The Postponing Sexual Involvement Curriculum Among Youths - Research Paper Example

The Postponing Sexual Involvement Curriculum Among Youths Issues related to sexual health have always been front and center in the public’s attention, whether the issue is teenage pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, or child molestation. With a human being’s reproductive life so central to his or her identity, it is no wonder that such issues are typically so divisive, and typically evoke responses intricately related to other topics such as freedom and religion. Sexual education, as many agree, is a necessary piece of public education to instruct young adults on both the dangers and practice of sexual relationships. Without such curriculum in our schools, sexual relationships among these vulnerable people would be far more harmful to both partners and to our society as a whole. However, the issue is not whether or not we need sexual education; the issue, rather, is how much of it, and of what kind we need. Based on growing trends of teenage pregnancy, it seems apparent that our society needs increased awareness of practicing so-called “safe sex”, perhaps even at an earlier age. Nevertheless, we also need a different kind of sexual education: a shift away from the conservative, Christian-based abstinence-only curriculum, and to a more expansive, more intrusive support of sexual relationships. Only by making sexual education more expansive (although being careful not to cut into other subjects), and of a more effective sort, can our society solve this problem. An increased presence of sexual education has been empirically proven to address several key issues involving young adults—the most pressing of which is teen pregnancy. A so-called “comprehensive sexual education” refers to programs that “respect the diversity of values and beliefs represented in the community and will complement and augment the sexuality education children receive from their families” (Collins, Alagiri and Summers). As we shall see later on, abstinence-only sexual education is largely ineffective and, at worst, destructive. Studies of comprehensive sex education programs, particularly those that include HIV/AIDS, indicate that “they do not hasten the onset of sex, increase the frequency of sex, and do not increase the number of sexual partners. To the contrary, some sex and HIV education programs delay the onset of sex, reduce the frequency of sex, or reduce the number of sexual partners” (Kirby). This finding comes in stark contrast to the objection of many abstinence-only advocates, who claim that an expansive sexual education program “encourages” or “makes more likely” young adults having sex. In July 2001, the Surgeon General of the United States David Satcher declared their argument dead: “[E]vidence gives strong support to the conclusion that providing information about contraception does not increase adolescent sexual activity… [and that] some of these evaluated programs increased condom use or contraceptive use more generally for adolescents who were sexually active” (Office of the Surgeon General). A recent study followed the program Becoming A Responsible Teen, which included eight 2-hour weekly meetings. In these discussions, young people learned information about AIDS, sexual decision-making, and condom use. The researchers conclude that young people’s participation in the intervention group, when compared to control subjects, delayed their sex life significantly, and were more responsible in terms of their condom use (St. Lawrence, Jefferson and Alleyne). Numerous credible, national organizations support a comprehensive sexual education, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Medical Association. The primary argument for such a curriculum is the thought that while abstinence for young people is a desirable goal, it is often not achievable in the real world. A sexual education, to be effective, must provide good information on other pertinent topics like STDs and HIV. It must not deny teenagers a full range of information that they need to protect their welfare and health. Students who receive such an education are better prepared for a variety of real-world situations that, without that curriculum, would have been handled poorly. The same success cannot be demonstrated for abstinence-only education. While there is much literature in support of abstinence-only education, very little of it is actually in peer-reviewed journals or done by credible researchers (Collins, Alagiri and Summers 8). For instance, a study which found teenagers are much less likely to have sexual intercourse if they make a pledge to remain a virgin misrepresented its results: pledges were only effective when made in a small group. The obvious inference one should make is that such an initiative would be an utter failure applied to the entire population of students. Another study found that religion is often a driving factor in delayed sexual initiation by students. Students who identify themselves as “conservatives” or as holding predominantly “conservative” or “religious” beliefs were far more likely to delay sexual intercourse (Whitehead, Wilcox and Rostosky). However, the results of this study too are useless for public policy: it is unconstitutional to teach religion or religious values in public schools (Collins, Alagiri and Summers). Lastly, an abstinence-only program called Emerging Answers followed and recorded the results of a Postponing Sexual Intercourse (PSI) course. The program was structured by peers and adults who taught students for five sessions. After its conclusion, the study was ambiguous in its results, finding no quantitative impact on condom use, frequency of sex, number of sexual partners, or the initiation of sex. In addition, those members in the programs taught by peers were found to be more likely to impregnate or become pregnant (Kirby, Korpi and Barth). In 2005, a study examining the effectiveness of For Keeps, an abstinence-until-marriage sex education program, found mixed results. The study “did not affect students’ confidence to avoid risk sexual situations, and sexually inexperienced and female students actually reported a decrease in their intent to use condoms in the future” (ScienceDaily). Although the study did find successes, those successes cannot be compared to those of numerous other studies looking at the effects of comprehensive sex education programs at delaying sexual encounters in young adults and preventing teen pregnancies. A major drawback of abstinence-only education is its neglect of condom use. Abstinence-only educations, by ignoring the real topics related to sexual intercourse. Issuing an alert almost offensive to common sense, a study released in 2007 revealed “teaching adolescents to use condoms when abstinence fails is a reasonable strategy for preventing HIV” (United Press International). A comprehensive sexual education, by incorporating this into the curriculum, shows overwhelmingly more condom use and therefore less unprotected sex, which results in less disease transmission and less pregnancies. Abstinence, too, was found to be increased by a sexual education that incorporates all of these other factors (United Press International). So-called “abstinence-plus” approaches do not contradict program messages encouraging abstinence, and this additional curriculum must be brought into better educate students. Although the research in the field overwhelmingly supports doing away with abstinence-only education, which has been the policy of the federal government for most of the past decade, “no quantity of research will settle the moral and religious disputes that circle around the sex education debate” (Collins, Alagiri and Summers). It is not only the amount of sex education that young people receive that can make the difference, but also the kind that they are receiving. Abstinence-only education has been empirically proven to be ineffective, or at least less effective than other sets of curriculum at preventing the harmful effects of unprotected sex. Government-sponsored sexual education that stresses abstinence-only education serves social and religious goals rather than supporting the hard facts of the situation. Instead of “teaching a morality limiting sex to that within the bounds of marriage” (Abernethy), we ought to divert money into what works, and what works is a comprehensive sexual education for very young students. Works Cited Abernethy, Bob. "Episode 823." Religion & Ethics Newsweekly. PBS, 4 February 2005. Collins, Chris, Priya Alagiri and Todd Summers. Abstinence Only vs. Comprehensive Sex Education. Policy Monograph Series. San Francisco: AIDS Research Institute, 2002. Kirby, D. "Emerging Answers: Research Findings on Programs to Reduce Teen Pregnancy." Literature review. 2001. Kirby, D., et al. "The Impact of the Postponing Sexual Involvement Curriculum Among Youths in California." Family Planning Perspectives 29:3 (1997): 100-108. National Abortion Rights Advocacy League (NARAL). Fact Sheet: The Need for Comprehensive Sexuality Education. 24 February 1999. 26 March 2009 . Office of the Surgeon General. The Surgeon General's call to action to promote sexual health and responsible sexual behavior. Public Health Service. Rockville, MD: Office of the Surgeon General, 2001. ScienceDaily. Study Finds Mixed Results On Teen Sexual Behavior From Abstinence-only Intervention. 4 September 2005. 26 March 2009 . St. Lawrence, J.S., K.W. Jefferson and E Alleyne. "Cognitive-Behavioral Intervention to Reduce African American Adolescents' Risk for HIV Infection." Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 63:2 (1995): 221-237. United Press International. Condom instruction, if abstinence fails. 18 September 2007. 28 March 2009 . Whitehead, B.D., B.L. Wilcox and S.S. Rostosky. "Keeping the Faith: The Role of Religion and Faith Communities in Preventing Teen Pregnancy." Summary Report. 2001. Read More