sex education II

SexEducationandcensorship.html

Home >Social Science homework help >Philosophy homework help >sex education II

Loading... Accessibility Information and Tips Back 1 article(s) will be saved.

To continue, in Internet Explorer, select FILE then SAVE AS from your browser's toolbar above. Be sure to save as a plain text file (.txt) or a 'Web Page, HTML only' file (.html). In FireFox, select FILE then SAVE FILE AS from your browser's toolbar above. In Chrome, select right click (with your mouse) on this page and select SAVE AS

EBSCO Publishing Citation Format: APA 7th Edition (American Psychological Assoc.): NOTE: Review the instructions at http://support.ebsco.com/help/?int=eds&lang=&feature_id=APA and make any necessary corrections before using. Pay special attention to personal names, capitalization, and dates. Always consult your library resources for the exact formatting and punctuation guidelines. References

Magnuson-Martinson, S. (2022). Sex Education and Censorship. Salem Press Encyclopedia.

Sex Education and Censorship

Definition: Formal instruction about human sexuality

Significance: Sex education has been a constant target of censorship attempts

Whether focusing on reproductive facts and birth control, or gender, sexual experience, and sexual orientation, sex education has long been a controversial topic in the United States. This controversy has been exacerbated as sex education has moved out of the realms of family and church and into the curriculum of public school and government or other public agencies.

Anthony Comstock Library of Congress

The Comstock Act of 1873 prohibited the distribution of birth control devices and the dissemination of information about such birth control. It was this law that the pioneer of American birth control, Margaret Sanger, broke in 1917. Similar attempts to restrict the availability of information regarding birth control and other sex education issues have continued.

Many local American schools and districts began sporadically and irregularly implementing various forms of sex education within their health and science curricula during the 1960s. Government legislation began the creation of a national family planning program in 1970; by 2009, there were approximately 1900 school-based clinics in which adolescents can get information about birth control and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), as well as birth control devices.

Compared to other developed countries, the United States has been among the slowest to implement formal sexual education. It also has the highest teen birth rate among developed nations, although the teen birth rate has been declining; according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2015 the birth rate for US women aged fifteen to nineteen was 22.3 per 1,000, down from more than 40 in 2007. Sweden is generally acknowledged to be the first country to make widespread information on sex education available to its students. On the other hand, the most highly developed Asian nation, Japan, has various restrictions. All textbooks used in Japanese schools must be cleared by the national Ministry of Education.

As of 2017, some form of sex education had been implemented in all fifty states. Twenty-four states and the District of Columbia mandate that sex education be taught in public schools; thirty-three states and the District of Columbia direct that HIV/AIDS education be administered in public schools. Only twenty states, however, require that the information provided be medically accurate, and what determines medical accuracy can vary by state. According to the Sex Education and Information Council of the United States (SEICUS), truly comprehensive programs are those that provide a broad range of information that is accurate medically and appropriate for the intended age group and that discusses everything from contraceptives and disease prevention to abstinence, as well as development and relationships. The most comprehensive programs are the ones that potential censors have tended to challenge, because they go beyond the basic facts of life that virtually all Americans find acceptable into the social and psychological contexts of sexuality. Studies have found that as few as 7 percent of Americans disapprove of sex education per se, but 15 percent believe sex education should be abstinence only, while 46 percent think education should discuss proper contraceptive use as well as abstinence. These reservations are often magnified by the fact that truly comprehensive sex education starts much earlier than most parents believe to be necessary. According to SEICUS, the overwhelming majority opinion favors sex education; the group reported that among middle school parents, 93 percent thought sex education was important, while 91 percent of high school parents felt the same. However other studies have suggested that such education should start at younger ages to be effective. Some traditionally resistant parents have become more open to this early education because of fear of child molestation. The introduction of “good touch” and “bad touch” sex education has been generally lauded to help young children to protect themselves.

What makes comprehensive sex education offensive to conservatives is the relation of sexuality to the affective and skill domains. These involve such things as values clarification—which encourage adolescents to assess their own beliefs, rather than simply comply with authority figure demands; tolerance—which may be interpreted as promoting “deviant” lifestyles; self-esteem—which, again, is not necessarily predicated on pleasing parents and other authority figures; decision-making and interpersonal communication skills—which are certainly more involved than the “just say no” attitude that characterizes conservative perspectives on adolescent sexuality; and an integrated approach to sexuality—which may be at odds with a traditional perspective on its solely reproductive function. Consequently, the liberal approach to comprehensive sex education has often been strongly opposed by those who feel that it is the antithesis of a facts-based approach, which should emphasize traditional family values in sexual behavior and orientation.

Pro and Con on Restrictions

Conservatives tend to believe that sex education which fails to emphasize abstinence exclusively has been responsible for increased rates of premarital sex, STDs, premarital pregnancies, and abortions. They argue that such education encourages adolescents to experiment with sexual behaviors that might not even have crossed their minds otherwise. Since the formal sex education that occurs in public schools and other government facilities often fails to stress abstinence sufficiently, conservatives feel that this formal education should either be transformed or curtailed. Therefore, they often involve support efforts to replace the “permissive” sex education in schools with a restrictive and absolutist curriculum that dictates abstinence.

Liberals advocate for comprehensive sexual education that in particular includes discussion of sexual identity and orientation. While education across the country varies, a 2010 study by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) found that 97 percent of male teenagers and 96 percent of female teenagers had some form of sexual education before the age of eighteen. A study released by Planned Parenthood in 2011 found that 82 percent of parents talked with their children about sex or sexual health. Despite the relatively large numbers of teens who receive sexual education, many are not presented complete information, and that is responsible for the relatively high rates of undesirable sexual outcomes decried by almost everyone. Furthermore, they point to studies which suggest that sex education in America is too little and occurs too late. Those against restrictions argue that effective sex education has been found to have strong support from parents and the local community and reduces not only pregnancy, abortion, and STDs, but also the age at which first intercourse occurs. Sex education still primarily focuses on heterosexual intercourse; as of 2018 only nine states include LGBTQ-inclusive material in their sexual education that is positive. Most states do not mention it at all, while three states are required to talk about homosexuality negatively. Alabama and Mississippi, for example, have laws requiring educators to teach that homosexuality is a criminal act, despite the fact that antisodomy laws were invalidated by a 2003 Supreme Court ruling. Studies have found that LGBTQ boys are at high risk for HIV/AIDS and LGBTQ girls are at an even higher risk of teen pregnancy than heterosexual girls. Excluding the LGBTQ lifestyle from sex education leaves a significant number of teens at risk.

Furthermore, they argue that while the abstinence-based curriculum may promote more traditional attitudes among students, there is no evidence that it produces behavioral differences superior to comprehensive sexuality education. Finally, comprehensive sex educators suggest that one can provide moral instruction without being moralistic (for example, by suggesting that those who engage in premarital sex will get AIDS and die).

Methods of Restricting Sex Education

While book banning has taken take place (the Eagle Forum got all six approved health texts in Alabama eliminated), it is not the most common tactic. Those who oppose comprehensive sex education often do so with legislative initiatives of one sort or another. These attempts have run the gamut from mandating the teaching of so-called “abstinence-only, fear-based” sex education curricula, to segregating such classes by gender, to making sex education essentially elective. According to ABC News in 2015, abstinence-only education was on the rise in the United States, with 23 percent of programs in public schools following that model, as opposed to 2 percent in 1988. Though there are advocacy groups that call for no or abstinence-only education, parents can be a significant source for censorship. As of 2016, parent involvement in sexual education is permitted in thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia, thirty-five states and the District of Columbia give parents the option to exempt their children, and in four states, parental consent is needed before students can attend classes.

What Gets Restricted?

Studies have found up to 75 percent of American adults want sex education courses to include information about homosexuality and abortion—the subjects most likely to attract attempts at restriction. Indeed, Utah entirely restricts the consideration of sexual orientation and homosexuality in its schools. The books most opposed for use in classrooms or school libraries have pertained to same-sex relationships. Sex education materials relating to the deadliest STD, acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), are not exclusively directed at homosexual behavior; however, homosexuality has been so often seen as linked to AIDS that AIDS education has been restricted in many communities as a result. Opportunities for adolescents to understand their own sexual orientations, such as support groups for gay and lesbian students, have also been attacked by those who disdain such “nonnormative” lifestyles.

While decidedly not associated with homosexuality, information regarding abortion has also been restricted in classrooms and school libraries. First published in the late 1960s, the book Our Bodies, Ourselves, which examines abortion and other issues, has probably been the most restricted American publication relating to sex education. Planned Parenthood also provides sex and contraceptive education, and the administration of President Barack Obama launched the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Initiative (TPPI) in 2010, which provides $100 million annually for teen pregnancy prevention programs and research. The federal government still, however, provides $50 million a year in funding for abstinence-only sex education, and the administration of President Donald Trump portended another tack toward the conservative, threatening government funding of programs like Planned Parenthood..

Bibliography

Jan, Tracy. "A Push for More Inclusive Sex Education." Boston Globe. Boston Globe Media Partners, 8 Sept. 2015. Web. 10 Nov. 2015.

Kendall, Nancy. The Sex Education Debates. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2012. Print.

Madison, Amber. "When Social-Media Companies Censor Sex Education." The Atlantic, 4 Mar. 2015, www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/03/when-social-media-censors-sex-education/385576/. Accessed 30 Apr. 2018.

"Sex and HIV Education." Guttmacher Institute, 1 Apr. 2018, www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/sex-and-hiv-education. Accessed 30 Apr. 2018.

"Sex and Relationships." Planned Parenthood, 2018, www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/sex-and-relationships. Accessed 30 Apr. 2018.

"State Policies on Sex Education in Schools." National Conference of State Legislatures, 21 Dec. 2016, www.ncsl.org/research/health/state-policies-on-sex-education-in-schools.aspx. Accessed 30 Apr. 2018.

Copyright of Salem Press Encyclopedia is the property of Salem Press. The copyright in an individual article may be maintained by the author in certain cases. Content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. Source: Salem Press Encyclopedia, 3p Item: 102082425


	

	
		Back