The United States has a teen pregnancy and HIV and STD problem, and policymakers are ignoring the scientific research that can reduce these problems.  In the United States today, sex education is frequently debated on national, state, city, and district levels. Many people argue that abstinence-only education should be taught in schools even though this method has been proven ineffective at preventing pregnancy in young girls, delaying the age that a person first has sex, and decreasing the spread of HIV and STDs.  Additionally, abstinence-only education programs use medically inaccurate facts and use intimidating language to try and scare and shame students out of having sex. Comprehensive sex education is the solution for the teen pregnancy and HIV and STD problem in the United States. Comprehensive sex education includes medically accurate information about a wide array of topics and gives students the information to make healthy and informed decisions while combating the unhealthy sexual messages they receive through the media.  Comprehensive sex education programs are proven to delay the age at which a student has their first sexual experience, and lower the rate of teen pregnancy and the spread of HIV and STDs. Scientists and advocates for comprehensive sex education have developed age-appropriate curriculum for students K-12 that is proven to work. All states should adopt a comprehensive sex education plan in their schools, because while giving students correct and inclusive information to make their own decisions about sex, comprehensive sex education is also proven to combat teen pregnancy rates and the spread of HIV and STDs.  

Abstinence-only education programs do not teach students anything about sex; it is not "education" at all. Abstinence-only programs are driven by moral and religious beliefs, simply telling students not to have sex outside of marriage, and in the process, providing medically inaccurate information as an attempt to scare students out of having sex. The Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, SIECUS, put together an article of examples from real commonly used abstinence-only workbooks and manuals. The programs included medically inaccurate information such as stating that "AIDS can be transmitted from skin to skin contact," and another stating that "any kind of sexual activity can spread STDs from one person to another" (Fact Sheet). A school environment is supposed to be one where students are taught and not lied to. Teaching students false facts does not set up children to succeed. If and when they find out these facts are false, they are going to be extremely embarrassed and confused.  Not only is lying to student harmful, but it is totally unethical and should not happen about any topic.  

Abstinence-only education programs not only lie to students about the physical risks of sex, but they also try to convince children of false emotional consequences. The curriculum did not teach the use or effectiveness of contraceptives because "students who do not choose to exercise self-control to remain abstinent are not likely to exercise self-control in the use of a contraceptive device."  First off, this statement is inaccurate because countless people in America practice safe sex through the use of contraceptives.  Also, this statement puts a negative connotation on sex.  Sex is a personal decision -- it is okay for someone to choose to have sex, and it is okay for someone to choose not to have sex -- , and is not something students should fear or be told they have to "exercise self-control."  Another inappropriate way the curriculum discussed the emotional risks of sex was saying that "no matter how strong a condom is, it won't protect you from a broken heart" (Fact Sheet).  Having sex is a serious choice for someone to make, and in some situations, having sex can cause emotional stress. This statement automatically implies that if someone has sex, they will get their heart broken.  This statement is false, and a better way to discuss the emotional risks of sex would be to teach students about healthy relationships and what to consider when trying to make decisions about sex not by trying to scare them out of the act. 

The programs also promoted gender stereotypes -- it may be surprising that the following excerpt telling girls to dress modestly is from a workbook published in 2004 that was actually used in classrooms:

Males and females are aroused at different levels of intimacy. Males are more sight orientated whereas females are more touch orientated. This is why girls need to be careful with what they wear, because males are looking! The girl might be thinking fashion, while the boy is thinking sex. For this reason, girls have a responsibility to wear modest clothing that doesn't invite lustful thoughts (Fact Sheet). 

The language in the excerpt further strengthens the attitude that women's only purpose is for men to look at. This excerpt shames females by telling them to cover up while making men seem like animals by saying they "are looking!" and implying that they cannot help but think about sex. The programs also tried to scare students and shame them into not having sex. One activity directed students to pass a rose around the classroom and to remove a petal when the rose was passed to them. When all the petals were removed, the teacher would reveal that the flower represented someone who had casual sex, and that when a person has sex outside of marriage, they lose a sense of personal value and worth. Another book stated that people "who board this ride" (the ride being sex) "will come out losers," and that a girl who has participated in sexual activity "is no longer pure, unspoiled and fresh" (Fact Sheet).  The idea that sex makes a female used is extremely objectifying and wrong. To be extremely blunt and correct and to quote Last Week Tonight with John Oliver's segment about sex education, "A woman who has had sex is not like a dirty shoe. A woman who has had sex is like a shoe with laces, completely fucking normal" (LastWeekTonight). Sex is a personal decision, and students should not be shamed for their decisions about sex.

What does an abstinence-only education advocate look like? One example is Pam Stenzel, whose website says that she talks about the physical and emotional consequences of having sex outside of marriage. Just three years ago, Pam was hired to give a talk to an assembly of students at a West Virginia high school. Just two of the extremely inaccurate, offensive facts that Stenzel presented was that birth control makes a girl "ten times more likely to contract a disease than if she were not taking that drug" and that "this girl could end up sterile or dead," and that "If you have sex outside of one permanent, monogamous  -- monogamy does not mean one at a time, that means one partner who has only been with you --  ...you will pay. No one has EVER had more than one partner and not paid" (Gray & Tassel). This negative, accusatory, inaccurate language is not how to talk to students about sex.  There are many other quotes that could be listed where abstinence-only programs have been medically inaccurate or discussed sex in a negative way. All of the examples presented show that the curriculum of abstinence-only education does not provide true or helpful information and assumes that everyone has the same moral and religious beliefs about waiting to have sex until marriage.  The truth is that students are having sex and need be to taught about sex with positive language and not the negative and demeaning language use in abstinence-only education.    

To put it simply, abstinence-only education does not work. Supporters of abstinence-only education believe that teaching adolescence about sex will cause them to be promiscuous, but this has been proven false (Gray & McKee). Abstinence-only programs are proven ineffective and government funded abstinence-only programs positively correlated with teenage pregnancy ("Comprehensive Sex Education is More Effective" & Stanger-Hall). Research shows that comprehensive sex education is significantly better at preventing the spread of HIV ("Comprehensive Sex Education is More Effective"). The fact that the abstinence-only sex education approach has been used to educate so many students and received government funding for the past 30 years is appalling.

An approach to educating students about sexual health and relationships that does work is comprehensive sex education. When someone thinks of sex education, they usually think of students learning about sexual intercourse, and students practicing by putting a condom on a banana; this is not what comprehensive sex education is. Comprehensive sex education includes gender, human growth and development, body image, relationships, sexual orientation, human reproduction and pregnancy, contraceptives, prevention of STDs and HIV, abstinence, sexual attitudes and values, sexual health, and pleasure. These topics are presented over the course of an adolescents' student career, and are presented at age appropriate times. The facts presented are medically accurate and have been proven by peer reviewed scientific research ("Implementing Sex Education"). Comprehensive sex education programs do not encourage students to have sex and actually delay the age at which a student first has sex. Two-thirds of comprehensive sex education programs affect student sexual behavior in a positive way by both delaying when a student first has sex and increasing the chance that a student will use a condom and other forms of contraception. While, as stated previously, there has been no reliable research that abstinence-only programs delay the age a student first participates in sex or decreases the spread of HIV and STD ("Comprehensive Sex Education: Research and Results" & Kirby 20). Comprehensive sex education programs give students the necessary tools to make educated decisions and protect themselves emotionally and physically.

It is important to require the teaching of comprehensive sex education in schools because of the high rates of pregnancy and HIV and STDs in the United States. A survey conducted in 2006 discovered that 82% of teenage pregnancies were unwanted ("Facts on American Teens"). A survey by the Population Institute found that almost half of all pregnancies in teenagers and adults are unwanted in the United States ("The State of Reproductive Health and Rights "). Scientist estimate that half of all HIV infections first occur in people below the age of 25, that most HIV infections are acquired through unprotected sex, and that this is because people were unaware of the risks of unprotected sex or how to protect themselves ("Based on the Research, Comprehensive Sex Education Is More Effective at Stopping the Spread of HIV Infection, Says APA Committee"). The Center for Disease Control and Prevention conducted a survey on high school students in 2011. The results found that 47% of high school students were sexuality active, and 15% of those students had four of more partners ("State Policies on Sex Education in Schools" & Grossman). Since it is a fact that high school students are having sex, high school students need to have factual information to protect themselves. Though the United States' teenage pregnancy rate is at its' lowest, the United States still has the highest teenage pregnancy rate "among developed nations" ("State Policies on Sex Education in Schools & Stranger-hall). The truth is that students are going to make their own decisions about sex, and the only way to protect students is to give them the information they need to succeed. 

Comprehensive sex education is important is that students growing up today are taught about sexuality and sex from a countless amount of sources from the media to the peers, family members, teachers, and other people students come into contact with. Sex socialization is the process of adolescents gaining understanding of ideas, beliefs, values, and cultural symbols about sex. Sex socialization takes place both in the home, with children observing how their parents interact, and outside the home, with children obtaining information about sex from the media and their peers. This information received can include religious and cultural beliefs about having sex only in marriage, abortion, birth control, and gender roles (Shtarkshall). 75% of primetime television incudes sexual content, and 40% of the 300 most popular songs in 2005 had sexual references, and only 6% of the songs had sexual messages that were healthy. Students also receive sexual messages from pornography, a billion-dollar industry, and through social media and advertisements (Strasburger). With so many sexual messages coming at them, students need a place to learn the medically accurate information about sex and relationships.  This place should be in schools with trusted teachers and medically professionals teaching students comprehensive sex education.  

Though medically inaccurate, abstinence-only education can still be taught today because of the shocking current laws states have regulating sex education in schools. Only 18 states require that contraception is taught in schools. Only 19 states require that information is medically accurate, allowing for 31 states to teach students medically inaccurate information ("State Policies on Sex Education in Schools."). There are also 19 states where that if sex education is taught, the program must include information on abstinence but does not need to include information on contraceptives (Klein). These laws allow for countless students around the country to not have the information needed to make their own decisions and puts them at risk for HIV and STDs, unwanted pregnancy, and sexual violence. The Population Institute is a world wide organization dedicated to supporting sexual and reproductive health rights. In 2016, this organization did extensive research of each states policies on sexual education, and policies on sexual health. Overall, the United States received a D+, an average of 19 Fs, 7 Ds, 8 Cs, 11 Bs, and only 5 As ("The State of Reproductive Health and Rights," 4). To reduce the teen pregnancy rate and reduce the spread of STDs and HIV states need to implement better laws to get students the comprehensive sex education they need. 

Implanting the scientifically proven comprehensive sex education programs in schools is not hard. One of the As in the Population Institute's study was Oregon, receiving a 15 out of 15 under the sex education category, because "Oregon mandates comprehensive sex education in schools, covering abstinence, HIV prevention, and different methods of contraception. Oregon also requires that the education is medically accurate (Morrow & "The State of Reproductive Health and Rights," 4). Lisa Estrada, a principal from an Oregon school, said "I'm glad we're preparing kids for their requirements and happy that we're preparing them to make healthy life decisions," after hearing about Oregon's great rating on sex education in schools (Morrow). Lisa's attitude is the attitude that all adults should have when discusses sex education. Policymakers need to realize that comprehensive sex education is about teaching people how to make healthy life decisions. They need to listen to the scientific research and surveys and implement comprehensive sex education at all schools. 

Many well-respected organizations have made guidelines to implement the best comprehensive sex education in schools and every state should have in place a comprehensive sex education plan. SIECUS and Planned Parenthood both agree that sex education should be taught from kindergarten to 12th grade (Guidelines for Comprehensive Sex Education K-12 & "Implementing Sex Education"). SIECUS has published a 112 page book which can be retrieved as a PDF online with easy to understand levels stating what students should be taught at what ages. Level 1 includes students 5-8; level 2 includes students 9-12; level 3 includes students 12-15; level 4 includes students 15-18. The curriculum is split into five key concepts -- human development, relationships, personal skills, sexual behavior, sexual health, and society and culture. Contraceptives can be taught to children ages k-12 using different language at every level. At level 1, students are simply taught that some people have children and others do not. At level 2, students are taught that if a man and woman have intercourse and do not want a child, they can use a form of contraception. They are also taught how some religion and cultures do not accept the use of contraceptives, and that the use of contraceptives is a personal decision. At level 3, students are taught that "young people who are considering sexual intercourse should talk to a parent or another adult about their decision and about contraception."  Different kinds contraceptives and their effectiveness against pregnancy and STDs are also discussed along with where to get certain types of contraception. At level 4, students are taught about emergency contraception, and students further discuss deciding between religious and cultural values and contraceptives (Guidelines for Comprehensive Sex Education K-12, 58-59). This is just an example of one topic of the 39 topics outlines in SIECUS' book. Ideally, both schools and parents should play a role in educating students about sex.  The curriculum in Guidelines for Comprehensive Sex Education K-12 is the curriculum that has been scientifically tested and proven to work, comprehensive sex education These guidelines, specifically, should be the one's adopted by schools across America because the guidebook is extremely inclusive and easy to understand.  Policymakers need to realize that laws need to be passed require comprehensive sex education in schools.   

Obama took a huge step in promoting comprehensive sex education and throwing out abstinence-only education. The fist time the government funded abstinence-only education was in 1981 under Ronald Reagan, and even though there was still evidence against abstinence-only education the government continued to fund it. Abstinence-only education funding "grew exponentially" under George W. Bush, and in total, from the 1996 and 2010 over 1.5 billion of taxpayer's money was used for funding abstinence-only programs.  In 2010, under Barrack Obama, two programs that were supporting abstinence-only education ended, the Community-Based Abstinence Education and part of the Adolescent Family Life Act ("A History of Federal Funding"). Obama also officially cut all funding for abstinent-only programs in his proposed federal budget for 2017 (WITW Staff). These are all important steps towards the end of abstinence-only education and the rise of comprehensive sex education.  

Abstinence-only education has been taught in the United States for too long. Someone who is interested in promoting comprehensive sex education can contact school boards and district, city, state, and federal policymakers to tell them the importance of comprehensive sex education and to tell them that this topic matters to the public.  Students deserve to have correct information about sex, and all of the medical and psychological categories that come with making decisions about sex.  These topics are addressed correctly by comprehensive sex education, as proven by multiple studies and surveys. Comprehensive sex education can fight the teen pregnancy rates and the spread of HIV and STDs in the United States. Students are receiving negative sexual messages from so many sources, and someone needs to be held responsible. It is the government and schools job because pregnancy rates and HIV and STDs are public health problems.  All states should adopt comprehensive sex education curriculum using or using something similar to SIECUS' comprehensive sex education guidelines. Comprehensive sex education is not required in a majority of states today because of policymakers who either are against comprehensive sex education or do not have comprehensive sex education on their agenda. 

