Rhetorical Analysis Of The Sleepover Question By Amy Shaltes

Amy Schaltes effortlessly argues that sex, one of life’s most trivial issues, could be less difficult to handle if parents embraced their children’s natural maturation, instead of shying away from it. Schaltes’s “The Sleepover Question” is informative, and gets the audience thinking. Why is teen sex so controversial? Would talking about it remove the stigma from consensual teenage sex? Further, should the stigma be removed? Amy Schaltes utilizes rhetorical appeals (logos, ethos, and pathos) and descriptive language that has strong connotative meaning, as well as the rhetorical strategy of juxtaposition to communicate her position: talking about teenage sexuality could remove the difficult barrier caused by sexual maturation between parent and child.

She writes that many parents believe their children should not engage in sexual behaviors because they are “helpless victims beset by raging hormones” (Schaltes, paragraph 6) that they are unable to control. Schaltes writes with language such as “raging” and “helpless victims” in relation to sex to show that some parents feel that their children, or youth in general, are unable to make their own decisions regarding sexual behavior and should be monitored at all costs. They feel as if sex is the enemy, and Schaltes demonstrates this belief through strongly connotated words. She begins her article with the phrase “not under my roof”; a common expression wielded by many American parents. Shaltes continues her thought by arguing that American parents think of their children’s natural sexual urges as “carnal”, or lewd and erotic. Shaltes conveys a tone of denial and controversy as she argues that many parents feel the act of their children engaging in sexual intercourse is irresponsible and are opposed to it. She establishes that the most common point of view towards teen sex is