In Killing Abstinence by Robert Rector Robert Abstinence programs are questioned. Robert states that the media had recently stated that Abstinence programs had dramatically reduced teen sexual activity, and this surprised many people. According to Robert anyone who was at all knowledgably wouldn’t have been surprised by this fact at all. Robert also talks about the positive effects being abstinent can have on teens, besides the obvious lack of STDS or ability to become pregnant. Some of the other many benefits Robert talks about include happiness, better grades, and that teens are more academically inclined. According to Robert this is simply because teens who choose to be abstinent are “somewhat smarter and more mature, and have greater self-control”. Robert also mentions that sex is an “overpowering psychological that can cause youth to loose future orientation and work focus.” Robert believes that the main problem behind teen pregnancy is the programs that have replaced abstinence programs today. Where abstinence programs warned teens about the dangers of sex, the Sex Ed programs that remain are sub-par. Robert says that the curriculum in these sex ed courses shows students that society expects and accepts teen sexual activity and he thinks the abstinence programs worked better to protect teens. However, Sex Ed programs today do not promote sexual activity, and they are a very effective way of helping teens. Sex Ed programs are more effective than abstinence programs
By telling teens not to have sex it only makes them want to do it more. Abstinence programs scare teens into thinking they are doing something ‘bad’ if they have sex. Human sexuality is a wonderful thing and we shouldn’t place negative connotations in our teen’s minds. Hormones are at a peak during the teenage years. Teen’s bodies are telling them to have sex, and we shouldn’t make them feel bad about it. Teenage desire to explore sexuality, combined with a desire to rebel doesn’t match up to abstinence programs. Sex programs do not ‘accept and promote’ but they instead protect. For example, Sex Ed programs focus