Welcome to the arena, Mr. Limbaugh. In corner number one enters a passionate 19-year-old college student challenging the controversial statements posed by her opponent in corner two, Rush Limbaugh and his essay “Condoms: The New Diploma.” There are many government adapted controversial issues among us sprouting from different cultural and religious beliefs. Having sex before marriage — originally a religiously opposed view — poses the discussion if we should be teaching safe sex or abstinence in our high schools, and in turn supplying affordable methods of birth control. As we develop as a society, our views and values change. Fifty-three years ago, we wouldn’t have batted an eye at that discussion. The answer would've been to teach abstinence. However, 53 years ago, they would have been teaching abstinence in color segregated schools. Rush Limbaugh writes an opinion piece on the topic of handing out condoms in school, speaking against it and in turn against the teaching of safe sex as opposed to abstinence. Although his opinion is valid, he does not bring proper evidence for his points such as comparing the severity of teaching safe sex to providing our young adults with drugs and guns in a safe environment. He even blames male action sexual assault on the free distribution of condoms in high schools, saying that “school policy… was designed to protect the girls from the natural and instinctive aggressive pursuit of young men” (Limbaugh). Not only is Mr. Limbaugh incorrect in his findings to claim them as fact, I will prove his piece to be more comedic than bible by providing statistics and playing devils advocate blow-by-blow on the points stated above.
In round one, Mr. Limbaugh attempts to argue that teaching safe sex is dangerously equivalent to handing young adults drugs or giving them guns. To summarize, by giving the child the weapon to do the deed, be it condoms, cigarettes, or a gun, it is their decision on what to do with it, and as students they will choose incorrectly. He provides interesting, so-called safe, alternative solutions to his claims, such as “packs of low-tar cigarettes to the students for their after-sex smoke” or make sure “that teachers have bulletproof vests” (Limbaugh). When comparing something so natural to something so deadly, it’s important to research statistics. Mr. Limbaugh is ignoring the blatant elephant in the room: guns account for 88 percent of teen homicide. Ninety percent of smokers began before the age of 19. Tobacco and guns are the man-made products for disease and protection. Sex is a natural and healthy act that has been around since the beginning of time. Sex can lead to pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases, just as guns kill people and smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer. The only connected correlation between the three is how our education system does just what it is supposed to: provide young adults with the proper information to enter the world safely and knowledgeable. Do we abolish drug education incase it incentivizes young adults to try drugs? Is the answer ignorance is bliss? No, Mr. Limbaugh, ignorance is childish and exactly what we are trying to avoid. We don’t teach sexual education and supply birth control because “kids are going to have sex… try as we might we can't stop them”, we teach those lessons because the only thing worse than an “ignorant young adult" is the end result of an “ignorant adult.”
Enter Limbaugh in the right corner for round two. He enters a dangerous territory as he punches below-the-belt and attempts to blame sexual education and supply of birth control for young adults to be promiscuous and males forcing females into sexual activities that may be unwelcome. If teaching safe sex and handing out condoms is side-by-side teaching young adults to sexually assault women, then I agree with Mr. Limbaugh that we need to rid ourselves of this system. However, when researching why men sexually assault women, not one website blames the innocent teachings of safe sex to horny fifteen-year-olds. There is almost always a power dynamic, and it is not because “the school gave me this condom, they know what they're doing” (Limbaugh). However, if teachers and parents were worried that sexual education causes sexual assault incidents, why hasn’t it been reported to the board of education? According to Advocates For Youth, 80 to 85 percent of parents want a comprehensive sexual education plan taught to their teenagers in high school. Aside from providing our young adults with an all-embracing recap of how to practice safe sex, and if you should be practicing safe sex at all, sexual education would provide a proper lesson on consent and no means no. If by chance Mr. Limbaugh was claiming that sexual education doesn’t properly teach consent and that is causing more sexual assault cases, then I would agree, however he is blaming the “trusty high school-distributed condom [to] urge [a girl] not to resist him” (Limbaugh). The ignorant pursuit to blame the distribution of birth control on sexual assault is offensive to victims worldwide. Sadly, not only is sexual education scarcely taught across the US, the little schools that do aren’t teaching about sexual assault and consent. Women’s Media Center reports that “more than 10 percent of high school girls and four percent of boys report being forced to have sex.” Many of those in college admit to never being taught about consent. Not only is Mr. Limbaugh incorrect that sexual education and supplying birth control causes sexual assault, he has it almost completely backwards. By not conversing with our young adults and teaching them from a young age about those sensitive subjects, we are putting them at risk.
During intermission, consider this discussion in the scenario of now compared to 1963. In the 1960s alone, and by taking in the consideration of a doubled population, forced rape crimes were equivalent if not more in the 1960s then now, when they were teaching abstinence. The 60s had the ball rolling on improvements of sex education. Just before the “sex revolution” schools taught the old morality lesson of abstinence until marriage. However, this didn’t stop thousands of men from assaulting women, nor is it a reason to not teach safe sex in schools. Can teaching abstinence alone have as great an effect as would letting our young adults make decisions for themselves? Once entered into high school, you are asked to make a series of choices about your future instantaneously. This future involves financial commitments, moving out of your home, and learning to be an independent adult after turning the ripe age of 18 and being handed a cap and gown. We will continue on this in round three.
For round three, lets say that Mr. Limbaugh is correct and that teaching safe-sex and handing out condoms leads to sex, and sex was as dangerous as owning a gun, or that it makes men sexually assault women, rather than achieve its assumed goal of helping young adults make safe decisions and feel comfortable talking about them. If he is correct, then why doesn’t this apply to adults? Young adults aren't the only ones at risk of sexually transmitted diseases or unwanted pregnancies. Most young adults are brought up by the public school system which teaches less or more sexual education, in the end producing adults with less or more sexual education. While understanding that young adults have an easier brain to mold, forced or not, lets not relinquish the fact that we are making the leaders of tomorrow through our public education system. If young adults, who could be 16 years old choosing careers, jobs, and a path that is financially binding, why aren’t they allowed to be knowledgeable about their sexual future? Let’s say we do forego sexual education in high school. High school is a small pond of sexual possibilities compared to college. Not only are the young adults more promiscuous in college, they are expected to already have the knowledge of sex education, thus not making it a requirement in general education, and the vicious cycle continues.
Knock out, Mr. Limbaugh. I challenge your accusations against the sexual education system our government proudly provides. Of course, our world would be better if teens weren’t having random sex and collecting diseases or getting pregnant, however this is nothing new to be enraged about. The only new act sexual education does provide is a safe environment to start the conversation about blooming, vivacious young adults. It does not carry the dangerous significance of handing a child a gun or giving them drugs, nor does it push men to sexually assault women. If supplying affordable methods of birth control to teens — who are bound to test their fertile frontiers — means they will start having sex, then it’s probably best that we have provided them with a top notch, comprehensive education program all about their sexual future. It’s time to throw in the towel, sexual education and birth control distribution are here to stay.
