Mandy Stango
Robin Kramer
LA 101H
14 April 2010
“It’s Great to Wait” but Also “Great to Educate”
On June 12, 2009, I graduated high school. In the fall, I came to Penn State. And right
around the time I was starting my first semester of college, Caitlin, a girl I graduated with,
became a mother. We were both eighteen. Caitlin and I had gone through elementary, middle,
and high school together. Senior year, she sat next to me in history. And sophomore year, she
and I had the same health class, the health class which refused to teach sex education.
In public schools today, the sexual education system is highly flawed and inadequate.
Each year, about 750,000 American teenagers become pregnant. Ten percent of all U.S. births
are to teen mothers. And 48% of the 18.9 million new STI (Sexually Transmitted Infection)
cases each year occur within the 15-24 age range (“Facts” 1). But what does this have to do with
the sex education system in America? According to statistics, everything. In 2008, 33 states
received federal funding to teach abstinence-only sex education (Duffy, Lynch, and
Santinelli 746-748). That means only 17 states have adopted comprehensive sex education
programs into their curriculums. And 17 simply isn’t enough. In order to decrease the number
of pregnancies and STIs among teenagers, a mandatory sex education program which provides
real information about contraceptives should be implemented in public schools across all 50
states.
Within the past ten years, sex education in public schools has become a heated political
debate. The primary opposition to sex education comes from the religious right. Conservatives
such as former Governor Palin, political commentator Bill O’Reilly, and shock jock Glenn Beck
are strong advocates for abstinence-only education in public schools. More recently, Wisconsin
District Attorney Scott Southworth threatened criminal charges against teachers who educate
students on the use of contraceptives (Fox News.com). The rationale? Advocates of abstinence-
only education claim it will encourage teenagers to engage in sexual activity and by teaching
them how to use contraceptives, schools are only endorsing these practices which are viewed by
conservatives as “immoral.” Some have even taken it a step further. In his letter to Wisconsin
teachers, Southworth claimed that comprehensive sex education would become “a radical
program that sexualizes our children as early as kindergarten,” and would “lead to more child
sexual assaults” (qtd. in “Sex Education”). But as statistics have shown, this is ridiculous and
completely inaccurate.
According to several recent studies, abstinence-only programs do not decrease sexual
activity among teenagers and there is no scientific evidence to prove otherwise. Furthermore, a
study done on a PSI (Postponing Sexual Intercourse) program in California showed that students
who were involved in this program were actually more likely to become pregnant than those who
did not receive this instruction (“Abstinence-Only”). This indicates two things. One, this
suggests that the number of teenagers who engage in sexual activity is completely unaffected by
abstinence-only education. And two, it shows that teenagers who are exposed to abstinence-only
education are more likely to have unsafe sex and suffer the consequences than those who receive
a more comprehensive sex education. I’d like to address both of those issues separately.
First, let’s look at the number of teenagers that choose to become sexually active. In
January 2010, a study was taken about the sexual and reproductive health of teenagers. The study
found that 46% of all Americans ages 15-19 have had sex at least once, if not several times
(“Facts” 1). And the reality is, teens aren’t going to stop having sex. Sexual activity amongst
teenagers is very common and includes various behaviors which are not limited to intercourse.
Additionally, it is worth noting that the definition of ‘sex’ is different for everyone. While some
view ‘sex’ as only intercourse, others view it as any behavior which involves genitalia - this
includes oral and anal sex. This very discrepancy could have very well skewed that 2010 study,
in which case the number of teenagers who have had sex would be exponentially larger. The
point is, many teenagers have chosen to become sexually active and this number doesn’t seem to
be touched by abstinence only education.
According to Elizabeth Boskey, Ph.D, “Abstinence-only education doesn’t affect the
rates at which teenagers decide to have sex. Given that the primary purpose of abstinence-only
education is to do exactly that, it is clear that it doesn't work” (Boskey). And Boskey’s argument
is based on statistics. From 2001 to 2007, the National Youth Risk Behavior Survey reported the
number of high-school students who have had sex. The percentages ranged from 45.6% to 47.8%
(“Top 10 Reasons”). Compare this to the January 2010 study which found 46% of high school
teenagers have become sexually active, and it’s obvious there’s a trend emerging. For the past
decade, the number of sexually active teenagers has more or less remained static. And during this
time period, the majority of states taught abstinence-only education. This clearly shows that the
type of sex education teenagers are receiving has no bearing on teenage sex rates.
But abstinence-only education is having an impact on the number of teenagers who
choose to have unsafe sex. While some believe virginity pledges, purity rings, and campaigns
with catchy slogans like, “It’s Great to Wait,” will keep teenagers from having sex, the reality is,
they only decrease the odds of teenagers engaging in safe sexual behaviors. According to a
CNN.com article, a survey was taken concerning virginity pledges among teenagers. In the mid-
90s, 289 teenagers who made virginity pledges were examined. Five years later, when asked
about the pledge, 82% of pledge takers denied ever agreeing to the pledge and the majority of
pledge takers lost their virginity before marriage. And out of the pledgers who chose to become
sexually active, 64% used birth control “most of the time” and only 42% used a condom “most
of the time” (Tamkins). According to Janet Rosenbaum, Ph.D, “They are less likely to use birth
control and drastically less likely in fact to use condoms (qtd. in Tamkins).
This is a huge problem. Teenagers who receive abstinence-only education aren’t provided
with the proper knowledge about contraceptives and therefore, are unable to make wise sexual
choices based on this knowledge. Those who make virginity pledges and wear purity rings are
almost guaranteed to not carry condoms on them or use forms of birth control, so if something
were to happen (and research has shown this is largely the case), they would not be adequately
prepared or protected ( “Abstinence-Only”). Furthermore, those who are uneducated about the
potential risks of sexual activity – including pregnancy and STIs – are far more likely to fall
victim to them. Common sense dictates that the more thoroughly educated someone is on a topic,
the better they will be able to respond to the world around them. The same holds true for sex.
When put into a sexual situation, those who are armed with knowledge about how to properly
handle it will be far more apt at preventing unwanted pregnancy and STIs.
So what do we do? The answer is simple: introduce a more comprehensive sex education
program in public high schools, one that is geared towards thoroughly teaching teenagers about
the facts of sex and all aspects of protection. This curriculum would discuss sexuality not only in
terms of abstinence, but also in terms of protection. Teenagers would learn facts about condom
use – including statistics specific to condom brands – and how to properly use them.
Additionally, teenagers would be educated on other methods of birth control, such as the Pill,
spermicidal foams and lubricants, and behavioral methods. Teenagers would also receive
education on what to do if birth control fails or a condom breaks and would be familiarized with
Plan B, also known as the morning-after pill. In addition to an in-depth look at contraceptive use,
this program would also include detailed information on STIs, including HIV, herpes,
Chlamydia, Gonorrhea, and HPV. It would detail how these diseases are transmitted, how to
identify them, and how to prevent them. Students would also be provided with information on
how to get tested for STIs and where to go for treatment.
This policy, which would be implemented in all public schools in America, would come
directly from the U.S. Department of Education. It would be a nationwide policy that
standardized a comprehensive sex education curriculum and enforced through each state’s
individual Department of Education. Just as schools are inspected and reviewed to make sure
other standard subjects are being taught to students and that schools are obeying a specific
academic curriculum, they would be inspected in this case to ensure compliance with the policy.
This policy wouldn’t cost any extra money, for it is merely a broadening of school curriculum.
According to my policy, this system would be implemented as soon as the 2010-2011 academic
year in all public high schools in America. If this policy was introduced efficiently and
expediently, I have no doubt it would play a significant role in reducing pregnancy and STIs
among teenagers.
In the states where comprehensive sex education policies have been implemented,
teenagers have reaped the benefits. Studies have shown that teenagers who receive information
on both abstinence and contraceptives are not only more likely to postpone sex, but to act
responsibly when they do decide to take that leap. Furthermore, it has been proven that providing
teenagers with information on abstinence as well as protection isn’t confusing for youth and
doesn’t make them have sex earlier or with higher frequency (“Speaking Out!”). With this in
mind, the only sensible option is to implement a policy such as mine. Comprehensive sex
education, as studies have indicated, doesn’t negatively affect teenagers in any way. It only
serves as an aid to help teenagers make responsible choices. With this in mind, what reason is
there not to implement this policy in all public schools?
I strongly believe that introducing a mandatory comprehensive sex education program
into the public school system would be extremely beneficial to the youth of America. Let’s face
it. No eighteen-year old girl wants to end up like Caitlin – unmarried, working, and trying to
raise a child. Most teenagers have plans for themselves. They have future goals and aspirations.
They want to succeed. But if the government continues to take a passive role when it comes to
educating teenagers on the truth about sex, these plans might never be fulfilled. Caitlin never got
a comprehensive sex education. She didn’t get any education at all, not in her high school health
class or from a college professor. She wasn’t allowed that opportunity. This needs to stop. Yes,
“It’s Great to Wait,” but it’s highly unrealistic. Therefore, our government needs to step in and
help put an end to abstinence-only education.
Works Cited
"Abstinence-Only Sex Education Statistics – Final Nail in the Coffin." Open Education. N.p., 09
Mar 2009. Web. 15 Apr 2010. .
Boskey, Elizabeth. "Top 10 Reasons to Support Comprehensive Education in Schools."
About.com. N.p., 24 Mar 2010. Web. 15 Apr 2010.
.
Duffy, , Lynch, and Santinelli. "Government Support for Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage
Education." Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics (2008): 746-748. Web. 14 Apr
2010. .
"Facts on American Teens' Sexual and Reproductive Health." (2010): 1. Web. 14 Apr 2010.
.
"Sex Education Could Mean Charges for Teachers." Fox News.com. N.p., 07 Apr 2010. Web. 14
Apr 2010. .
“Speaking Out! Connecticut’s Parents and Other Adults Want Comprehensive Sex Education in
Schools.” Advocatesforyouth.org. N.p. Web. 30 Apr 2010.
Tamkins, Theresa. "Virginity Pledges Don't Mean Much, Study Says." CNN.com. N.p., 30
December 2008. Web. 15 Apr 2010.
.
"Top 10 Reasons to Support Comprehensive Education in Schools." Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention. N.p., 2007. Web. 15 Apr 2010.
.