Options Beyond Abstinence: Government Takes Another Look at Sex Ed Funding


sex ed

For decades, ever since boys and girls were brought into separate rooms in fifth grade and shown grainy films with titles like, “My Body, My Self,” Sex Ed has been a hot topic of controversy. Many of us, to this day, aren’t quite certain what went on in the “other” room, and it was never discussed between boys and girls.

Today, it’s all too clear what’s being taught in publicly-funded sex ed classes for middle and high school students—and it’s all too clear that it’s not effective education, either. Since 1998, the U.S. government has provided 1.3 billion dollars in funding for abstinence-only sex education programs in public schools. And, as Jon Stewart so succinctly put it in his segment titled “The Global War in Your Pants: “Apparently, teenagers STILL want to do it!”

Older studies have shown that students who receive abstinence-only education are inclined to delay sexual activity longer than those who receive a well-rounded, or comprehensive, sex education, but that one-third of those students taught an “abstinence-only-until-marriage” curriculum are not using condoms when they do have intercourse. Teaching abstinence-only, when teens fail to listen, does nothing to prevent the spread of STDs and HIV. A group called Advocates for Youth calls abstinence-only education “ineffective, unethical and poor public health.” The group’s report spotlights just some of the misinformation being spread to teens in abstinence-only classes.

A recent study by the CDC shows that teenage boys who had comprehensive sex ed in school were 71 percent less likely than those with no sex education whatsoever to have intercourse before the age of 15, and were also more likely to use contraceptives the first time they had sex. Other reports show that comprehensive sex ed programs hold the most promise for lowering the rate of teen pregnancy and the spread of STDs.

Fortunately, these findings have opened the eyes of policymakers in Washington, and the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform held its first-ever hearing on abstinence-only-until-marriage sex ed programs last month. A number of witnesses, including researchers and other health professionals, touted the advantages of comprehensive sex education, and said that federal funding should go toward comprehensive sex ed, which has proven to be effective. Currently, federal funding is only available for abstinence-only curriculum.

If parents, or even parochial schools, wish to teach abstinence, that’s their prerogative and I support that wholeheartedly. But government funding – and public school sex ed – should focus on unbiased, medically-sound, and practical, sex education, including such topics as the use of condoms and other birth control methods.

, , , , , , , ,

Options Beyond Abstinence: Government Takes Another Look at Sex Ed Funding


sex ed

For decades, ever since boys and girls were brought into separate rooms in fifth grade and shown grainy films with titles like, “My Body, My Self,” Sex Ed has been a hot topic of controversy. Many of us, to this day, aren’t quite certain what went on in the “other” room, and it was never discussed between boys and girls.

Today, it’s all too clear what’s being taught in publicly-funded sex ed classes for middle and high school students—and it’s all too clear that it’s not effective education, either. Since 1998, the U.S. government has provided 1.3 billion dollars in funding for abstinence-only sex education programs in public schools. And, as Jon Stewart so succinctly put it in his segment titled “The Global War in Your Pants: “Apparently, teenagers STILL want to do it!”

Older studies have shown that students who receive abstinence-only education are inclined to delay sexual activity longer than those who receive a well-rounded, or comprehensive, sex education, but that one-third of those students taught an “abstinence-only-until-marriage” curriculum are not using condoms when they do have intercourse. Teaching abstinence-only, when teens fail to listen, does nothing to prevent the spread of STDs and HIV. A group called Advocates for Youth calls abstinence-only education “ineffective, unethical and poor public health.” The group’s report spotlights just some of the misinformation being spread to teens in abstinence-only classes.

A recent study by the CDC shows that teenage boys who had comprehensive sex ed in school were 71 percent less likely than those with no sex education whatsoever to have intercourse before the age of 15, and were also more likely to use contraceptives the first time they had sex. Other reports show that comprehensive sex ed programs hold the most promise for lowering the rate of teen pregnancy and the spread of STDs.

Fortunately, these findings have opened the eyes of policymakers in Washington, and the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform held its first-ever hearing on abstinence-only-until-marriage sex ed programs last month. A number of witnesses, including researchers and other health professionals, touted the advantages of comprehensive sex education, and said that federal funding should go toward comprehensive sex ed, which has proven to be effective. Currently, federal funding is only available for abstinence-only curriculum.

If parents, or even parochial schools, wish to teach abstinence, that’s their prerogative and I support that wholeheartedly. But government funding – and public school sex ed – should focus on unbiased, medically-sound, and practical, sex education, including such topics as the use of condoms and other birth control methods.

, , , , , , , ,

Welcome to Our World

Vibrator.com is dedicated to promoting a sex-positive message in our online presence through education, community, and the occasional shameless sex toy promotion. We encourage all visitors of the Vibrator.com Blog to register and participate in the discussion. We are sex educators, fetishists, fashionistas, gossipers, gripers, fiction writers, and the sexually adventurous. You are visiting blog.vibrator.com.