Social injustice and abstinence-only sexual education

Sex Education

How come the government spends more than $100 million in programs that censor information about safe-sex practices when concrete statistics point that at least half of teenagers are already sexually active by the age of 15-19? (Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, n.d.).

Apparently, the preceding administration had been a very vocal advocate of expanding abstinence-only programs. By inculcating that abstinence is the only acceptable behavior for teenagers and adolescents, not only do we leave out vital information that include discussions on contraception, safe sex practices, sexual orientation and abortion; but we also deny them the right to choose for themselves the values they would like to adhere to (Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California; n.d.). Subtly, there goes a vicious social injustice bred right at our learning institutions.

By promoting a set of religious values and counting out all the others as unjust or inferior, the abstinence-only approach breeds discrimination. A holistic sexual education program must impart that religious values can play an important role in an individual's decisions about sexual expression and offer students the opportunity to explore their own and their family's religious values, not impose on a single boxed-out set of values. Abstinence-only groups have long been criticized for trying to push religious themes and gender stereotypes in the programs (Friedman; 2008). A lawsuit was once filed against a publicly-funded Louisiana abstinence group whose website claimed "abstaining from sex until entering a loving marriage will & [make you] really, truly, 'cool' in God's eyes."

This orthodox approach to sex education may have had higher chances of working decades ago, but now, when almost half of the adolescent populace admits to being sexually active, this is merely passe. By drawing hard, visible lines to what is morally upright and not (i.e. sexual activities vis-a-vis abstinence until marriage), we restrict youths who are well on their way to maturity the freedom of choice and the liberty of will.

A comprehensive, holistic sex education program teaches that abstinence from sexual intercourse is the most effective method of preventing unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV. And abstinence-only approach, in contrast, teaches that abstinence from sexual intercourse before marriage is the only acceptable behavior. A comprehensive, holistic sex education program provides positive messages about sexuality and sexual expression, including the benefits of abstinence while an abstinence-only program most often uses fear tactics to promote abstinence and to limit sexual expression (Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California; no year).

Abstinence-only sex education program is thus ineffective, if not bordering on the irresponsible. This approach has serious unintended consequences by denying young people access to the information they need to protect themselves (Collins, et al.; 2002). It is teaching adolescents to totally do away with a natural drive at an age when it starts kicking at full gear. In a report that aimed to give recommendations to the American Academy of Pediatrics' updated teen pregnancy policy, pediatric obstetrician-gynecologist at the University of Louisville, Dr. S. Paige Hertweck said "Teaching abstinence but not birth control makes it more likely that once teenagers initiate sexual activity they will have unsafe sex and contract sexually transmitted diseases." (the Associated Press; 2008).

Scientific studies point that adolescents benefit greatly from comprehensive medically accurate sexual education. Demonstrated positive effects of such programs include increased awareness, delay in onset of sex, reduction in frequency of sex and increased use of contraception. One study conducted from 2005 to 2006 surveyed 1,209 teens who completed abstinence-only programs in rural and urban areas and 848 teens in the same communities who had not. It turns out there the two groups' behavior was practically identical as far as sexual behavior is concerned (Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.; 2007).

Studies also show that limiting sex education to discussions of abstinence neither ensures that kids delay sex until marriage nor lowers rate of pregnancy and STDs. In fact, most state-level abstinence programs have little to no measurable effect on teen behavior, as detailed in one of the reports of the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials (Friedman; 2008).