Sex Education in Elementary Schools: Rebutting Common Myths

Introduction

In a recent podcast titled "Sex Ed Should Not be Taught in Schools," Candace Owens, a popular conservative political commentator, argues that sexual education should not be taught at the elementary school level. In support of her position, Owens maintains that during the 1960s, the overwhelming majority of young people graduated "with their virginity intact"; however, after the introduction of sexual education — promoted on the assertion that "everybody's doing it" — the majority of students began graduating without their virginity. Owens also cites other potential motivations for introducing sexual education at the elementary level, most notably what she describes as an insidious plot by Planned Parenthood and like-minded organizations to exploit children in the United States by grooming them for future sexualization and monetizing the process.

The purpose of this paper is to explain why Owens' claims are flawed: she fails to cite any evidence in support of her assertions and ignores the critical importance of teaching young people about sex to help them avoid sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies. To this end, the paper presents a rebuttal to Owens' arguments that sexual education should not be taught at the elementary level, followed by a counterargument highlighting the reasons in support of these curricular offerings. Finally, the paper presents a summary of the review and its significant findings in the conclusion.

Rebuttal of Owens' Core Claims

According to Owens' podcast, sexual education ("sex ed") was not taught in public schools in the United States prior to the 1960s, and its introduction during that era resulted in a cascade of negative consequences for American society. Indeed, if Owens is to be believed, sex ed was not even considered by lawmakers until Planned Parenthood and similar organizations decided there was money to be made by sexualizing children through the sale of condoms and textbooks.

Owens also argues that proponents of sex ed justified the curriculum by pointing out that young people were engaging in sex anyway, and therefore sex ed was appropriate since it could help keep them safe and even prevent unwanted pregnancies. Without providing any evidence, however, Owens claims that most young people were still virgins when they graduated from high school, and that introducing sex ed in schools actually encouraged children to have sex. It is also noteworthy that Owens inflates her arguments against sex ed with inflammatory and alarmist rhetoric — for example, blaming it for interest in gender transitions by claiming sex ed includes teaching children that "you don't need those testicles anymore, just get rid of them and you can be a woman." These arguments are wrong on their face and dangerous to American society in general, as discussed further below.

Refutation with Historical and Research Evidence

The multiple claims by Owens discussed above are not only misguided — they are also demonstrably false. First and foremost, fully 40 percent of American public schools featured some type of sex ed as early as the 1920s, and support for adding sex ed to the public-school curriculum was already growing well before the 1960s. In this regard, Lavin emphasizes that during the Progressive Era, "A [1920s] study by the U.S. Public Health Service and the U.S. Bureau of Education also found that 85% of principals believed there needed to be sex education in schools regardless of whether their school offered it at the time" (16). Indeed, Chicago became the first city in the United States to include a formal sex ed course in its public schools in 1913, when 20,000 students completed the course (Lavin 17).

Likewise, virginity rates were already transitioning in the 1960s, and the data suggest that a substantial proportion of high schoolers had some sexual experience by graduation during that decade as well as in preceding decades. For instance, a study by Wu et al. (2020) found that "for women born in the late 1930s and early 1940s, 48 percent to 58 percent reported abstaining from sex while never married," meaning that roughly half of women in the U.S. during those decades had engaged in sex at least once (Wu et al. 31). In other words, Owens' claims concerning sexual behavior during the first half of the 20th century appear unsupported and overly exaggerated when measured against existing research on youth sexuality trends. The 1960s did begin a shift toward more premarital sexual exploration among young people, but these trends cannot be attributed in whole or even in part to the introduction of sex ed in public schools.

Conclusion

Notwithstanding these challenges, there are a number of important reasons to support the inclusion of sex ed in elementary school curricula. The World Health Organization (WHO) emphasizes that "children and adolescents have the right to be educated about themselves and the world around them in an age- and developmentally appropriate manner — and they need this learning for their health and well-being" ("Comprehensive Sexuality Education" 2023: 4).

What is missing from Owens' and like-minded critics' arguments, however, is a call to action directed at parents, who bear the fundamental responsibility to help their children learn about sex and what it means to be a boy, a girl, or otherwise, in 21st-century America. It is also clear that more — not less — sex education is needed at the elementary school level, despite Owens' arguments to the contrary. Rather than "sexualizing them for exploitation," as Owens claims, sex ed actually "equips children and young people with the knowledge, skills, attitudes and values that help them to protect their health, develop respectful social and sexual relationships, make responsible choices and understand and protect the rights of others" ("Comprehensive Sexuality Education" 2023: 5). Research further supports these benefits: Finigan-Carr et al. (2021) found that access to sex education is a significant predictor of protective behaviors, such as condom use, among vulnerable youth populations.

The research shows that Candace Owens' arguments against providing sexual education at the elementary school level are fundamentally flawed and potentially dangerous. Her claim that the majority of students graduated as virgins prior to the introduction of sexual education in the 1960s is simply false and unsupported by evidence — research indicates that almost half of women born in the 1930s and 1940s engaged in premarital sex. Moreover, Owens ignores the many established benefits of sexual education, including equipping youth with the knowledge and skills to protect their health, develop healthy relationships, and make responsible choices. Ultimately, Owens' inflammatory arguments against elementary school sex ed lack a factual basis and overlook the genuine needs of young people in modern society. In the final analysis, more sexual education can help protect children, not harm them. The evidence clearly supports introducing age-appropriate sexual education earlier, not later.

"Comprehensive Sexuality Education." World Health Organization, 2023. https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/comprehensive-sexuality-education.

Finigan-Carr, Nadine M., et al. "Predictors of Condom Use among System-Involved Youth: The Importance of Sex Ed." Children & Youth Services Review, vol. 127, Aug. 2021, pp. 1–5.

Keegan, Julia, et al. "Unlearning and Relearning Sexuality: A Qualitative Exploration of The Sex Wrap, a Sex Education Podcast." Sexual Health, vol. 20, no. 6, Dec. 2023, pp. 531–37.

Lavin, Lauren A. "The History of Sex Education in the United States: With Application to South Dakota." Honors Thesis, Summer 2020. 119.

Owens, Candace. "Sex Ed Should Not be Taught in Schools." YouTube video [podcast]. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/EHm5iFzreBs?feature=share.

Wu, Lawrence L., et al. "Sexual Abstinence in the United States: Cohort Trends in Abstaining from Sex While Never Married for U.S. Women Born 1938 to 1983." Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World, 2020, pp. 31–42.