Response: If you're not enraged, you're not paying attention

Hi Georgia,
I can sense your frustration about Bristol Palin and what the Republican government has done. I agree with you in that abstinence-only education is utterly ineffective.

I believe there are advantages and disadvantages to both abstinence-only education and sex-education that need to be addressed. Neither is perfect but in my opinion, sex-education is definitely safer and more effective than abstinence-only education.


Abstinence-only education promotes refraining from sex until marriage and avoids the discussion of use of contraceptives. Advocates for abstinence-only education believe education around the use of contraceptives and safe sex encourages sexual activity. In my opinion, their thinking is flawed. However judgmental this statement may be, I know many will agree that teenagers aren’t the most willing people to refrain from what they are told not to do. Questioning authority and making their own judgments is part of the process in going through the teenage years (I can personally attest to that). I disagree with those who say abstinence-only education is ineffective because teenagers will be sexually active whether we like it or not. This views teenagers as animalistic beings with no agency. Instead, I believe abstinence-only education is ineffective because sex becomes forbidden and strikes even more curiosity among teens.


Underage drinking can serve as an example of how keeping something prohibited will be more detrimental than allowing for its familiarity. In 2004, The Washington Post found that Europe has a lower prevalence of underage drinking than in America. Researchers concluded that the familiarity of moderate alcohol drinking (i.e. wine with dinner) within European families likely resulted in less binge drinking among youth. On the contrary, in America alcohol was seen as more of a prohibited activity for youth and therefore resulted in more binge drinking.


Having sex-education classes for youth and teenagers will be more effective than forcing abstinence-only education upon them. Not only is abstinence-only education an interference of religious teaching in schools, but it is also fails to prepare teenagers for the real world. Critics of sex-education say that it encourages teenagers to be sexually active. They are pointing the finger at something that is seeking to help teenagers make safe choices, should they need to rather than looking at the broader social context and the thousands of pro-sex messages teenagers encounter everyday. Sex is everywhere in the media and I don’t imagine it disappearing anytime soon. Trying to tell teenagers they should not and cannot do something while the media is sending the opposite messages will not be a difficult battle. The media will be more powerful and transmit more enticing messages than any abstinence-only educator. It is only logical to help teenagers be aware of safe sex than trying to deny its existence altogether.