Comment below on Jean Carlomusto's documentary, Sex in an Epidemic, and/or the National Abstinence Education Association website and the Father-Daughter Purity Ball website.
Write about whatever you want, or consider the following questions:
- Who are the intended audiences for the documentary and each website? How does the documentary or website use rhetoric, especially pathos, to target its intended audience?
- How is the history of AIDS and the social and medical responses to AIDS connected to the current state of "sex education"? What evidence do you have to support this connection?
- What arguments do these texts make about the relationship between sex, sexuality, and health? Are these arguments convincing?
the history of AIDS and the social medical responses to aids connect to the current stage of sexual education. This is because as the virus evolved and more was learned about it, we learned there were ways to prevent it spreading if we take proper precautions such as using condoms, sex without exchange of bodily fluids, etc,.. and through this we have decided it is important to protect people from contracting this deadly virus. Through proper education, people can understand what the virus is and how it is shared and also how to prevent themselves from contracting it. This is taunt through sex education, which is in most schools now teaching each generation of people more and more about how to be safe and healthy when it comes to their sexual encounters.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, I believe that the arguments these text make about sex is how “sex” is something natural BUT in the sense of “sexuality” having a lot of sex with multiple sex partners etc. is commonly STEREOTYPE of their own “sexuality” as if they are doing a bad thing, so because we are surrounded by the negativity that if you have sex a “particular way” it mite be considered not the “right way” to have sex. There are so many restrictions because of the cause of sex effect many people’s life, people form groups, organizations, and other events that focuses on “safe sex” preventing AIDS/HIV etc. Also having different believes and reasons of “healthy sex” health is obviously a complex definition due to everyone’s different point-of-view, where sex also carries many judgmental opinions that affect a persons thought.
ReplyDeleteThese arguments can be convincing because their pathos, show emotional examples in order to understand and developed a different way of viewing sex due to all the information and reasons considering "safe sex".
I really think if I were 16 and have read the both websites (since my parents/church/family just mentioned sex that was something you did when you were married and never further explained) I would have been completely convinced because as Wendoline mentioned, they say sex is something natural, but no one really talks about IT. And, if they do, they say it is ok to have sex, but it is not ok to have X amount of partner, because then it won't be sex, it'll be another term or you have a problem. I think what I found the most striking though was the National Abstinence Education Association FAQ's page because when they mentioned the CSE program they mentioned it as "so-called comprehensive sex education" and went on further to add "that sets the bar much lower, assuming teens will engage in high risk sexual behavior and focusing merely on reducing the risk of that behavior". To me, it felt like they disproved the CSE program, sort of in a snotty way almost, did not work for their ethos. I remember reading other articles and disproving their critics to prove their ethos was a great strategy, but this time around to me it did not work. I think the Purity Ball as well as the NAEA is a good idea for many adolescents, but I also believe that it doesn't work for everyone, but that is the purpose of these organization, to give everyone an option to find the best way to practice safe sex whether it be a vow, abstinence, or condom use.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Imelda that the National Abstinence Education Association FAQ's total disregard for the CSE program did not work well to their advantage. To speak so lowly of another program while trying to promote another, in this case, was personally not very effective to me. I was taught in a public school the CSE program, that educating on safe sex was more beneficial then just promoting abstinence. After reading the answers to the questions I felt as if the NAEA basically shot down everything I was taught and said it was wrong. I understand that practicing abstinence is overall the best possible way to prevent illness and disease; however, that does not mean that teaching safe sex practices "sets the bar much lower". I believe that children should learn both programs together in one to have the best possible benefits. This will allow teenagers to be well informed on whatever decision they choose in regards to sex.
ReplyDeleteI am going to have to agree with both Ashley and Imelda’s point that the FAQ’s portion on the National Abstinence Education Association’s website put a sizeable dent in their credibility for me. In fact, their complete disregard, and almost degrading tone towards the CSE program made their argument for abstinence much less convincing than it already is. Maybe I am biased, being that I was taught comprehensive sex education in high school, or maybe I am in college and I realize the ineffectiveness of abstinence on this group of people. Personally, I feel like abstinence is an unattainable goal for a long-term basis. For those girls participating in the Purity ball (who are around 11 years through the early teens) and for teens in high school still under their parent’s eye, abstinence may work. But honestly who is even thinking about having sex at 11? I was out climbing trees and being a kid at that age; and in high school (unless you’re a sex-ninja of the night and can sneak out of your house) it is easier for abstinence to be a plausible goal because they are still under parent’s roofs and all the rules that they may enforce. In my opinion, go ahead and preach abstinence to teens if you feel the need; but, more importantly, teach sex education to them. When things get hot and heavy and when college hits, it’s better to have taught all there is to teach about sex to teens so that they can be better equipped to deal with any situation they find themselves in.
ReplyDeleteI was raised in private schools and in a Baptist Church, so I was taught abstinence-centered education on sex education. However, as Imeldia and Ashley have stated, I also thought that the way the NAEA continually disrespects the CSE makes the organization look discourteous, even desperate. Such insults are shown through the following sentence: “CSE curricula regularly overstate the effectiveness of condoms, underestimate the risk of certain sexual activities, and infer that sex can be made safe and without consequences as long as a condom is used.” I understand if the CSE initially thought that a good strategy of relating to the pathos of the reader would be to counter-act a competing organization, but the CSE is simply making themselves look bad. As a Christian, I automatically associate abstinence with Christians and I think that the CSE organization are portraying themselves as hypocrites, especially because they don’t have evidence to support their claims. The abstinence-centered education I received in private schooling never talked down upon other organizations because, particularly dealing with sex, there are so many different opinions and views on the subject that it is best to simply state the views of the particular organization you are supporting. I believe that the intended audience of the CSE “FAQ?” are parents, children, and/or advocates in support of abstinence-centered sex education. I think the Purity Ball webpage is also targeting those in support of abstinence-centered sex education, but particularly Christians who have close relationships with their families. Since the purity ball is a vow between a father and daughter a close bond between the two family members is pertinent, as it is the whole motive behind upholding the pledge. The writers of “What is a Purity Ball?” definitely appealed to the emotions of the target audience by sharing stories the fathers wrote about seeing their precious daughters during the ball.
ReplyDeleteSex in an Epidemic was an eye opener. I know that today's views are different from the 80's views, but what happened in the 80's shaped today's views. Some of the rhetorical strategies I saw used in the film made their argument towards safe sex and education convincing. In the 80's this "cancer" came about suddenly in the gay community and people didn't know what it was exactly and what caused it. The people being interviewed were from that time and were activists, so to have a point of view from various people supported the argument in a radial form. Of course the music at the right moments and the silences when facts, historical markers and statistics about the deaths from AIDs made the pathos pull at the feelings of the audience. The audience, whether it be the gay community or the government, the film encouraged people to so something about the safe sex education that was lacking back then, so that today we may not have another epidemic and people could be educated properly. When I think about it, I am glad there was an educational film about safe sex that was given to us in elementary and junior high knowing that there are diseases. Yet, back in the 80's they didn't know about the diseases until the virus showed up and science had to figure a solution, and they didn't think to have a safe sex education until it happened. It is amazing how much the government will and will not do when it comes to sex. Currently, there is an issue about contraceptives, and in the film, I remember that birth control was introduced to use (which the government didn't seem to have a problem with) and then they got involved with abortions, but they wouldn't do anything about education, even if it only took $5,000.
ReplyDeleteThe intended audience for the documentary includes activists, educators, the LGBT community, politicians and policy makers, and the general adult public as well to just promote awareness about the challenges faced, losses suffered, and their successes using music, images, news titles and personal accounts to draw emotion from the audience. The NAEA website's intended audience includes parents, teenagers both sexually active/experienced and not experienced, educators, sponsors, and also opponents to their purpose of abstinence education. They provide a lot of background and current information on their organization and program, as well as a lot of research and statistics to strengthen their argument. The Purity Ball organization is geared towards families, fathers and daughters, and Christians as a way to encourage and promote the act of young girls and teens to commit to purity. To teach abstinence in the context of a fantasy like ball appeals to the girls because of the princess like experience. Before this site even began to explain what the Purity Ball was about it had two long paragraphs talking about all of the different public news shows and talk shows it has been featured in, as well as the many magazines and newspapers it was featured in. I think this was a way for the site to strengthen their ethos as if to say "look at how popular/famous/talked about we are! Take us seriously, because we were on Tyra and in the Oprah magazine!" I kind of just skipped over those paragraphs to get to the part where it talked about what the Ball actually was, so I don't feel like all that was necessary at the beginning. Including personal accounts from fathers about their daughters is a use of pathos to appeal to the audience's sense of love, care, nurturing, and protection of their young and innocent.
ReplyDeleteThe movie, Sex in an Epidemic was a very interesting video that taught me alot about the past and the epidemic of aids. So much of what happened in the past with gays and aids is very saddening to me and also was a very harsh environment for people to be in going through an unknown disease alone in. Also I was shocked by all the silly ways that people thought this "cancer" could be transmitted by someones tears. Also I found it interesting that they used to teach about safe sex visually through comics and videos which is not very common in todays world. Throughout the video pathos is used to get to the readers by emotion having people who went through all of the struggle talk about the hardships and unfair treatment they received. Pathos was also used through the music in the video it was slow, sad, and the words were very emotional. After watching this I was very happy that I was told early about safe sex and all the diseases and problems that can come from not practicing safe sex.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, Sex in an Epidemic was a very interesting video to say the least. I guess the main reason I was so shocked at first was because I didn't think that sex-education started in the gay community. It was heartbreaking to see how many people were alienated because of the silly ways they thought this "gay cancer" could be transmitted. It was also interesting to see how during that time period men were unwilling to use condoms. I feel like most sexually active males in the current generation aren't as unwilling as the previous generations. Also, it made me laugh to learn that people actually believed that having a "healthy vagina" prevented women from getting this "cancer" and therefore it wasn't necessary for them to take precautions. It was overall eye opening to learn the different points-of-views as well as the history of how sex-education came about.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, although I don't disagree with the idea of teaching teenagers abstinence, my skin began to crawl when I read the (in my opinion) very closed minded argument that NAEA provided against CSE. I felt that they kept repeating the "health risks" of having sex as a teenager, but I never saw any research within this argument that supported this statement. This made me feel as though NAEA was trying to use distorted claims to almost trick readers into believing what they want readers to believe. Science is a very powerful thing, and if one has scientific back-up for their argument, I feel their argument becomes magnitudes stronger. However, when it's a shallow claim as the one made by NAEA, it makes me more frustrated and more likely to turn away from whatever they have to say rather than being supportive of them.
The documentary "Sex in an Epidemic" was very hard for me to watch. I learned a lot about the history of AIDS but I felt that movie relied too heavily on pathos. Almost everything in the movie was emotionally or politically charged and took away from the educational aspect of the video in my opinion. I found it interesting that the video mentioned how early informational materials made by activists never mentioned love, yet the documentary also never mentioned love. The arguments in the film should be connected to sex education because HIV/AIDS is a very real problem today and awareness and prevention should start early. As the movie showed effective education is crucial and will make a huge difference in the future of this epidemic.
ReplyDeleteThe Purity Ball was interesting to know. I've never heard of it before, but I think it's a good event for fathers and daughters to bond better, and to live up to their beliefs. It somehow seemed to be a very religious event though. It's interesting to know that there is such thing as Purity Ball but I wouldn't want to experience one partly because of cultural difference and also because it sounds a little too formal to me. Still, it was very intresting to know.
ReplyDeleteThe documentary "Sex in an Epidemic" was awakening and very interesting to me as it illustrated the history of AIDS and how it developed so far until today. I knew that AIDS is a disease that is transmitted by sexual intercourse, but never knew how it was first discovered and spread out. I was a little raged at the part when a doctor was so confident to say that "women were completely immune to AIDS". If I could I want to tell him that he was the worst quack and he should be sorry and be punished for saying so convincingly such a groundless argument. Anyways, throughout the readings online and the documentary, I got to think about safe, healthy sex and purity once again. These materials made me reaffirm myself that I should be a responsible and healthy-spirited adult. They were very intriguing to think about.
I agree with the above comments about the FAQ's on the NAEA page. It seemed like they were attacking CSE by providing some very defensive answers to the questions. It is obvious that they are trying very hard to prove that their organization is better that CSE, and the CSE should not be as recognized and funded as it is at the moment.
ReplyDeleteThe Purity Ball was interesting as well. However, although I was raised in a Christian household, I find the event a little too over the top. It sure is a good bonding experience between fathers and daughters, but if parents are willing to teach virtues such as purity to their daughters, they should do so throughout life. Parents need to be open-minded enough to confront their children and talk about things like sex. As the quotation at the end of the article states, participating girls might feel loved because their fathers are willing to go to such an event with them, but I do not see how this can contribute to sexual purity in a larger scale.
As many people have already mentioned, "Sex in an Epidemic" was undoubtedly a shocking video to watch, especially for those who knew little about the topic. I certainly fall into that category, as I had no idea how poor our sex education was in the United States until the 1980s. I also had no idea that AIDs brought sex education to the forefront. There is no doubt that the social and medical responses to AIDs helped progress the state of sex education. I think it’s incredible that it took the outbreak of AIDs for our nation to realize the importance of a comprehensive sex education, and the fact that it was lacking before the 1980s proves that AIDs was a direct cause for that progress. Huge strides were made in a short time, however; I thought an interesting point was made towards the end of the video. They discussed the spike in sexual education and the emphasis on safe sex immediately following the AIDs outbreak, but one of the speakers felt that our society has regressed from that standard for safe sex. Ultimately, one can practice abstinence and still be sufficiently educated about safe sex. However, if our youth is only told to be abstinent and remain ignorant about safe sex, then those that decide not to practice abstinence are much more likely to suffer negative consequences.
ReplyDeleteI was also one of those who knew little about this topic. After watching this video I felt as though I was living under a rock. I have also would of never thought that idea of safe sex was invented because of the events that took place between AIDs and the gay community. I've been taught repeatedly about the rights of minorities and women, but I haven't herd much about the struggle of the LGBT community through my education. This video made it clear that the sex and sex education, even today, still remains a taboo subject among our schools and government. The film also made me think about our views of health today. If not to long ago the media and health community were ignorant enough to see aids as a "gay cancer", I wonder what ideas or theories on heath we have today will be proved wrong 20 years from now.
DeleteThe intended audience for the documentary is for those who are interested in learning about the history of AIDS and sex education in the USA. They use rhetoric by building up their ethos and pathos with the use of statistics and statements from people that work for the government, doctors, psychiatrists, and activists. I found it shocking when the documentary mentioned, “Over 1 million people have HIV in America and 21% of those who do don’t know it”. In my opinion their rhetoric strategy of showing footage of the walking vigil in remembering those who had passed away due to AIDS was emotional and helped their main argument that sex education is important. I believe that documentary shows a great point that having accurate information about sex is important to prevent diseases/infections/pregnancies. The Purity Ball's main audience are family oriented or spiritual people. They show pathos through the use of personal statements. For example under the pledge a girl discusses how she immediately felt grateful after hearing her father give his pledge to her and God. As for the NAEA, their intended audience is for those whom already support or are against abstinence because of personal values.
ReplyDeleteSex in an Epidemic was eye opening for me particularly because I never knew the origins of sex education started with the gay community in the 80s. It just seems disrespectful to the LGBT community that even today, they are still fighting a war on the home front (as someone mentioned in the video a few times), especially with the recent events in the US military, when everyone today benefits from what they started in the 80s. I just had a thought when pursuing the NAEA website and Purity Ball website that how ironic it was that a few decades ago, people were joining the sexual revolution and increasingly displaying their orientation and sexuality and now there is more talk of abstinence and advocating for less promiscuity. It’s like a clothing analogy: women and men used to wear clothing that covered every aspect of their body (Victorian’s), then fashion increasingly turn more revealing (Flappers to bikinis). We went from a conservative culture to one with the sexual revolution and now it’s like because our culture went too extreme liberally that there are people wanting to tone that down. To me, it’s just like any cycle where there’s a peak, a downward slide will occur hit rock bottom, then another peak will occur again. Our culture will vary from conservative to openly sexual to conservative again.
ReplyDeleteThe documentary “Sex in an Epidemic” gives a history of the AIDS epidemic in the gay community and brings up why AIDS is an extremely relevant topic today. The documentary’s goal is to make people aware of AIDS and its history and to convince them that more needs to be done for AIDS prevention. The documentary uses pathos to persuade its audience often in the form of strategically placed music. The personal interviews and stories of fear and hopelessness during the early days of the epidemic is another use of pathos. The documentary often interviews or shows video of organization leaders, doctors, or political figures, people with authority, to appeal to ethos. These people have a lot of knowledge and experience with the epidemic its the political debate and that makes them more credible.
ReplyDeleteI was skeptical of the statistics shown on screen that had no source and that took away from what followed in the video. A point in the documentary that I found interesting comes up when the interviewees are talking about the safe-sex education comic books and congress. There is a clip of Jessie Helms on the floor of the U.S. Congress offering dissent of the comic books for their pornographic nature followed by an interview with the maker of the comics who says that, “Jessie Helms and Ronald Reagan were not the intended audience.” I thought it was an interesting point in rhetoric because the comics were meant to appeal to gay men and were effective with their intended audience but were extremely off-putting to a lot of other people, particularly lawmakers. The author didn’t write the comics with the intention of them being part of a governmental sex-education discussion.
I was impressed by how much the NAEA FAQ’s page has influenced my view on teaching children about contraception, condom use, STDs, etc. in the context of an abstinence education program. The credibility of the NAEA is strongly supported, in my opinion, due to the references it makes to past research in each of the questions answered. I found the 2nd question “Isn’t ‘abstinence only’ really a ‘just say no’ message?” to be helpful in figuring out whether the abstinence education is a better than the CSE. What persuades me that the abstinence education may be better is that it teaches children about the social, emotional, psychological, etc consequences of having sex and what they can do to avoid (if they choose abstinence) being pressured or being caught in those situations.
ReplyDeleteIf the CSE does not teach this consequence of a sexual relationship, I think the CSE’s assumption that children cannot make choices about whether it is a good/bad idea to engage in sexual activity is a major flaw in the CSE. The CSE needs to do more than just tell children to put on a condom or take birth control if they have sex. Sex education must include a teaching the emotional, social ,psychological consequences of the having sex in order for a person to make a decision about having sex or not.
When I was "taught" about abstinence in high school, it was by my health teacher. She did not give attention to contraception, birth control and other things the NAEA claims are included in an abstinence education. Before that, I cannot remember much taught to me about safe sex either, when being taught abstinence, so it must not have been well taught then.
Das ist wirklich eine großartige Lektüre für mich. Ich habe es vorgemerkt und freue mich darauf, neue Artikel zu lesen.
ReplyDeleteviagra kaufen