Pros And Cons Of Abstinence-Only Schools

Sexually transmitted diseases cost Americans sixteen billion dollars annually (Miller 6:57-7:20). To put that into perspective, 16 billion dollars could fund Planned Parenthood for 12 years, as well as provide free contraceptives and other services to America for years (Miller 7:20-7:40). How can we bring down the number of dollars that these preventable diseases are causing the United States? Sex education. “But wait,” one might ask, “shouldn’t sex education programs already be doing this?” Unfortunately, many of the tactics used by sex education programs are flawed, biased, excessively emotional, or cold and unrealistic. Though most sex education courses educate teenagers about the basics of sex, many of the programs teach the bare minimum

There seems to be a common theme in abstinence-only programs: fear. One popular tactic of abstinence-only programs is shaming teens into not having sex. One sex education class was reported to be comparing girls who have had sex with multiple partners to old toothbrushes and even a cup of spit (Rubenstein 525). As demonstrated in those examples, young women especially are subject to being shamed for sex. Many men carry condoms in their wallets, and are, if anything, they are praised for it, but if women carried around condoms in their purses as often as they did tampons, they would be ridiculed for it (Landi 5). Abstinence-only educators seem to believe that if they shame and scare their students enough about sex, there will be less desire to do it. The issue with this is that the students will not be too scared to have sex, they will instead be too afraid to talk to their doctors and get protection. Going to the store to pick up condoms or making an appointment to get birth control is intimidating, and when young adults are told that they should feel ashamed about doing so, they will be less likely to go through with making those commitments, leaving them unprepared when they do choose to have sex. Unsurprisingly, teen pregnancies are significantly higher in states with abstinence-only

The main goal of abstinence-only programs is to reduce the occurrence of premarital sex, while comprehensive sex education is designed to reduce the negative effects of premarital sex (Rubenstein 526). Comprehensive sex education also covers more than just abstinence. The program is aimed to encourage students to practice healthy habits in their sex lives, such as using protection, but also covers the emotional side of relationships. Schaafsma suggests that sex education courses should include topics such as online relationships, parenthood, and social media, as well the normal course material (34). It is important to cover the emotional side of relationships, but that does not mean that the physical side should be neglected. Nevada is the only state that does not require sex education to contain information about contraceptives, and unsurprisingly it is also the state with the highest teen pregnancy and birth rates (Hall 6). Teenagers need to be taught about the biological part of sex, but even that could be improved and expanded from what is already taught. During a study done in Iran, mothers were asked whether they have talked with their daughters about sexual matters, and a number of them said they believed their daughters would be negatively