Abstinence-only education ineffective

By Dinah Stephens

Sex. This tiny word has caused huge controversy in our country. But at the root of this hot topic is how we should address it and, more specifically, how we should discuss it with our youth.

Many adolescents in the United States receive what is called "abstinence-only sex education." The message of this curriculum is explicit: Don't have sex until you are married. And, if you follow this one simple rule, you won't have to deal with issues like unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.

As a result, information regarding contraception, condoms, and other health resources is omitted. This approach has not proven effective; in fact, it has actually proven detrimental to the health of its recipients. However, this is still the education we insist on giving many adolescents.

This abstinence-only method of sexual health education, also known as "chastity education," began in the early 1980s and originally had close ties to conservative religious organizations.

By the mid-1990s, the government had prohibited overt religious references in public schools. But the public school curriculum is still infused with strong Christian beliefs; consequently, it often fails to offer information that would allow students to make informed decisions according to their own belief systems.

For example, the curriculum is grounded in a strong heterosexual perspective that ignores or silently denounces homosexuality. This form of education that stresses abstaining from sexual activity until marriage assumes that everyone can or wants to marry. Rather than providing unbiased information, such education manipulates the value systems of developing youth and perpetuates homophobia and gender stereotypes.

Whatever implicit messages are conveyed through abstinence-only education, the ultimate point has been, simply, "don't have sex before marriage." Apparently, this message has not been heard by the millions of adolescents who have been exposed to it.

Statistics suggest that approximately 88 percent of teenagers have had sex by age 19. Considering that almost every state has poured both federal and state funding into abstinence education, it must be true that much of this 88 percent received the "wait till marriage" speech, but decided not to make that choice.

As a result, each year there are nearly 1 million unintended teenage pregnancies. About 3 million teens acquire an STD each year. The incidence of HIV and AIDS among our nation's youth continues to rise rapidly.

When comparing European countries to the U.S., the percentage of teenagers who are sexually active is virtually the same. But European countries have vastly lower statistics regarding teen pregnancies and STDs. If we are looking to identify the source of this large discrepancy, perhaps one easy answer can be found in the difference in sex education.

European countries have a policy which recognizes the importance of providing youth with accurate, complete information regarding sex. Their sex education programs attempt to create an atmosphere in which students are not afraid to seek answers they need, and teachers are not restricted in providing this information.

But in the U.S., students are forced to stumble into situations without the protective armor of knowledge, and teachers are punished for answering questions which may not have been posed in an abstinence-only context.

Comprehensive sex education provides students with access to all information. Additionally, all of this information must be medically accurate, which is not a requirement of today's approach. This is the education curriculum that is supported by the American Medical Association as well as the majority of teachers and parents.

Studies have proven that students who receive a more comprehensive sex-education are no more likely to engage in sexual activity than other students, but they are more likely to use contraception. In the last few years, teen pregnancy rates have been dropping. However, the statistical drop is due almost exclusively to the increasing availability of contraception, not to an increasing number of teens who say no to sex altogether.

If information about contraceptives was included in the public school curriculum, doesn't it make sense that unintended pregnancies would decrease more drastically?

If students were required to learn about not just the risk but the prevention methods regarding STDs, wouldn't it likely follow that the rates of STD contraction would drop? Apparently adolescents are willing to take the risk, so let's at least give them the tools to protect themselves.

In no way am I suggesting that abstinence education is not valuable and necessary to sex education. But abstinence-only education alone is not just ineffective, but dangerous. Withholding information that could potentially affect one's physical health is irresponsible. Comprehensive sex education supplies the information without infusing it with a specific value system. The only firm opinion it projects is the belief that all people have the right to education.

Sex may be uncomfortable to discuss, leading to nervous laughter, but, in the long run, all the awkwardness is worth the resulting healthy choices.

Dinah Stephens is a senior English major.