The Hewitt Times

As teenagers, we push boundaries and experiment by nature. Even more so, we tend to butt heads with our elders, defying their wishes and advice, beating our own paths in the world.

This is exactly why I don’t believe abstinence-only sex education is effective.

Sexual-education is generally divided into two categories: comprehensive sex-ed and abstinence-only sex-ed. While both educate youth about sex in schools, their approaches to the topic and ultimate goals differ dramatically. To obtain federal funding, Section 510(b) of Title V of the Social Security Act, P.L. 104–193 says that abstinence-only programs must have the “exclusive purpose [of] teaching the social, psychological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity.” Comprehensive sex-ed, on the other hand, acknowledges the fact the teenagers can and will become sexually active, and then strives to educate youth on how to safely engage in sex. Comprehensive sex-ed covers topics such as human development, relationships, sexual behavior (including the option of abstinence), sexual health (including contraception, STDs, and abortion), and sex’s (sometimes overwhelming) presence in society and culture.

The main argument behind abstinence-only sex-ed is that premarital sex is unsafe—and even immoral. In the hopes of discouraging sex among adolescents, advocates of abstinence-only sex-ed emphasize that abstaining from sex is the only way to completely prevent pregnancy and STDs. They neglect to mention that contraceptives, such as birth control pills and male condoms, are also highly effective in preventing pregnancy and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Condoms are often dismissed as inherently ineffective in abstinence-only sex-ed courses, while in reality, their effectiveness relies on whether or not the user wears them correctly. So, if the feared consequence of premarital sex is the possibility of conception, wouldn’t it make sense to teach young men how to wear a condom rather than preach a plan of action (or lack thereof) that they will most likely ignore?

Apparently not.

Abstinence-supporting organizations such as the National Abstinence Education Association, National Abstinence Education Foundation (NAEF) and Abstinence Clearinghouse also like to believe that by explicitly teaching youth about sex, such as in a comprehensive sex-ed course, adults are encouraging adolescents to engage in sexual activity at younger ages. This belief has been invalidated by numerous studies, pointing to the fact that a comprehensive sexual education actually delays the onset of sexual activity among young adults.

FoSE (Future of Sex Education) goes as far as to deem abstinence-only sex-ed a barrier to sexual education as a whole. Catherine Weiss, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Reproductive Freedom Project, explained abstinence-only programs in this way: “It’s as if you’re trying to prevent kids from riding motorcycles by forbidding them to wear safety helmets.” Basically, abstinence-only sex-ed forsakes the health of young adults as it instead attempts to prevent the inevitable; I simply cannot come to terms with this logic.

When has withholding and censoring information ever been effective? It’s unfair, and as I point out in a previous article, it creates taboos. Is forbidden fruit not the sweetest? Does the taboo of sex not become all the more enticing as it turns into the dirty little secret we’re not supposed to ponder or explore? Is the abstinence-only approach to sex-ed not completely counterintuitive?

In comprehensive sex-ed, all facts are at the disposability of the adolescent. Teenagers are given the trust and respect to interpret the information they have learned and to then apply it to their own lives. I believe this is the most effective approach to educating America’s youth about sex.

Comprehensive sex-ed lessons that are free to the public can be found on websites like SIECUS’s SexEd Library. King County’s website (a county in Washington state) also has a fabulous compilation of sex-ed lesson plans under its Public Health section.