Why sex ed should be mandatory; not optional

We’ve all been taking sex-ed classes since the 5th grade, if not earlier for some. And despite its slightly awkward nature, sex-ed has generally been a standard course for most American middle and high schoolers since the 1970s. However, some schools' version of sex ed is centered on only abstinence. And, in schools like Samo, the class, although taught with information about safer sex methods, is optional with parents' permission. Without comprehensive sexual education that teaches about safety and health rather than scare them about sex, kids just aren't completely prepared for life. This type of comprehensive sex ed needs to become mandatory without any choice to opt out.While the liberal school district we live in requires Planned Parenthood volunteers to come in and speak about sexual safety, many schools across the country have adopted an abstinence-only education plan in which teachers (who may or may not be certified or prepared to teach these subjects) come in to discuss only about choosing abstinence and why having sex is harmful, dangerous, and a horrible idea. Safety, disease, and contraceptives are simply not allowed to be talked about or are only taught as dangers. For example, last month, a mother in Michigan live-tweeted her son's abstinence-only sex ed class. Stories about a box of condoms with holes in every single one and encouragements for kids to seek out partners who say no to sex were just some of the charming things the teacher told students; scare tactics to make them think sex is nothing but danger. And, when the mother tried to challenge him, she was met with condescending remarks saying that she "could find anything on the Internet." Many argue that teaching sex-positive messages to teenagers, or those not married, is against their religious or personal beliefs. Even so, the after effects of having a policy without learning about methods to protect from disease and pregnancy creates even more issues, making sex actually harmful and dangerous. Abstinence-only education is nothing new. Numerous acts and laws have been passed to give up to almost $200 million in funding to such programs, most of which occurred during the first Bush administration, the earliest being in 1981. However, the effects of removing the teaching of safer sex methods still greatly affects teens today.You may be wondering what any of this has to do with our school. We have mandatory sex ed that covers all these topics so why is it an issue? The problem is that anyone who has a personal issue or conflict with the material is allowed to opt out with a parent's signature, even from the 5th grade puberty lessons. This means that anyone can miss these important lessons and, just like when someone opts out of vaccines for personal reasons, the person opting out is more likely to catch diseases. With 7 out of 10 teens having sex before their 19th birthday, according to an ongoing federal survey of US sexual health, we just can't afford to have people with gaps in their knowledge.This problem doesn't just affect us either. Recently, 1 out of 15 students at a high school in Texas were diagnosed with chlamydia, a sexually transmitted disease that is almost completely prevented through the use of condom, minus the 1-3% chance that the condom doesn't work. And this same school’s handbook tells that sex ed can only be taught as presenting "abstinence from sexual activity as the preferred choice of behavior in relationship to all sexual activity for unmarried persons of school age." In other words: when you teach no sex before marriage instead of sex safety, you get a lot of teenagers with itchy crotches.Many people might also say that that scenario is a coincidence. Even the superintendent of the school district said that the conservative sex ed couldn't possibly be the cause of the outbreak, stating that "if kids are not having any sexual activity, they can't get this disease." However, these aren't the only numbers to make abstinence-only education seem like a bad idea.Germany, one of the countries with the most requirements for sex ed, currently makes it mandatory for topics such as contraceptives, sexual violence, and sexuality to be taught in schools. Subsequently, the country has one of the lowest teen birth rates in the world, while America, with abstinence-only education present in many states, has a teen birth rate of almost three times that of Germany’s. While Germany has come under fire for teaching these lessons to young children, the results of this controversial move are substantial. A lot of factors could cause teen births, but the abstinence-only education isn’t helping. If the goal of sex ed is to make teens safer and have less unwanted pregnancies and diseases, Germany's program is actually working. One of the reasons it's working may be that the novelty and mystery of sex is worn off when you teach people the cold hard facts. When teenagers are constantly told not to do something by teachers and are then exposed to media that makes sex seem fascinating and enchanted, they are bound to experiment. However, when they are taught the facts, they know exactly what to expect and can adjust their plans accordingly. In fact, an early 2000s study by the Guttmacher Institute showed that kids who received comprehensive sex ed actually waited longer to have sex. In contrast, abstinence-only education produces kids who have sex earlier without the proper information to protect themselves.Sex ed, although just a series of resources and knowledge for sex safety, is still combatted all the time by people who think it promotes a bad example for teens. A comprehensive sexual education has been proven to work to prevent teen pregnancies and STDs and needs to be implemented more ubiquitously. Sexual education should not just be an option but it should be mandatory. Actual sexual education should a priority, not an optional, ineffective, and incomplete joke.