It is fashionable to talk about "comprehensive sexualEducation ", but what does this expression really mean; and is the so-called "comprehensive sexualEducation " really comprehensive? In general terms we can classify Education sexual programs into four categories: (1) Programs focused on biological data and contraceptive use; (2) "abstinence-only" programs; (3) Official programs called "comprehensive" (or called "abstinence plus"); (4) "abstinence-centered" programs. Let us briefly describe each program.

(1) Programs focused on biology and the use of contraceptives are based on the premise that the sexual fact is only biological and that, to solve educational problems, it is enough to clearly inform about the physical aspects of sexual activity and the use of contraceptives. Too much emphasis is placed on informing about the use of contraceptives and less on other aspects related to the personality or affectivity of young people. In many years, they have not achieved their intended results - optimal "sexual health" - and yet they continue to be applied in many places.

(2) "Abstinence-only" programs only approach the Education sexual with messages in favor of abstinence from sexual relations. When they are directed at young people who are already having sex, they insist that it is best for them to stop having sex. Some criticize these programs on the grounds that young people who decide to have sex would be less prepared to assume and reduce the risks they incur in making this decision. According to critics, these young people would end up at greater risk of sexually transmitted infection (STI) or unintended pregnancy. The best programs do not simply advocate abstinence, but work with young people to help them achieve this goal in the real circumstances of their lives.

(3) So-called "comprehensive sex education" programs describe all the options available to a young person to avoid or reduce the risk of STIs or pregnancy. They mention abstinence, but end up focusing on promote condom use as the most "realistic" option for young people. They assume, deep down, that abstinence is not possible, not realistic, for them. Sometimes these programs are called "abstinence plus" because they add condom information to the abstinence program. The problem is that they do not take into account that, also from the point of view of scientific data , abstinence is clearly the best thing for young people compared to having sex, even if they use condoms. They may even favor the phenomenon of "risk compensation": by presenting condoms as if they were 100% effective, young people who are not sexually active may end up being encouraged to have sex because they feel invulnerable by using them. Likewise, those who are already sexually active may end up having more partners than they did before the program. In the end, young people end up having a higher risk to their "sexual health".

(4) "Abstinence-focused" programs are programs that focus the sexual Education on abstinence messages, even if they also provide information on condom use. They differ from so-called "comprehensive" programs in that they never recommend condom use as the best option for young people. They do not even present the existing options with the supposed "neutrality" of comprehensive programs, as if both options were equally beneficial, but rather clearly bet on abstinence, assuming that young people can and should choose this option for their own good. For young people who are already having sex, it is insisted that the best thing to do is to stop. The best programs do not simply explain the theory, but also try to help them achieve this goal in the real circumstances of their lives.

Abstinence, a viable solution

Programs that do not place the abstinence message at the center and give it the priority it deserves as the most appropriate and beneficial option for young people are often based on the idea that most adolescents have had, are having, or will soon have sexual intercourse. Basing the sexual Education on this premise presents at least two problems.

The first problem is that this idea has little to do with the statistical data on underage sex. For example, programs of study recent scientists point out that the proportion of sixteen-year-olds who have already had sex is less than 30% (Archives of Sexual Behavior, 2012). It can therefore be stated that these sexual Education programs leave out of their message up to 70 % of young people of that age. These adolescents would benefit from a positive and strong message that reinforces their wise decision not to have sex, because then they would not be at risk of ending up with affective problems, pregnancies or sexually transmitted infections. Instead, the message is implicitly conveyed to them that they are "on the wrong side" of the statistics. These programs do little to make their free decision not to have sex seen as a wise choice and that by making it they are not "weird people". On the contrary, there are initiatives that seek to empower young people who are making the right decisions for their "sexual health"; the video Amantes, which, according to youtube, has been visited by more than three hundred and twenty-five thousand people, is one example of many(www.soyamante.org).

The second problem is that these programs focus exclusively on two messages: affirming that it is good to let oneself be carried away by desires and promote the use of contraceptives, especially condoms. There are even many programs that, while theoretically accepting that the healthiest behavior is not to have sexual relations until the establishment of a stable and permanent couple (such as marriage), focus on internship with the greatest energy on condom use training. As explained above, these programs have given themselves the name of "comprehensive sexualEducation ", but it is seriously questionable to what extent they are really "comprehensive". From a health promotion point of view, this contradiction in which young people are told one thing and the opposite in the same program, ends up undermining the message that is necessarily a priority for adolescents: it is best for them not to have sex, and condom use can reduce the risk but in no case eliminate it altogether.

Desire, infatuation and love

It is important to inform about the effects of having sex and about the difference between having sex with or without contraceptives. However, informing with the approach described is tantamount to taking care of the lost sheep, without ensuring that the remaining 99 are properly cared for and protected. The direct effect of this approach may end up being that those 99 are left vulnerable as well, because the door has been left open when looking for the lost sheep.

What happens at internship is that young people who are not at risk, because they do not have sex, are pressured by the environment to have sex and therefore end up increasing their risk (even if they use condoms)(www.unav.es/eash).

In addition, young people are very interested in understanding what love has to do with sexuality and what the relationship is between desire, falling in love and love. These so-called comprehensive programs tend to ignore this question. For example, on the web pages that answer young people's questions, we find that they are twenty times more interested in questions describing the characteristics of love than in questions about the effectiveness of condoms (www.joveneshoy.org).

Today, when the family is often neglected, it is useful to remember that not to count on it in this preparation for the love that young people desire, is to carry out a sexual Education that has more to do with veterinary medicine than with the integrality proper to the human being(www.educarhoy.org).