Abstinence-only sex education
[7] Systematic reviews of research evaluating abstinence-only sex education have concluded that it is ineffective at preventing unwanted pregnancy or the spread of STIs, among other shortfalls.
[2][13][14] The American Academy of Pediatrics has recommended against the use of abstinence-only sex education because it has been found to be ineffective, and because the media frequently conveys information about non-abstinence.
[16] A Cochrane systematic review suggests that abstinence-only education neither increases nor decreases HIV risk in high-income countries.
[25] A 2010 report by the Guttmacher Institute pointed out that pregnancy rates for teens 15–19 reversed their decline in 2006, near the peak of the Abstinence Only campaign in the United States.
[29] In addition, abstinence programs often teach young people that pleasure in sex is most likely to be found within marriage, and therefore, that they should wait to engage in sexual activity until they are married.
[30] Abstinence generally places a great emphasis on the importance of the institution of marriage, which some proponents believe allows young people to grow and develop as individuals.
[31] Proponents suggest that comprehensive sex education encourages premarital sexual activity among teenagers, which should be discouraged in an era when HIV and other incurable STIs are widespread and when teen pregnancy is an ongoing concern.
As a result, a teenager's sexual desire is something that needs to be controlled,[34] dividing the teens into two separate categories in the minds of adults: "the innocent and the guilty, the vulnerable and the predatory, the pure and the corrupting.
[36] Accurate information is especially important since, although some supporters may claim that abstinence is an effective method, it has been found that a small percentage of people actually practice it.
[38][39][40][41][42] Abstinence-only education is often criticized for being overly heteronormative, idealizing the institution of heterosexual marriage to the denigration of queer relationships.
[43] In addition, the heteronormativity of abstinence-only education, as well as the focus on marriage, means that members of the LGBT community will never receive formal information about how to practice safe sex, which is problematic, since they are already at an increased risk for STIs.
[44] According to Advocates for Youth, abstinence-only sex education distorts information about contraceptives, including only revealing failure rates associated with their use, and ignoring discussion of their benefits.
Clearly, there is a disparity between the type of sex education curriculum teachers, parents, and students want and what government policy determines they receive.
[49] PEPFAR works with the governments of 22 countries worldwide to create sustainable programs to prevent HIV and improve the lives of those suffering.
[54] Human rights groups have expressed concern that condom availability has decreased since PEPFAR's involvement in the global AIDS crisis.
[62] These ideas underlie the basis of conservative ideology, a focus on the individual having a strong place in the beliefs of this group.
[63] Thus, it makes sense that support for abstinence-only programs as an effective form of sex education has been linked to conservative individuals.
