When it comes to sex education in America, there are two opposing sides, pro-abstinence, and comprehensive sex ed. On the pro-abstinence side, there is a tip-toe approach. With most sexual health information restricted, one of the few things left for teachers to say goes along the lines of, “Don’t have sex unless you are in a heterosexual marriage!”. In an effort to discourage premarital sex, certain states will only push abstinence and equate a students’  worth with their virginity. Comprehensive sex ed programs prepare students for their futures by teaching methods of contraception, birth control, consent, STDs, STIs, HIV, AIDs, sexual mistreatment, while still mentioning the benefits of abstinence.

Luckily, both sides have a common goal: reduce teen pregnancies, increase the age of one's’ first sexual encounter, and minimize sexually transmitted diseases. The problem is that decades of research have shown that only comprehensive sex ed will improve any of the above factors, and yet states continue to push a pro-abstinence curriculum on their schools. The only way to accomplish the goals for which there are health classes is to incorporate a comprehensive curriculum.

Before debating which method is superior, both must be understood. Pro-abstinence or pro-abstinence-until-marriage programs take the conservative approach. Most who teach this style of curriculum believe that talking to students about having sex it will make them more likely to go ahead and start having sex at an earlier age. This leaves vital information out and makes children way more susceptible to taking sexual risks without knowing it. Also, this type of teaching usually excludes any information on birth control or contraceptives. Since students aren’t being taught facts, they start to believe myths that spread around school. No one is telling them any different so why wouldn’t they believe what their peers tell them? Fortunately, learning about reproductive organs and systems are typically included in both types of curriculum. However, the only time a teacher would talk about body types is when it's about a cisgender man or a cisgender woman and how their bodies relate to puberty and pregnancy. Trans and intersex people's’ bodies are never mentioned, perpetuating the idea that their bodies are strange and wrong. The largest section of the pro-abstinence curriculum is obviously, abstinence. Students are taught that their virginity determines their worth and they automatically become unlovable if they have had premarital sex. Teachers are on record having said horrifying metaphors to spread this message comparing non-virgins to a flower with no petals, pre-chewed gum, pieces of used tape and so on. This toxic lesson creates real mental health problems for students, sometimes lasting decades after they leave school. Teachers are able to tell their students that sex is only for a cisgender, heterosexual couple after they are wed and anything else is socially unacceptable in the eyes of society. Students are also taught that sex is only for reproduction and not pleasure. In some of the strictest schools, teachers aren’t even allowed to answer a student’s question if it isn’t already covered in the mandated curriculum. Depending on the state or school district there are different levels of STD, STI, HIV and AIDS education ranging from none to parental permission requirements.

On the other side, there is a more liberal, comprehensive approach. Comprehensive curriculum intention is to prepare students for their future with fact and evidence-based knowledge. Students are taught about cisgender male and female reproductive anatomy as it relates to puberty and pregnancy just like the comprehensive classes. Comprehensive curriculums mention abstinence too but it isn’t pushed onto the students nearly as hard. It's shown as an optimal option for students but they are still given the information they need for how to stay safe if they become sexually active. Students are taught about different methods of birth control and contraceptives to prevent pregnancy. They are also taught about STDs, STIs, HIV, and AIDs. They prepare students for keeping a healthy relationship by teaching consent, good vs. bad touch and signs of a toxic relationship. In the mental health unit, students are taught about different types of mental health problems such as eating disorders, depression, anxiety and how to help keep positive mental health. In extra progressive schools, they may even teach their students about sexual orientation and gender identity.

So there are these opposing ways of teaching, but now the question is; which one works? Decades of research have all shown the same result. Comprehensive sex ed is the only curriculum to yield and positive results. Pro-abstinence curriculums are proven to have either negative or no effect on their pupils. But now we have to ask, what are these studies measuring, what results are they looking for? Across the board, the goals of sex ed are to reduce teen pregnancies, reduce STDs and STIs among minors as well as increasing the age of first sexual encounter. Studies also look for smaller numbers of sexual partners. Chart #1 combines 2017 data from the CDC on how many girls were getting pregnant per 1000 girls by state. It highlights the top 5 states with the strictest abstinence-only-until-marriage sex education laws (Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Oklahoma) and the top 5 states with medically accurate, comprehensive sex education laws (California, Colorado, Oregon, Maine, Washington). Lowering teen pregnancy rates is a common goal in both types of teaching but as the chart above proves, comprehensive sex education is the way to accomplish such goals. On average the strictest pro-abstinence-until-marriage states have double the number of teen pregnancies as the most progressive comprehensive states.

Having looked at 89 programs, the CDC’s quantitative analysis of how effective different types of sex ed programs work produced clear results. Comprehensive sex ed programs are the only ones to produce any of the desired results such as using protection, number of partners, STD/ STI, etc. According to Aaron E. Carroll at the New York Times,

In 2012, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention conducted two meta-analyses: one on 23 abstinence programs and the other on 66 comprehensive sexual education programs. The comprehensive programs reduced sexual activity, the number of sex partners, the frequency of unprotected sexual activity, and sexually transmitted infections. They also increased the use of protection (condoms and/or hormonal contraception). The review of abstinence programs showed a reduction only in sexual activity, but the findings were inconsistent and that significance disappeared when you looked at the stronger study designs (Carroll).

Decades of research, not all of which is included, has consistently proven comprehensive sex education to be the superior teaching method. Whereas pro-abstinence sex education has produced little to no positive impact on its students.

Along with passionate schools boards, another obstacle is the legal parameters surrounding sex education. Schools have too many lessons to teach with too little time to teach them. As we see with art and music classes, sex education or health class seems to be one of the first classes to go in order to make time for more core classes like math and history. Without legal pressure schools aren’t likely to teach sex ed, let alone a quality sex education class. As of 2019, only 24 states mandate sex education, 13 states require sex education to be medically accurate and 37 states allow parents to remove their children from any sex education provided.  However, when it comes to teaching abstinence, 10 states require abstinence to be covered, 27 states require abstinence to be strongly stressed and 18 states require teachers to stress how important it is to not participate in premarital sex (Guttmacher). One disgusting display of lawmakers misleading students has to do with the no-promo-homo-laws. These are sets of laws in Alabama, Arizona, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas that prohibit the teaching of homosexuality in a positive light. According to GLSEN, “In Alabama, in terms of sexual health education, “Classes must emphasize, in a factual manner and from a public health perspective, that homosexuality is not a lifestyle acceptable to the general public and that homosexual conduct is a criminal offense under the laws of the state.” Alabama State Code § 16-40A-2(c)(8). (GLSEN)”. With secretive legal loopholes and directly discriminatory laws, essentially, schools are allowed to have as corrupt of a sex education program as they please. Giving students not only incorrect information but also leaving out important information and passing on previous generations’ predigests.

In conclusion, comprehensive sex education is the only method of sex education proven effective. Pro-abstinence sex ed is a waste of time, doing more harm than good. It shames students into hiding or suppressing their sexuality giving them deep-rooted emotional problems as well as not preparing them for their future the way school is supposed to. Impressionable students are being toyed with from a young age, given false information, and end up unprepared. Comprehensive sex education may not be perfect but compared to the alternative it's the holy grail. Why bother to have a sex education program if you aren’t going to teach your kids about sex? Time has changed, and as time changes what information we prioritize telling students changes. The average age for a person’s first sexual experience is around 18, in spite of teachers promoting sex only after marriage. Kids are coming out to their parents in spite of the fact that they live in a world of queerphobia. Or they are dying by suicide at impossible rates due to lack of acceptance, sometimes it's both.

This country has 8-year-olds drowning themselves because they are told being trans is wrong and that they will burn in hell for whom they love! It's wrong and it needs to stop. Now. Instead of igniting fear, schools could be spending their valuable time preparing kids for their inevitable futures. Tell them how to have safe sex, tell them what pregnancy could mean for them, teach them how to take care of their bodies. Teach them that people are people are people are people, and it's okay! Make sure they know that even if everything feels so torturous the only option is to end it all, that there is help and life can get better. That should be the purpose of sexuality education. We have found a way that works, it's time to put it in action.

Works cited

“A Call To Action: LGBTQ Youth Need Inclusive Sex Education.” Plannedparenthood.

    With extensive research under their belts, Planned Parenthood has concluded that to achieve positive sexual health, as that is the mission of sex ed, that the LGBTQIA+ community must be included in the discussion. According to multiple surveys, less than 10% of health classes mentioned same-sex couples, nevermind gender identity and different sexualities. LGBTQIA+ kids need to know how to keep themselves safe just as much as cis straight kids do. Providing such information has proved to reduce STD’s, STI’s, and unplanned pregnancies. Sometimes it is the laws preventing positive LGBTQIA+ representation and sometimes it's the schools. Nevertheless not having inclusive information that applies to all students is a disservice to all.

    Planned Parenthood is a well-respected organization in the United States. They specialize in sex-positive, fact-based, knowledge about everything from contraceptives, to how to teach a unit on consent in school. They have many medical facilities across the country that provide low-cost care. They can help with planning a pregnancy, fertility, STD/ STI testing, birth control, contraceptives, and menstruation care. Along with their clinics, their website has more information than one could ever wish to hold in their head at once. As a whole Planned Parenthood does have a bias since it's a very liberal organization. They have consistently provided accurate, fact-based, information for decades. For the reasons above I believe that Planned Parenthood is more than qualified to be a reliable source for my essay as the majority of their websites information could be found in a comprehensive sex ed course.

Carroll, Aaron E. “Sex Education Based on Abstinence? There's a Real Absence of Evidence.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 22 Aug. 2017.

    Which works better,   education or comprehensive sex ed? Conservatives would say abstinence-only and liberals   If we look at a variety of studies and statistics, we can see what works better. Many of these studies looked at specific aspects of the curriculum and its impact on a students future. These aspects include what age people have sex for the first time, how many partners they have, contraceptive, amount of teen pregnancies, amount of STD/ STIs, etc. The verdict is in… and it's comprehensive sex- ed for the win.

    Aaron E. Carroll, author of The Bad Food Bible: How and Why to Eat Sinfully, is an expert on healthcare. He is a professor of pediatrics at Indiana School of Medicine who on occasion enjoys blogging about health research and policy at The Incidental Economist. He also makes videos for the Healthcare Triage. Since Mr. Carroll looks at such a wide variety of studies, there is minimal bias in his article.  With the support of the New York Times and the knowledge to teach many about healthcare, his work will be a welcomed contribution to my research paper as it applies to pediatric health.

“History of Sex Ed in the US.” Plannedparenthood, Nov. 2016.

    This article takes you back all the way to the ’60s explaining what health classes used to be and how they have improved over the decades. It is also explained how both public and federal support of all different types of health classes has been through a rollercoaster of ups and downs over the past 45 years, the ideas of what health class should and shouldn’t include or be in constant flux. Many people think that abstinence is the way to go, some believe health class shouldn’t include anything about sex and others believe there should be comprehensive sex ed. Whether it's a class that includes sexuality lessons or abstinence-only-until-marriage, the one thing that had stayed the same over the years is that as a public, we disagree.   

    Planned Parenthood is a well-respected organization in the United States. They specialize in sex-positive, fact-based, knowledge about everything from contraceptives, to how to teach a unit on consent in school. They have many medical facilities across the country that provide low-cost care. They can help with planning a pregnancy, fertility, STD/ STI testing, birth control, contraceptives, and menstruation care,. Along with their clinics, their website has more information than one could ever wish to hold in their head at once. They have consistently provided accurate, fact-based, information for decades. For the reasons above I believe that Planned Parenthood is more than qualified to be a reliable source for my essay as the majority of their websites information could be found in a comprehensive sex ed course.

Levin, Dan. "As Sex Education Debate Rages, Teenagers Take Lead." New York Times, 22 Feb. 2019, pp. A.16. SIRS Issues.

    California, Colorado and more! Teens are starting to take legal action to address the disgusting lack of comprehensive sex ed in America. With 37 states requiring abstinence-only education, only 17 of which have to be medically accurate kids are forced to sit down and listen to offensive misinformation. Even with definitive data from the CDC, individuals, etc. who claim that comprehensive sex ed will get more of the results conservatives want from their abstinence-only classes, it's still controversial. Parents have had a sit-in, gone to the media with false information about comprehensive sex-ed in an effort to not have these new bills for sex ed passed. This article goes into the different areas of comprehensive sex ed and how both sides feel about them, even though it has a bit of a liberal bias the other side does get represented. Reading this article will definitely help the reader understand how difficult getting new sex- ed laws can be.

    Dan Levin has dedicated the majority of his life to investigating social justice issues worldwide. From 2016-2018 he was a foreign correspondent in Canada. Before that circa 2008-2015, Mr. Levin was located in Beijing, where he reported on human rights, politics and culture. Currently, he covers American Youth for the National Desk. With a glowing resume, the support of the New York Times and an interest in youth fighting for social justice, he is a credible source.

Malloy, Steve. "Students Need Upgraded Sex-Ed Curriculum." Times-Transcript, 23 July. 2018, pp. A.7. SIRS Issues Researcher.

    Steve Malloy is speaking from experience in his personal article, Students Need Upgrade Sex-Ed Curriculum. What sparked him to write this article was Ontario's conservatives attempting to stop the updating of Ontario’s sex-ed programs. Even though this article isn’t about the US, its relevance stays the same. People all across the continent are trying to answer the question; what should sex ed look like? This article, as biased as it does bring up good points. One is that you wouldn’t let an unlicensed kid drive, because they are more than likely to crash, so why are we letting our kids go into the world not knowing how birth control works.

    Steve Malloy is a freelance writer and retail store manager located in Moncton, Canada. His article has gained the attention of many media outlets and has even been in the news. Though there isn’t much information about him online, he still has a place in research. His voice isn’t controlled. A company isn’t telling him what to say, what not to say, etc. His voice is authentic, passionate and uniquely his own. Though this isn’t the article to go to for statistics, it is a great space to learn different feelings of the public on the topic of sex-ed reform.  

Richardson, Justin. “At What Age Should Sex Education Begin?” The New York Times, The New York Times.

“Sex and HIV Education.” Guttmacher Institute, 6 May 2019.

“National Center for Health Statistics.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 15 Jan. 2019.