Over the course of sexual education in the United States, support for such a class has been overwhelmingly positive. Influenced by issues ranging from population control to health and social norms, the course itself continues to evolve in the hopes of becoming a necessary curriculum and tool in combat versus sexual health problems. While “recent national polls show that 93% of Americans support sexuality course being taught in high school and 84 percent support such instruction in junior high”, the opposition to sexual education classes that can be found in any given number of people is still relatively abundant. The most prevalent argument against a sex ed course is backed by the opinion that school is not the environment where such a “private
…show more content…
The spread of STI’s amongst soldiers during the first and second world wars sparks controversy and concern over the necessity to educate the masses on maintaining sexual health. Beginning in the 1940’s, a large push for sexual education by organizations such as the U.S. Public Health Service, going as far as to call the course an “urgent need” due to the STI breakout during the world wars, allows other organizations to actively establish classes by 1953 (Pardini). At this point Sex Ed is a nationwide “Family life education” course established by the American Schoojl Health Association. At roughly the same time, however, America also begins to experience a religious revival spearheaded by Christianity, which develops into the main source of opposition to sexual education. By 1955, the National Education Association (NEA), partnered with the American Medical Association (AMA) release a series of five pamphlets dubbed the “sex education series” which a majority of sexual education classes at the time based their curriculum. While informative, no national policy had yet officially defined what exactly should be taught in these courses or how to teach the class. Moreover, the legality of contraceptives in certain states and the opposition …show more content…
With such programs, however, sexual education became more rigid and straight forward. Under the WRA, abstinence education courses were required to teach that “abstinence from sexual activity outside of marriage is the expected standard for all school age children”; that “a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity”; and that sex outside of marriage—for people of any age—is likely to have “harmful physical and psychological effects.”. Abstinence courses afterwards under different programs follow suit in strict practices of teaching and modified information given to students. Under the Special Projects of Regional and National Significance Community-Based Abstinence Educations Program, a stricter curriculum is taught in which teachers are not allowed to teach the use of contraceptives. In the case that any program fails to comply with such a guideline, it is no longer eligible for a grant. Many start to view these programs as conduits of false information, calling into question the legitimacy of an Abstinence course
The spread of STI’s amongst soldiers during the first and second world wars sparks controversy and concern over the necessity to educate the masses on maintaining sexual health. Beginning in the 1940’s, a large push for sexual education by organizations such as the U.S. Public Health Service, going as far as to call the course an “urgent need” due to the STI breakout during the world wars, allows other organizations to actively establish classes by 1953 (Pardini). At this point Sex Ed is a nationwide “Family life education” course established by the American Schoojl Health Association. At roughly the same time, however, America also begins to experience a religious revival spearheaded by Christianity, which develops into the main source of opposition to sexual education. By 1955, the National Education Association (NEA), partnered with the American Medical Association (AMA) release a series of five pamphlets dubbed the “sex education series” which a majority of sexual education classes at the time based their curriculum. While informative, no national policy had yet officially defined what exactly should be taught in these courses or how to teach the class. Moreover, the legality of contraceptives in certain states and the opposition …show more content…
With such programs, however, sexual education became more rigid and straight forward. Under the WRA, abstinence education courses were required to teach that “abstinence from sexual activity outside of marriage is the expected standard for all school age children”; that “a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity”; and that sex outside of marriage—for people of any age—is likely to have “harmful physical and psychological effects.”. Abstinence courses afterwards under different programs follow suit in strict practices of teaching and modified information given to students. Under the Special Projects of Regional and National Significance Community-Based Abstinence Educations Program, a stricter curriculum is taught in which teachers are not allowed to teach the use of contraceptives. In the case that any program fails to comply with such a guideline, it is no longer eligible for a grant. Many start to view these programs as conduits of false information, calling into question the legitimacy of an Abstinence course