Sex Education Programs:
What should we be teaching our children?

view the .pdf | note: all footnotes are included within the .pdf

January 2001

by Joanna Mohn, MD

Dr. Mohn is a doctor of internal medicine and Director of the Task Force on Teen Sexual Health for the NJ Physicians Resource Council.

As the AIDS Prevention Bill (S-868), which “stresses abstinence”, awaits action in the NJ Senate Education Committee, the debate over sex education is again brought to the forefront. The heart of the debate over “Stressing Abstinence” vs “Comprehensive Sex Education” can be found in the differing views concerning the nature of sex:

Nature of Sex: Those who support current comprehensive sex education, state that sex is healthy and good and therefore teens should be taught how to have sex, and how to use contraceptives to prevent unwanted consequences. Those who support abstinence-based sex education wish to provide teens with all the medical and contraceptive facts they need, but want to make sure that our youth will have sexual intercourse that is healthy and good, believing that occurs within the confines of marriage.

Reality: The first issue we must consider is in choosing what to teach our children is which of these two views more closely reflects reality? Medical facts help to answer that question. More than 1 out of 3 sexually active teens has contracted at least one sexually transmitted disease . Sixty percent of adolescent girls who had sex before age 15 have been coerced at least once . Eighteen percent of American women now have evidence of HPV, the virus that causes 99% of cervical cancer; nearly all seriously abnormal pap smears and for which condoms offer no protection . High school and college students are among the highest risk groups. This is borne out in a 1998 medical study of sexually active college students at Rutgers University where 43% contracted HPV within the 3-yr. period . Twenty percent of teen girls who have sex become pregnant each year . But perhaps most telling, is the risk-taking profile of teens who are sexually active: they are more likely to engage in other unhealthy behaviors such as smoking, drinking, and taking drugs, and according to some studies, they are more likely to be suicidal.

The Healthiest Sex: In contrast, sex that is limited to one faithful partner within marriage protects against sexually transmitted diseases, is not a risk-taking behavior, lowers a woman’s risk of coercion and provides two parents to care for any child that is conceived-which lowers the likelihood of poverty for that child. (Many people are uncomfortable with using the word marriage, but no other relationship offers the same protections for sex that marriage does.) Is it honest or responsible to tell teens that sex is unequivocally healthy and good? Certainly not. We need to tell them that sex can be healthy and good within a specific context.

Program Content: So, the next issue is, which approach to sex education helps teens have good and healthy sex? In spite of the name of “Comprehensive Sex Education”, it is far from comprehensive, taking the mechanistic plumbing approach to sex. Teens are frequently taught about different ways of pleasuring themselves, and are encouraged to explore, which frequently leads them to sex, but not necessarily a relationship. They are given a lot of information about contraception because once a sex education program has equipped teens to engage in sex, some attempt is needed to prevent the negative consequences. In contrast, abstinence-centered sex education programs focus on the healthiest way to have sex and equip teens to make that choice, even if they have been sexually active in the past. The best programs, particularly for high-risk individuals, provide mentors for their students who model and build relationships, not just teach about them.

Effectiveness: The final question is how effective are these programs? The charge is often unfairly thrown around that no abstinence program has been shown effective. One of the most effective programs is

the Washington DC Best Friends program, which was evaluated by Dr. David Rowberry in his Ph.D. thesis at the University of Colorado. Dr. Rowberry found that the girls enrolled in that program had a pregnancy rate of 1.1%, which compared with a citywide rate of 26% . No comprehensive sex Ed program has ever claimed to decrease pregnancy rates. In New Jersey we have our own Best Friends program in public schools in Newark. The program participants represent a cross section of students, not only those that are at lower risk. Of the 500+ girls in the program over a two-yr. period 1998-1999, there was a pregnancy rate of less than 1% . And last, but not least, in this month’s American Journal of Sociology, Drs. Peter Bearman and Hannah Bruckner have published an article which shows that teens who take a pledge of virginity delay intercourse significantly. Although this is not an evaluation of any single abstinence program, it shows that the abstinence movement had a definite positive impact in delaying and preventing teen sexual activity.

Too many teens are suffering the consequences of unhealthy sexual activity. Therefore it is imperative, that as a state we educate and equip teens to save sex until they are ready for the healthiest context – marriage.

Jan. 2001
PRINTED BY ASBURY PARK PRESS

back...