One approach to sex education is to view it as necessary to reduce
risk behaviors such as unprotected sex, and equip individuals to make
informed decisions about their personal sexual activity.
Another viewpoint on sex education, historically inspired by sexologists like Wilhelm Reich and psychologists like Sigmund Freud and James W. Prescott,
holds that what is at stake in sex education is control over the body
and liberation from social control. Proponents of this view tend to see
the political question as whether society or the individual should teach
sexual mores.
Sexual education may thus be seen as providing individuals with the
knowledge necessary to liberate themselves from socially organized sexual oppression
and to make up their own minds. In addition, sexual oppression may be
viewed as socially harmful. Sex and relationship experts like Reid Mihalko of Reid About Sex
suggests that open dialogue about physical intimacy and health
education can generate more self-esteem, self-confidence, humor, and
general health.[78]
To another group in the sex education debate, the question is whether the state or the family should teach sexual mores.
They believe that sexual mores should be left to the family, and
sex-education represents state interference. They claim that some sex
education curricula break down pre-existing notions of modesty and encourage acceptance of practices that those advocating this viewpoint deem immoral, such as homosexuality and premarital sex. They cite web sites such as that of the Coalition for Positive Sexuality
as examples. Naturally, those that believe that homosexuality and
premarital sex are a normal part of the range of human sexuality
disagree with them.[citation needed]
Many religions teach that sexual behavior outside of marriage is
immoral, so their adherents feel that this morality should be taught as
part of sex education. Other religious conservatives believe that sexual
knowledge is unavoidable, hence their preference for curricula based on
abstinence.[79]