The debate to between whether the traditional abstinence-only education practices is the most appropriate method to teaching young people sex education in comparison to the comprehensive educational program is analyzed through the study presented in “Abstinence-Only Education and Teen Pregnancy Rates: Why We Need Comprehensive Sex Education in the U.S” by Kathrin Stranger-Hall and David Hall. The abstinence-only approach is deeply engrained with the dominant societal values of waiting to partake in sexual activity until engaged in a heterosexual marriage with desire to reproduce; this is done by instilling fear of STD’s into children, sharing incorrect medical information and promoting abstinence behavior through emotion. On the other hand, comprehensive educational programs offer knowledge in regards to abstinence, contraception, other protection methods and STD education. The study categorized the levels (0-3) from sex education programs that don’t specifically mention abstinence within their program (0) – abstinence being stressed (3). The begin by looking at the sex education programs present in 48 states individually, the states teen pregnancy, abortion and birth data, and other factors – while asking the question, which educational method (comprehensive vs abstinence-only) is most effective in the reduction of teen pregnancies in the US. While some argue that being open while teaching about sex education may encourage students to engage in adolescent sexual activity, the study says otherwise; states that offered comprehensive sex education had lower rates of teen pregnancy. On the flip side, the abstinence-only educational programs are leaving the students uneducated in respect to reproductive knowledge and unequipped with the knowledge needed to make educated decisions. The dangers of passing on incorrect information “is long-lasting as uneducated teens grow into uneducated adults” – which is a quote from my article that had made the importance of understanding how to successfully teach sex education to our students apparent to myself. Though the comprehensive method is deemed the most appropriate, it too has its flaws within itself – which is what I hope to look into throughout the rest of my critical summary. I will be looking into the silencing of the LGBTQ2+ community and leaving many teens unequipped to engage in a sexual life that is different than that of the heteronormative views throughout the article “If There’s On Benefit, You’re not Going to Get Pregnant” by Michelle Estes. Another major topic that is often left out of the discussion is consent education, which is what I will be looking into within the article “Sexual consent in K-12 Sex Education” by Malachi Willis, Kristen Jozkowski and Julia Read. References: Estes, M. (2017). “If There’s One Benefit, You’re not Going to Get Pregnant”: The Sexual Mis education of Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Individuals. Sex Roles, 77(9-10), 615-627. Stanger-Hall, K., Hall, D., & Vitzthum, V. (2011). Abstinence-Only Education and Teen Pregnancy Rates: Why We Need Comprehensive Sex Education in the U.S (Abstinence Education and Teen Pregnancy). PLoS ONE, 6(10), E24658. Willis, M., Jozkowski, K., & Read, J. (2019). Sexual consent in K-12 sex education: An analysis of current health education standards in the United States. Sex Education, 19(2), 226-236.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
About the Author: Jordyn NeufeldJordyn is an Education student at the University of Regina. She enjoys camping in the summer and trying to stay warm in the winter. Coffee is her favourite drink and a necessity most mornings. She loves cuddling her cats and being surrounded by her family. Please take a look into my educational journey within ECS 210. Archives
April 2020
|