Emily Crum: Assignment 16

The general population thinks of abstinence only and abstinence centered sex education as a relic of the past. We would like to think as our nation has gotten more progressive and gone through two sexual revolutions, our sex education has vastly improved. Unfortunately, this is far from the truth. As of today, only 24 states and Washington D.C require sex-ed, only 20 of those states require the information be medically and factually accurate. This statistic is slightly misleading due to the fact that some of these programs only inform students about HIV and/or AIDS. The varying levels of sex-ed in this country coupled with the prevalence of ineffective abstinence only sex-ed programs is an issue that needs to be solved by legislators as soon as possible.

Abstinence only sex education breeds ignorance amongst adolescents and adults, even regarding information not specifically pertaining to reproduction. There are people –male and female- who believe that women urinate out of their vaginas, women give birth out of their stomachs, periods last less than one day, and that women can control when their periods flow (like urinating). While these misconceptions may seem silly and amusing. Abstinence only education perpetuates myths that when believed can have more harmful effects such as STD’s and pregnancy. Many abstinence only programs exclude information about contraceptives, and when they do include information they only include failure rates or they occasionally mention that you should use them but provide zero information about where to get them or how to use them. In addition to this the failure rates are often misleading. When failure rates of condoms are discussed this includes people who used condoms correctly, those who used expired condoms, those who didn’t put the condom on correctly, and those who only used a condom for a portion of the time. According to a study done by the World Health Organization, abstinence only programs did not aid in; raising the age of first intercourse, reducing the number of sexual partners, reducing the amount of intercourse, or improving the use of condoms in sexually active teens. Along with being ineffective, these programs often encourage somewhat offensive stigmas that provide no real lesson. Guest speakers will sometimes compare females who have had intercourse before to a used toothbrush or a chewed up piece of gum. This claim that women who have had intercourse are used up and unwanted is especially harmful to people  who are victims of sexual assault who already have psychological damage and on top of that are being told that they are unwanted. This kind of lesson may seem like it never happens. But, just last year a guest speaker like this was brought to present to a Life Skills class at Henry Clay High Schools. She gave a presentation where she asked for six male volunteers, then she got out a piece of tape and stuck it to those male volunteers’ arms. The tape, of course began to become less sticky and the woman compared women who have had sex before marriage to this tape. She said that when you have multiple sexual partners, you begin to lose your bonding power and become less desirable. What was supposed to be a lesson encouraging abstinence, was turned into a lesson that shamed sexually active females which is unhelpful and slightly sexist.

I’d like to share my own personal experience with sex-ed from middle school. Our program was called PSI. It stood for preventing sexual interaction and it made no attempts to be subtle about the fact that it was an abstinence only program. We weren’t even told the failure or success rates of condoms; just that even if you did use them you would still probably end up pregnant or infected with an STD. We learned a lot about pregnancy but nothing about reproductive organs. Oral sex and homosexual sex was not mentioned at all. STDs were not truly taught, instead they were like the bogeyman of sex. We spent a majority of our time watching outdated videos that were about a girl who had sex once and got pregnant (which didn’t really provide any information at all). We also spent a good portion of class time performing pre-written skits where a guy would pressure a girl into having sex and they girl would say variations of “No, I don’t want to”. While it was good that we were being taught how to say no, none of the skits showed a girl pressuring the guy, non-heterosexual relationships, or provide an example of consent or what a healthy and consensual sexual relationship looked like. At the end of the program, we were all required to sign a contract that stated that we would remain abstinent until marriage. Today, over half of the people I know who “learned” about sex from PSI have breached that contract. Perhaps if comprehensive sex education (which is sex-ed that teaches abstinence but also how to be responsibly sexually active) had been taught instead, I wouldn’t know someone from middle school who has had three pregnancy scares in the past three months.

It is unjust that some students in the United States get to receive a sex education that is inclusive and prepares teens to make the choice of whether or not to have sex while others don’t receive any sex-ed at all. The laws about sex-ed vary so much that curriculum in various states is decided at the state level, by the district or by the health teachers. There are states that require it, states that don’t, and then there’s Tennessee that only requires it when teen pregnancy rates are high. There are some states that require just sex-ed, some that require only lessons on STDs, some that require both, and some that require neither. The content also differs greatly; sometimes homosexuality isn’t allowed to be discussed, sometimes it is only allowed to be discussed as being negative and inappropriate for society, and sometimes programs are accepting of it.  In the states that spend huge amounts of federal money (up to 5 million dollars) on abstinence only education or refuse federal money for sex education at all, teen birth rates, Chlamydia rates, and Gonorrhea rates are significantly higher than states with comprehensive sex-ed and less abstinence only sex-ed. There shouldn’t be such varying levels of knowledge for the most important thing a student can learn in High School.

Abstinence should still be taught and encouraged in sex-ed but it needs to be taught along with other information that will aid students in becoming mentally and physically prepared for the responsibility of sex. Even more important than abstinence being taught as a choice is that sex-ed is taught at all. It is imperative that a national standard be created so that all students can be equally informed.