"Abstinence-Only?" More Like "Accidents-Only" sex ed. A phrase would make most middle schoolers cringe or giggle, and most high school students groan. Whether it was looking at diagrams of reproductive organs, reading about people who regret having sex before marriage, or watching slideshows with pictures of various genitals laden with disease, most sex education seemed disgusting and terrifying to students. Worst of all, much of it was incorrect. In reality, a shocking amount of sex education taught to students is misleading and untrue in many cases. This leads to problems such as STIs, STDs, and teen pregnancy which could possibly be avoided if students had been properly taught how to do so. After conducting a survey on anal sex experience among students in the rural Midwest, Dake et al. write, "A study by Boekeloo and Howard found that 20% of adolescents did not believe that anal intercourse could transmit HIV" (Dake et al. 202). Misconceptions like these can end up causing health problems in students since they never had a chance to learn there was any physical danger caused by their actions.
Many schools across the country (and even the world) rely on abstinence-only education. "Abstinence-only refers to any sex education which teaches students that sex before marriage should never happen, and if it does, the consequences are terrible. While talking about some sex education lessons taught by public schools, Jennifer Greenblatt, a law clerk, writes, "One curriculum incredulously warns 'touching another person's genitals 'can result in pregnancy'" (12). By teaching false information like this, the government, teachers, and parents believe students won't participate in premarital sex. The flaw in this logic lies in the reality of the situation since many students do have sex before marriage, and when they have sex, they have no idea what can happen and how to be safe.
Schools should teach students about a wide variety of contraceptives, and other ways to avoid disease and pregnancy. For this to happen, the federal government would have to make laws requiring schools to teach a widely inclusive and scientifically true sex education curriculum to students. The reason it would be up to the federal government is that state governments were already given a chance to make laws regarding sex education in schools, which hasn't worked for many states. After considering what teenagers need to know, Giambi et al. states in a summary of Sexual and Relationship Therapy's inaugural debate, "Whatever their gender or orientation, adolescents do need sound information… and opportunities to develop as individuals and independent sexual decision-makers" (486). Everyone should be taught a wide variety of ways to practice safe sex so they can choose how they are going to go about their lives. Whether someone chooses to practice abstinence until marriage or uses birth control pills and condoms should be up to themselves. Many people miss out on that choice because they don't know they had a choice at all and end up accidentally putting their health at risk. If the government were to mandate the teaching of in-depth and correct sex education, states would have no choice but to do so without having to face the consequences. Since more students would learn how to have safe sex, more teen pregnancies and STDs/STIs could be prevented. Arguments against in-depth sex education for students are usually related to the idea that if students learn about sex, they will end up having sex because of it. Many teenagers are going to have sex whether or not they are taught only about abstinence, contraceptives, or nothing at all. The difference sex education makes is how they are going to have sex. Once explaining how some places have begun to move to other forms of sex education rather than abstinence-only, Strasburger and Brown explain the other side, those who have yet to make a change, "States like Oklahoma and Alabama-with 2 of the highest rates of teen pregnancy in the country do not require any sex education in school at all" (1). This information shows how sex education helps to prevent teen pregnancy since states, where there is little to no sex education, have higher teen pregnancy rates.
In order for any change to be made, the federal government would have to make abstinence-only sex education against the law. Public schools would be required by law to teach students about contraceptives and how to use them, ways to avoid STDs and STIs, and how to practice safe sex in general. Because it takes a lot of pressure to change laws and societal norms, people who agree schools need to teach more than abstinence must speak up to make a difference. Something in how sex education is taught must change, so students know how to protect themselves from disease and teen pregnancy.
