Eng.101-17-Mar. 19, 2004
This was an article critique exercise based on an article by Rush Limbaugh which was reproduced in the English textbook for the class. I apologize as I do not have a copy of the article anymore and have failed to come up with it. However the topic was adolescent sexuality, specifically sex education in schools and the practice of making condoms available for free at high schools. I hate hate hate Rush Limbaugh, his logic and style of argument are both flawed and based on logical fallacy and shallow, short-sighted "factoids". I sincerely wish that he and Nancy Grace could be marooned on a desert island somewhere with enough food and fresh water to keep fifty people alive for a century so that they could just spend eternity disagreeing with somebody as emptyheaded and unreasonable as themselves.
An Argument For the Trojan Man
The topic of adolescent sexuality, or teen sex in plain terms, is a realm of shaky ground and sensitivity. The discussion is as such because it deals with our youth in America and, moreover, the peril that today’s youth is in. With the rising rates of HIV, AIDS, and myriad venereal diseases, unprotected and promiscuous sex can have serious life altering, or life ending, consequences. Many have taken measures in an attempt to stop our youths from making the mistakes of the past, such as the implementation of new sex-ed programs, a topic of great controversy in itself. Such programs have been designed to teach the consequences of sexual promiscuity, the virtues of abstinence, and to familiarize students with venereal diseases themselves. However arguments against these programs attack them as a violation of the rights of parents, claiming that many such programs have been largely ineffective. The fact of the matter is that sadly, no matter how hard the educators and parents of America have tried, not every teen will be reached, and of those that are not every teen will make the right decision.
So now what is to be done? A policy that began to be implemented in schools is the distribution of condoms to sexually active teens. This action has caused uproar in some parents, saying it was also against the basic rights of parents. Some argued that it took away the innocence of teenagers, and sent a message that encouraged sexual activity in kids. Others felt that it was a good idea, perhaps relieving some of the angst and embarrassment felt by teens with the need to use condoms but an uncomfortability buying them. Many thought that if teen sex cannot be stopped, then at least it could be made a little safer.
Being such a monstrously controversial topic, discussion after discussion, news bit after bit, essay after essay have been put together addressing the idea of sex-ed and condom distribution. Of those, one comes from a most controversial man himself; a man with a gift for gab as well as a gift for getting under peoples skin and just plain ticking reasonable people off. An essay which appeared as part of the book The Way Things Out to Be by Rush Limbaugh, and reprinted in it’s entirety in Current Issues and Enduring Questions, an academic text by Barnet and Bedau, is one which at a distance seems convincing, but like a man of straw has little substance up close. The essay, entitled “Condom Distribution, the New Diploma” is entertaining to read but beyond that is, sadly un-backed, un-justified and would make a decent coaster in a pinch, though a bit un-absorbent.
Throughout the whole of the essay Rush provides little or no supporting evidence, and bombards the reader with what can only be called wild daydreams of worst-case scenarios, the bulk of which are simply absurd and unrealistic. Not to mention, the article is insulting to a reader’s intelligence, insulting to the subject at hand, and with such a tone is largely non-persuasive. Now, a rhetorical question, what is the point of writing a piece of persuasive literature if said piece is only capable of persuading those already on the same side—or to speak in cliché—preaching to the choir?
To begin, the title: “Condoms: the New Diploma” (not to imply that a title is much more than an attention-grabber) is a bit incorrect. Schools do not hand condoms out at the end of a sex-ed course as proof of a passing grade on the course, rather they are distributed later on a more individual basis in case the course fails to get through to the students and they end up needing a condom anyway. Perhaps a more apt title would be: “Condoms: The New GED”, but I digress.
Limbaugh begins by stating the wrongs of condom distribution; saying that the practice is ridiculous, and conveys a message that encourages sexual activity in teen years and sends the lesson of abstinence to take a back seat. This would imply that instead of any sex-ed program at all, schools are just imprudently passing prophylactics like lunch tickets. But the fact of the matter is that sex-ed curriculums are in place to teach the lesson of abstinence and the facts about sexuality as well as the potential risks of choosing to have sex. Condoms are only distributed to teens because the fact of the matter is, that teaching does not remove choice, and if teens happen to choose sex, shouldn’t it at least be made as safe as possible?
The next paragraph of the essay goes into, at the risk of sounding insulting, an unrelenting barrage of false analogies, assumptions and extreme worst-case scenarios. Limbaugh states that the idea that kids cannot be stopped from having sex can be applied to many different issues involving youths. Limbaugh argues across the slipperiest of slopes in stating:
“Let’s just admit that kids are going to do drugs and distribute safe…drugs every morning in homeroom…Kids are going to get guns and shoot them…so let’s make sure that teachers have bullet-proof vests…Why stop [at condoms]?…Let’s convert study halls to Safe Sex Centers…[with] disease-free hookers in [them].”
An entire paragraph is devoted to induction along this same vane which not only runs rampant with false analogy but contains no real factual information and is sort of a diversion from the actual subject, albeit a cleverly worded one.
Next, Limbaugh relates a story (again hypothetical) revolving around the idea that school-distributed condoms send a sort of ‘go-ahead’ signal to teens and also gives teen boys an argument to use to coerce females into saying “yes”. First of all, in order to avoid any possible mixed-messages, many school programs avidly endorse abstinence as the only safe-sex. Still, others show the results and consequences, sometimes graphically, of having unprotected, promiscuous sex. If after all of this, a teen still makes the decision to have sex, then it is not unreasonable to deduce that they were quite possibly bound to make that decision anyway.
The next paragraph states that new school policies have sort of drifted away from the old ideals of protecting young females from the natural impulses of young males. The example is given that chaperones were around to ensure the safety of young girls (Barnet and Bedau 515). Aside from this being a totally different subject, and perhaps a bit of a red-herring, such practices are archaic and verily outdated. Said practices were in place due to the belief that females were weak and in need of protecting. This happens to be a world of new ideas and if imposed now, such standards would simply re-enforce the idea of female weakness and would only be resented by teenage girls of today, causing a bigger problem as girls tried to sneak around and find ways to circumvent such rules.
Now Rush makes the valid point that the consequences of sexual behavior have become much more severe these days. In these days of increasing rates of HIV/AIDS, dying from having promiscuous sex is a frightening possibility. Limbaugh states that adults have all modified their sexual behavior for protection and that it is the duty of adults to teach that behavior to kids. But not all adults have followed that trend quite as faithfully as the passage implies. A most recent compilation of studies performed by the CDC (Center for Disease Control) shows that the amount of STD cases per year have increased in most instances and can be attributed to an “increase in sexual risk behaviors”. The next statement made by Mr. Limbaugh: “if we adults aren’t…having condom-protected sex anytime, anywhere, why should such folly be taught to our kids?” (Barnett and Bedau 516) has interesting connotations. While it is not reasonable to assert with one-hundred percent certainty the basis upon which every curriculum in the country provides its’ sex-education, it is reasonable to argue that no educator in the country so much as implies what Mr. Limbaugh is saying outright. One recent study even suggests that the rate of teen sexual activity decreased with the implementing of condom-distribution programs in schools (Robert 1).
In another far-reaching stretch, Limbaugh asks the reader if Magic Johnson would have decided to have sex with a woman who would later infect him with HIV if he was warned and was given a condom and told to not worry about it. He then claims that we are sending our youths out to do exactly the same. The point is that nobody knows who has what and that is why condoms are so widely used in the first place. And again, no educator has went right out and preached to anybody to just go out and have sex with the first thing on the street and a condom will protect you.
At long, long, last this essay begins to redeem itself when the focus changes to not condom distribution, but rather the curriculum of sexual education. Limbaugh says that we should be honest with kids about abstinence being the only surefire way to guard against sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy. He then attacks those who oppose such information being taught in school. These arguments actually could not be more true.
Out of all of the possible and proposed answers to any difficulty the human race has faced, there have always and will always be those who doubt and those who fight. No matter how complete or crafty a proposed solution may seem, there will always be another side. The issue of teen sex and the dangers of early post-pubescent promiscuity is like all other problems in that it will not easily be solved without the full cooperation of all involved. There however remains one constant; nobody ever became pregnant or infected from abstaining. But no matter how fervently we try to educate, some fall through, and some ignore the lessons taught. So if we cannot stop the problem, do we just give up? Or do we take other measures so that at least the consequences can be curbed a bit. In essence, that is what we’ve been doing. Just the same as controversial programs which distribute clean hypodermic needles to IV drug uses, condom distribution in schools is just meant to put a cap on the already increasing dangers. No matter what happens, you can teach, you can preach, but the fact still remains that choice is free and undeniable, whether dangerous or not.
Works Cited
Barnet, Sylvan, and Hugo, Bedau. Current Issues and Enduring Questions. Boston:
Bedford/St. Martens, 2002.
“Cases of STD reported by State Health Departments and Rates Per 100,000 Civilian
Population: US 1996-2002” Avert.org 12 Mar. 2004. Path: sexually transmitted
Diseases. STD Stats for USA.
Marus, Robert. “Studies involving Condom Distribution Spurs Controversy in ‘pro-
family’ circles” APB News.com 12 Mar. 2004. www.apbnews.com/apbnews/story.cfm?newsid=3609
Why in Gods name was this paper late?
Behind every reason, every excuse, there is a story. Some of which are as old as the hills and twice as…hilly. Some are colorful or interesting, some ridiculous. This is the story of how a jungle of copper wiring and gold-plated connections obliterated beyond recovery any trace of what was quite possibly the finest piece of prose ever created.
‘Twas the eve of one on several days of spring break, and unlike MTV would have one imagine, not all college students gallivant off to Florida or the islands, and not all of them are perfectly tan and built like models for Abercrombie. For one, lone student sat at his computer, yours truly, and began to pour over resources and essay materials when suddenly, possessed by the muse of writing, his fingers flew across a small black cordless keyboard at an amazing rate. Keys, words and fingertips were all a blur as the friction caused was just below enough to liquify most plastics and the work on the screen became, nay, flowered into what would be perhaps the most stunning work of writing since the first runes on cave walls. For some reason, the arrival of the female of the species was cause for enough distraction to pull the creator away from his prose. And after a bit of time, the wonder of technology which was home to the writing piece began to enter it’s pre-programmed slumber. But alas, somewhere within the city of LED’s, spinning metal discs, copper wires, and silicone chips, a hiccup-a tiny spark was enough to destroy an entire piece of beautiful writing, rendering it ‘corrupt and unreadable’. So in a matter of a few days, an attempt was made to replace the lost poetry. But once art is gone, it is gone and so sadly the work presented to you today is simply not the miracle that its’ predecessor was. And is also, irrevocably, late.
