Talk:Sex education in the United States

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kbrumfield.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Monkamyth.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2019 and 7 November 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): RightAtTheAlter.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2021 and 15 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mollyybakerr.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled
This page has numerous spots that are completely redundant and repetitive. Search for the words/phrases "10 rigorous," "infancy," "American Psychological Association," and "given," for examples. I'm not sure what action if any should be taken for this, so I'm just going to mention it here and hopefully someone else can make corrections of they are necessary, or at least post back and let me know what needs to be done. Killfoot (talk) 11:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion for improvement
A section on the development of the various programs may be useful. Under my knowledge there are alot of background that could be covered here. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Reasons for promoting abstinence-only sex education

 * Some Christian organizations advocate abstinence-only sex education because it is the only approach they find acceptable and in accordance with their churches' teachings.

Are we sure this is the reason? Or are we trying to win the argument against abstinence-only sex education by claiming that even its supporters can't make the claim that it is effective in reducing mutually unwanted outcomes such as teen pregnancy and STD?

The main argument for comprehensive sex education, e.g., telling kids about condoms and birth control, is that "There do not currently exist any abstinence-only programs with strong evidence that they either delay sex or reduce teen pregnancy." This is not a POV that our article should endorse. Rather, the article should identify it as a viewpoint promoted by its advocates, such as SIECUS and The National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy.

For balance, the article should also at least mention studies which draw the opposite conclusion, including a study done by The National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy itself, which studied "three different abstinence-only programs, Teen Aid, Sex Respect, and Values and Choice" and found that for "high school students with the most permissive sexual values, the programs did delay the initiation of sex ..." 

For WP:NPOV, we should not endorse any particular viewpoint but give arguments on both sides of any question, as long as we are careful not to suggest that a minority viewpoint is as widely held as a mainstream viewpoint. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

In Support of Comprehensive Sex Education
Comprehensive sex education programs are supported by numerous national organizations, including the American Public Health Association, the National Education Association, the National School Boards Association, SIECUS, the American Medical Association, Advocates for Youth, the Society for Adolescent Medicine, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the National Medical Association (Collins, M.P.P. et al.). Most importantly, however, the value of comprehensive sex education is supported by data. For instance, in 2001, the Surgeon General, after studying research on comprehensive sex education, “found that providing information about contraception does not increase adolescent sexual activity…[ and that] some of these evaluated programs increased condom use or contraceptive use more generally for adolescents who were sexually active” (Collins, M.P.P. et al.). According to one study, “after accounting for other factors, the national data show that the incidence of teenage pregnancies and births remain positively correlated with the degree of abstinence education across states: The more strongly abstinence is emphasized in state laws and policies, the higher the average teenage pregnancy and birth rate” (Stanger-Hall and Hall). In contrast, according to Emerging Answers 2007: Research Findings on Programs to Reduce Teen Pregnancy and Sexually Transmitted Diseases by Douglas Kirby, PhD (supported by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy), “a large body of evaluation research clearly shows that sex and HIV education programs included in this review do not increase sexual activity – they do not hasten the onset of sex, increase the frequency of sex, and do not increase the number of sexual partners” (Collins, M.P.P. et al.). To the contrary, some sex and HIV education programs delay the onset of sex, reduce the frequency of sex, or reduce the number of sexual partners” (Collins, M.P.P. et al.). In fact, numerous detailed research studies have “demonstrated positive outcomes from sex education curricula, including delayed initiation of sexual activity, increased condom use, and decreased number of sexual partners,” all of which aids in the prevention of teen pregnancy and STDs (Collins, M.P.P. et al.).

Collins, M.P.P., Chris, Priya Alagiri, J.D., Todd Summers, and Stephen F. Morin, Ph.D. "Abstinence Only vs. Comprehensive Sex Education: What Are the Arguments? What Is the Evidence?" Ari.ucsf.edu. AIDS Research Institute, 2002. Web. Nov. 2011. .

Stanger-Hall, Kathrin F., and David W. Hall. "Abstinence-Only Education and Teen Pregnancy Rates: Why We Need Comprehensive Sex Education in the U.S." Plos One, and Public Library of Science, 14 Oct. 2011. Web. Nov. 2011. . Georgiascout (talk) 20:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC) Georgiascout (talk) 20:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for Revision
I have decided to revise this article and the article on “Abstinence-only sex education” as part of a class assignment. Most of what is discussed on the talk page is relating to creating a more balanced perspective and including reasons in favor of having abstinence-only sex education. I would like to follow through with adding this section in a way that allows for balance and I would like to add a section on which states fund abstinence-only sex education along with subsections on income disparity, access to comprehensive sex education, and teen pregnancy rates. I plan on adding one section, addressing sex education as a more generalized social issue, relating to socioeconomic, racial, and cultural factors. The section I will add will be called “Prevalence of abstinence-only education in the U.S.” and will address “States that fund abstinence-only sex education”, “Influence of wealth on sex-education”, and “Access to comprehensive sex education”. I intend these topics to make factual links between issues of race and poverty and abstinence-only sex education, which will hopefully provide a better-rounded perspective to the page. As suggested, I would also like to look into the development and history of various funding projects and hopefully provide a picture of where we are today. Are there any suggestions or warnings on these topics? All contribution is welcome. Are there any thoughts on how to keep the social issues aspect neutral? Should there be more subsections under it relating to, say, religious identity or community, or would that be too convoluted? BSchilling (talk) 07:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Review of edits
BSchilling, great job on editing the article and providing a broader perspective with the addition of information pertaining to virginity pledges and access to education. Moving forward, I would focus more on polishing up grammar. There are a few sections that could use further clarification. Some sentences were long and difficult to follow. Overall, great job and I look forward to seeing your future edits! Aqjiang (talk) 21:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Another review of edits
Thanks so much to BSchilling on the many contributions to this article! I especially liked the scholarly sources added to the "Virginity Pledges" section. Grammar can always be improved to further readability and accessibility, but overall, this article is much better than when you started. I look forward to seeing where it goes in the future! Magenstat (talk) 00:28, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I think we should update our state by state policies on sex ed
The information provided in that section is 2 years old now. Guttmacher institute, the same source currently used, has made an updated brief about current state policies. I think that we should update it with the new information. http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_SE.pdf This information is accurate as of January 1 2016

“Cleanup” Revision Proposal
There are many “cleanup banners” throughout the article that need addressing. Some say ‘unreferenced’ or ‘citation needed’, and for these I will use the research I have done previously to link reliable sources with the corresponding information that needs it. There is also a citation error in the references section that I can correct and make accessible. In addition, there are many hyperlinks to other Wikipedia pages that no longer exist that I will remove. Rwlcek216 (talk) 20:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Okay, Rwlcek216. As for the wikilinks, those are WP:Red links to pages that have never existed. Be sure to read WP:Red links before de-linking those pieces. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:02, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Rwlcek216, regarding this, I reiterate that those red-linked pages never existed. Do read WP:Red links. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:16, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I only deleted one of the red links that was actually to a page that had been deleted (Responsible Education About Life Act), and kept all the others. Thanks for your help! Rwlcek216 (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Rwlcek216, clicking on Responsible Education About Life Act, I don't see where it was deleted. If it was deleted, the link should have a deletion log when you click on it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:48, 23 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Rwlcek216, oh, I see that clicking on it does show a deletion log. Thanks. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)


 * It was deleted on the 16th, a day after my initial post above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Sex education in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051127092023/http://www.kff.org/youthhivstds/upload/Sex-Education-in-the-U-S-Policy-and-Politics.pdf to http://www.kff.org/youthhivstds/upload/Sex-Education-in-the-U-S-Policy-and-Politics.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.siecus.org/policy/public_support.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120206161722/http://www.apha.org/advocacy/policy/policysearch/default.htm?id=1334 to http://www.apha.org/advocacy/policy/policysearch/default.htm?id=1334
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nomoremoney.org/history.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.legalmomentum.org/legalmomentum/publications/OverviewofAbs.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://oversight.house.gov/Documents/20041201102153-50247.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090326092459/http://www.adolescenthealth.org/PositionPaper_Abstinence_only_edu_policies_and_programs.pdf to http://www.adolescenthealth.org/PositionPaper_Abstinence_only_edu_policies_and_programs.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:14, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Small edit to "Virginity pledges" heading
I would like to make a small change under the "Virginity pledges" heading. The first sentence reads "A purity ring can be a symbol of a virginity pledge." This is before the actual definition of a virginity pledge is established, which may be slightly confusing. I propose moving this sentence to later in the heading so that the definition is the first sentence. Does anyone have any thoughts on the matter? Monkamyth (talk) 13:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit to "Criticism of abstinence-only sex education by the scientific and medical communities"
I have added another sentence under the heading "Criticism of abstinence-only sex education by the scientific and medical communities" regarding gender stereotypes in AOUM programs. I have cited this, but if anyone has thoughts on where this information may be better placed (or additionally placed) I welcome the feedback. Monkamyth (talk) 21:15, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

First paragraph in Current Position heading
The first paragraph in this heading appears to be very biased and has no citations. While there is data that might support these claims, the author does not cite any sources. It is more of a personal opinion about the effectiveness of sex ed than a series of actual facts. I think it might be a good idea to simply delete this paragraph and let the facts speak for themselves. Does anyone think this is a good idea? Monkamyth (talk) 16:40, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Gender heading
I would like to add a heading for this article specifically about gender and gendered messages in sexual education in the United States. I have many verifiable sources that discuss these phenomena, and I have outlined my planned contributions, but I am wondering if any editors have thoughts on this topic or would like to suggest other ways to discuss gender in this article besides making a separate section. Monkamyth (talk) 16:46, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Additions to article
I would like to add more links between sex education and overall health education: ex how a comprehensive sexual education contributes to mental health. I would to show the correlation in a neutral view. Additionally, I would also add more in the sex education debates sections, such as monumental court rulings that changed the course of sexual education. Ayyyelupe (talk) 03:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Expanding the LGBT sex education subtopic
This particular section of the article is quite small considering how big of a topic it is. While there is another article for LGBT sex education, there is not one for LGBT sex education in the United States, so I this section should be updated. I plan on adding on to the controversy section and potentially creating a section for Pro-LGBT and Anti-LGBT, and explain the argument for both sides. I have several resources that can be found on my sandbox page that I have found in my research. RightAtTheAlter (talk) 00:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Policy Analysis
I think there are points overrepresented in the comprehensive sex education and Abstinence-only sex education sections, because there are existing articles focusing on those two kinds of sex education. The article should more focus on the US sex education situation instead of the categories of sex education. The article is not neutral. There are only sections on Criticism of abstinence-only sex education in the U.S. Congress and Criticism of abstinence-only sex education by the scientific and medical communities, but there's no section talking about criticism of comprehensive sex education. I think the federal funding part is very distractive for me when I read the article. I think it should be put together with the policies section, instead of putting it in the middle of the article.

Crystalccc (talk) 06:43, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Rice University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program&#32;during the 2014 Fall term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and the Law
— Assignment last updated by Skorchin123 (talk) 00:32, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

general policies sub-heading in sex education and policies heading concerns
Sex education legislation is constantly changing, so a lot of the information in the general policies subheading is no longer accurate. I've updated some of the sections, but it can be pretty difficult to manually pick out which states have changed policies over the last few years, especially since the source (the Guttmacher Institute) tracking sex ed legislation changes year-by-year. In general, I am just concerned about the timeliness of that section and wish there was an easier way to update which policies states have adopted each year. HEARTBURNPIGEON (talk) 22:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC)