Get help now

Essay on Adequate Sexual Education of Youth

Updated August 11, 2022
dovnload

Download Paper

File format: .pdf, .doc, available for editing

Essay on Adequate Sexual Education of Youth essay

Get help to write your own 100% unique essay

Get custom paper

78 writers are online and ready to chat

This essay has been submitted to us by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our writers.

In 1994 The International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) was held in Cairo, Egypt. At this forum, there was an article published called the ICPD Programme of Action (Haberland, Rogow, August 15, 2014, pg. 1), which became known as the Cairo agenda, that urged governments to provide adequate sexuality education for their youth. In this document, the structure of what should be taught and discussed in a sufficient sexuality education course was laid out, and thus the article became one of the first international mandates calling for comprehensive sexuality education (CSE).

The ICPD was a spark that started a now decades-long conversation about sex education and how it should be taught if it should even be taught at all. Comprehensive sexuality education is defined by American organization Planned Parenthood as “K-12 programs that cover a broad range of topics” including Human Development, both romantic/sexual and platonic Relationships, Personal Skills, Sexual Behavior, Sexual Health, and Society and Culture (Planned Parenthood, What is Sex Education, para. 3). The 2016 UNESCO International Technical Guidance on Sexuality Education has a similar definition of comprehensive sex education, but its definition highlights the need for CSE to be based on sexual and reproductive health (SRH) (International Technical Guidance on Sexuality Education, February 15, 2018, pg. 16), which is a common point in definitions that look at CSE internationally.

A base in sexual and reproductive health means that all curriculum is centered around the promotion of human rights; consent and discussions of power balances are advocated within these programs. This human rights training is considered necessary, as it is seen as the only way to ensure equality in sexual situations. Though a recently published IPPF EN study that explored the use of comprehensive sex education in twenty-five WHO countries in Europe and Central Asia found that CSE is common globally (pg. 5), it is not used as the prevailing type of sexuality education in the United States. What many view as the opposite of CSE is abstinence-only until marriage or AOUM, also known as sexual risk avoidance education.

This type of education is defined as a curriculum that “[t]eaches abstinence as the expected standard of behavior for teens,” by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation (Table 1). This form of sexuality education typically covers only the merits of abstinence as the only way to completely protect oneself from the negative consequences of sex: pregnancy, STI/STDs, HIV/AIDS. AOUM courses usually omit discussion of contraceptives or birth control, do not talk about relationships outside of sexual ones, and only talk about the negative aspects of pre-marital sex. Abstinence-only sex education is considered a more traditional type of sexuality education, the oldest type, and the most unchanged since its creation.

Many parents view AOUM as the safer option to show young people, as it does not encourage sex, nor does it expose them to any other option besides abstinence. Abstinence-only is a much more simple curriculum than CSE; in the US, programs only have to fall under eight guidelines to be considered adequate AOUM instruction (Abstinence Education Programs: Definition, Funding, and Impact on Teen Behavior, June 1, 2018, Table 3). The simplicity, however, leads to problems and prompts the discussion of whether the US should still have abstinence-based sexuality education as the norm in America. Since the beginning of the shift towards comprehensive sexuality education, a general consensus from psychologists, experts in sexual behavior, and education specialists has been reached on the best way to teach youth about sex. Comprehensive sex education has pulled ahead significantly.

In the last three years, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has published two studies on the merits of CSE—one in 2015 and the other in 2018. Developed and developing nations alike use CSE, putting the United States at what many see as a disadvantage when it comes to educating their youth; American educators are starting to question whether the current system works, and if the government should be taking actions to make sure young Americans are properly equipped for the world. Both sides of this debate have valid points. On one hand, CSE is proven to work effectively, to a greater extent than abstinence-based programs, but on the other, comprehensive sex education can be seen as an overreach of the United States education system, exposing children to content not age appropriate, or that parents do not want them to see.

In scientific communities, the consensus is that comprehensive sex education is the better form of sexuality sex education on several fronts. The most discussed benefit is that CSE actually fixes all of the problems abstinence-only until marriage claims to do. According to the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation in 2007, the conclusion of a nine-year study following the four AOUM programs federally mandated in Title V found that “abstinence-only education had no effect on the sexual behavior of youth (Abstinence Education Programs: Definition, Funding, and Impact on Teen Sexual Behavior, June 1, 2018, para. 12).” Teens in AOUM programs were no more likely to abstain from sex than teens not enrolled, there was no difference in age of first sexual encounter between the two groups, and youth who participated in AOUM programs were just as likely to engage in unprotected sex (para. 11). These findings showed a need for a serious switch in programs targeting teen sexual behavior.

The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation is an organization is a leader in health in the US and the American role in global health. Its position on sexuality education is one supporting CSE, so its article is biased towards CSE; however, because of the strong supporting data and the credible sources, the article does not lose credibility due to its bias. Experts have proven that CSE programs actually fix these problems. A school-based targeted program in Kenya warning young girls about the dangers of intergenerational sex saw a pregnancy reduction by twenty-eight percent, and the Stepping Stones curriculum in South Africa saw a thirty-three percent reduction in herpes (Haberland, Rogow, January 2015, pg. 3-4).

The International Planned Parenthood Federation European Network (IPPF), a foundation dedicated to achieving sexual and reproductive health for all, released a study highlighting twenty-five Eurasian countries and comparing their forms of sexuality education and the impact of said education and found that teen birth rates tend to be very low in countries with national CSE programs in place, whereas the opposite is true for countries whose programs “are still in development (Sexuality Education in Europe and Central Asia: State of the Art and Recent Developments, 2018, pg. 30).” The same study also found that of fifteen-year-old adolescents who have had sexual intercourse, Switzerland and The Netherlands both boasted the lowest rate at only fifteen percent.

Five of the countries studied have a combined (contraceptive) pill and condom usage percentages of over one-hundred percent, indicating “that many adolescents are using both methods at the same time (Sexuality Education in Europe and Central Asia: State of the Art and Recent Developments, 2018, pg. 32).” These are also countries with comprehensive sex education and low teen birth rates. Statistics alone show that CSE is more effective than abstinence-based programs in the very areas that AOUM focuses on: teen pregnancy, safe sex, and sexually transmitted disease contraction.

These statistics alone show that comprehensive sex education is effective in lowering STD/STI rates, improving safe sex, and the age for first sexual encounter increases with comprehensive sex education. CSE curriculum should be the common sexuality education taught in US schools as it clearly helps in all areas that abstinence-only programs claim to do, and has substantial evidence from the example of other countries successfully implementing CSE and having beneficial results. The IPPF’s claim that comprehensive sexuality education is the most beneficial type of sexuality education is quite obviously biased, but it does have a plethora of evidence and data supporting its claim, giving credibility and validity to the article.

Comprehensive sexuality education is also typically based on sexual and reproductive health. UNESCO’s International Technical Guidance on Sexuality Education: an Evidence-Formed Approach, says that adolescence is “an opportune time to build healthy habits and lifestyles relating to SRH (pg. 22),” and says that key SRH subjects that should be discussed include puberty, pregnancy, access to modern contraception, unsafe abortion, violence (including gender-based violence: under-age marriage, rape, violence based on sexual orientation), STD/STIs, and HIV/AIDS (pg. 22-24). Authors of Sexuality Education: Emerging Trends in Evidence and Practice, Nicole Haberland and Deborah Rogow are both writers for Population Council, an organization what “conducts research to address critical health and development issues. (About the Population Council, para. 1); in their article, they discuss the benefits of focusing on gender and power in sex education.

In the United States, the Horizons project is based on the Theory of Gender and Power and on Social Cognitive Theory. This program conducted among African American girls focused on “ethnic and gender pride, HIV knowledge, communication, condom use skills, and healthy relationships. (Haberland, Rogow, January 2015, pg. 3)” This resulted in a thirty-five percent decrease in chlamydia contraction among program participants and increased condom use. Studies cited by Haberland and Rogow show that a general empowerment approach is beneficial as well. A gender empowerment based study led to declines in the use of physical violence in men, while another found a decrease in intergenerational sex, and the South African Stepping Stones program saw reduced rates of intimate partner violence (pg. 4).

The questioning of social norms presented in SRH comprehensive sexuality education leads to adolescents’ ability to recognize when inequality is playing a role in a platonic or sexual relationship, which helps improve discussions of consent and general communication. The argument made by these authors is strong, with supporting data coming from case studies and retrospective observational studies that have been through cross-sectional analysis. Their point that in practically every measurable facet of sexuality education, CSE is superior to AOUM is a true statement, backed by statistical evidence and data from other credible sources. It is a biased article having no positive mention of abstinence-only education and focusing entirely on CSE, but this fact does not take away from the integrity of the article.

The strong supporting evidence and the authors’ credibility, as they are both experts in their field, contribute to the making of a very strong article. Another reason that comprehensive sex education is seen as more beneficial than abstinence-only programs is that abstinence-only programs hurt students by spreading false information and using shameful and outdated tactics to discourage students from having sex. Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage: An Updated Review of U.S. Policies and Programs and Their Impact is a journal/case study published by several Columbia University faculty members along with professors from other universities around the country, which highlights the harmful messages sent in AOUM programs.

The first major fault they discuss is the claim of the conventional (abstinence-based) curriculum that sex before marriage has negative psychological impacts. “We find little evidence that consensual sex between adolescents is psychologically harmful. (pg. 3.)” Instead, the authors say that psychological harm from sex comes from traumatizing past experiences, coercion, and non-consensual sex, all of which are combated by CSE curriculum. Also, the claim from many abstinence-based programs that physical risks are higher in adolescent sex before marriage depends on environmental factors.

In countries where young adults have frequent and easy access to contraceptives, birth rates are much lower than they are in the United States, a statistic the authors cite from a 2011 University of Chicago essay. Another issue found with AOUM is that it is “at odds with commonly accepted notions of medical ethics (pg. 5).” By withholding information from students about access to contraceptives, educators lead students to believe that they have no other option but to remain abstinent. This also leads to teens not using contraceptives when they eventually do have sex, causing higher rates of pregnancy and STD/STI contraction than countries that have comprehensive sex education. AOUM programs are geared toward non-sexually active youth and do not address adolescents who have already had sex. “Data from the 2006-2010 Survey of Family Growth indicate that many sexually experienced adolescents have not received formal instruction about birth control methods (pg. 5).”

Along with not informing those students on action to be taken after having intercourse for the first time, most AOUM education shames students who have already had sex, often saying they are less worthy than their peers for not choosing abstinence, and especially devalues young women. Elizabeth Smart was kidnapped and assaulted at fourteen years old. In a speech at John Hopkins, she recalled a metaphor a teacher used about having premarital sex. The teacher said to imagine that one was a stick of gum and that every time you had sex, you became chewed up and no one would want you anymore. “But for me, I thought, ‘Oh my gosh! I’m that chewed up piece of gum’ (Oliver, August 9, 2015, 13:43).” The same tends to happen with LGBTQ+ youth, as these programs are often heteronormative and “stigmatize homosexuality as deviant and unnatural behavior (Santelli, May 18, 2018, pg. 6).” Stigma leads to health problems such as suicide, isolation, substance abuse, and violence towards minority students.

CSE empowerment programs are designed to prevent those problems by including those students and encouraging all participants in those programs to question social norms that are harmful to them and their peers. Abstinence-based programs are harmful and misleading, hurting students by withholding information, shaming students, and isolating them from one another.

Essay on Adequate Sexual Education of Youth essay

Remember. This is just a sample

You can get your custom paper from our expert writers

Get custom paper

Essay on Adequate Sexual Education of Youth. (2022, Aug 11). Retrieved from https://sunnypapers.com/essay-on-adequate-sexual-education-of-youth/