Sex Education Is Political: Why Sex Ed Was Never 'Just Education'
Sex Education Is Political: Why Sex Ed Was Never 'Just Education'
Why 2024 Will Shape How Generations Learn About Their Bodies
No matter your political beliefs, I think we can all agree that the climate in the United States has become increasingly polarizing. This not only contributes to a hostile environment, but a distressing one.
One study from 2019 found that 40% of Americans report politics as a major stressor in their lives, with 20% adding that they’ve lost sleep over it. Research suggests that this stress is only intensifying—a more recent Pew Research Center survey found that 65% of Americans feel exhausted just thinking about politics.
Stress doesn’t just impact mental well-being, it influences our sexual health and functioning, too (which is one of the reasons I raise it here).
As both a mental health professional and sexual health educator, I recognize the need to sometimes pull back from the relentless stream of political news to protect my own mental health. However, I cannot remain silent about what’s at stake in this election. The policies and decisions made in the coming years will fundamentally shape how future generations learn about their bodies, relationships, and sexual health.
While therapists traditionally avoid sharing political views with clients, recent research challenges this convention. Two post-2016 election surveys indicate that political discussions in therapy are increasing—with two-thirds of therapists reporting such conversations. When political views aligned between therapist and client, it actually strengthened the therapeutic alliance.
The majority of my community comes to my page seeking information and advice about herpes and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs). When I began addressing the impact of policies on abortion access, sex education, and reproductive rights, I received pushback:
I’m only here for information, I don’t want your political views.
I don’t care who you’re voting for.
But here’s the irony—the very reason people need my platform is because of political decisions about sex education made throughout American history.
To understand today's battles over sex education, we need to examine how we got here.
The Evolution of Sex Education in America
It’s likely you did not receive comprehensive sex education (CSE) growing up. What may have been considered comprehensive or advanced at one time likely does not fit our current definition.
Today, comprehensive sex education is defined as:
…a broad range of issues relating to the physical, biological, emotional and social aspects of sexuality. This approach recognizes and accepts all people as sexual beings and is concerned with more than just the prevention of disease or pregnancy. CSE programs should be adapted to the age and stage of development of the target group.
Today’s version is much more expansive than years past, but we couldn’t have made these advancements without several important moments throughout the history of sex ed in America.
For those interested in diving deeper, SIECUS (the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States) provides an extensive historical analysis in their "History of Sex Ed" publication. Below is a brief overview of key moments in this evolution, drawn largely from their research.
1900s-1920s: Morality and Social Hygiene
The social hygiene movement aimed to combat sexually transmitted infections (then called venereal disease) by focusing on promiscuity and sex work. The movement operated on a simple, if misguided, premise: education about health risks would keep people within marriage’s “proper” boundaries. More troublingly, the eugenics movement heavily influenced these early initiatives, promoting the idea that only certain people—white, middle class individuals— should reproduce.
The first steps toward formal education came in 1912, when the National Education Association advocated for teacher training programs in sexuality education for public schools. Chicago was among the first to implement formal sex ed programs in schools in 1913, featuring physician-led “personal purity talks.” A year later, the formation of the American Social Hygiene Association (ASHA) marked a key moment in institutionalizing sex education.
The U.S. government’s involvement intensified during and after World War I. The Chamberlain-Kahn Act provided unprecedented funding —$4 million—to train teachers about STIs and established the Venereal Disease Division of the U.S. Public Health Service. This marked the first federally funded sex education initiative in the United States, though its scope remained narrow.
*There is a book about this that I highly recommend—The Trials of Nina McCall: Sex, Surveillance, and the Decades-Long Plan to Imprison “Promiscuous” Women by Scott W. Stern
1940s-1950s: The “Family Life” Era
The post-war period brought a new focus: Family Life Education (FLE) Programs. These initiatives centered on marriage and family planning, but they came with their own baggage. ASHA became a leading voice in FLE and promoted a narrow vision of sexuality, arguing that focusing on marital sex would solve everything from divorce to masturbation to “abnormal” sexual behaviors.
Perhaps most revealing of the era’s limitations, many FLE programs explicitly warned students about the supposed “problems” of interracial and multinational marriages, reflecting and reinforcing the period’s deep-seated racism.
1960s-1970s: The Sexual Revolution and Scientific Progress
The 1960s ushered in a revolutionary change with the founding of the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), thanks to Dr. Mary S. Calderone and five of her colleagues. Initially, SIECUS was founded to
…establish man’s sexuality as a health entity…to the end that human beings may be aided toward responsible use of the sexual faculty toward assimilation of sex into their individual life patterns as a creative and recreative force.
Calderone later clarified that this sentiment was meant to empower people to view sex as part of their overall health outside of religious beliefs and policy.
SIECUS broke new ground, publishing materials about masturbation, sex education, and homosexuality. SIECUS even received funding from the Office of Education at the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to host a groundbreaking professional conference—“Sex, The Individual, and Society.”
The transformation in sex education coincided with a revolution in reproductive rights. The Food and Drug Administration’s 1960 approval of the first oral contraceptive sparked legal battles nationwide. When Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) struck down state laws banning contraception for married couples, it established a constitutional right to privacy in reproductive decisions. Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972) later extended this right to unmarried individuals.
These victories revolutionized sex education by allowing discussion of family planning as a health choice rather than a moral issue, fundamentally changing how Americans could learn about and discuss sexuality.
Public attitudes shifted dramatically during this period. In 1969, one poll found that 70% of Americans were opposed to premarital sex, but by 1973, that number fell to under 50%. This rapid change sparked fierce resistance from the Christian Right, who launched coordinated efforts to take control of sexual liberation across all fronts.
1980s-2000s: The Rise of Abstinence Only Education
A dramatic policy shift occurred in 1981, when Congress passed the Adolescent Family Life Act (AFLA), commonly known as “the chastity law.” This legislation funded programs to “promote discipline and other prudent approaches” to adolescent sexuality—effectively coding moral values into federal policy.
The AIDS crisis became a pivotal moment that the Reagan Administration tragically mishandled. While gay men faced devastating losses, Reagan remained silent—a silence that lasted until 1985, after 5,500 Americans had already died.
Some even claimed that gay men “deserved” AIDS as a punishment for their sins, reflecting the cruel prejudices that shaped policy decisions. Only in 1982 did the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) formally name AIDS and identify HIV as its cause, but the federal response remained inadequate.
A voice of reason finally emerged in 1986 when U.S. Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop, publicly acknowledged the necessity of sex education stating, “There is no doubt now that we need sex education in schools.” This statement marked a crucial turning point. By 1990, all 50 states required education on HIV/AIDS and 41 states encouraged sex education in schools.
The 1990s also brought a new framework when SIECUS convened the National Guidelines Taskforce. Their groundbreaking publication, “Guidelines for Comprehensive Sexuality Education: Kindergarten - 12th Grade,” created the first standardized approach to sex education—implementing curriculum development nationwide.
Dr. M. Jocelyn Elders emerged as a powerful advocate for CSE during this period. As the first African American and second female U.S. Surgeon General, she championed school-based health clinics that provided contraception to students.
Dr. Elders criticized the hypocrisy of societal messages surrounding sex, famously stating that while many opposed premarital sex, it was a reality that young people faced. This candid stance made her a target for conservative groups advocating for abstinence-only education. These groups sought to discredit her through petitions and public campaigns, which led to frequent distancing by the Clinton Administration from her controversial statements.
The late 1990s and early 2000s saw a troubling trend: conservative organizations increasingly pushed abstinence-only sex ed, often rooted in racist and classist assumptions. These programs idealized the white, middle-class family structures while stigmatizing poor women and communities of color. This approach aligned with broader welfare reform efforts that sought to impose middle-class values on all Americans, regardless of their economic circumstances.
In 2007, multiple studies exposed the failures of abstinence-only programs. A congressionally mandated Mathematica study found no significant differences in sexual behavior between participants in these federally funded programs and their peers. Even more concerning, participants were less likely to understand condoms’ role in preventing STIs. A meta-analysis of 13 programs confirmed these findings: abstinence-only education neither delayed sexual activity nor reduced partner numbers.
In 2009, because of the groundwork laid by SIECUS’ guidelines, the Obama Administration transferred funds from the Community-based Abstinence Education Program, and budgeted close to $200 million for new evidence-based sex education initiatives like the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program (TPPP).
2010s: Evolving Approaches and Ongoing Battles
As evidence mounted against abstinence-only programs, advocates tried rebranding. In 2012, the National Abstinence Education Association (NAEA) became “Ascend,” promoting abstinence-only-until-marriage programs under the new term "Sexual Risk Avoidance" (SRA).
This new approach framed sexual abstinence as poverty prevention, introducing the concept of “success sequencing”—the theory that graduating high school, getting a job, and delaying childbirth until marriage would prevent poverty.
This rebranding, however, ignored fundamental realities: institutional racism, economic inequalities, and the diverse experiences of young Americans. Despite these obvious flaws, the SRA approach gained traction among conservative lawmakers, leading to increased support for abstinence-based programs.
The political pendulum continued to swing with each administration. The Trump Administration reverted to abstinence-only approaches, increasing their funding while cutting support for comprehensive programs like TPPP.
In contrast, the Biden-Harris Administration has taken significant steps to restore access to comprehensive sexual health resources following this setback. Key initiatives include reviewing changes to Title X, the federal program dedicated to affordable reproductive health services like Planned Parenthood, and expanding contraceptive access under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), including over-the-counter contraceptive options.
Sex Education Today: A Mixed Landscape
While most states maintain HIV education requirements—a legacy of the AIDS crisis—the broader landscape of sex education remains fragmented and often inadequate.
While this history might seem distant, its impact reverberates through our current sex education system. The Guttmacher Institute reports that as of September 2023:
38 states and DC mandate sex and/or HIV education.
Only 18 states require that program content be medically accurate
39 states and DC require information about abstinence
29 states stress abstinence despite evidence of its ineffectiveness
These numbers tell only part of the story.
The Case for Comprehensive Sex Ed
The research supporting comprehensive sex education reveals its broader impact on society. One 2021 literature review synthesized findings from numerous peer-reviewed studies over three decades, demonstrating that comprehensive sex education:
Reduces homophobia
Increases understanding of gender norms
Fosters healthier relationships
Improves emotional health and well-being
Supports academic success
The research also emphasizes that effective sex education should begin early and build progressively through each grade. When integrated with social justice principles and emotional learning, these programs create more welcoming school environments for all students.
Common Misconceptions and Current Challenges
Despite this compelling evidence, resistance to comprehensive sex education persists. Many parents experience anxiety when they hear “sex ed,” imagining inappropriate content for young children. However, comprehensive programs are carefully tailored to be age-appropriate.
For example, early education focuses on fundamental skills like understanding consent through learning to say “no” and distinguishing between wanted and unwanted touch. (Sex Positive Families offers excellent resources for understanding age-appropriate content).
Despite this evidence, we continue to see concerning policy shifts. These theoretical debates have real consequences in classrooms across America. Florida recently rolled back some of its CSE initiatives, specifically targeting education about contraception and consent. This happens even as 40 states mandate coverage of teen dating and sexual violence prevention, and 35 states require education about healthy relationships.
Research consistently shows abstinence-only education fails to achieve its stated goals
Looking Forward: Gaps and Opportunities
While we face significant pushback against evidence-based sex education, we must also acknowledge where current programs fall short. Current research identifies several areas needing attention in CSE:
Better addressing pleasure and desire in age-appropriate ways
Meeting the unique needs of diverse populations, including students with disabilities
Expanding emotional learning components
Strengthening social justice integrations
These gaps in sex education wouldn't just persist under a Trump-Vance administration—they would expand dramatically.
The Stakes in 2024
The upcoming election represents a critical turning point for sex education and reproductive rights in America. The path ahead splits dramatically based on which administration takes power.
The warning signs are impossible to ignore. We’ve witnessed the dismantling of Roe v. Wade in 2022, celebrated as a victory by those who would further restrict reproductive freedoms. The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, with J.D. Vance as one of its architects, lays out a blueprint that should alarm anyone who values reproductive autonomy:
Sweeping restrictions on abortion access, including emergency care
Systemic dismantling of contraception access
Deliberate spread of misinformation and stigma
Rollback of reproductive rights nationally and globally
These aren't just campaign promises—Project 2025 provides a detailed roadmap for dismantling decades of progress in sexual health education.
I witness the human cost daily: thousands coming to my platform desperate for basic information about their bodies—information they should’ve received years ago. My inbox fills with messages from people traumatized not just by their STI diagnoses, but also by the shame and isolation born from decades of inadequate education.
Having survived Catholic school abstinence-only education in the 2000s, I know firsthand how these policies leave young people vulnerable and unprepared.
The growing censorship of sexuality professionals on platforms like Instagram isn’t just frustrating, it’s dangerous. When accurate information about sexual health becomes increasingly difficult to find, those seeking answers don’t stop having questions. They simply turn to less reliable sources, perpetuating cycles of misinformation and shame.
We stand at a crossroads that would be familiar to Dr. Calderone and Dr. Elders, pioneers who fought these same battles decade ago. But today’s stakes are even higher. In an era of unprecedented digital surveillance and state control over healthcare, restrictions on reproductive education don’t just limit knowledge—they enable enforcement of increasingly draconian policies.
Let me be clear: History has shown us that restricting sexual health information doesn't prevent sexual activity—it only drives it underground, leading to further health complications and shame.
When I look at Project 2025's blueprint, I don't just see policy proposals. I see the faces of every person who has come to my platform carrying shame about their STI diagnosis, every teenager desperate to understand their changing body, every adult struggling to build healthy relationships without the foundation of comprehensive sex education.
This election isn't about abstract political ideologies. It's about whether parents will have resources to answer their children's questions truthfully. It's about whether teenagers will learn about consent before they start dating. It's about whether people will recognize STI symptoms early enough to seek treatment, or understand their contraceptive options before they need them.
The architects of Project 2025 are counting on your silence. They're betting that discomfort around sexual health will keep you quiet as they dismantle access to essential healthcare information. But we've seen a century of evidence that silence equals suffering. When we surrender control over sexual health education, we surrender something far more fundamental: the right to understand and make informed decisions about our own bodies.
This is the moment to prove them wrong.
References and Resources
Planned Parenthood
SIECUS