they teach. Guidelines developed by SEICUS, for example, include teaching children aged five through eight about masturbation and teaching youths aged 9 through 12 about alternative sexual activities such as mutual masturbation, 'outercourse,' and oral sex.16 In addition, the SEICUS guidelines suggest 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. Not only do such activities carry their own risks for youth, but they are also likely to increase the incidence of sexual intercourse."


[Add New]

No

  • Abstinence may have value, but only within comprehensive sex-ed Barack Obama was reported saying on 20 Apr. 2008 - "...[W]hat I have consistently talked about is to take a comprehensive approach where we focus on abstinence, where we are teaching the sacredness of sexuality to our children [...] But we also recognize the importance of good medical care for women, that we're also recognizing the importance of age-appropriate education to reduce risks. I do believe that contraception has to be part of that education process."[2]
  • Unglamorous sex-ed does not encourage sex. It's ridiculous to think that those teenagers who are not thinking about sex and are unlikely to have an early first sexual experience are going to be rendered horny maniacs just because they are taught the unglamourous facts about sex. Have you been to a sex ed lesson - it's hardly the highlights of the Kama Sutra. Teenagers are often at a time that they are thinking about sex and relationships anyway, so for the benefit of those that may not have the sense to protect themselves but will have sex anyway, educating about prevention of STIs and pregnancy is the smart way of mananging the issue.


[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

STDs: Which approach is better at fighting STDs/HIV?

[Add New]

Yes

  • Comprehensive sex-ed does not reduce STDs in teens Mona Charen. "Abstinence education benefits". Washington Times. 5 Sept. 2008 - "The cheerleaders for contraceptives often overlook that reality in their eagerness to place condoms in the hands of teenagers. They also overlook this sorry fact of life: Teenagers are terrible contraceptors. Though 98 percent of sexually active teens report using at least one method of birth control, 8.4 percent got pregnant in 2000. Fully 25 percent of sexually active teens contract an STD each year. Some of these diseases, like genital herpes and AIDS, are incurable. Others can lead to infertility."


[Add New]

No

  • Abstinence-only discourages condom-use, increases risks Nicholas Kristoff. "The Secret War on Condoms". New York Times. 10 Jan. 2003 - "I'm all for abstinence education, and there is some evidence that promoting abstinence helps delay and reduce sexual contacts both in the U.S. and abroad. But young people have been busily fornicating ever since sex was invented, in 1963 (as the poet Philip Larkin calculated), and disparaging condoms is far more likely to discourage their use than to discourage sex. The upshot will be more gonorrhea and AIDS among young Americans -- and, abroad, many more people dying young. [...]'The Bush administration position basically condemns people to death by H.I.V./AIDS,' said Adrienne Germain, president of the International Women's Health Coalition. And we're talking about tens of millions of people."
  • Improper use of condoms is to blame for "ineffectiveness" of condoms. While many abstinence-only advocates argue that comprehensive sex ed leads to increased sexuality and that condoms are not effective, the improper use of condoms is the true culprit of many teen pregnancies and the spread of STDs. According to one source, 54 percent of all women having abortions used contraception in the month they got pregnant; of the women using condoms, 14 percent were using them correctly. Imperfect usage is the primary cause of contraceptive failure.[3] Proper comprehensive sex education can ensure the proper use of condoms and reduce the transmission of STDs and teen pregnancy.


[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Pregnancy: Which program is better at reducing teen pregnancy?

[Add New]

Yes

  • Abstinence-only effectively reduces rates of teen sex and pregnancy Life Way Christian Resources on Opposing Views - "Since 1991, when federal abstinence funding began, births to 15- to 17-year-olds have dropped 43 percent despite a 25 percent increase in that age group. In 1991, 54 percent of teens said they had had sex, compared to 47 percent in 2003. Further evidence that abstinence education works can be found in a study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control, which concluded that both abstinence and contraception contributed to the decline in teen pregnancy rates between 1991 and 2001. The study attributes the majority of the decline in teen pregnancy rates (53 percent) among 15- to 17-year-olds to abstinence and 47 percent to contraceptive use."
  • Abstinence-only helps discourage out-of-wedlock pregnancies Robert Rector. "The Effectiveness of Abstinence Education Programs in Reducing Sexual Activity Among Youth". Heritage. 8 Apr. 2002 - "Out-of-Wedlock Childbearing [...] Today, one child in three is born out of wedlock. Only 14 percent of these births occur to women under the age of 18. Most occur to women in their early twenties.14 Thus, giving birth control to teens in high school through safe-sex programs will have little effect on out-of-wedlock childbearing. [...] Nearly half of the mothers who give birth outside marriage are cohabiting with the child's father at the time of birth.15 These fathers, like the mothers, are typically in their early twenties. Out-of-wedlock childbearing is, thus, not the result of teenagers' lack of knowledge about birth control or a lack of availability of birth control. Rather, it is part of a crisis in the relationships of young adult men and women. Out-of-wedlock childbearing, in most cases, occurs because young adult men and women are unable to develop committed, loving marital relationships. Abstinence programs, therefore, which focus on developing loving and enduring relationships and preparation for successful marriages, are an essential first step in reducing future levels of out-of-wedlock births."


[Add New]

No

  • Condoms, not abstinence-only, decrease teenage pregnancy "The Abstinence-Only Delusion". New York Times. 28 Apr. 2007 - "Supporters of abstinence-only education sometimes point to a sharp decline in teenage pregnancy rates in recent years as proof that the programs must be working. But a paper by researchers at Columbia University and the Guttmacher Institute, published in the January issue of The American Journal of Public Health, attributed 86 percent of the decline to greater and more effective use of contraceptives — and only 14 percent to teenagers’ deciding to wait longer to start having sex. At the very least, that suggests that the current policy of emphasizing abstinence and minimizing contraceptive use should be turned around."
  • Abstinence-only presumes pregnancy out-of-wedlock is always wrong Stephanie Luke. "Sex education a must". The Daily Collegian. 4 Dec. 2008 - "Other requirements [Title V, Section (§) 510 of the Social Security Act] [...] seem to be aimed at bashing sex outside of marriage. An abstinence-only program must "teach that sexual activity outside the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects; [and] teach that bearing children out-of-wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences for the child, the child's parents, and society." [...] This is an offensive assumption that all children born out of wedlock are unplanned or even unwanted. Marriage and partnership are concepts that evolve with our society over time. Today the nuclear family is no longer a realistic picture of many American families."


[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Parental responsibility: Are parents primarily responsible for sex education?

[Add New]

Yes

  • Parents, not schools, should teach kids about sex Schools should not be teaching kids about sex at all, except to say that abstinence is the best option for avoiding pregnancy and STDs. Parents are principally responsible for teaching their children beyond this, covering whatever they choose, from condom-use to how to please their mates. But, it is not the job of schools to do this.
  • Parents prefer more modest abstinence-only sex-ed LifeWay Christian Resources. "Parents Want a Strong Abstinence Message". Opposing Views - "The vast majority of parents believe that teenagers should be given a strong message from society to abstain from sex until at least after high school. A Zogby International poll of U.S. parents also found that abstinence education is the preferred approach for the sex education of youth in America. Key findings include:
    • 9 out of 10 parents agree that being sexually abstinent is best for their child’s health and future, with 8 in 10 strongly agreeing;
    • 78% of parents think sex education classes in public schools should place more emphasis on promoting abstinence than on condom and other contraceptive use;
    • 59% of parents said more funding should go to abstinence education."


[Add New]

No

  • Schools are obligated to help teach kids about their sexuality Cynthia McKinney, former US House Representative (D-GA) wrote on 16 Sept. 2008 - "Teaching human sexuality is a parental and school responsibility. Young people should be provided with education regarding their own and others' sexuality at the earliest appropriate time. This includes age-appropriate education about AIDS/HIV, appropriate methods of prevention, and the distribution of condoms in schools."
  • Many teens don't have (responsible) parents; schools must teach sex-ed. The obvious problem with relying on parents to teach children essential sexual information is that many children do not have parents, or responsible ones. Should these children just go without such information? The reason the answer must be no is that it would put such children at much greater risk of pregnancy or contracting STDs. In a compassionate, equal-opportunity society, sex education in schools is required.


[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Until marriage: Should sex be saved for marriage?

[Add New]

Yes


[Add New]

No

  • Abstinence-only wrongly bashes all non-marital sex Non-marital sex is not inherently wrong. If two consenting adults, or teens for that matter, wish to have sex, what is wrong with it (aside from the fact that they are not married)? Nothing, particularly if they are consenting individuals and feel fulfilled by the experience. In addition, it is important to recognize that marriage is a social and cultural phenomena not shared by all. While some people choose to get married, some people do not, even if they seek and obtain a life partner. Is this wrong? No. And, it is certainly unreasonable to expect that unmarried people abstain from sex. Therefore, abstinence-only sex education is wrong, in so far as it bashes non-marital sex.
  • Abstinence-only is pushed by religious perspectives on marriage. Abstinence-only is pushed by religious groups that believe God has willed men and women to abstain from sex until marriage. These religious perspectives should not be pushed on children in public education.


[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Social: What are some of the social pros and cons?

[Add New]

Yes

  • Abstinence-only makes it socially acceptable to abstain from sex Mona Charen. "Abstinence education benefits". Washington Times. 5 Sept. 2008: "Many [teens have sex] because the whole culture, very much including the schools, seems to be pushing them into it. Here is a letter from a reader: "I wish it had been taught or even talked about in my high school.... In 1977 I didn't want to have sex [but] you were considered sort of frigid or not grown up if you didn't go along with what everyone else was doing. ... I needed something, anything to point to as a good reason not to [other than my parents]...According to a recent study by the Kaiser Family Foundation, nearly 30 percent of sexually active teens said they felt pressured into having sex."
  • Youth want a strong abstinence message and education "Teens Want a Strong Abstinence Message". LifeWay Christian Resources. Opposing Views: "Increasingly, young people are recognizing the benefits of abstinence education, despite a constant bombardment of sexually explicit messages from much of the mainstream media. For example, 94 percent of teenagers believe that teens should be given a strong message from society to abstain from sex until at least after high school. (Interestingly, this is 3 percent higher than parents.) In one study a majority of both teen girls and boys who are sexually active indicated they wish they had waited until they were older to have sex, and nearly seven in ten teens said they did not think it is okay for high school age teens to have sexual intercourse. In addition, engaging in premarital sex often leads to depression. What young people need today is less sex education and more love education."


[Add New]

No


[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Virginity pledges: Are virginity pledges a good idea? How do they fit in?

[Add New]

Yes


[Add New]

No


[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Economics: Which approach is more economical?

[Add New]

Yes

  • Teaching abstinence saves taxpayers money LifeWay Christian Resources on Opposing Views - "Widespread premarital sex has created severe economic and social costs, not to mention the personal pain it places upon teenagers and their families. In pure economic terms, researchers estimate that adolescent childbearing itself costs the taxpayers $6.9 billion each year. Some estimates put the figure even higher. When other disadvantages faced by adolescent mothers are factored in, the cost to taxpayers leaps to between $13 billion and nearly $19 billion per year."
  • Some profit from promoting sexually active teens. Many groups promote comprehensive education because they profit directly from the programs themselves, contraception sales, or even abortion services.


[Add New]

No

"End ineffective abstinence education". Star Tribune. 21 Apr. 2007 - For nearly a decade, Congress has spent upwards of $50 million each year to spur abstinence-focused sex education for teens; Minnesota, in turn, has spend several million dollars of state matching funds on ENABL, its version of the program. This year it's time to stop the experiment at both levels of government.
[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section up]

Pro/con sources

[Add New]

Yes


[Add New]

No

See also

External links and resources:

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.