Classroom Clashes: What Should Teens Learn About Sex?

April 23, 2008— -- At age 17, Max Siegel started a relationship and had unprotected sex with a man six years his senior. Siegel said he wanted to use a condom but his partner didn't. Siegel contracted HIV.

"I did not know how to assert myself further," said Siegel, now a 23-year-old policy associate with the AIDS Alliance for Children, Youth and Families. "I knew enough to suggest a condom, but I did not have an adequate understanding of the importance of using one, and even if I did, I had no idea how to discuss condoms with my partner."

At age 15, Shelby Knox took a virginity pledge at her church in west Texas. The pastor who initiated the ceremony also taught a secular abstinence-only program at her school. But Knox said just being taught not to have sex left her and her peers in the dark.

"I believed in abstinence in a religious sense, but it was clear that abstinence-only, as a policy for students who simply were not abstaining, was dangerous," said Knox, now a 21-year-old writer and speaker, advocating for youth and reproductive health. "Even if we did wait until marriage, we still lacked a basic understanding of our bodies, reproduction, and how to prevent pregnancy as well as a long list of sexually transmitted infections, and the skills to navigate conversations about sex and protection."

A discussion about how to best discuss sex in the classroom brought both Knox and Siegel to Capitol Hill Wednesday, as the House Oversight and Investigations panel held a hearing on the effectiveness of abstinence-only programs.

While everyone participating agreed their goal was to keep teens healthy and reduce sexually transmitted disease rates, they held widely divergent views about how to best do so.

Over the past ten years, the government has provided $1.3 billion for abstinence-only education programs. Coming on the heels of a recent report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that found one in four teenage girls have a sexually transmitted infection, lawmakers are now considering whether those programs are working, and if they should continue funding the controversial program with federal dollars.