Abstinence-only sex education
Abstinence-only sex education (also known as sexual risk avoidance education)[1] is a form of sex education that teaches not having sex outside of marriage. It often excludes other types of sexual and reproductive health education, such as birth control and safe sex. In contrast, comprehensive sex education covers the use of birth control and sexual abstinence.
Evidence does not support the effectiveness of abstinence-only sex education.[2][3] It has been found to be ineffective in decreasing HIV risk in the developed world.[4] It does not decrease rates of sexual activity or unplanned pregnancy when compared to comprehensive sex education.[2]
The topic of abstinence-only education is controversial in the United States, with proponents claiming that comprehensive sex education encourages premarital sexual activity, and critics arguing that abstinence-only education is religiously motivated and that the approach has been proven ineffective and even detrimental to its own aims.
Society and culture[edit]
Support[edit]
Proponents of abstinence-only sex education argue that this approach is superior to comprehensive sex education because it emphasizes the teaching of morality that limits sex to that within the bounds of marriage, and that sex before marriage and at a young age has heavy physical and emotional costs.[29] In addition, abstinence programs often teach young people that pleasure in sex is most likely to be found within marriage, and therefore, that they should wait to engage in sexual activity until they are married.[30] Abstinence generally places a great emphasis on the importance of the institution of marriage, which some proponents believe allows young people to grow and develop as individuals.[31]
Proponents suggest that comprehensive sex education encourages premarital sexual activity among teenagers, which should be discouraged in an era when HIV and other incurable STIs are widespread and when teen pregnancy is an ongoing concern. According to the Guttmacher Institute,[32] the AFLA, or Adolescent Family Life Act, was a five year-program with costs estimated around $250 million. Many supporters of abstinence-only education do so out of the belief that comprehensive guides to sex or information about contraceptives will ultimately result in teens actively pursuing and engaging in sexual activities,[23] while others oppose the endorsement of contraception for religious reasons.[33] Adults may view teenagers as less intelligent and less responsible, and unable to control themselves due to their hormones. As a result, a teenager's sexual desire is something that needs to be controlled,[34] dividing the teens into two separate categories in the minds of adults: "the innocent and the guilty, the vulnerable and the predatory, the pure and the corrupting."[35]
Opposition[edit]
Opponents and critics, which include prominent professional associations in the fields of medicine, public health, adolescent health, and psychology, argue that such programs fail to provide adequate information to protect the health of adolescents. Not only is information inadequate, but opponents believe that young people have the right to receive comprehensive information about how to protect themselves and their sexual health.[36] Accurate information is especially important since, although some supporters may claim that abstinence is an effective method, it has been found that a small percentage of people actually practice it.[36]
Some critics also argue that such programs verge on religious interference in secular education. Opponents of abstinence-only education dispute the claim that comprehensive sex education encourages teens to have premarital sex.[37] The idea that sexual intercourse should only occur within marriage also has serious implications for people for whom marriage is not valued or desired, or is unavailable as an option, particularly LGBT people living in places where same-sex marriage is not legal or socially acceptable.[38][39][40][41][42] Abstinence-only education is often criticized for being overly heteronormative, idealizing the institution of heterosexual marriage to the denigration of queer relationships.[43] In addition, the heteronormativity of abstinence-only education, as well as the focus on marriage, means that members of the LGBT community will never receive formal information about how to practice safe sex, which is problematic, since they are already at an increased risk for STIs.[44]
According to Advocates for Youth, abstinence-only sex education distorts information about contraceptives, including only revealing failure rates associated with their use, and ignoring discussion of their benefits.[45] The language surrounding medicine and health is construed as being both objective and value free.[43] This objectivity is then adopted by conservative politicians and campaigners to assert authority which historically holds its basis in religion.[46]
Abstinence-only education is not supported by the majority of public school teachers, parents, and students. The majority in each of these groups is opposed to abstinence-only curriculum and wants a more comprehensive curriculum. "Although more than nine in 10 teachers believe that students should be taught about contraception... one in four are instructed not to teach the subject." Even when there are no rules limiting sex education to abstinence-only, teachers may continue to teach abstinence-only curriculum because they fear retaliation from the local community. Parents also want their children to be taught about contraception. "Most parents (65%) believe that sex education should encourage young people to delay sexual activity but also prepare them to use birth control and practice safe sex once they do become sexually active." 86% of parents want schools to teach their children how to get STD testing, 77% want their children to learn how to talk to a partner about STDs and birth control, 71% want them to learn how to use condoms, and 68% want them to learn about using other forms of birth control. Students are also opposed to abstinence-only education. "Approximately half of students in grades 7-12 report needing more information about what to do in the event of rape or sexual assault, how to get tested for HIV and other STDs, and how to talk with a partner about birth control and STDs." Clearly, there is a disparity between the type of sex education curriculum teachers, parents, and students want and what government policy determines they receive.[47]
Definition[edit]
Another problem for abstinence education is the definition of abstinence. Santelli (2006) states that there is no strict definition of abstinence within the US federal government guidelines for teaching abstinence-only sex education, using a mixture of non-specific phrases, like "postponing sex" or "never had vaginal sex", while also using moralistic terms or phrases like virgin, chaste, and "making a commitment".[36] This has resulted in sexual activities that are not penile-vaginal, including manual sex, oral sex and anal sex, being considered outside of the scope of abstention from sex, which is termed technical virginity.[48]