Abstinence Programs - Do They Work - Essay Example

? 7 October Abstinence Programs - Do They Work? Abstinence programs, for a while now, have been the of a debate discussing the effectiveness and worth of implementing such programs. Tens of millions of dollars are offered as government grants to promoters of abstinence programs. Cleary the government is looking for the most effective way to curb teenagers’ engagement in sexual activities that lead to an increase in sexually transmitted diseases, emotional and psychological injuries, and out-of-wedlock childbearing. Therefore, schools across the nation have been charged with implementing programs that will educate the young about the risks of engaging in sexual activities before marriage. In many schools in the United States, abstinence programs are being promoted alongside sexual education classes. Abstinence education is a type of sex education that places strict emphasis on abstaining from sex until marriage, however, studies have shown that abstinence programs, when taught as stand-alone programs, are not effective or successful. This paper will explain the reasoning and proof behind the studies. Exposure to the word "sex" and vague ideas on what it might be begin to generate within the average child's mind from a fairly young age. As a source of reference, a child looks to an adult or teacher to provide clarity and understanding on topics they might not have knowledge on. Therefore, an effective way of explaining sex to a child or teenager is through the education system - a system in place to inform and depart knowledge. However, considering that most education is funded by the federal government, funding recipients are mandated to follow the government's agenda when it comes to teaching sex. If these programs are run by the government, then surely they should be effective and yield positive results. Unfortunately, that is not the case as we will see in this paper. There are very few parties who oppose some form of sex education being taught in school and although most advocates agree that sex education should be taught, controversy exists among the group about the type of program that should be taught. According to an NPR survey, fifteen percent of advocates believe that sex education should adhere to teaching abstinence until marriage without discussion of alternatives such as condoms and contraception. Forty six percent believes that both abstinence and alternative methods such as condom and birth control use should be taught. Thirty-six percent of supporters believe that the primary focus should be on how to make responsible decisions concerning sex rather than teaching abstinence only (NPR para. 2). The two most popular methods used in schools in the United States are abstinence education and the alternative, comprehensive sex education. “No sex is the safest sex,” is the slogan of abstinence education, and while this sentence is perhaps admirable in terms of encouraging religious and marital morality, it certainly doesn't offer any advice to those whom choose to participate in pre-marital sex. It might be true that having no sex at all is the safest and most effective method at reducing pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases, but in the real world, hormone-driven teenagers will experiment and look to peers as role-models. Once that decision has been made to participate in sexual activity, the entire premise of abstinence education become void. There is no further education or knowledge that a sexually participating individual can fall back on. Abstinence education only teaches not to have sex, when there should, at the very least, be involvement of both messages. The presumption that a teenager will adhere to vague and questionable advice to save oneself until marriage is ignorant at best. In 1981, during President Ronald Reagan’s administration, the federal government continuously funded sex education programs that suggested refraining from sex until marriage. There has been no research to confirm the program’s effectiveness. However, between the years of 1996 and 2008, Congress approved over $1.5 billion dollars in state and federal funding in support of abstinence-only-until-marriage programs (Alford para. 2). Many studies have been done to prove the effectiveness of abstinence only education. It has been proven numerous amounts of times, that this form of sex education does not have an impact on the future sexual behavior of teenagers. A study done by HHS in April 2007 showed that teenagers exposed to abstinence-only based programs were not any more likely to abstain from sex, and these teenagers had the same number of partners and became sexually active at the same age as the control group (Alford para. 4). Abstinence education has been criticized because it denies that many teenagers will become sexually active. The central goal of abstinence education is to convince all children to avoid engaging in sexual activities of any kind. Abstinence education also fails to teach about contraception, condom use or alternative safe sexual practices. Although topics of character building, values, and tactics for saying no are discussed, abstinence education fails to educate on issues dealing with what could potentially happen after sex - such as sexually transmitted diseases, pregnancy, emotional experiences, abortion advice, and pre-marital relationships. Instead, diseases are cited as a reason to abstain until marriage rather than a reason to use contraceptives and other methods of protection. This 'turning a blind eye' approach is counterproductive. The programs ignores the reality of current youth culture and promotes a 'do or die' doctrine. It's literal translation is "follow this advice or you are completely on your own". The alternative option to abstinence-only programs are comprehensive sex education programs. Comprehensive sex programs cover all the necessary basics of sexual intercourse and sexual relations and inform the students of what potential outcomes could step from sexual activity. Advocators of comprehensive sex education programs believe that many teens will still engage in sexual activities. Therefore, age appropriate alternative methods must be taught as well. These methods include contraception and condom use. Sexually transmitted diseases and Human Immunodeficiency Virus are major discussion topics in a comprehensive sex education setting. According to a study conducted by Guttmaker Institute in 2010, by their 18th birthday, six in ten teenage women and more than five in ten teenage men have had sexual intercourse. More shockingly, out of the approximately 750,000 teen pregnancies that occur each year, a total of 82% are unintended with more than one-quarter ending in an abortion. "The pregnancy rate among U.S. women aged 15–19 has declined steadily—from 117 pregnancies per 1,000 women in 1990 to 75 per 1,000 women in 2002. Approximately 14% of the decline in teen pregnancy between 1995 and 2002 was due to teens’ delaying sex or having sex less often, while 86% was due to an increase in sexually experienced teens’ contraceptive use." (Guttmaker Institute para. 1). These results, along with the fact that the United States has one of the highest rates of teenage pregnancy in the developed world, almost eight times as high as those of the Netherlands and Japan, are clear indications of the failure of sexual education programs. Another study done by the Journal of Adolescent Health provides an excellent diagram looking at the ratio of teens that participated in a comprehensive sex education course, an abstinence only sex education course, and no sex education and how they fared. Of the test group, 66.8% participated in comprehensive sex education, 23.8% participated in abstinence only, and 9.4% did not participate in a sex education course at all. After a period of time the students were asked if they had gotten a partner pregnant or been pregnant themselves. The results concluded that of the 100% test group, 53.5% of pregnancy incidents came from the comprehensive sex education group, 27.1% came from the abstinence only group, and 19.4% came from the group that had received no sexual education of any type. Analyzing the results, you can clearly see a pattern emerge expressing how students taught comprehensive sex education were less likely to be involved in a pregnancy incident. Reasons cited in the study were due to increased awareness of potential pregnancies, increased use of contraceptives, and a healthy fear of transmitting or contracting sexual diseases. Comprehensive sex education can certainly promote abstinence from sex. The important and differentiating fact is it also discusses and imparts knowledge on how to deal with sexual situations should you decide to not abstain. Clearly the facts and surveys promote this, but further than hard evidence, comprehensive sex education is a mature approach to this issue. It does not sweep the problem under the rug as abstinence programs do. Instead, it presents the problems and solutions and realistically gives the student the option of maturely choosing what to do themselves, now that they have the information. According to public opinion polls, an astonishing 82% of surveyed adults believe that comprehensive sex education should be taught in schools. The education should present the abstinence approach as well as information on methods of preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases and infections. Yet, despite these clear facts, polls and statistics, the federal government continues to invest millions of dollars into an abstinence only program. If you consider the increasing number of HIV, AIDS, hepatitis and other long-term, incurable diseases that are being spread through unprotected sex - not because of lazy sexual habits but rather a clear ignorance and lack of knowledge of the diseases - you can see how the promotion of abstinence programs are detrimental and evidently harmful to the health of the nation. It is critical that teens are provided with an inclusive knowledge about protecting themselves against these things, in order to decrease infectious diseases in the years to come. The reasoning behind abstinence programs needs to be dissected in order to truly understand the ridiculous notions. The fundamental reasoning behind encouraging developing humans to abstain from sex is one based on morality. In specific, religious morality. In many debates and arguments for abstinence programs, the bible is quoted as a source of reference to this issue: "Therefore, anyone who participates in sex before marriage has sinned before God. In fact, marriage is the only approval for sex given by God" (New International Version, Hebrews 13:4). The United States was founded on the principle of freedom of religion and expression, and saying that sex before marriage is wrong is a right. However, as soon as a religious belief infringes upon human rights, it becomes harmful, destructive, and counterproductive. The desire to pressurize a population to adhere to a religious principle in order to maintain a sense of morality is ridiculous at best. The government needs to realize and accept the fact that most young teenagers, in the pinnacle of their sexual development and exploration, will not adhere to what is considered 'parent's rules'. Not when the movies, books, TV shows, clothing styles, music, celebrities, friends and more are telling them sex is enjoyable and 'cool'. Questionable morality becomes null and the individual is left with a lack of understanding of the activity in which they are engaging. Sex education, on the other hand, provides the necessary information to learning teenagers. It provides information about puberty and the changes that their bodies will endure. It also discusses the psychological impact that puberty and sex have. It talks about the emotional stress of sex and touches on other sexual pleasures such as masturbation and oral sex. It helps teens to understand what can be expected from a sexual relationship. It helps them determine what is acceptable and not acceptable in a sexual relationship. It covers hard to talk about topics, yet completely necessary, such as rape. It teaches teens about peer pressure and that it is respectable to say no if you are not ready. It advises that no one is allowed to touch their bodies if it is not what they want or are ready for. This kind of knowledge is vital in breeding a culture of teens that can maturely and appropriately make the right decisions based on helpful information they have learned. It should not be up for debate whether or not sex education should be taught in all schools and homes - it should be, as most agree. The method that should be taught, however, still remains a debatable topic, perplexingly. While abstinence programs might have good intentions in promoting religious morality, they are ineffective, and looking at the statistics above, dangerous. The programs are not only a waste of taxpayer's money, but are taking funding away from the real programs that need it - such as comprehensive sex education. Abstinence programs do not work. It's time the government, parents, and schools ceased basing their evidence on religious doctrines, caught up with the 21st century and employed factually proven and statistically based methods. Works Cited Alford, Sue. Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Programs: Ineffective, Unethical, and Poor Public Health.   Advocates for Youth, July 2007. Guttmacher. Facts on American Teens' Sources of Information About Sex.  Guttmacher Institute, Feb. 2012. NPR. Sex Education in America. NPR. N.p., 24 Feb. 2004. Read More