Is "Abstinence Only" Sexual Education The Way to Go?

In my view, the choice to offer an "abstinence-only" form of sexual education is great but not the most effective way towards curbing the prevalent teenage pregnancies and sexual infections. "abstinence-only" Abstinence just suggests teaching that engaging in sex before marriage is false. Abstinence just means teaching that engaging in sex before marriage is false. But supposed someone does not believe in or never plans to get in marriage? I find this form of sexual education clinging to some extent to some form of religious motivation. Moreover, teenagers, as peer 1 noted, are experimenters and deeply teaching them why sex is wrong before marriage would make them want to experiment such repercussions. Not forgetting adolescence is their most tempting time and it would help if they had facts about sex and its costs. What ought to be taught are why it is important to abstain and if not possible what measures one can take to protect themselves from sexual infections and early pregnancies. When Britain talked openly of sexually transmitted diseases like gonorrhea which was evident in people with multiple partners, people began taking care and fewer infections were witnessed. I, therefore, see it important to apply a comprehensive sex education strategy that will not only advocate for abstinence but also talk of multiple ways to prevent teenage pregnancies and STDs. Peer 2 notes that in some colleges free condoms are given. This is not advocating for sex but having preventive measures if students were to engage in sex.