Programming on sexual education is frequently offered to people in their early

years, in middle school and high school. These programs could serve as their initial
exposure to healthy sexual behavior and communication; nevertheless, the majority of
programs in the US do not include essential knowledge on these topics. In the United
States, the two main programs for teaching sexual education are abstinence-only and
comprehensive (also called abstinence-plus). According to reports from school districts,
35% of them enforce strict abstinence-only programs until marriage, and 65% of them
teach either comprehensive or abstinence-plus programs (Collins et al, 2002; Hoefer &
Hoefer, 2017; Landry et al, 1999). The failure of both of these programs to address the
topic of establishing sexual consent and managing open communication in a sexual
connection is regrettably one of their limitations. It is not surprising that college
freshmen who lack this knowledge are most at risk of sexual assault, which is why this
is concerning—as high school students are entering college without the knowledge of
how to appropriately navigate these situations (Cadaret et al., 2019; Cantor et al., 2015).
One significant disadvantage of sex education is that the content given
frequently contradicts the students' moral or religious values. As things are, sex
education is given in a secular setting with no consideration for the moral or religious
underpinnings of the curriculum. This is justified by the fact that complete and
inclusive sex education is the goal of sex education, not telling kids not to have sex. In
order to support each of the objectives of abstinence-only education, Birch and
colleagues (2017) discovered four kinds of evidence. Specifically, they discovered that
students were more likely to advocate for delaying sexual activity in order to avoid
circumstances that may result in sex, to promote abstinence as a way of life and to be
aware of the dangers of having sex before marriage. The findings indicate that students
who participate in an abstinence-only sex education program are more likely to follow
abstinence ideals; however, other researchers have discovered that abstinence-only
education has no effect on reducing teen pregnancy, delaying sexual activity, or
preventing undesired STIs (Birch et al, 2017; Kohler et al, 2008; Greslé-Favier, 2013).
Furthermore, Gardner (2015) discovered that a number of students claimed to be
"brainwashed" or to have had their instruction focused only on abstinence "pushed" at
them (p. 130). Which explains the skepticism of the guardians of students. Additionally,
advocates of education focused only on abstinence contend that comprehensive sex
education may actually raise rates of illness, pregnancy, and promiscuity among
teenagers and indirectly support underage sexual engagement (Idayanti & Natalia,
2022). Ultimately, research conducted by Griffin, L. J. According to (2021), compared to
students who previously got comprehensive sex education, students who previously
received abstinence-only sex education revealed greater levels of rape-myth adherence,
hostile and benevolent sexism, and victim-blaming tendencies. The program's
proponents contend that discussing contraceptives could instill in teenagers the notion
that having sex is acceptable. As a result, if information about contraceptives is
provided, it usually emphasizes how ineffective these methods are at preventing
undesirable sexual outcomes like STIs and unintended pregnancies (Greslé-Favier, 2013;
Toups & Holmes, 2002).

In a comparable manner, religion plays a big influence in people's lives, and studies
show that sexual abstinence is a direct effect of religious dedication and involvement.
Therefore, it is possible to conclude that religion positively influences young people's
sexual views and initiation. Yu, J. (2010). Therefore, the effect of moral and religious
principles in influencing young people's sexual behavior is undermined by sex
education. It might be argued that giving children too much or the incorrect sort of
sexual education can ruin their innocence since it is thought that giving children sexual
education robs them of their innocence and that they have a right to be innocent and
unaware of sexual infidelity. Additionally, kids who may have previously been
uninterested in or unaware of the issue get intimate understanding of sex via sex
education. Because of this, some conservative parents feel that until a committed adult
relationship is established, their kids don't need to learn the concept of sex (Vuttanont et
al. 2006). These parents believe that sex education has the potential to ruin students'
moral character and encourage them to have sex. Vuttanont et al. (2006), who found
that sex education programs provide students with knowledge that may result in sexual
notions and experimentation among some students, corroborate this theory. Hence, sex
and sexuality education is not a necessary measure since it fails to prevent the
transmission of sexual diseases, and reduce teenage pregnancy (Birch et al, 2017; Kohler
et al, 2008; Greslé-Favier, 2013; Landry, et al, 1999), It condones sexual activity among
teens and may increase promiscuity, pregnancy, and disease rates (Idayanti & Natalia,
2022), students who received sex education programs reported higher levels of rape-
myth adherence, higher benevolent and hostile sexism, and higher victim-blaming
tendencies than those who previously received comprehensive sex education, (Griffin,
L. J. 2021), Sex and sexuality programs undermines the influence of religious and moral
values in guiding young people in matters of sex, the provision of too much or the
wrong kind of sexual education can destroy the innocence of the youth, and lastly, sex
education programs give students information that may result in sexual ideas and
experimentation among some students (Vuttanont et al. 2006).

Toups, M. L. & Holmes, W. R. (2002). Effectives of abstinence-based sex education curricula: Areview.
Counseling and Values 46, 237-240
Griffin, L. J. (2021). The Effect of Sex Education Programs on Rape Culture.

Idayanti, E., & Natalia, L. (2022, February). Abstinence-Only Sex Education: A Missing Yet Crucial Topic in
Digital Media. In 2nd International Conference on Social Science, Humanity and Public Health (ICOSHIP
2021) (pp. 77-81). Atlantis Press.

Gardner, E. A. (2015). Abstinence-Only Sex Education: College Students’ Evaluations and Responses.
American Journal of Sexuality Education, 10(2), 125–139.

Greslé-Favier, C. (2013). Adult discrimination against children: the case of abstinence-only education in
twenty-first-century USA. Sex Education, 13(6), 715–725.
https://doiorg.ezproxy.uakron.edu:2443/10.1080/14681811.2013.813387

Kohler, P. K., Manhart, L. E., & Lafferty, W. E. (2008). Abstinence-only and comprehensive sex education
and the initiation of sexual activity and teen pregnancy. Journal of Adolescent Health, 42, 344-351

Birch, P. J., White, J. M., & Fellows, K. (2017). The broad effectiveness of seventy-four field instances of
abstinence-based programming. Sex Education, 17(1), 14-25.

Collins, C., Alagiri, P., Summers, T., & Morin, S. F. (2002). Abstinence only versus comprehensive sex
education. AIDS Research Institute.

Hoefer, S. E., & Hoefer, R. (2017). Worth the wait? The consequences of abstinence-only sex education
for marginalized students. American Journal of Sexuality Education, 12(3),257–276.
https://doi.org/2443/10.1080/15546128.2017.1359802

Landry, D. L., Kaeser, L., & Richards, C. L. (1999). Abstinence promotion and the provision of information
about contraception in public school district sexuality education policies. Family Planning Perspectives,
31(6), 280-286.

Cadaret, M. C., Johnson, N. L., Devencenzi, M. L., & Morgan, E. M. (2019). A quasiexperimental study of
the bystander plus program for changing rape culture beliefs. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 00(0), 1-
22.

Cantor, D., Fisher, B., Chibnall, S., Townsend, R., Lee, H., Bruce, C., & Thomas, G. (2015). Report on the
AAU campus climate survey on sexual assault and misconduct. Westat.

Yu, J. (2010). Sex education beyond school: Implications for practice and research. Sex Education, 10(2),
187-199.

Vuttanont, U., Greenhalgh, T., Griffin, M., & Boynton, P. (2006). “Smart boys” and “sweet girls”—sex
education needs in Thai teenagers: a mixed-method study. The Lancet, 368(9552), 2068-2080.