February 14th, Add a Comment After significant outbreaks of sexually transmitted diseases among soldiers in World War I, the federal government became involved and allocated money to educate soldiers about gonorrhea, syphilis and chlamydia. Inthe U. As a result in the s, sex education began to be taught in public schools.
And, though young people learn about sex and sexuality throughout their days and lives, US debates about sexuality education focus on school-based learning. Recent policymaking and funding in the United States for sexuality education has rested on the contested question of whether abstinence-only or comprehensive sexuality education best meets the needs of students, families, and communities.
These scholarly works—along with the debates and teaching practices they consider—reflect the social conflicts they attempt to analyze.
Thus, changes wrought by the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer LGBTQ rights movement, feminism, the Civil Rights movement, and religious conservatism fill the pages of the scholarship we review—whether as subjects of analysis or as frameworks guiding the analysis.
Though politics routinely informs academic research, it may be especially the case in a subject like sexuality education. Thus, this bibliography and the scholarship cited in this article reflect the leanings and concerns of public debate, though this article has made an effort to include authors and texts that resist the conventional leanings and push our thinking beyond the usual bounds.
This bibliography also focuses on sexuality education in the United States, though included are some texts written about other national contexts when the arguments have particular resonance with US concerns. The authors thank Jen Gilbert for her feedback on earlier versions of this bibliography.
Abstinence and Abstinence-Only Education In the United States, abstinence continues to structure debates about sex education, even as study after study dispute the effectiveness of abstinence-only education for reducing teen pregnancy, delaying the onset of sexual activity, and promoting safer sex practices among youth see, for example, Santelli, et al.
Santelli has been at the forefront of this critique, demonstrating how ideology, rather than science and research, drives US policies around sex education and abstinence. As Gilbert asserts in the introduction to a special issue of Sex Education, the focus on abstinence in conservative, abstinence-only instruction as well as more liberal, abstinence-plus curricula does not prepare youth either to meet the challenges of negotiating sexual relationships or to understanding sexuality as an aspect of experience that is larger than sexual intercourse.
Similarly, Fisher and Schalet demonstrate how the focus on abstinence neglects the experiences of LGBTQ youth and casts youth as a monolithic category.
And yet, even as abstinence continues to dominate US sex education debates, the term itself evokes ambivalence and conflict among teachers, parents, and health care providers.
Sex Education in the Age of Abstinence. Sexuality, Society and Learning At its most meaningful, sexuality education allows teachers and students to suspend defensiveness and bring their ambivalence to the classroom.
Educators often feel ambivalent about abstinence-only education and work to adjust their classes to better meet their understandings of community and student needs.
Politics, Science, and Ethics. The author argues for improved communication among scientists, citizens, and government health programs. A Review of U. She identifies two necessary components to overcoming these limitations and offering young people better access to useful, comprehensive sexuality education: Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content on this page.
Please subscribe or login. How to Subscribe Oxford Bibliographies Online is available by subscription and perpetual access to institutions. For more information or to contact an Oxford Sales Representative click here.Sex Education in the United States.
comprehensive curriculum that stresses delaying initiation of sex as the best method of protection had a teen pregnancy average of per , and finally, comprehensive sex education classes that do not mention abstinence have a teen pregnancy average of per Based purely on this . Tufts Public Health» Sex Education» Biased Sex Education in the United States.
Biased Sex Education in the United States. February 14th, but must stress that abstinence is the main method of protection. Abstinence may be the best way to prevent pregnancy, but abstinence-only education programs have been shown to be ineffective. America’s Sex Education: How We Are Failing Our Students.
Research published by the Public Library of Science shows that when sex education is comprehensive, and disease prevention,” according to the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States.
Five Years of Five Years of Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Education: Assessing the Impact. Washington, DC: Advocates for Youth, ; Kirby D.
Do Abstinence Only Programs Delay the Initiation of Sex Among Young People and Reduce Teen Pregnancy? Washington DC: National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, . 20 Abstinence Only Sex Education Statistics. Is teaching abstinence the best method of sex education for students today?
That’s been an ongoing debate for nearly a generation. With government funding supporting faith-based abstinence initiatives, the idea is pretty basic.
Only 13% of teens in the United States have had sex by the . Sex education in the United States is taught in two main forms: comprehensive sex education and abstinence-only. Comprehensive sex education is also called abstinence-based, abstinence-plus, abstinence-plus-risk-reduction, and sexual risk .