Sex Education in Schools
SexEducation in Schools
SexEducation in Schools
The debate aboutintroducing sex education in school curriculum has been in the publicdomains over four decades (Haberland & Rogow, 2015). Mainly, thediscovery of new venereal diseases such as HIV/AIDS only awakened theneed to teach young people about safe sex. The concerns while genuinehave not changed the position of the government and the public aboutsex education. Consequently, the rates of STIs and teenagepregnancies have been on an upward trajectory (Berglas, Constantine &Ozer, 2014). In this paper, I will use evidence to prove that thecurrent method of sex education has failed and therefore the need toembrace new techniques.
Religiousconservatives such as Christian Catholics see the introduction of sexsubjects in school as a deterioration of the moral values. Therefore,the emphasis has been about abstinence. The liberals, on the otherhand, see the prohibition of the subject in schools as abridging therights of women to health education and information. My position onthis matter is the current emphasis on abstinence has failed. Theincidences of teen pregnancies and STIs have not reduced (Haberland &Rogow, 2015). Therefore, a new program that not only informs theteens about sex but also offers options on how to prevent pregnanciesand STIs should be adopted.
The only programthat gets federal and state support in the United States isabstinence. The thinking here is, teens need to be taught about moralvalues and not about engaging in the sexual behaviors. Other socialproblems abstinence is supposed to solve include out of wedlockchildbearing. In addition, the method is expected to reduce teenpregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases among the young people. Importantly, the program teaches the youths to be responsible andbuild their marital commitment (Caldwell, 2015). The program isintended to promote the long-term well-being and happiness of aperson. The focus of the program is good moral behaviors. Therefore,teens are told sex is bad because they would become pregnant and diegiving birth. In my view, the whole idea is about scaring the youthsaway from sex.
Studies show aconnection between early sex and the dangers of youths venturing intoother risky behaviors such as drug abuse and promiscuity. The policymakers must, therefore, see the need to keep the teens away from thesexual acts. It is the overall objective of the abstinence sexprogram. The public spent around $1.4 billion teaching the youths onthe importance to abstain (Haberland & Rogow, 2015). The questionto ask is whether the public is getting the value for the money.
The assessmentof the government-funded program shows there is no delay in the firstsex. In addition, the virginity pledge takers took a little attentionto test for STIs or use contraception when they eventually do sex.The report indicates that the abstinence program is putting theyouths at the risks of teen pregnancy and STIs. Further analysisshowed that most of the information given about convention sexeducation was misleading. The information was distorted and containedfalsehoods that claimed contraceptives are not effective, they alsogive religious beliefs as scientific facts. In addition, they twistfacts about medicine and science concerning sex. Data shows that eachyear, 9.1 million youth contract STIs. In addition, almost a millionteens (850,000) get pregnant each year. Furthermore, more thanthree-quarters of the youth engage in vaginal sex by the age of 18(Berglas, Constantine & Ozer, 2014).
The evidenceshows that the abstinence program is failing. The many billions thathave been spent by the government since the start of the 1990s havenot yielded the desired results (Caldwell, 2015). The STIs infectionsamong the teens have been increasing. The teen pregnancies too havebeen rising. It is clearly the time to try something new. Abstinencethough it builds good characters such as marital commitment and safesexual behaviors, it has not reduced teen pregnancies and STIsinfection.
In my view, thefailure of the abstinence program should herald the introduction ofthe convention sex education. The idea here is to give the preciseteen information. For example, data shows many youths are notabstaining. Instead of leaving them to make mistakes, convention sexeducation should tell the teen on the alternatives that they have.For instance, use of condoms could be used to reduce the high numbersof the teens who get STIs yearly. In addition, other contraceptivessuch as pills could be used to reduce the instances of the teenpregnancies (Haberland & Rogow, 2015). However, convention sexeducation has the possibilities of making the youths promiscuouslater in life. Furthermore, it may cause an emotional andpsychological distress to the teens.
In conclusion,there is no doubt that the current program is not addressing theissue of STIs and pregnancies among the youths. A new educationprogram is required. However, the success of the program will needsupport from the government and the society. The funds used inabstinence program should be channeled towards a wholesome sexeducation that gives health and sex advice to the youths (Caldwell,2015). The use of contraceptives is the only way to cut the problemsof STIs contractions and teenage pregnancies.
Berglas, N. F., Constantine, N. A., & Ozer, E. J. (2014). Arights‐basedapproach to sexuality education: conceptualization, clarification andchallenges. Perspectives on sexual and reproductivehealth, 46(2), 63-72.
Caldwell, S. (2015). Let’s talk about sex: the failure ofabstinence-only policies in America’s public schools.
Haberland, N., & Rogow, D. (2015). Sexuality education:emerging trends in evidence and practice. Journal ofadolescent health, 56(1), S15-S21.
No related posts.