Abstinence‐only sex education: potential developmental effects

Abstract In the United States the federal government has spent over $170 million annually to subsidize states and com-munity organizations that provide abstinence-only sex education or abstinence until marriage sex education programs. Such an education not only stresses that ab-stinence until marriage is to be practiced but that any sexual activity outside of a monogamous heterosexual marriage is not only morally wrong but is the only way to prevent pregnancy or avoid developing a sexually transmitted disease. Any other method except for abstinence is said to fail. The government’s decision was based on politics rather than science. Those who argue against abstinence-only instruction and for com-prehensive sex education programs claim the current programs are not only ineffective but also dangerous to the children it is supposed to help and bad for soci-ety as a whole. Comprehensive sex education has been shown to increase preventive behaviors against unin-tended pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases and other sex-related complications. Many professional organizations have testified against continued funding for abstinence-only programs and for comprehensive instruction. Also, the large majority of parents of junior and senior high school students believe it is important that sex education be complete and cover such top-ics as birth control use, prevention of HIV/AIDS and other sexually-transmitted diseases, and contraception use and skills. It has evolved into a political debate to define American values. This essay is a commentary on this governmental conservative policy and the nega-tive effect it has on students’ mature development. The positive influences of comprehensive sex-education are presented.Providing a basic education is an obligation of every society. And public education admittedly has a crucial influence on every person’s development. What consti-tutes such an education after the teaching of reading, writing and arithmetic, however, varies greatly among cultures and even districts within a common society differ in their offerings. Among the most contentious areas of pedagogy are those revolving around sex. The debate can encompass whether it should be taught, at what age it should be taught and even if the subject should be taught in a coed or single-sex classroom. Most crucially there is debate over who should do the teaching. Should the instruction be by someone married or single, male or female, someone senior or someone younger? Since all education has implications and influences on social, cognitive and ethical devel-opment the decision as to the best approach is cru-cial. The current U.S. federal administration has made its decision of this matter, not on science, but on the basis of politics. It has apparently taken the approach advocated by a conservative block of the Republican Party. This essay is a commentary on this governmen-tal policy and the negative effect it has on students’ mature development.In the United States the federal government has spent over $170 million annually to subsidize states and com-munity organizations that provide abstinence-only sex