Running head: An argument in favor of comprehensive sex education

An argument in favor of comprehensive sex education

Anthony Raya

Mt. San Jacinto College

An argument in favor of comprehensive sex education 1

Abstract

This paper advocates a position in favor of comprehensive sex education. Specifically, that it

should begin with children before they reach sexual maturity so that they can be better prepared

to responsibly deal with the difficult adolescent years, and better equipped to protect themselves

from the consequences of irresponsible sex. This position is taken with the recognition that other

societal ills such as unintended pregnancy, high abortion rates, HIV and other STIs are all

symptoms of the parent problem of irresponsible sex. Using the example of politician/activist

Mechai Viravaidya’s overwhelmingly successful PDA program in Thailand, this paper suggests

a preventive approach in the form of a participatory, community-based framework for sex

education, HIV prevention, and facilitation of the availability of contraceptives to the public.
An argument in favor of comprehensive sex education 2

There are an unacceptable number of children being unintentionally conceived in

America by parents who lack means to care for them. The outcome is usually one or many of

several negative possibilities: the child is born into an unstable environment such as a poor,

single mother or substance abusing parents. Perhaps the pregnancy is aborted. Even worse,

maybe the pregnancy is not aborted but the child is abandoned. In addition to unintended

pregnancies, the CDC (2010) estimates there are more than a million people living in the US

with HIV. These issues are redundant, and the debates surrounding them are stale. They have

gone nowhere because they address the problem at the symptom level, rather than at the source.

Furthermore, they are laden with emotional baggage and personal values which have only stalled

the resolution of these issues. The source of the problem is that people in this country are not

being well enough educated to make rational, responsible decisions when it comes to having sex.

The only way to address this issue is with preventive action in the form of comprehensive sex

education. It must include how to obtain and use contraceptives, and it must be done with the

collective participation of all societal institutions including the media, law enforcement,

business, religion, and others.

Comprehensive sex and HIV education is currently mandated in only 23 states (Kost,

Henshaw, & Carlin, 2010). The current high rates of unintended pregnancy and HIV seen in

America are unacceptable in a modern, industrialized society. The stubborn unwillingness to

educate children about sex is paradoxical to the abundant hyper-sexualization of the media. This

is counterproductive, especially considering that many states stress an abstinence-only policy in

their curricula, and masturbation is still not considered acceptable to teach. This has produced a

population of naïve, hormonal, sexually confused and frustrated adolescents.

An argument in favor of comprehensive sex education 3

According to the journal Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, about half of

the more than 6 million pregnancies in 2000 were unintended (Jones, Zolna, Henshaw, & Finer,

2008). Between 2000 and 2005, there was an average of over 1.2 million abortions per year

(Jones et al. 2008). In 2006, there were 750,000 teenage pregnancies in America (Kost,

Henshaw, & Carlin, 2010). Taking a closer look at state-level statistics reveals an interesting

correlation. States that do not require their sex education curricula to contain information on how

to obtain and use contraceptives, and instead stress an abstinence-only policy, tend to have

higher rates of teenage pregnancy. Cases in point: Nevada, Arizona, and Texas all rank among

the top five states with the highest frequencies of teen pregnancies per 1,000 teens (Kost,

Henshaw, & Carlin, 2010), and all three states stress an abstinence-only approach to their sex

education curricula (Guttmacher Institute, 2010).

What this demonstrates is that an abstinence-only approach does not promote fewer teen

pregnancies. On the contrary, it promotes more. The advocates of abstinence-only are mostly

white, conservative Christians (NPR/Kaiser/Kennedy School Poll, 2004). Their main argument

against comprehensive sex education in schools is that it promotes premarital sex and other

“sinful” behavior that involves giving in to impure desire. Their logic is that if kids learn how to

have sex at school, they are more likely to engage in sexual activity, thus exacerbating the

problem.

The problem with this argument is that it assumes that kids aren’t already learning how

to have sex at school. Not only are they learning it at school, but also from media, and not from

their teachers or parents. As long as kids are learning about their sexuality from the media and

from other kids, they are going to handle it with childish irresponsibility. In order to prevent

travesties like HIV and unintended pregnancy, sex education must include the concession that
An argument in favor of comprehensive sex education 4

sexuality is a part of human nature. To deny it or omit it from the education of kids who are

beginning to personally discover its influence is not productive to resolving the issue.

Furthermore, the abundance of sexuality in media and advertising is inconsistent with a paradigm

of denial in the educational system. Common sense suggests educating children about sex and

HIV prevention before they reach sexual maturity, so that they are adequately prepared for the

difficult developmental years ahead, and adequately equipped to protect themselves from the

potentially hazardous consequences of irresponsible sex.

This point could not be more consummately exemplified than it is with the vast success

of the Population and Community Development Association (PDA), founded in Thailand in

1974 by Mechai Viravaidya. The PDA was a non-governmental organization which promoted

family planning in Thailand, particularly in rural areas where there was limited access to

education and services. In an astounding display of cooperation, the PDA facilitated a

participatory, community-based approach to address the issue of poverty in Thailand through

family planning.

In a speech given at the TEDxChange conference, Viravaidya (2010) explained that in

1974 Thailand, there were seven children per family, and a 3.3% growth rate contributing to high

poverty levels. To address this, they started by training residents of villages and urban

neighborhoods to distribute birth control pills and condoms. Contraceptives were made available

everywhere from coffee stands to floating markets. In the late 80s, the AIDS epidemic hit

Thailand, and the PDA was forced to focus its attention on AIDS prevention. Utilizing the

community-based, participatory framework already put in place by their family planning

programs, they involved everyone they could think of—the military, law enforcement, schools,

businesses, media, and more—in HIV/AIDS education. Reaching as young as primary school
An argument in favor of comprehensive sex education 5

level children, third and fourth graders were helping to distribute condoms and pamphlets on

AIDS prevention. Taxi drivers and traffic cops passed out condoms in the cities. In stark contrast

to the religious opposition to sex education in the US, Buddhist monks were blessing condoms

and birth control pills in Thailand. Condoms became a symbol of health and empowerment, and

were available virtually everywhere. Viravaidya himself became affectionately known as “Mr.

Condom.”

As a result of the efforts of the PDA, including the massively cooperative education of

the Thai public and facilitation of contraceptive availability, Viravaidya (2010) reported that they

had lowered the population growth in Thailand from 3.3% in 1974 to 0.5% in 2003. The average

number of children per household went from seven to 1.5 in the same time span. Furthermore, he

claimed an estimated drop in new HIV infections of 90%, and an estimated 7.7 million lives

saved. The most important thing to understand about this program is that its overwhelming

success hinged on the Thai people collectively recognizing the necessity for change. Everyone

enthusiastically participated because they had a common understanding of the intention to

improve the quality of their lives.

The US should follow the example set by Mechai Viravaidya and the noble efforts of the

PDA in Thailand. Using the approach of comprehensive sex education, including how to use and

obtain contraceptives, supplemented by multi-faceted participation of the media, business, law

enforcement, religion, and most importantly the education system on making contraceptives

available, the US can adequately address the issues of unintended pregnancy, abortion, and HIV

infection. The abstinence-only rhetoric is naïve and unrealistic. It has proven to be ineffective at

addressing the problem, and very effective at exacerbating it.

An argument in favor of comprehensive sex education 6

The PDA’s programs have demonstrated their efficiency, and with limited resources.

Considering the access to more capital and sophisticated technology the US has, there is

absolutely no conceivable reason why a program like Mechai Viravaidya’s could not work. If the

US is expected to sufficiently resolve the issues of unintended pregnancy, abortion, HIV, and

others which stem from irresponsible sex, the conservative opposition must forfeit their approach

of denial and repression. Comprehensive sex education must begin before sexual maturation in

order to fully prepare young people for the difficult adolescent years. All societal institutions

must cooperate to resolve the ever-present issue of irresponsible sex, which serves as fertile

ground upon which a host of hazardous issues flourish.

An argument in favor of comprehensive sex education 7

References

CDC. (2010, July). Factsheets: HIV in the United States. Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention. Retrieved November 15, 2010, from

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/us.htm

Guttmacher Institute. (2010, November 1). State policies in brief: Sex and STI/HIV education

(Issue brief). Retrieved November 14, 2010, from Guttmacher Institute website:

http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_SE.pdf

Jones, R. K., Zolna, M. S., Henshaw, S. K., & Finer, L. B. (2008). Abortion in the United States:

Incidence and access to services, 2005. Perspectives on sexual and reproductive health,

40(1), 6-16. Retrieved November 14, 2010, from Guttmacher Institute website:

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/4000608.pdf

Kost, K., Henshaw, S., & Carlin, L. (2010, January). U.S. teenage pregnancies, births, and

abortions: National and state trends and trends by race and ethnicity (Rep.). Retrieved

November 14, 2010, from Guttmacher Institute website:

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/USTPtrends.pdf

NPR/Kaiser/Kennedy School Poll. (2004, February). Sex Education in America. The Henry J.

Kaiser Family Foundation. Retrieved November 14, 2010, from

http://www.kff.org/newsmedia/upload/Sex-Education-in-America-Summary.pdf

Viravaidya, M. (2010, September 20). How Mr. Condom made Thailand a better place. Speech

presented at TEDxChange, New York. Retrieved November 14, 2010, from

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EL9TBKSdHXU