Programs regarding sex and sexuality education in public schools have, until recently, only focused on abstinence. However, abstinence-only education did just that: it abstained from educating. With a lack of results from the abstinence-only programs many groups rallied for change. Thirty years after its introduction and no results later most people favor a more comprehensive sex education program. Abstinence-only programs did nothing to lower teen pregnancy rates and are therefore being replaced with a more comprehensive form of sex education. What is generally agreed upon as a comprehensive sex education program is one that emphasizes abstinence but also includes information regarding contraception. The new curriculum offers basic information regarding reproduction, birth control, disease prevention and (hetero)sexuality. Just as the abstinenceonly model did not work; the newer programs also fail to include necessary information concerning all sexualities (hetero, homo, and fluid). The new programs are heterosexually biased because they do not give information concerning non-heterosexual sex. The lack of information is both exclusionary and discriminatory. <\/p>\n
While the format of abstinence only sex education has been deemed ineffective on many fronts, Hazel Glenn Beh, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Hawaii, and Milton Diamond, professor of anatomy and reproductive biology at the University of Hawaii, linked the program to increases in non-heteronormative sex. They claimed one particular problem was that young adults were engaging in non-coital activities in efforts to remain abstinent. They support the facts that not only were abstinence education programs not working but claim that they were driving adolescents to riskier behaviors. Beh and Diamond state: <\/p>\n
adolescents who have undergone abstinence-only education and who later engage in coital and non-coital activity, as most will prior to marriage, are ill-prepared to protect themselves; they may not use a condom because they do not know how or because they mistakenly believe that condoms are ineffective, may be unaware of the risks they experience when engaging in non-coital sexual activity as a strategy to remain \"abstinent,\" and may be more vulnerable to adverse consequences of unprotected sex because they have not rehearsed and otherwise prepared for the contingency that they will not always be abstinent. (Beh, Diamond). <\/p>\n
In 2002, Lambda Legal produced a toolkit Tell Me the (Whole) Truth. This was the first action-oriented resource specifically addressing the anti-gay aspects of abstinence-only programs and their effect on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and questioning youth (New Toolkit). <\/p>\n
Beh and Diamond missed the fact that not all adolescents identify themselves as heterosexual. The assumption of their behaviors as risky because they are non-coital is off the mark. The risk factor lies in the lack of information as to how they can adequately protect themselves against diseases while engaging in non-heterosexual sex. Lambda Legal begins to offer information to non-heterosexual adolescents in its 2002 toolkit, but it focused on abstinence-only programs, and would need to be updated in order to be effective in the new programs. A majority of Americans believed that teaching abstinence-only until marriage was a disservice to our youth and have embraced the new comprehensive programs. However, some of these new programs fail to fully address the wide spectrum of sexual identities and needs associated with each. I will address the faults of a heteronormative program and offer solutions for inclusion of all sexualities. I will also show results that could be attained by following or incorporating aspects of the Dutch model of teaching sex and sexuality education. I will also offer suggestions for ensuring incorporation of a non-heterosexually biased sex education program. <\/p>\n
A contributing factor to the problem of teen pregnancies was that the abstinence-only programs provided false information about the effectiveness of condoms (if they provided any information at all). This combined with a shifting definition of abstinence among teens may have lead heterosexual young adults to engage in alternatives such as oral or anal sex. This raised concern and was seen as risky behavior. However, sexually active homosexual teens would engage in these acts and need adequate information regarding disease prevention. <\/p>\n
There is no need to fully scrape everything when forming a new program. A non-biased program could draw from the previous abstinence model. The program holds valid points. The abstinence-only education programs were born out of an eight point definition based on religious idealism. Unfortunately, the comprehensive programs are essentially incorporating the same standards with the addition of information regarding heterosexual sex, specifically STD and pregnancy prevention. I believe half of the abstinence only programs outline should be saved and incorporated into new sex education programs, while the other half cannot be incorporated into any program that wishes to include all sexualities. The points that should remain are backed by science, not religious ideals. The expectation of marriage draws attention to the obvious exclusion of large groups of sexually active people. Laws regarding same-sex marriages support this point. The expectation of sex occurring only in marriage excludes not only pre\/extra-marital heterosexual sex, but any and all non-heterosexual sex. I believe these aspects constitute indoctrination into religious ideals and a heteronormative culture without regard to nature or science. In order to fully educate our youth about sex and sexuality, we must rely on facts and proven effective programs, not standards of religion. <\/p>\n
The report \"Births: Preliminary Data for 2006,\" prepared by CDCs National Center for Health Statistics, and are based on data from over 99 percent of all births for the United States in 2006, shows that between 2005 and 2006, the birth rate for teenagers 15-19 years rose 3 percent, from 40.5 live births per 1,000 females aged 15-19 years in 2005 to 41.9 births per 1,000 in 2006. This follows a 14-year downward trend in which the teen birth rate fell by 34 percent from its recent peak of 61.8 births per 1,000 in 1991 (Ventura). So not only is the problem not being solved, its getting worse. Birthrates are actually rising rather than falling among teens. These statistics have proven the ineffectiveness of abstinence only programs in regards to not decreasing the rate of teen pregnancy, but the focus on this aspect alone shows the heteronormative bias of expectations. With pregnancy being an obvious result of heterosexual sex, the focus on these statistics draws attention from other sectors. While pregnancy may not be as pressing of an issue for lesbians or gays as it is for heterosexuals, disease prevention most definitely is. <\/p>\n
After an anti-choice, anti-sexuality education and anti-family planning Bush administration, The Obama administration has promised change on many political fronts, sex education included (Osher). In his inaugural address he specifically stated that he will stop funding education programs that dont work. This would obviously apply to unsuccessful abstinence only programs. Obama has a record of working toward more comprehensive sex education programs. In 2007, as senator, Obama co-sponsored the Responsible Education About Life Act, which would have provided grants to states to provide abstinence-plus education(Yoder). Abstinence-plus education would still emphasize abstinence as the only way to prevent pregnancy and STDs but it would also educate students about contraceptives and their proper use. Unfortunately, this bill, along with the Prevention First Act died in subcommittee. <\/p>\n
When we begin to outline a new all-inclusive sex education program for the United States, we need to look to other programs that have succeeded. A great model that the United States could look to would be the Netherlands. I believe that the open forum of discussion about sex and sexuality as represented in the Dutch model is the framework that will lead to educated, healthy, wise-decision-making young adults. An open-talk curriculum has been embrace with great results. One example of a class exercise for twelve to fifteen year olds is: How would you react if your boyfriend refused to use a condom? How do your friends feel about condoms? Write down what you think they will answer and ask them if you were right (Guss). The program ensures that all students engage in the activities regardless of their sexual identity. For example, both males and females would have participated in the previous questions. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Follow this link:<\/p>\n
Writer Rhiannon<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Programs regarding sex and sexuality education in public schools have, until recently, only focused on abstinence. Continue reading