Condom Club and Those Who *Strongly Dislike* It

[belleoftheball414]

I promised everyone an update on the so called "condom club" at my Southern California High School. However, due to the death and rebirth of my computer, I lost "dectoras_pride" and had to make a new screen name.

The following is a copy of the article I have coming out in the school paper next month. I would appreciate it if anyone who so desires would make some constructive critism regarding my article.

Chastity seems to have flown out the window in recent times. In the past, a girl would rather have died than have sexual intercourse before marriage, but now, teen sexuality is just another part of adolescence. There are still some people in the world who think that teen sexuality is enough of a problem to take action against it, including some students at University City High. Club L-SOY, which stands for “Latex Saves Our Youth,” has taken an obviously more “liberal” approach to teen sexuality, that is, handing out condoms. Their reasoning? Students are having sex anyway, so why not give them protection. However, the concept of handing out condoms at schools is an inefficient and degrading way to approach growing teen sexuality.

To call sex with a condom “safe” sex is a bit of a stretch. For one thing, latex condoms, which are what club L-SOY is named after, have tiny, naturally occurring voids or capillaries that can be up to 5 microns in diameter (a micron is one thousandth or a millimeter.). According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, the human sperm is about 3-5 microns wide and up to 60 microns long. Therefore, latex condoms usually protect against pregnancy (although they do have an 85 percent failure rate), although they do not provide much protection against most sexually transmitted diseases. For example, the HIV virus that causes AIDS measures only .1 micron in diameter. Therefore, even a one micron hole is big enough for the HIV virus to fit through, thereby infecting the partner that wasn’t infected before intercourse. These facts prove that condoms are not affective in protecting against most sexually transmitted diseases, and therefore, distributing condoms are an inefficient approach to teen sexuality.

Condoms are designed to affectively protect against pregnancy. Roughly eighty five percent of the time, condoms fulfill this purpose. However, condoms are not the most reliable form of birth control. For example, the American Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reports that nearly 33% of condoms leaked both sperm- and HIV-sized particles. According to college sex-ed professor Rusty White, B.S., condoms need to be stored in specific environments: a cool, dry place, and out of direct sunlight. As much as one could wish for conditions to always be like that, it’s safe to say that they often aren’t. AIDS expert Dr. Redfield used this analogy: If you decide to drive the wrong way down a divided highway, is it safer if you use a seat belt? To call such actions “safer” completely misses the point. The same thing goes with condoms. According to Dr. Redfield, “condoms aren’t safe; they’re dangerous.” This proves that condoms are in inefficient approach teen sexuality.

Besides the fact that condoms aren’t as effective as most people wish they were, condom distribution is an incredibly degrading concept. To say that students are having sex anyway makes the generalization that the students lack the self-control to not have sex. To hand a condom to a teenager implies that the teenager lacks the common sense to use their own protection if they do decide to have sex. To have an actual club that distributes condoms encourages sex among teens, and also gives the teen population the false idea that condoms are a reliable form of birth control.

Most students at UC have taken sex-ed, and have probably heard the abstinence version (with which the author agrees). Why, then, after going to all this trouble to teach teens about abstinence, would school boards allow a club that distributes condoms? That makes about as much sense as teaching students about tobacco awareness, and then, just in case they do decide to smoke after all the trouble the teacher might have gone through to tell them not to, distribute nicotine patches to the class. Condom distribution among the teen population is a degrading approach to teen sexuality.

The new millennium brought what many consider to be a sexual revolution. With it came new ideas in solutions to teen sexuality. However, none of these solutions are as controversial as the idea of distributing condoms in schools, which club L-SOY exercises. In light of the research done recently in regard to AIDS and STD’s, it is more important than ever to warn teens about the consequences of premarital sex. However, condom distribution at schools is an inefficient and degrading way to approach this steadily rising problem.

[Tomalak]

Good article. Something you may want to add to the claim that teens are having sex anyway might be phrased something like this:

Some teenagers are having sex too early, and thankfully some are not. To lump them all together is wrong and inaccurate. Hopefully we can all agree that we should want the numbers who are having sex early to be reduced. The question is: Is this condom club more likely to increase the numbers having sex early, or to decrease the numbers having sex early? The answer is obvious.

Rephrase as necessary if you think it might be useful. On the point about teenagers needing condoms to control themselves, you could add to the passage about self-control:

The implication of this thinking is that our children are almost animals, who can't control themselves. Does anyone really think their own sons and daughters can't be reached by reason, parental concern or morality? If so, then that sad, but fair enough. But they don't have the right to assume that about your children and mine.

One final thing I would advise you to do is change the beginning of the piece. To begin by asserting that most girls would rather have died than have pre-marital sex sounds extreme. That is not a good way to start an article aimed at persuasion. Much better would be to contrast teenage sex with something positive, like loving marriage:

Not so long ago, girls wouldn't have dreamed of sleeping with a man who hadn't committed herself to him, and shown his love for her through marriage. Now, our daughters are told constantly that they must sleep with boys long before they are emotionally ready. I fear that the proposed condom club would not only increase these worrying pressures, but that it wouldn't achieve what it sets out to do.

[IronJack]

Very well written piece. You needn't change a thing.

Another facet of teen sexuality you might want to explore (in perhaps another letter to the editor?) is the emotional cost of premature sex. Most teens like to think of themselves as worldly sophisticates, but they're far from it. They know little of the psychic damage that can be done if they make a sexual commitment and then watch it fail. And even worse is the casual approach that treats sex as nothing more than a sweaty way to say hello. That kind of superficiality can have lasting impact on a person's ability to form an intimate relationship later in life, when sex loses some of its meaning and is customarily replaced by a sense of devotion, attachment, and comfort with another person.

Certainly, there are physical costs associated with sexual experimentation. But the emotional damages wrought by ill-considered contact are every bit as dangerous.

Congratulations on finding a clear voice to express your admirable sentiments. I hope there are many more like you.

[curmudgeonII]

I very much doubt that virginity was ever as prevalent in the past as you seem to believe. If you go back a century or more you find that marriages used to occur at a much younger age than currently. [I believe that Kentucky and one of the New England states - Vermont or New Hampshire -still have, or had until quite recently, an age of 13 for females to marry]. Virginity would not be a matter of nearly as much concern when girls were getting married at the same time they are currently starting active sexual activities.

None of this, of course, is an excuse for the constant bombardment of sexual content by media which occurs in present day society.

[thefunway]

It's spelled "effectively." But that's beside the point. Of course condoms aren't one-hundred percent effective, but is it reasonable to expect that people are never going to have "extra-marital" sex? Condoms are still the world's best form of birth control, and they do protect against both STDs and pregnancy (but, like you said, not always). So shouldn't they be available? And you say that having condoms available will make more people want to have sex early . . . but that's quite irrelevant. One could also say that an atmosphere that is completely hostile towards any kind of sexual activity also makes teenagers want to "do it" as a form of rebellion. Tomalak is right . . . suggesting that girls would "In the past, a girl would rather have died than have sexual intercourse before marriage" is totally incorrect. Besides, who has the right to tell people what they can and cannot do if it isn't affecting anyone but themselves?

[goodnesswins]

EXCELLENT....and the suggestions others made here are excellent also. I have a technical question....in paragraph 2 you write of the "85 percent failure rate" of condoms, but in paragraph 3 you write "Roughly eighty-five percent of the time" the condom fulfills its purpose. You might need to correct one of these statements.
Another possible point to be made here or in a follow-up is the rate of depression or suicide in young women who participate in early/before marriage sex....I think there are some studies on that which would provide facts of interest. Good Luck.

[goodnesswins]

"Besides, who has the right to tell people what they can and cannot do if it isn't affecting anyone but themselves?"

How about their parents? Or other adults who know the pitfalls? Hmmmm? Besides, what right does a SCHOOL have to HAVE CONDOMS around anyway? Is that what public school is for? Give me a BIG break!!!!!

[Captainpaintball]

I didn't know high schoolers still wrote this well! The only problem with this article is that it may be too intelligent for the targeted readers!

One minor issue: The use of apostrophy in after STD may be incorreect. It's usually reserved for possesives, not numerical/letter abbreviations. But I could be wrong.

[dfrussell]

2nd para: "85% failure rate" this is incorrect.

You are mixing/confusing "affective" and "effective".

Yes, condoms are porus when looked at closely enough. If you were talking about a screen and sand, you'd have a better point. At extremes of size, relatively speaking, of course, factors other than dimensions come into play. Even if that weren't the case, you're ignoring the length of time it takes to pass through the hole to which you refer.

There is little doubt that in the real world condoms do substantially reduce the spread of STDs.

Please note that I'm not arguing with where you're trying to go, only the vehicle.

[Tomalak]

You are correct. It should be 'STDs' rather than 'STD's'. Apostrophes should only be used in those circumstances. For example, a statement like:

"STD's cause ectopic pregnancy"

actually means:

"the cause of STDS is ectopic pregnancy"

which is of course nonsense.

[Polonius]

You may want to cite your source for the "85 percent failure rate" figure ... it sounds rather high.

[Polonius]

Also, does your school paper use AP style? If so, there are several style errors in the column. Not a major problem, but it's helpful to correct them ahead of time when possible.

[Tomalak]

2nd para: "85% failure rate" this is incorrect.

Yes, that should read "85% success rate".

There is little doubt that in the real world condoms do substantially reduce the spread of STDs

Only if you assume that exactly the same numbers of people would be having sex as if condoms did not exist. The whole point of the article in question is that condoms encourage people to have sex, and then to risk disease and unwanted pregnancy as a result. Sex with condoms may be better than "unprotected" sex, but it certainly is far less safe than abstinence.

[dfrussell]

If women who participated in pre-marital sex were prone to suicide -- as you seem to be trying to imply -- the human race would have been extinct long ago.

[Polonius]

"AIDS expert Dr. Redfield," "college sex-ed professor Rusty White, B.S."

You should give full names and titles in first reference for both of these people.

[Intolerant in NJ]

...(although they do have an 85 percent failure rate)...you might check this figure - I believe they have a roughly 85 percent success rate, but a 15 percent failure rate (in the sense of breaking, slipping off, etc.) - however I always like to mention that fifteen percent is about the same chance as you would have of shooting yourself in the head were you playing Russian Roulette with a revolver...this might help dramatize the point...good effort.....

[Polonius]

Why, then, after going to all this trouble to teach teens about abstinence, would school boards allow a club that distributes condoms?

Suggestion for re-wording: After going to all this trouble to teach teens about abstinence, why would the [school board name] then allow a club that distributes condoms to high school students?

[dfrussell]

Only if you assume that exactly the same numbers of people would be having sex as if condoms did not exist.

Logic failure:

One can hardly try to make a case for condoms being ineffective and at the same time assume their presence should have a moderating affect on behavior.

The whole point of the article in question is that condoms encourage people to have sex, and then to risk disease and unwanted pregnancy as a result. Sex with condoms may be better than "unprotected" sex, but it certainly is far less safe than abstinence.

People wouldn't die in car wrecks if they didn't drive cars.

[Chad Fairbanks]

Hmmm.... possibly, but I believe that STD's are a possessive... like luggage... :0)

[DAnconia55]

(although they do have an 85 percent failure rate),

Absolute garbage. Distorting the record does nothing for your cause.

Just openly admit it, you want POLITICAL CONTROL Over who has sex and who does not.

[Tomalak]

People wouldn't die in car wrecks if they didn't drive cars.

Well wasn't that the point I was making? That condoms are better than nothing, but worse than abstinence? I also said that it is wrong to say they cut the numbers of STDs because there is no way to know how they affect the numbers actually having sex. If twice as many teenagers are having sex now than if condoms didn't exist, it is meaningless to say they stop STDs, when in many cases those sexually active teenagers would never put themselves at risk in the first place without them.

[Tomalak]

Never, ever, in a persuasive paper, attack your audience. It puts them on the defensive and makes them stop listening.

I don't agree with this. There are times when it is worth risking attacking a large group of your target audience in the hope of making them feel guilty about being a part of that group. If you include yourself in that group, it works well. For example, see the speech Pitt the Younger delivered to the House of Commons in 1792 trying to get slavery abolished:

"How shall we hope to obtain forgiveness from the heavens if, when presented with this opportunity to end the evils we have caused, we pass it up and allow them to continue?"

Obviously attacking people you wisk to persuade is risky, and I don't think it is appropriate for this article.