David M. Hall argues that the availability of sexual health services at colleges make these campuses healthier while Jens Alan Dana argues the opposite. Hall’s view is based on the Sexual Health Report Card, which is a ranking of U.S universities conducted by Trojan Condoms. Hall argues that even though teens and college students are very sexually active, the quality of sexuality related information is not consistent from one school to the next. He believes it is the responsibility of academic institutions to help students make healthy sexual decisions. In order to see where colleges stand in promoting healthy sexuality, Trojan Condoms ranked 100 universities, saying the results of the study were representative of 23% of students in undergraduate programs. The colleges were ranked on whether they offered information about sexuality, had accessibility to condoms, had accessibility to contraception, offered HIV and STD testing, offered counseling services, had a school newspaper with a column for sexuality, and if there was a community effort. Trojan Condoms hoped to spark a discussion on the importance of condoms and the implications that occur when one is not used. The study conducted affirmed that not enough schools are acknowledging that students have sexual health needs and are not being supportive of these needs. Daniel Hall acknowledges that of course, Trojan would advertise the need for the product they sell and that even though the study is flawed, it cannot be discarded.  Despite the flaws present in the study, it does shine a line on the extent that school communities are considerate about sexual health. If the 7 criteria measured in the survey were implemented the sexual health of adolescents would increase. Hall mentions that abstinence-only programs are not as effective as they would appear to be and other options should be explored. If the criteria are met then students will practice safer sex and lower their chances of experience negative outcomes to sex, such as infections, pregnancy, and poor sexual decisions.

Jens Alan Dana argues that the study conducted by Trojan Condoms is faulty because it serves as an advertising technique. Dana uses Brigham Young University as an example of how the study was not effective because it gave BYU the last ranking, even though it is a school that purposely advocates for no sex for religious reasons. He criticized the study because it caused people to attack BYU’s approach to sexuality. Dana does not feel the Trojan Sexual Health Report Card is accurate because all it really is is a news campaign, not a credible health report about sexuality. He feels that the study is flawed because it does not include other solutions, besides condoms, to reduce STD rates. He points out that Trojan does not list abstinence as a way to fight STD rates because this would damage their sales promotion. Although Dana admits that it is true that there are a lot of people who do not know about sexual health, it is not fair to criticize and label abstinence-only programs as damaging. Additionally, Dana points out that the representative from Trojan who were conducting the study did not contact BYU’s administrator and surfed BYU’s website in order to see if BYU had  any sexual health services. Because they only surfed BYU’s website, they failed to see that there are resource centers at BYU. Since the researchers only skimmed the surface, they did not find that BYU does offer contraceptives and HIV/STD tests. Dana argues that the curriculum at BYU does have a slight focus on sexuality and that the religiosity of the school permits a very detailed discussion due to moral and pragmatic reasons. Dana argues that if Trojan had factored in statistics from the Utah Department of Health web site and the Utah County Health Office, then BYU would not have ranked as low as it did. Due to this, Trojan conducted biased research under the false impression that colleges that are open about sexual health services will have healthier students. Dana agrees that STD prevention is an issue that requires attention but he does not agree with the way Trojan decided to bring attention to the issue.

I found the second argument to be more effective because it showed how flawed the Trojan study was. Although I agree with the first section’s argument that the study was useful because it reaffirmed that condoms should be used when engaging in sexual activities in order to reduce STIs and HIV and unintended pregnancies, the second section showed how flawed the study was. The methods used to gather information were not ones that produced accurate results. When Dana mentioned that BYU actually does have the services the study accused BYU of not having, I realized the faults in the study.  It is also hard to ignore the fact that the Trojan study was obviously aimed at improving their sales and that the results didn’t really mean anything because they were just trying to promote their product and the importance of it. Prior to reading the second section, I had never considered the possibility that discussing sexuality from an abstinence-based view could actually be beneficial due to the fact that sexuality is not thought of in terms of just physical consequences. This was very eye-opening and is why I find the section to be more effective. The arguments made changed my perspective on the issue, even though I felt pretty strongly on the issue.

In my personal life, I talk with friends about the times they’ve used and haven’t used condoms when they engage in sexual activities. Sometimes it is surprising that people don’t use condoms on a regular basis. My friends often point out that they don’t use condoms because they don’t actually think that they will get pregnant or get an STI. For this reason, I think the Trojan’s study’s efforts at promoting awareness were useful because condoms are not always seen as a necessity. I would never consider not using a condom so it is surprising that people need to be told to use one. After hearing my friend’s stories about why they didn’t use one, I understand the logic and reasoning, however faulty it may seem. I do agree that colleges should have sexual health resources in an open, healthy environment. Many of my friends have had negative experiences at the health centers at their schools because they did not feel they could openly discuss their sexual problems. This is harmful and should be avoided with the presence of sexual health resources. I found this specific Taking Sides issue to relate back to my personal life because it reminded me of my own experiences and the experiences of my friends.