Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Argumentative Essay: Sex Education in Schoolsenglcomen2marquezi
Sex Education in Schools
Should sex education be taught in schools? There had been many debates over this. They say that sex education only destroys the morality of people because they think that sex education teaches students about how sexual intercourse is done. Although sex education lowers the morality of people by teaching students how to use condoms and contraceptives, it should be taught in primary school and secondary school because (a) it prevents sexual diseases and teenage pregnancy, (b) it is indeed a need in case of parents’ absence, and (c) it gives children the idea of what is right and what is wrong.
Others say that having sex education only encourages the students to engage in sexual intercourse and that it leads to sexual diseases and teenage pregnancy. The truth is that sex education does not encourage students to do it. According to Bleakley(2006), in a survey conducted, only about seventeen percent of the respondents answered that sex education does encourage them to do “it” and that the remaining eighty three percent strongly disagreed. Sex education prevents sexual diseases and teenage pregnancy. But how? Students are taught how to use condoms. According to Masland(n.d.), kids are becoming more sexually active at an earlier age. Sixty-six percent of high school students in America have done it by their senior year. These kids are in danger of sexually transmitted diseases. There is also a big possibility for them to become pregnant and that is why sex education should be taught to avoid these things from happening. In sex education, students are also taught of abstinence. They are taught that they should only have sexual intercourse after they get married.
In case the parents are always away from their children, sex education should be taught to them so that they would learn it from an educated and responsible adult instead of learning it from the media or from their friends (Masland, n.d.). There will always be peers who would badly influence others. I remember my busmates when I was in High School. They are only ages eight to ten but the words that come out of their mouths are foul sex languages. I was really surprised and our bus driver did not even intend to lecture them. When I was their age, I still did not know anything. The generation today just keeps on getting worse. The media and technology played a big role on this. Students can now access any site on the internet that contains adult content or pornographic materials. That is why sex education should be
implemented in schools. It is better for children to be informed earlier because they will still know about it when they grow up as they will be more exposed to it through their peers and the media (Cooper, n.d.).
People say that sex education teaches the students about how sexual intercourse is done but the truth is sex education lets the students know about the consequences and the truth about sex. One may likely suffer emotional or mental depression which may lead to suicide. Students are also informed that it is only for unity and procreation of married couples who are committed to each other. They are also informed that they will know the true purpose of sex when they grow up as adults.
In conclusion, sex education should be taught in schools because it is better to consider health than beliefs and we should consider reality. Since immorality cannot be eliminated and teenagers cannot be stopped from becoming sexually active, we should implement sex education in schools, as early as primary school. It also the only savior for children whose parents are always away from them and that is why sex education is needed so that they will not lose track of the right path. Through sex education, students will be able to learn the truth about sex and they will be able to refrain and control themselves.
References:
Bleakley, A. (2006). Public Opinion on Sex Education in US Schools. Retrieved August 23, 2009 from http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/reprint/160/11 /1151.pdf
Cooper, M. (n.d.) Sex Education in Schools. Retrieved August 23, 2009 from http://www.helium.com/items/66294-sex-education-in-schools
Masland, M. (n.d.) Carnal knowledge: The sex ed debate. Retrieved August 23, 2009 from http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3071001/539480.asp
Reflection:
It was hard to decide on what argument I am going to write about for this essay. There are many interesting arguments I have searched. After thinking about it, sex education might be a good topic. Teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases is very rampant in America. Soon, it might also be the same in Philippines because of the power of media. I am pro sex education to be ready for the future of our country. As I have seen in other young students of about age’s eight to twelve, they take sex as nothing special and they think that it is common because
of media and other peers who badly influence them. I hope to help in preventing teenage pregnancies and spread of sexually transmitted diseases. This topic is of my great interest. I have researched a lot just to come up with a few ideas that can help prevent consequences of premarital sex.
http://englcomen2marquezi.blogspot.my/2009/09/argumentative-essay-sex-education-in.html
Argumentative Essay: Getting a Good EducationGetting an education is compulsory in the developed world, but so many of us don’t appreciate it enough. We should value our education a lot more and work harder, because it is compulsory for so many different reasons and adds so much value to our lives. There are so many positive outcomes of education, but most of them come under the two banners of allowing us to develop personally, and improving our life chances.
Learning gives us so much that we otherwise wouldn’t have. Besides the obvious skills and facts that we learn, we learn self-discipline and self-motivation, timekeeping skills, social and communication skills and so much more. We also gain confidence and self-esteem through completing tasks and being praised for good work, as well as learning right and wrong as we are punished for any wrongdoing from a young age. Being educated is shown to increase people’s sense of self-worth, life satisfaction and overall happiness, so ultimately being a well-rounded person with lots of potential of happiness is a major outcome of education.
This development in itself increases our chances in life and our potential to do the things we want to do, as social skills gained allow us to form good relationships, and all of the other skills will help when it comes to getting a job. There is, unsurprisingly, a positive correlation between the level of education that people receive and the amount of money they earn. People that are educated are less likely to be unemployed or be on low wages with which they can barely feed their families. They are more likely to afford a nice house in a good area, a nice car, and regular family vacations. Educated people are also less likely to go to prison, because they will be able to provide for their families without crime and are less likely to be violent as they can communicate better with language.
Getting a good high school education also improves our chances of being able to go to college. This further study adds so many different skills to your arsenal that employment prospects and earning potential become better again. Whatever level someone has studied to though, a good education will get them further than someone with little or no education.
This is because of the marketable skills that they have gained. Literacy and basic math skills are at the foundation of independent living and being able to work. Good communication skills and ability to work both with a team and independently are often a basic requirement for any job, and these are developed in the education system through group and individual projects. All in all, education gives us so many skills that it is necessary for both happiness and success in life.http://www.scholaradvisor.com/essay-examples/argumentative-essay-getting-good-education/
Sex education in public schools has been a controversial issue in the United States for over a decade. With the HIV and teen pregnancy crises growing, sex education is needed.
Some of the American public believe that sex education should be taught at home by the children's parents. They feel that sex education programs in schools do not put an emphasis on abstinence and encourages children to have sexual intercourse.
American culture is very sexually oriented. Sex can be seen all over the media. Charles Krauthammer stated, "Sex oozes from every pore of the culture and there's not a kid in the world who can avoid it"(Bender).
After being faced with sex on an everyday basis, the independent teens of today will make their own decisions on whether or not to have sex. The important thing is to make sure that they know all aspects of it. Reality-basedsexuality education gives young people an understanding of positive sexuality. I t also provides sexual health information and skills on decision making(What). Subjects include sexual development, reproduction, relationships, affection, intimacy, body image and gender roles(What ).
Successful sex education programs have several high points. The high points include exercises to encourage the appraisals of values, and skills in which students are taught how to negotiate while in sexual situations (" What type" )
The majority of this nation favors sexuality education in public schools. Surveys show that eighty-nine percent of the citizens support it(What). Should the other eleven percent of the country be able to decide upon what the children of the United States learn and not learn in public schools? The eleven percent's only argument against sex education is that they feel that sex education encourages teens to experiment with sex. This reasoning is based on absolutely nothing. There is no evidence that proves that sex education causes anything negative. This country is a democracy.
A study conducted on teens in Sweden and the Netherlands showed that teens in those countries were just as sexually active, but the teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease rate was much lower. Researchers say this is due to sex education that begins in elementary school and continues on(Bender p.13). Only ten percent of American school-age youth participate in a comprehensive program lasting at least forty hours(deMauro p.89). Teens in America also score low on questionnaires based on sexual knowledge(Gordon p.45). With all the knowledge and resources at its fingertips, the U.S. could teach the same kind of classes that are being conducted in Sweden and the Netherlands.
Some also feel that sex education should be taught at home by parents. That's fine, except there is no guarantee that kids will be taught. In a formal survey of 8,000 college students over 12 years, fewer than eighty percent had received a meaningful sex education from their parents(Gordon). An
informal survey [SEE APPENDIX ONE] of one hundred students at Hotchkiss High School showed that only fourteen percent had been spoken to by their parents about abstinence and/or contraception(Teen). Many children feel that parents are the least informative source for information concerning birth control and sexually transmitted diseases(Griffith p.68). With no guarantees and the children's view of their parents' knowledge, "Generation X" could be put at a higher risk if parents were left to educate their children on sexuality.
Since 1981, the year the HIV epidemic began, adolescents have been accounted for twenty percent of new infections(Humm p.142). HIV stands for human immunodificiency virus(Bender p.13). It is a blood borne virus that is transmitted when a person comes into contact with infected body fluid. This includes unprotected sex. Condoms made of latex is one way to protect against contracting the virus if the person chooses to have sex.
Only a small number of teens infected with HIV actually know they have it(Humm p.143). If teens take risks of having unprotected sex with their partner because they are sure" their partner" doesn't have the virus, they are putting themselves at an even greater risk and the HIV crisis could grow. Fifty-seven percent of U.S. teens have sex by age seventeen and usually with more than one partner(Humm p.144). Sex education could teach young people exactly how risky unprotected sex is and the possible consequences.
The opponents of sex education believe that it does not enhance human life. How can that be so when it can help save lives? There are also many myths about the HIV virus such as it is a "homosexual disease" and an"IV drug user's disease". Sex education could also inform students that everyone can be infected.
Teen pregnancy is also a problem in the U.S. The Alan Guttmacher Institute stated that 1.2 million teens become pregnant each year(Bender p.13). This could be caused by the children's lack of knowledge. Less than one in seven teens use protection the first time they participate in intercourse(Gordon p.46). Every day three thousand teenage girls become pregnant(Strausberger p.144). The Alan Guttmacher Institute suggests that sex education helps reduce teen pregnancy by encouraging sexual responsibility(Edelman p.149).
The risk of STDs and teen pregnancy is an urgent and practically irreversible problem. The key is preventing it. After all, if the children do not have bright futures, how can the rest of the country?
Bibliography
Bender, Leone. ÒIntroduction.Ó Teenage Sexuality: Opposing Viewpoints. Bender, David, series editor. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1988.
deMauro, Diane and Debra Haffner. ÒSex Education Is Beneficial.Ó Sexual Values: Opposing
Viewpoints. Bender,David, series editor. San Diego: Greenhaven Press,1989
Edelman, Marion Wright. ÒEducation Programs Will Curb Teenage Pregnancies.Ó Teenage Sexuality: Opposing Viewpoints. Bender, series editor. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1988
Gordon, Sol. ÒSex Education is Necessary.Ó Teenage Sexuality: Opposing Viewpoints. Bender, Leone, series editor. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1988
Griffith,Saralyn B., Susan H.Lewis and Hyman Rodman. ÒSex Education In Schools Is Necessary.Ó Teenage Sexuality: Opposing Viewpoints. Bender, series editor. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1988
Humm, Andy and Frances Kunreuther. ÒEducating Teenagers About AIDS Can Help Stop Its Spread.Ó AIDS: Opposing Viewpoints. Bender, series editor. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1992
Srausberger, Victor C. ÒTeenage Pregnancy Is Not Epidemic.Ó Teenage Sexuality: Opposing Viewpoints. Bender, series editor. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1988
Teen Survey. Conducted by Traci Roesler at Hotchkiss High School.
ÒWhat You Should Know About Sexuality Education.Ó Planned Parenthood [on line]Available: http://www.igc.apc.org//ppfa/sexed-mm.html, November 5
ÒWhat Type of Education Works Best in Schools?Ó School Sex Education Programs for Young People [on line]. Available: http.www//avert.org/schsexed.htm, November 5 Appendix 1 Teen Survey by Traci Roesler Out of 100 students at Hotchkiss High that were surveyed, on 14 percent had been spoken to by their parents about abstinence and/or contraception.
http://www.123helpme.com/view.asp?id=10244
Promoting Sexual Education between Doctors, Parents, Schools, and Children as Early as Elementary School
Source: Hispanically Speaking News
(If you would like to view the following content in its original source formatting, you may access it here:Argumentative Essay – Jadoonanan.pdf.)
The debate over whether comprehensive sexual education should be taught in schools is no less heated than it was when it first became a contemporary controversy in the 1960’s. Some argue that it should not be taught at all, in or out of the home. What many are unaware of is that sexual education has been a major moral dilemma since the year 1892, when the National Education Association passed a resolution citing the need for “moral education in the schools” (Cornblatt). This hot-button issue has made notably slow progress over the course of history, largely due to religious principles enforcing conservatism. Today, sexual education is mandatory in public schools in 22 of 50 states in the U.S. Due to little advancement made in the administration of sexual education programs, citizens of the U.S. have overlooked a deeper underlying issue – and that is, at what stage in adolescence is it necessary and most beneficial for this complicated, life-long learning process to begin? Also due in part to the slow progress these programs have made over time, some parents have even neglected to touch upon the issue entirely. What’s more, these continued failures to be proactive have led to the misuse of some of society’s most prominent resources. Non-“abstinence-only-until-marriage” sexual education in institutions of education, reinforced by doctors, parents, and/or guardians in the stages preceding puberty, is crucial as a means of combating climbing rates of teenage pregnancies and STDs. It isn’t unusual for parents to feel that they are doing the greatest conceivable job of caring for their kids, and rightfully so. Many parents toil day in and day out to provide for their children, and to open doors to their childrens’ successful futures. So, when confronted with troubling facts, parents of this kind may be met with denial, displeasure, and even feelings of failure. Given the rise in teenage pregnancies seen among teen girls and a rise in the number of teens infected with STDs, these negative sentiments may be at their highest. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention reports that “nearly half of the 19 million new STDs each year are among young people aged 15–24 years.” And more startlingly, “more than 400,000 teen girls aged 15–19 years gave birth in 2009” (CDC). The statistics are enough to make most any parents fretful of their child’s outside associations. But what is to be done about this growing problem? The first step is to admit that the problem is, of course, growing. If we fail to recognize the spread of teen pregnancy as a “trend” and the carelessness associated with the contraction of sexually transmitted diseases, it is difficult to take a step toward a brighter tomorrow. It can be morbidly frightening for parents (and not just those of young girls) to hear, as U.S. Department of Health & Human Services states, that “today, four in 10 sexually active teen girls have had an STD that can cause infertility and even death” (USDHHS). Infertility and even death – such strong words can lead parents to take action, a response that is needed more today than in times past. The utmost strain arises for most in determining what the best plan of action might actually be. Among the conservative, it is often the case that “abstinence-only-until-marriage” programs are the most favored, and it is not without good reason. Why might this be? It is not difficult to acknowledge the theoretical benefits of abstinence, and why we might want this for our children. For some, it is largely a moral issue. But, it is safe to say that most loving parents want their children to travel along the best and safest path to adulthood, whether this desire is strengthened by religious stance or not. While abstinence is by far the only way to be fully protected from STDs and unwanted pregnancies, an article published in the Journal of Adolescent
Health says it best: “abstinence as a sole option for adolescents is scientifically and ethically problematic” (Santelli et al. 72 – 81). The Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States brings into focus a study conducted by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, released on April 23, 2007, in which researchers “found no evidence that abstinence-only-until-marriage programs increased rates of sexual abstinence.” Alarmingly, as found in the study, the 1,209 participating students “in the abstinence-only-until-marriage programs had a similar number of sexual partners as their peers not in the programs [848 of them], as well as a similar age of first sex.” The results suggest that there is a stronger force behind our sexual impulses than pure mental control, and that it is perhaps our biological inclination. In fact, the effects of abstinence-only-until-marriage programs have been shown to be more than counterintuitive. In article by Peter Bearman and Hanah Brückner, published in the American Journal of Sociology, it was found “that young people who took a [virginity] pledge were one-third less likely to use contraception when they did become sexually active than their peers who had not pledged” (859 – 912). These findings raise more questions than they answer, in reference to abstinence-only-until-marriage programs, which are often found to be in association with virginity pledges. In another study published in the Journal of Adolescent Health, the conclusion was made that “adolescents who received comprehensive sex education had a lower risk of pregnancy than adolescents who received abstinence-only or no sex education” (Kohler et al. 344 – 351). Naturally, outcomes such as the above would have it seem that the misrepresentation of information, or lack thereof, provided to children about forms of contraception other than abstinence in abstinence-only programs or otherwise leaves children not properly informed about safe sexual activity when the case arises that they do have premarital sex. The promotion of sexual abstinence programs may not only produce negative physical effects in children uneducated about the many dimensions of sexuality, but abstinence-only-until-marriage programs cause psychological distress among children as well. SEICUS, the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, has it that abstinence-only-until marriage programs “promote marriage as the only acceptable family structure; ostracize lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) youth; stigmatize youth who have been sexually abused; denies information to sexually active youth and HIV-positive youth; and, ensure that young people who have already engaged in sexual activity or those living in ‘nontraditional’ households are presented with fear- and shame-based messages.” Even worse, pro-abstinence presentations such as that done by Pam Stenzel (who speaks to over a half million children per year) has been the cause of outrage and discontent, such as that found by honor student Kateyln Campbell of George Washington High School (W. Va.) in an interview with ABC’s 20/20. Campbell, taken aback by Stenzel’s “tone of shame,” deemed the talk a form of “slut shamming” (Matthews). As is common to her appearances, Stenzel said of girls with sexual experience that they are “scarred for life.” One teenager who recorded the presentation, Carly Thaw, recalled that “some of the people were crying as they left, because she [was] telling us that we're trash and we're useless if we've ever had sex before.” And in complete opposition to medically accurate sexual education, Stenzel went on to say that “condoms aren't safe. Never been… Never will…” (Matthews). “ On the contrary, the effectiveness of the use of condoms during sex acts in avoiding pregnancy is thought to be exceptionally high with statements by researchers typically citing the following: “in one year with perfect use (meaning couples use condoms consistently and correctly at every act of sex), 98 percent of women relying on male condoms will remain pregnancy free” (Alford). Not to mention, “a number of carefully conducted studies, employing rigorous methods and measures, have demonstrated that consistent condom use is highly effective in preventing HIV transmission [according to the CDC]” (Alford).
Consider the number of people any given child comes into contact with in their earliest years? Who are some of the most trusted of those people? How can we make the best use of the resources provided to us? Sure, teachers and family members may be common answers to the first question. Another common answer, for many of us, would be that doctors are among the most trusted of those people a child can interact with. Sexual awareness is a part of good health, and who might be better versed in the field than doctors? In a study done on “Sexuality Talk During Adolescent Health Maintenance Visits,” it was inferred that “physicians may be important sources of sexuality information and preventive services, and one-on-one confidential time during health maintenance visits is recommended to allow discussions of sexual development, behavior, and risk reduction.” The actual research found that “one hundred sixty-five (65%) of all visits had some sexual content within it. The average time of sexuality talk was 36 seconds.” These outcomes, for many a caring parent, may likely seem dismal. From this, concerned parents might come to the agreement that they should encourage their children to openly discuss sexual matters with their family physicians, as the level of knowledge of health provided by a physician is in many cases unmatched. And likewise, as the study concludes, “research is needed to identify successful strategies physicians can use to engage adolescents in discussions about sexuality to help promote healthy sexual development and decision making” (Alexander et al.). If open discussion on issues of sexuality can be facilitated between pediatric doctors and the children who see them, it is likely that children may come out of these situations advised about their body’s biological and physiological role in sexuality and how they can avoid the many dangers presented by sex. Sex education should not be left to our country’s public education systems and private institutions and/or medical practitioners alone. The need for parents to play an active role in their childrens’ sexual development does not go away with abstinence-only-until-marriage or comprehensive sex ed., no matter how touchy the subject might be. In reality, the position parents take in their childrens’ development, sexually or otherwise, is perhaps the most significant position there can be. Parents are their childrens’ very first teachers, and in most cases continue to teach their children basic life lessons (outside of schools) all the way to adulthood. An article by Miriam Kaufman, MD. of Toronto’s prime pediatric center, The Hospital for Sick Children, found at aboutkidshealth.ca, tells us that “discussing sex is also part of starting open communication with your child.” If the taboos of sex talk are broken down within the familial domain of a particular society, it seems reasonable that those same taboos would no longer hold in educational facilities comprising that society, and thus comprehensive sexual education would be available to children in an increasing number of states. What’s more, the same source has it that “if open communication is normal, kids are more likely to speak with parents about all the other trials of adolescence, such as depression, relationships, and the abuse of drugs and alcohol, as well as sexual issues.” It should then be concluded that the open discussion of sexual matters between children and trusted authority figures opens doors to further appropriate discussion of some of today’s most pressing issues, for which children need guidance in a world where schoolyard talks amongst adolescents and images portrayed by the media are potentially hazardous. In an online guide to age-appropriate sexual education, provided again by Miriam Kaufman, MD. of Toronto’s The Hospital for Sick Children, it is noted that “children should be taught the basics about puberty towards the end of this age span [from five to eight years old], as a number of children will experience some pubertal development before age 10.” And between nine and twelve years old, children “should be taught about safer sex and contraception,” amongst other things. Some parents may find the above ages for said teachings to be shockingly young and might conclude that sexual education during said ages is entirely unsuitable. But, doing a simple search on the average age of puberty turns up countless articles by respected sources on the downward trend in the average ages of puberty over the years with headlines like these: “Puberty Before 10 –
A New Normal?” (New York Times), “Earlier Puberty: Age 9 or 10 for Average U.S. Boy” (WebMD), “U.S. girls are hitting puberty earlier, and childhood obesity may be a culprit: study” (New York Daily News), “Why is puberty starting younger?” (The Guardian), and “Girls Reaching Puberty Earlier, Study Finds” (Live Science), on the first page alone. In taking a closer look at “Why is puberty starting younger? (The Guardian),” the following is offered: “a study by Dr. Marcia Herman-Giddens found that in 1860, the average age of the onset of puberty in girls was 16.6 years. In 1920, it was 14.6; in 1950, 13.1; 1980, 12.5; and in 2010, it had dropped to 10.5. Similar sets of figures have been reported for boys, albeit with a delay of around a year.” As the same source goes on to say, “African American girls started getting breasts at 8 years 10 months compared with 9 years 8 months in white and Asian girls, while for Hispanic girls it was around 9 years 4 months” (Chalabi). The phenomenon applies not just to young girls, but to boys as well. “Earlier Puberty: Age 9 or 10 for Average U.S. Boy” cites the following facts and figures from a nationwide study by Marcia Herman-Giddens, DrPH, and colleagues, of 4,131 boys: “Boys are entering puberty at an average age of 10 among whites and Hispanics, and at an average age of 9 among African-Americans. About a third of boys start to mature sexually up to two years earlier than average” (DeNoon). What does this mean for our children? The facts imply that whatever the cause, from genetics to obesity, the typical age that children are experiencing the onset of puberty is decreasing, and rather rapidly. At age 10, children are likely to still be in elementary school. It is essential that we as a society make available to our children the tools that are needed to handle the inevitable bodily changes that accompany their growing into healthy, well-informed adults – and of these tools may very well be open access to sexual education programs in schools. In reference to the above issue of open sexual talks, if parents are not well-informed themselves, and if they do not promote the openness of sexual discussion with their children, they may not even be aware of physiological changes that are affecting their children. For parents, making the decision to speak to their children about sex in an open and honest manner is often a thought so crippling that some parents avoid the circumstance in its entirety. Simple consideration and research facilitates a deeper understanding of what goes on beyond our homes. It is imperative that parents remember that, unless their children are completely cut off from the world outside, their message to their children about sexuality and the risks of promiscuous sexual activity will not be the only one their children hear. Parents could likely be doing their children an inadvertent disservice by not intervening in the sexual education provided to their children – at home, at school, at the doctor’s office, and elsewhere. And so, it is all the more important for parents to promote sexual education by utilizing the best resources accessible to them – trusted, knowledgeable experts who may impart lasting wisdom unto their children.
John J. Hinklemeyer
Professor Jones
ENG 1001-09
13 November 2009
The Failure of Abstinence-Only Programs
Sex education is important, but many students finish sex education classes
with a distorted view of sexuality and without a good understanding of
contraception and safe-sex practices. Instead, children only learn that they should
not have sex until they are married. Abstinence-only programs in public schools
have become popular because of a law giving millions of dollars to schools that
teach the programs. These programs have the good intention of persuading young
people to wait until marriage before having sex, but abstinence-only programs are
not achieving this goal and are flawed by the distorted and biased perspective that
they promote.
In 1996, the United States government passed a law giving funding to states
that offered abstinence-only programs in public schools. Since this time, over half
of a billion dollars has been given to states to promote abstinence-only programs
(Brody). To receive the money, schools must agree to follow a set of rules. The
rules indicate that a school’s abstinence-only program must have "as its exclusive
purpose teaching the social, psychological, and health gains to be realized by
abstaining from sexual activity" ("Impacts"). Students must be taught that they are
likely to suffer harmful effects if they have sex before marriage. They also must be
taught that the "expected standard" is for school-age children not to engage in
sexual activity and for adults to engage in sexual relations only within marriage
("Impacts"). Schools receiving the funds must teach students that they should "just
say no" to sex until they are married. The schools are not allowed to teach students
about safe sex and "may not mention contraception except to point out the failure
rates of various methods" (Brody). Some states have refused the federal funds so
that their schools can determine their own ways to teach sex education, but 43
states participate in the program. With millions of dollars from the government
every year, many schools now promote abstinence. They offer abstinence-only
programs with encouraging titles such as "ReCapturing the Vision," "Teens in
Control," and "My Choice, My Future!" ("Impacts"). They encourage students to
sign virginity pledges vowing not to have sex until marriage, to proudly wear their
"purity rings," and to carry their ATM ("abstinence till marriage") cards (Kelly).
These programs encourage students to develop a strong sense of self and to avoid
the negative consequences that might result from sexual activity, but there is a
problem: abstinence-only programs do not work.
Studies show that abstinence-only programs do not reduce sexual activity by
young people. In 2007, the United States Department of Health and Human
Services released a study of abstinence programs. This government-funded study
involved more than 2000 students. The authors discovered that "findings from this
study provide no evidence that abstinence programs implemented in upper
elementary and middle schools are effective in reducing the rate of teen sexual
activity" ("Impacts"). The authors concluded that "findings indicate that youth in
the [abstinence-only] programs were no more likely" than students not in the
programs "to have abstained from sex" ("Impacts"). In addition, "among those who
reported having had sex, they had similar numbers of sexual partners and had
initiated sex at the same mean age" ("Impacts"). Apparently, students did not
benefit from all of the effort and the millions of dollars that have gone into these
programs. Another study by Peter Bearman of Columbia University shows that "88
percent of middle and high schoolers who pledge to stay virgins until marriage end
up having premarital sex anyway" (Kelly). He adds that "the bad news is that they
are less likely to use contraception the first time they have intercourse" (Kelly). Dr.
S. Paige Hertweck, a doctor who contributed to an American Academy of
Pediatrics report on teen sexual activity, states that "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" ("Doctors Slam
Abstinence"). In abstinence-only programs, students are taught to "just say no" to
sex. They are not taught the information that they need to know about safe sex and
contraception if they later choose to say "yes," as many of them are doing.
Abstinence-only programs also promote a distorted and biased view of
sexuality. To receive funding, schools must follow the rules in the law for teaching
abstinence-only programs. One of the rules is that students must be taught that the
"expected standard of sexual activity" is a "monogamous relationship in the context
of marriage" ("Impacts"). An estimated 88 to 99 percent of Americans have sex
outside of marriage ("Many Who Pledge"), yet students must be taught that having
sex only within marriage is "the expected standard." The rules also require that
students be taught that having sex outside of marriage "is likely to have harmful
psychological and physical effects" ("Impacts"). Approximately nine out of ten
Americans have sexual relations outside of marriage. Do most of them suffer
"harmful psychological and physical effects," as the government has determined
that students must be taught? The law presents a distorted view of sexuality, along
with a biased view. In 2006, the government updated the funding guidelines to state
that, in abstinence-only programs, "the term 'marriage' must be defined as 'only a
legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife'" (Waxman 4).
Promoting the government’s definition of marriage should not be a requirement for
schools to receive funding for sex education programs. Senator Henry A. Waxman
rightfully argues that "the benefits of abstinence from teenage sex should be taught
in a way that does not further alienate gay and lesbian youth" (4). All students
should benefit from sex education programs. Student Hunter Kincaid suggests how
abstinence-only programs discriminate against gays and lesbians: "'As a gay
student, I thought [the abstinence-only class] was ridiculous,' he says. 'Abstinence
until marriage for people who can’t even get married'" (Kelly). A sex-education
program should help all students make good decisions about sexual activity. It
should not promote an unrealistic standard of behavior, should not promote a
particular definition of marriage, and should not discriminate against some
students.
Sexual activity by young people is an important concern. In an ideal world,
maybe everyone would wait until marriage before having sex and would then
remain in a single, monogamous relationship. But this is not the reality. It might be
a good goal to try to convince young people to wait until marriage before having
sex, but taking this approach alone to sex education is not working. After ten years
and a half of a billion dollars in federal funding, abstinence-only programs have not
had a positive impact on the sexual behavior of teenagers. The programs may even
cause harm because of the distorted and biased views that they promote and
because of the information about safe sex and contraception that they do not teach.
It is time to put an end to abstinence-only programs and to give students more
comprehensive sex-education programs that better prepare them for the future.
http://www2.ivcc.edu/rambo/eng1001/sample_persuasive_essay.htm
Sex education can be traced back to the beginning of the 20th century. “Chicago’s public schools introduced the Nation’s first formal sex education program” which has raised controversy throughout the years (Frick, 101). Many believe that talking about sex in the classroom raises the initiation of such behavior. Others believe that ignoring the subject keeps teens in the dark which leads them to make unsafe decisions when they become sexually active. Whether it is at school or at home, teens must be taught about the dangers of unprotected sex as well as abstinence. Being unaware of protection puts teens at risk of becoming pregnant or contracting an STD or STI. Sex education must be taught at school and it must be taught right, without lies or myths and without giving teens the idea that the only perfect time for them to become sexually active is when they are married. If sex education was taught at school instead of abstinence-only education, it would help young adults make correct decisions when becoming sexually active as well as helping them make wise choices that can affect their future.
From the beginning of the 1900’s, sex education became a topic that till this day will raise controversy. As it started to be introduced in more schools, conservative groups began protesting to ban sex education. They believed children should not be taught such behavior since it was a topic that should be discussed at home; at a parent’s choice. When the 1980’s AIDS epidemic began, these groups began to change their goals. They knew their teens ran the risk of getting this deadly disease and began to support sex education, only if abstinence was being taught. Since then, the war between teaching only abstinence versus teaching contraceptives and protection began. With the changes each school makes according to their state, children are being taught different things at different ages which researchers believe “confuses teens between moral issues and matters of health and illness”(Johnson,103).
Sex education is caught in a war between religion and moral beliefs. Conservative parents, to this day believe the only thing that keeps their children safe is abstinence-only programs which have already been put to the test with unbelievable results. A recent study done by a doctor from the University of Pennsylvania proved that abstinence-only education is very effective. Many organizations have already begun this practice in many different ways; programs such as Best Friends focus on abstinence-only education which has showed positive results. They have become “one of the most successful abstinence-only programs in the country” (Morales). They start as early as middle school to tell children that “abstinence is the only way of preventing pregnancy and is the only acceptable behavior for children” (Bennett). To help children resist, Best Friends coaches kids about what to do when the pressure is on. However; teaching abstinence-only does not give young people the necessary knowledge if they were to engage in sexual activity. Scaring young people into not doing such behavior could make them curious, and not knowing how to protect themselves only puts them in danger.
Best Friends is not the only program that has showed the efficacy of abstinence-only education. “On February 2010 a study was released by Dr. John B Jemmott III from the University of Pennsylvania” which showed that an “abstinence-only intervention can delay sex” (Lewin). T his research showed that a third of the
students who participated in a weekend abstinence-only program started having sex within the next 24 months compared to the 42% of students who participated in classes covering both abstinence and safer sex. This study became very controversial due to the fact that researches have stop relying on abstinence-only programs because they were believed to not be as effective as sex education. Supporters of abstinence-only education believe that “teaching contraception would dilute the message of abstinence-only” (Spellings). According to Margaret Spellings, President Bush’s assistant, the reason why at this time abstinence-only programs were the only programs that were given government funding was because “These programs have to focus on abstinence and the need for kids to avoid sexual activity.” She goes on to say that for so long we’ve sent mixed signals to children and it was time to “reframe expectations that say we don’t expect you to engage in sexual activity; we expect you to remain abstinent through high school.” I agree on the statement by Spellings, it is true that we do not expect children to engage in sexual activity; yet they will not remain children forever. By the time they reach high school they will be 16- 18 year old young adults. If they are not taught from a young age how to protect themselves, how do we expect them no to become pregnant?
During the Bush administration abstinence-only programs were the only ones receiving government funding. In order for sex education programs to receive funding, programs must teach that abstinence is the “only certain way” to avoid sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy. Educators took this to mean that they should focus exclusively in the limitations of birth control; that condoms fail 15% of the time, for example. A 2004 congressional report showed that over two thirds of the programs provide inaccurate information about contraception and abortions risks have prompted 15 states to decline federal funds for abstinence education. Some programs do delay first encounters and “improve contraceptive use according to a recent analysis by the nonpartisan National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy” (Kotz). Their accuracy, however, depends on the way they convince teens that avoiding sex or using condoms is the right thing to do, as opposed to just laying out the risks and benefits. This is a problem, “having no standard curricula for sex-education programs means huge variations in how they’re taught and what impact they have” (Brown). Even though there has been research to show their efficacy of abstinence- only education, how can it be relied on after a research shows the only way they are achieving these results is by presenting false information?
Sex education and protection would be easy to teach if everyone agreed on the curricula, but programs are being denied funding by the government and states. They are too many opinions and beliefs in between. The truth is that abstinence-only education is supported by many parents because they believe that it supports family values. Teaching abstinence-only has showed positive results, they appear to have a strong and significant effect in encouraging positive and constructive behavior among youth. It’s about meeting parents expectations and student’s needs. The reality is that teens today live in a “sex saturated culture and positive influences that counteract the tide or permissiveness are scattered and weak” (Marshall, 108). Teens have to know that sexual activity should not be rushed, that it is alright to wait;
however, there will be encounter with sexual activities later in life and they should be taught the dangers and the right way to stay protected.
Teaching about contraception and safe sex is a topic which is not easily discussed at the dinner table. Many parents often do not even touch the subject believing that their children will just know what to do when the time comes. But, is it realistic to just think that teenagers will stay abstinent through high school? Many believe so, but how can a parent be certain if they don’t discuss the topic with their children. It might have to do with religion, but it does not erase the fact that sooner or later these young adults will have questions and if they are not answered correctly they run the risk of becoming pregnant or getting a sexually transmitted disease. Ignoring the fact that “young people are capable of making educated decisions about their sexual health of their own volition” puts teens at risk (Jennifer, 98). Educators as well as parents have to give young adults the respect and recognize them for what they are; young adults. Young adults that not so far from now will be faced with adult decisions and keeping them in the dark about sexual activity only harms them. There is no “right age” to become sexually active, but the main goal is to have teens prepared for when it happens.
Marilyn Keefe, the director of reproductive health and rights at the nonprofit National Partnership for women and families, believes that “abstinence-only programs are ideology driven and not a good use of our public dollars”(Kotz). Many parents and educators would agree with this statement; Sarah Brown of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy as well as Keefe believe that programs should not just teach abstinence, they believes that good programs will teens them how to be safe but the really good programs engage teens by “discussing issues in their school culture, like gang membership or sex parties. For girls, particularly effective programs combine sex education with general health issues, schoolwork assistance, and a push for participation in sports or the performing arts” (Kotz). The main goal of programs should not be to keep information from teens, it should be to give them the tools they need to succeed in life; getting students to plan for their future.
The research of Dr. John B. Jemmott III was published in the Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine just as the Obama administration was eliminating federal financing for abstinence-only programs and starting pregnancy-prevention, which would initiate financing programs that have been shown in scientific studies to be effective. This became very controversial. Parents became worried and argued that public policy should not be based on the results of a single study. The journal ran an accompanying editorial saying that, “theory based abstinence only curriculum appeared to be as effective as combined course and more effective than safer-sex only curriculum in delaying sexual activity” (Lewin). Many people began arguing the President’s decision after this study was released. Sarah Brown of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy was one of the people that disagreed with this decision; she believed that this new study was “game-changing”. She went on to saying that “for the first time, there is strong evidence that an abstinence-only intervention can help very young teens delay sex and reduce their recent sexual activity as well” (Lewin). Most importantly the study also shows that “this particular program did not reduce condom use among the young teens who did
have sex” (Lewin). Many would agree with Ms. Brown, the classes given in Dr. Jemott’s study did not portray sex negatively or suggest that condoms are ineffective and “contained only medically use accurate information” (Lewin).
After President Bush doubled the founding for abstinence-only education, Tracy smith from The Early Show said that “while some people say these programs deserve at least part of the credit for declining teen pregnancy rates, when it comes to teens and sex, “just say no”, doesn’t work.” Since the 1980’s, people have seen abstinence as a way of life, back then the girl who obtained from sex was the “good girl”saving herself for marriage, just as her parents taught her to do, but, does that still work today? Part of the problem is the mixed messages that students receive staring in early childhood. Sex is everywhere, and children are exposed to it daily. Sex is at the newsstands, on TV and of the sides of buses. At school students are taught about abstinence, and at night they go home and watch “Jersey Shore”. A very important factor that parents and educators have to keep in mind is that sex in the media is not going to go away. The solution is to start sex education at home, where parents can explain the consequences and joys of relationships starting at a young age. However, sex education should also take place in the classroom, as part of a balanced curriculum before hormones start to impede judgment. Sex education needs to include not just the physical aspects but also the emotional aspects. Knowing the dangers of sex will probably not help every teenager say “no.”
“Only about 7% of Americans believe that sex education should not be taught at school, according to the NPR- Kaiser-Harvard poll” (Chinn, 76). An Activist and educator from America’s Youth and Sexual Health also supports sex education at home and school. She says that “It’s hardly surprising that America’s current scare tactic approaches aren’t working. Young people are not stupid, trust me I know” (Advocates for Youth, 97) She believes if that teens are taught from an early age, accurate and honest facts, they will be better capable of making educated decisions about their heath when it comes to sex. According to the advocates for youth, “If teens are manipulated and scared by inaccurate information, they will lose interest. If they can’t trust an information source and by extension the information itself, then teens are likely to disregard both.”(Advocated for Youth, 99). The goal should not be to impose a particular lifestyle on a young person, the goal should be to empower them to make healthy decisions of their own, not only in the classroom but in the realities of life. “While some young people will decide to abstain from all types of sex, most will not. And there is nothing wrong with that!” (Advocates for Youth, 100). Educators as well as parents have to realize that, just like other people, teens are sexual beings too. It is a difficult concept to understand but it’s essential that this is taken into consideration when creating sex education programs. Teens are humans and as human they are sexual. Adults discomfort with this fact and it is dangerous; this can lead to willful ignorance, ignorance such as thinking that telling a girl that condoms sometimes have holes in them will make her never have sex before marriage. Even though is possible for her to abstain from sex because she is scared, is also possible that she will engage in some type of sexual activity before marriage, and because the knowledge she had she will not protect herself. It is up to the adult role models that are involved in the youth’s development to feel comfortable with sexuality as normal.
The discussion about sex education in the classroom might never end, but while it is still been fought, some schools will be able to prepare their students into making correct healthy decisions while others will be kept in the dark. Sex does not have to be a problem oriented subject; “there are many aspects of sex and sexuality that have little to do with HIV/AIDS, teen pregnancy, or sexual transmitted infections” (Advocates for Youth, 101). Discussing sex only in the context of dangerous is psychologically damaging, after all we are sexual beings, it is a normal behavior. Teens should not be afraid or feel guilty when they think about sex, they should be well informed and, therefore, confident of their decisions. Even though there is a level of discomfort that is inherent in these conversations, it is time to get over it and prepare teens for their future. The more comfortable parents and teachers become with the subject, the easier it would be to tech teens to stay safe and make decisions that will help them plan for their future. http://dianaflores.weebly.com/argumentative-essay.html
In recent years, sex among the young people become the issue, serious problem but also taboo to talk. This condition is really danger if it is out of control, because it can broke the young generation. To prevent its problem, sex education is strongly needed. Sex education is the act of informing younger and adult generations about everything they need to know about sex. It includes other sensitive issues like sexual health, sexual reproduction, sexuality and others that parents often feel uncomfortable talking with their children. Therefore, it becomes the responsibility of schools to address this issue, and inform and educate students about it as much as possible
The purpose of this paper is to provide the arguments why sex education should be taught in school. This paper also provide the counter arguments of the opponents of banning taught sex education at school and some points of arguments to support taught sex education at school.
Those who dissagre if sex education should be taught in schools argues that it is not the place of school to talk about sex. It is belong to parent’s responsibility because they know what information is needed by their children. In any case, many parents feel not comfortable to talk it. It seems that most parents are either strongly against or strongly in favor of sex education classes, but very few parents are in the middle ground. Moreover, most students are mature enough to handle a sex education
course, but sex education should not be taught by the parents alone and public schools should include sex education in their budget.
Some of the material wrote in this paper based on the observation in social reality and information in internet. The method I use is analysis based on the opinions by some writers, because there are many pros and cons of sexual education being taught in the public schools.
Firstly, teenagers are often very curious about sex. At this stage, it is important that they have been told basic and accurate information, including what sexual intercourse is, homosexuality, the negative consequences of sex, and information about protection. School is one of the best media to provide it. People say that sex education teaches the students (teenagers) about how sexual intercourse is done but the truth is sex education lets the students know about the concequences and the truth about sex.
Moreover, the generation today just keeps on getting worse. The media and technology played a big role on this. Students can now access any site on the internet that contains adult content or pornographic materials. That is why sex education should be implemented in schools. It is better for students to be informed earlier because they will still know about it when they grow up as they will be more exposed to it through their peers and the media (Cooper, n.d.).
Most parents feel that the best place for sex education is in the home. The parents can teach their children family and religious value. Teacher Mary L. Tatum said that schools do a better job influence children and have more time to try to influence children better than anyone except, perhaps, the parents. It is important that parents give sex information. But, school need to reinforce what the parents teach to make sure what the information is correct.
In case the parents are always away from their children, sex education should be taught to them so that they would learn it from an educated and reponsible adult instead of learning it from the media or from their friends (Masland, n.d.). There will always be peers who would badly influence others.
Another reason is that not all parents know how to talk to their children, and if they do the children do not always understand or listen to what the parents have to say.
According to APPCNC (Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention Coalition of North Carolina) research, parents who talk to their children about sex tend to encourage their children to delay first time sexual intercourse. But, passed attitudes of parents are, once a child is taught about sex, they fully understand all taht is needed to be undersood, and there is never a need to talk about sex again. (Berne, pg.2).
But, some children do what the parents tell not to do. In this case, it would be bad to have the parents talk to the child and will get their sex education from another source, their peers. Peers exchange information in locker rooms, play grounds and parties. Dorothy W. Baruch found that, Childish Imagining usually changes sexual ideas a lot more that getting facts. This is how many teens get most of their information about sex.
Most people who are against teaching sex education in schools have the opinion that, sex education encourage students to become sexually active at younger ages. But, the World Health Organization (WHO) has reviewed 35 scientifically controlled studies in the U.S and abroad, and found that no program increased the invitation of sexual intercourse over the control group.
In conclusion, sex education should be taught in schools, because it is better to consider health than beliefs and we should consider reality. Since immorality cannot be eliminated and teenagers cannot be stopped from becoming sexually active, we should implement sex education in schools, as early as primary school. It is also the only savior for children whose parents are always away from them and that is why sex education is needed in school. Through sex education, students will be able to learn the truth about sex and control themselves.
https://edzain.wordpress.com/2012/12/16/sex-education-should-be-taught-in-school/
A big topic in today's society is whether or not a child should have sex education in school. Almost everyday you hear about how the numbers of teens having sex and the rates of teenage pregnancy is skyrocketing. Can this somehow be prevented by encouraging that sex education be included in the curriculum in school? Don't we send our children to school to learn and get an education? Than why should schools not educate our children about sex and help stress that abstinence is best? Sex education is not helping to promote that a child go out and engage in sexual activity, it merely educates them on the consequences of having sex and makes them aware of ways to protect themselves if they do choose to engage in sexual activity. It is important to educate our children on sex and how to protect themselves.
Many parents agree that sex education should not be taught to children in school. Are these parents willing to take time out of their busy schedule to sit their children down and have a one - on -one conversation with their child about sex? Do they themselves know all there is to know about sex and are up-to-date on STD's and contraceptives? A child may not feel comfortable talking to their parents about sex leading them to rush their parents through the conversation and not fully grasping the ideas on information their parents are trying to get across to them. If they were in school being taught, amongst friends, they would be forced to listen plus they might feel comfortable enough to ask questions pertaining to things they may not understand. Teachers went through college to get a degree in teaching; parents didn't unless they themselves are a teacher. Parents would be more likely to tell their children information that is not correct or is outdated.
The point of sex education is not to promote kids to go out and engage in sexual activity, it is to promote abstinence and educate kids on STD's and how to protect themselves if they do decide...
READ FULL DOCUMENT
