The Problematic (a) - (h) in Abstinence Education

Sex Education and Support of LGB Families: a Family Impact Analysis of the Personal Responsibility Education Program

“…In this regard, it is important to recognize that federally funded abstinence-only approaches to sex education that came before PREP explicitly and exclusively taught that sexual behavior is only acceptable within the context of monogamous, heterosexual marriage and implicitly suggested that LGB people are unfit to be parents (Young and Goldfarb 2000). These perspectives clearly present LGB relationships and families as socially undesirable and inappropriate.…”

“…While abstinence-only sex education suggests that sex is only acceptable within the context of a monogamous, heterosexual, married relationship and excludes discussion of contraception, comprehensive sex education presents a more liberal approach to sexuality, helps young people explore their own values, goals, and options, and includes education on risk reduction and contraception in addition to abstinence (Advocates for Youth 2013). Because PREP requires an emphasis on both abstinence and contraception and states a commitment to support vulnerable minority youth populations, the enactment of this policy is a significant departure from the nearly 30-year period between 1981 and 2010, when federal funding of sex education was made exclusively available to abstinence-only curricula (Young and Goldfarb 2000). As such, PREP is generally hailed as a victory by comprehensive sex education advocates who criticize abstinence-only approaches as unrealistic, unscientific, and stigmatizing of minority populations, particularly lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) people (Boonstra 2010;Lamb 2013;McNeill 2013).…”

A Sex Education Program for Mothers: Effects, Parent Characteristics, and Practice Insights

“…The Type A sects emphasize natural law/divine order, literal interpretation of holy books, and asceticism, whereas Type B sects emphasize a person-oriented, evolving ethic, liberal/reformed interpretation of holy books, and a positive or sacramental view of sex. Many of the traditional, restrictive beliefs are reflected in the federal government's criteria for the funding of abstinence-only sex education programs; many believe that as a result such programs withholding important sexuality information (Young & Goldfarb, 2000). The question of interest was whether the degree of acceptance of traditional, restrictive moral beliefs about sexuality might impact parental emotions that could affect parent-child communication about sex.…”

Risk Avoidance versus Risk Reduction

“…With over half a billion dollars spent by the federal government for the implementation of "abstinence-only until marriage" sex education programs (Young and Goldfarb 2000), the issue has become critically important in social marketing and the social sciences. Arguments have ranged from the ethics of an abstinence-only approach (e.g., Wiley 2002) to the definition of abstinence (e.g., Young and Goldfarb 2000). Such discourse in the scientific literature has matched the popular press for acerbity and, perhaps, bias (c.f.…”

“…the exchange between Thiel andMcBride 1992 andRoosa andChristopher 1992). For example, Young and Goldfarb (2000) stated, "Those who believe that sexuality education should truly reflect the characteristics of a democratic society should consider working to overturn the language in this (federal) definition" (p. 159) of abstinence. In few other areas in need of study is it so difficult to maintain an objective scientific perspective.…”