Intro: Within our Nation, the overall structure and content within some aspects of our education system is lacking, one of those being sexual education programs. Sex Ed, whether it be taught in middle or high schools, often contains many flaws or topics that are merely forgotten. Though many programs have begun to move away from abstinence-only education, LGBTQ inclusive sex education is still very rare; in fact, there are even some states that require same-sex behavior to be taught in sex ed, but only in a negative manner. These non encompassing and invalidating programs prove to be very deleterious to LGBTQ youth for a wide variety of reasons. LGBTQ youth have severely high rates of mental illness and significantly higher rates of attempted and completed suicide than heteronormative youth. In terms of physical and sexual health, lesbian and bisexual women are at a much greater risk of contracting STI’s and having teen pregnancies than their heterosexual counterparts. Gay youth and adolescence on the other hand have accounted for a majority of new HIV contractions. These very preventable disparities can be connected to the improper sex education in schools or the lack thereof. Integrating sex education not only promotes a healthier lifestyle for LGBTQ youth, but it also enhances a more tolerant and knowledgeable environment where students can feel safe in their schools, and comfortable to reach out for support. Where this is not present, many problems can occur. Bullying and prejudice amongst LGBTQ teens is significanlty higher than that of heterosexual and cisgender youth, simple inclusivity within the education has proven to create tolerance. Additionally, when students do not feel comfortable seeking sex education from a teacher or a trusted adult (or if it’s simply not allowed) they often turn to the internet. Although the internet can provide positive and factual information, it can also be a very dangerous place for LGBTQ youth. All of these issues are preventable, at least to some extent, and this can be done by integrative and inclusive sex ed programs in schools nationwide.

 

Thesis: Sex ed in the United States must be not only comprehensive, but also LGBTQ inclusive in order to elimate a wide variety of diparities between LGBTQ and heterosexual cisgender youth including health (mental, physical, and sexual), bullying, and prejudice.  

 

Audience: [1] Potential policy-makers; state education departments that regulate, control, and make the requirements and standards for education. Because sex ed is often left up to the school district to decide, it can create inconsistent and various programs. If states mandate clear policies and regulations to the programs, it eliminates a lot of problems.      [2] Parents of LGBTQ youth, allies, and LGBTQ identified youth themselves who would likely rally around this idea and promote and enhance these presented ideas.

 

Current Standings of Sex Ed Across the Nation

• History and government involvement in sex ed programs
• Heteronormative sex ed, current and past examples
• Current sex and HIV education in each state

 

Health Disparities

 

• Mental Health

 

• • • Depression, anxiety levels of LGBTQ youth
    • Suicide rates for LGB youth is about 5x that of heterosexual youth, and trans teens are double that

 

• Sexual Health

 

• • Bisexual and Lesbian women are at much greater risk for STI’s and teen pregnancy than heterosexual counterparts
  • Gay men are at a much greater risk for HIV infection than heterosexual counterparts

 

Bullying and Prejudice

• LGBTQ youth experience severely more bullying in schools than heterosexual cisgender youth
• Even teachers partake in bullying on occasion
• How tolerance is related to increased education

 

Turning To the Internet

 

• Negatives

 

• • • (Fosters), turning to older LGBTQ people for experience, could result in dangerous situations
    • Information online may not be accurate or informative enough, or overdramatized (porn)

 

• Positives

 

• • Information online may be factual and helpful from reputable sources
  • Online Sex ed programs

 

Where We Could/ Should Be

• Gender and Sexual Orientation included in sex ed
• Teaching acceptance, tolerance, and consent from a young age (Canada)
• Funding for inclusive programs

 

I attended two other deliberations after my group had our own: “Me 2, You 2, We All Want 2 Reduce Sexual Assault” and “Happy Hour Valley: Thinking about Drinking.” I enjoyed attending both deliberations, and I was glad to be a part of some very important conversations on campus. I think the students in each group did a very fine job.

 

The first deliberation I attended was  “Me 2, You 2, We All Want 2 Reduce Sexual Assault” which was a discussion on the best potential ways to reduce sexual assault, especially pertaining to our campus. Their three approaches were education, consequences, and what to do on our campus. We had a very good discussion on education and especially pertaining to teaching consent at a young age. It was generally agreed upon that teaching even simple consent at a young age could be very proactive and beneficial. In terms of consequences, the group was generally torn. Some people suggest that perpetrators of sexual assault deserve severe punishment and jail, including a permanent registration of being a sex offender. Others said that a permanent label of being a sex offender may be too harsh. Generally, we did agree upon the fact that different cases should be treated differently dependent on the severity of the harm done to the victim. Then we talked about resources on campus, or in schools in general, and that faculty and teachers need to be informed about how to effectively help survivors of sexual assault. We talked about how CAPS is a good resource, but some people may feel uncomfortable with it or not aware of its effectiveness, and that maybe, they should do more to advertise their services for students to be aware of.

 

The second deliberation I attended was “Happy Hour Valley: Thinking about Drinking.” This deliberation was centered around the drinking culture on our campus and what changes might need to be made to make a more pleasurable environment. They focused on drinking education and safety, consequences, and the negative effects that drinking can have on our community. There was a lot of discussion centered around the idea that (underage) drinking cannot possibly be monitored completely, because it would simply be impossible. Therefore, the focus on consequences and policing drunks should be on those who are causing severe distress or harm to themselves or others. We also agreed upon the fact that the education currently setup to prevent dangerous drinking is generally ineffective and should be made more enjoyable and informative in order to increase its effectiveness. I really likes how this group structured their deliberation as opposed to the other. This group had a very large attendance, so in order to combat this, they split up the large group into three smaller groups to go over each approach. Then, after the three approaches, we summarized our smaller discussions as a whole. I found this to be more effective than the other group, who also had a large attendance, that had the discussion as a whole group, in a small space. Overall, I enjoyed the experience of attending deliberations and having this community style discussion on important topics concerning our campus and the greater State College area.