abstinence-only education

S

swatiraohnlu

Swati Rao
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?
 
Medical science has proved that sex below particular age is not gud and we should create awreness among people /student to increase the awareness..
 
* Comprehensive sex ed rightly teaches about sexual pleasure Susan Wilson, a US school teacher, said to a reporter from the Atlantic in 1994, "it is developmentally appropriate for teenagers to learn to give and receive pleasure."[1]

* 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.
 
* Abstinence-only is not effective at reducing teen sex rates Veronica Salazar. "Abstinence-only fails to stop early pregnancies, diseases". USA Today. 30 July 2007 - "Teaching abstinence has always had a certain appeal. How many parents disagree with the notion that their teens should postpone sex? But abstinence-only programs aren't having much success. [...]That conclusion comes from an eight-year, government-funded study recently released by highly respected, non-partisan Mathematica Policy Research Inc. The study zeroed in on four programs, selected for their variety of approaches, and followed students for four to six years. The authors of the 164-page report didn't equivocate: There is no evidence that abstinence-only programs reduce the rate of teen sexual activity."

* Abstinence may be effective, but teens will never follow it "Editorial: Sex ed/Abstinence-only is unrealistic". Star Tribune. 6 Dec. 2004 - "Bush undersecretary said further studies are unnecessary when abstinence is the only 100 percent effective way to prevent pregnancy and disease. But that response sidesteps an important point: There is little proof that simply telling young people not to have sex actually changes their behavior."
 
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
 
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.
 
Some people have argued that is it possible to combine the main elements of both comprehensive and abstinence based approaches to sex education in one approach. These people point out that supporters of both abstinence based and comprehensive approaches share the view that sex education plays an important role in HIV prevention and both approaches emphasise the potential benefits of delaying having sexual intercourse in terms of helping young people avoid HIV, other STIs and unintended pregnancies. On the basis of this it has been argued that abstinence based and comprehensive approaches can be reconciled into one inclusive approach which is sometimes called abstinence plus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top