[1] Prevalence figures may have also been distorted by the lack of treatment, meaning that the percentage of infected is decreased by disproportionately early deaths.
Abstinence-only sex education was implemented as one way to quell the spread of HIV/AIDS, in addition to creating a positive behaviour change to the same end over time.
In sub-Saharan Africa, Uganda included, married women in monogamous relationships are at a disadvantage due to the lack of rights within marriage, bargaining power, and domestic violence.
PIASCY is primarily funded through the United States Agency for International Development and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, both of which provide many other services outside of finances to support the program.
In addition, PIASCY has since become a foundation feature in the United States’ President's Emergency Plan for AIDS relief (PEPFAR).
The secondary school level information was drafted to include age sensitive subjects such as masturbation, abortion and homosexuality, but was met with strong opposition from many powerful, yet undisclosed, groups in Uganda and the United States.
[1] In addition, draft copies of the secondary school handouts contained misleading and inaccurate information about condoms and HIV prevention.
The primary objective for the National Youth Forum (NYF) is to coordinate assemblies where young boys and girls pledge to stay sexually pure until marriage.
[6] This relationship has been called under scrutiny on the grounds that UNF Proselytizing and the laws of the United States regarding the secular nature of congressional funding.
He takes a more extreme version of abstinence only sex education, sometimes speaking out directly against condoms and women's rights.
The Family Life Network is a non-profit organization that teaches abstinence-only techniques alongside value based sexual education.
[1] A tactic readily put into place is to create abstinence-only in the public discussion is a signing of "True Love Waits" cards to pledge abstinence until marriage.
Edward C. Green, frequently consults for USAID has been published remarking that abstinence-only was the main proponent of the lowering of HIV/AIDS infection in Uganda and that condoms were not effective.
[8] Furthermore, AIDS specialist Sophie Wacasa-Monacco explains that abstinence has played a very important role in the HIV decline, but only in conjunction with comprehensive education.
[8] It is the knowledge about HIV and STIs in general that allow for people to make educated decisions concerning their body and that of a prospective sexual partner.
Between the years of 1989 and 1995, Uganda saw large success with the employment of abstinence and subsequent HIV infection rates comparatively to their regional neighbours.
Curiously, there were very few abstinence-only education programs in place during this decrease, despite the choice of abstinence from sexual intercourse having a significant decline.
Young women are often coerced into relationships with older men, teachers, or "sugar daddies" that provide them with items that would not be accessible otherwise.
In this respect, abstinence-only sex education neglects protecting anyone that does participate in sexual acts, and especially women, due to the gender power relations in Uganda.
Abstinence-only sex education became quite controversial in the examination of HIV/AIDS and pregnancy prevention due to the common link with morals and proselytizing.
[10] Many countries have pulled support for any abstinence-only education due to concerns with the idea of HIV prevention information being coupled with missionary work and message.
Abstinence-only sex education in Uganda has reportedly distributed the misinformation that there are tiny pores in condoms that allow the HIV virus to pass through, therefore deeming them unsafe to use against infection.
This information that is easily disproven in the Global North, is difficult to combat in Uganda when it comes from political, spiritual and community leaders.
This misinformation is a large proponent against abstinence-only sex education as the organizations implementing the programs are unreliable or have proven to be in the past.
Abstinence-only sex education in Uganda disregards the existence of these relationships and does not provide any program or policy to protect against HIV/AIDS infection.
Another criticism levelled at abstinence-only sex education in Uganda is the limiting language and subsequent exclusion that the policy promotes when addressing lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) people.
In this way, some believe that abstinence-only sex education in Uganda discriminates against LGB individuals and does not provide them with adequate tools to combat HIV/AIDS infection.