“Don’t have sex or you will get pregnant and die.” Ok, maybe Mean Girls is an exaggeration of my school-sponsored sexual education experience. At my school, they didn’t even tell us about the getting pregnant part. Sex-ed was simple:
Do not have sex. There is no need to tell you what can happen if you do, nor how to deal with it responsibly because you will NOT have sex.
Granted, my Catholic middle school was responsible for providing this component of my education, so to call the curriculum conservative would be an understatement. That being said, an overwhelming majority of my peers also received state-funded abstinence-only sexual education and exited high school with the same scanty knowledge about human sexuality as I did.
Last year, Governor Ritter signed House Bill 1292, which systematically banned the practice of abstinence-only sex education in Colorado schools.
It also rejected federal funding for sexual education, because in order to qualify, the state must commit to a curriculum of abstinence-only. This bill, which requires schools to stress abstinence, while simultaneously provide information about sexually transmitted infections, contraceptives, and pregnancy, has faced heavy opposition from many conservative and religious groups.
These organizations claim that comprehensive sexual education undermines the “success” of abstinence-only by changing the message from “Abstinence is the only way to avoid adverse consequences” to “Sex is fine as long as you do it right.”
But how successful has the abstinence-only approach been? A five year-long study conducted by Advocates for Youths found that “abstinence-only programs show little evidence of sustained (long-term) impact on attitudes and intentions Worse, they show some negative impacts on youth’s willingness to use contraception.”
While the study did show that in some cases, short-term effects were evident, overall it found that abstinence-only education was not the most effective way to keep middle and high school students pregnancy and STI-free.
At best, the approach might delay the onset of an adolescent’s first sexual experience by a year, but when that year is over he or she still lacks the proper information to make healthy, responsible, and age-appropriate decisions.
While conservative parents and organizations might prefer the traditional method of sexual education for their adolescents, the abstinence-only approach only acts as a disservice to all parties.
It prohibits access to information that would otherwise help teenagers decide if, when, and how it would be appropriate to initiate their sexual lives.
In Colorado, 39% of students age 15-17 have reported engaging in sexual intercourse. This statistic does not include oral sex or other sexual contact that did not result in intercourse, although these methods can lead to the contraction of an STI.
Of these 39%, less than three-fourths used a condom during intercourse. A causal relationship cannot be drawn between unprotected sex and abstinence-only sexual education, but it can be suggested that had each of these adolescents been informed about the accessibility of contraceptive options, the number engaging in sex without a condom would decrease.
I find it ironic that abstinence-only instruction is called an “education.” Strictly speaking, in order to be educated, one must leave with more or different knowledge than they entered.
As is often the case with abstinence-only sex education programs, I acquired no new information; my teacher simply reiterated the message my parents had already imparted upon me.
Planned Parenthood suggests that information regarding contraception and sexually transmitted infections, along with discussion about the biological, psychological, and ethical aspects of sexuality are all necessary for successful and effective sexual education.
Having only ever received the ethical portion, I graduated high school still hazy about STI’s, still clueless about effective and ineffective uses of birth control, and still confused about my personal views on human sexuality.
The median age for a teenager’s first sexual experience is around 17 years old-still young enough to be required to learn about the potential consequences of his or her actions.
Comprehensive sexual education does not encourage premarital sex. Rather, it teaches adolescents how to responsibly and maturely make the decision whether or not to engage in sexual activities.
Had I received comprehensive sex-ed, my decision not to be sexually active in high school would have been the same, but I would have felt that my choice was based more on self-knowledge than sexual ignorance.
The ban on abstinence-only sex-ed, if executed responsibly, can lead to innumerable benefits for Colorado’s youth: the least of which being that their instructors would be slightly more qualified than any Lindsey Lohan movie.
Kelley Winn is a Human Biology student at Stanford University. She is from Lone Tree and graduated from Highlands Ranch High School in 2006.
EDITOR’S NOTE: This is an online-only column and has not been edited.
