That’s a really good question, and the answer hasn’t been worked out completely as of yet, to my knowledge. The OP explains a lot about why that is. But it’s an important question, and one I think merits discussion. Because of the scope of that question, and the breadth of discussion that’s possible as a result of which, I think it might deserve a thread of its own.
What say you all?
I think a lot of the assumption (from both sides) is that a sex education class is required to teach values. That either a.) homosexuality (as well as lots of other stuff) is sinful and wicked or b.) that it is perfectly natural and equally desirable as heterosexuality. As a sexual behavior class (even HS or younger) should (in my opinion) be a “science” based course, it has no business teaching values in either direction. Why not simply cover the topic of homosexuality, discuss prevalence and research in the area and leave it at that. Let the moral judgements come from the individual.
How about this for starters?:
[ul][li]Most people desire to do things they find sexually pleasurable with people they find sexually attractive.[/li][li]A minority of people are oriented, for reasons we’re not sure of, towards finding people of their own sex attractive, not people of the opposite sex.[/li][li]There’s a real spectrum of sexual orientation, so if you as a boy are mostly interested in girls but occasionally have thoughts that it might be fun to try that with another boy, you’re not strange; many boys have had that same impulse at one time or another. Same thing for girls, with the girl/boy thing reversed.[/li][li]There are a lot of people who think that two men or two women having sex is wrong. Many of them have reasons founded in their religious beliefs for thinking so. That’s not an issue that we can address in school – ask your own parents or minister for guidance on this question if you have questions.[/li][li]It’s wrong under the laws of this land, and can be prosecuted criminally in most places, to condemn somebody for being gay, and threaten physical violence against them for being gay. Gay people deserve to be treated the same as everybody else. Using “gay” as a putdown hurts both the person you’re condemning and anybody who is gay.[/li][li]Gay people come in as many different varieties as straight people – some are obvious, some not so. Ian McKellen and Greg Louganis are good examples of gay people who don’t conform to stereotypes of “who gays are.”[/li][/ul]
What problems, if any, would you see in this?
I would agree with this to a point. I think if the purpose of a given lecture is to discuss homosexual individuals who were prominent in history, then it makes sense. On the other hand, liberally spattering such reference throughout all classes would be superfluous.
Could you imagine this from one of your teachers:
“Carl Sagan was one of the first scientists to get amino acids to form in a laboratory setting. By the way kids, did you know that Dr. Sagan was a heterosexual? Yes its true, sometimes heterosexuals do great works in science.”
I doubt it…to do that with homosexuals (or any group really) seems patronizing to me. Again, if the lecture is specifically about prominent homosexuals in history, then it makes sense. If the lecture is not about that, then the information is superfluous and unnecessary.
When Marie Curie is discussed and her marriage to fellow scientist Pierre is mentioned, then so is her heterosexuality. How does that figure into your scheme avalongod?
I have to disagree, Avalongod. The social lives of writers I studied in high school were mentioned frequently, except when they were homosexual. It would have done me a world of good to know that Walt Whitman had the same kinds of feelings I did; it would have made his poetry a source of strength and joy for me when I was most in need of it, instead of later on, when I was in college. I remember reading Leaves of Grass in college, thinking to myself how much the knowledge of Whitman’s sexuality changed the text for me, and how much I wish I’d known of it before.
Gay kids live without a context, without knowing that there is anyone else out there like them, in ignorance of the nature of their orientation. We need to give them examples that tell them that people who share their orientation have led great lives, and made great contributions, and that they can aspire to that as well.
So, perhaps, when the chorus is doing a piece by Benjamin Britten, it would not be inappropriate to say that he wrote it for Peter Pears, his life partner?
If this is true then it is indeed a shame. I would certainly say that whatever scheme is applied, it should be equally applied to all. I don’t remember the specific sexuality of authors coming up much in literature classes, but perhaps we had different experiences.
Regarding Marie Antoinette, I suppose that as an individual’s personal behavior becomes important to history, it bears mentioning. I seem to remember homosexuality coming up often enough in History class. Offhand I can remember Richard Lionheart’s homosexuality coming up pretty directly…and I know that there were many others. So I am not sure what your point is…to the extent that is does not pertain to the subject at hand (one does not need to mention Di Vinci’s homosexuality to appreciate his talents) it need not be mentioned. I am not saying it should be hidden either…if someone asks about it, by all means answer the question. My point is that, while I would support specific lectures pertaining to homosexuality, not every class needs to be a platform for a given special interest. It’s just not always the most pertiment piece of information.
At the same time I do think that teacher’s shouldn’t actively hide information about homosexuality either. I just don’t think it needs to be the #1 focus of every academic subject.
There’s one more important bullet point that I’d add to your list, Polycarp: whether or not the school’s state has an anti-sodomy law on the books, what the legal penalties are, and how frequently are people charged with breaking such laws are brought before the court.
For example, in my home state, “the abominable crime of buggery” is a “Class F” felony, punishable by up to 5 years in jail and/or $500 fine. If the “crime” is committed within 100 yards of “public or private child day care facility,” (even in the privacy of the accused’s own home) then the penalty goes up to up to 10 years and/or $10,000 fine. As for enforcement, I can’t find any good references to either confirm nor deny the law being used to prosecute those engaged in consensual homosexual activity.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Polycarp *
How about this for starters?:
[ul][li]Most people desire to do things they find sexually pleasurable with people they find sexually attractive.[/li][/quote]
I don’t remember ever objecting to one of your posts this early, Poly … but this as an intro to sexuality seems a bit … overly and unnecessary concentrated, I guess? Sexuality isn’t just about sex/sexual activity. It’s about, eventually (for most of us, anyway), spending your life with the person/people you love. I know I don’t need to tell you this, because I know you know it, but I think that solely talking about the tab/slot action/desire in a discussion of sexuality is taking a rather narrow road.
[quote]
[li]A minority of people are oriented, for reasons we’re not sure of, towards finding people of their own sex attractive, not people of the opposite sex.[/li][/quote]
::sniff:: FINE. BE THAT WAY! Just IGNORE ME AND CZARCASM AND A GOOD DOZEN OTHER PEOPLE ON THIS BOARD! SEE IF I CARE!!!
I’d put it “some people are oriented, for a variety of reasons, toward people of their own sex, or both sexes. This doesn’t mean that Joe Straightman is going to be attracted to every woman he meets, nor that Linda Lesbian is going to be attracted to every woman she meets, nor that Paddy O’Biguy is attracted to every person he meets. People have preferences regardless of sexuality.” But then that might be a bit long for what I think is an empirical approach you’re striving to define. I just think that in the case of such an important issue we really want to be as clear and precise as we reasonably can be.
[quote]
[li]There are a lot of people who think that two men or two women having sex is wrong. Many of them have reasons founded in their religious beliefs for thinking so. That’s not an issue that we can address in school – ask your own parents or minister for guidance on this question if you have questions.[/li][/quote]
I’d say something more like “ask an adult you trust about this if you want to know more. There’s also a section in the local library on sexuality.” But then that’s a pipe dream of mine, I suppose, to have a place people can go to learn more about sexuality.
[quote]
[li]It’s wrong under the laws of this land, and can be prosecuted criminally in most places, to condemn somebody for being gay, and threaten physical violence against them for being gay.[/li][/quote]
“Assault, when you are the aggressor, is illegal, regardless of how much the aggressor may feel it is his or her duty to do such. The penalty for assault can range from a fine or imprisonment to death, in the case of murder.”
People deserve to be treated equally regardless of sexuality. Insulting someone with a sexual term is insulting to everyone.
You cannot tell simply from how someone walks or acts, what books they read or don’t read, where they shop or where they are on a Sunday morning, what their sexuality is. Wearing an earring doesn’t “make” you gay any more than playing football makes you straight. Each person manifests (or chooses not to) their sexuality in a unique way; some of those ways coincide with popular perception about one or more sexualities.
My main issue with this list is that focusing solely on the sexual aspect of sexuality (that is, physical desire or the carrying out of such desire) ignores a lot of other things. I’m in love with my fiancee, and I’m bisexual. However, there’s lots of things I like to do with her that have nothing to do with sex. Sometimes (and I’m fairly sure you’ve experienced this as well) I’d rather just hold her or look in her eyes or play cards with her than have sex.
Well, the all-hetro sex ed class that I was taught in school (and I would wager most everyone else’s too) was guilty of much the same thing. Of course, my impression is that American society in general has always had problems seeing sex and love seperate concepts.
And really, the “other things” that are being ignored have an emotional content behind them that can’t really be properly covered in a classroom setting, I would think.
Maybe adding another talking point that sexual attraction is just one facet of how one person can be attracted to another, regardless of orientation, would be in order?
I see the contrary – once you start delving into the reality of homosexuality, it’s easier to forget homosexuality as a concept. If one believes that it is vital to their religion that they believe that homosexual sex is wrong, wouldn’t it be better for them to take the focus off the idea of homosexual sex acts?
Let’s say our hypothetical 7th grader is learns in sex ed that that a man puts his penis in the woman’s vagina.
What is the answer going to be when the child asks what two men or two women do? Do they get a graphic description of fellatio, cunnilingus, anal sex, dildos, etc.?
Pun, I’d have to agree with virtually the totality of your post – and in particular the “sex is not the whole of sexuality” bit. Could be strengthened by pointing out that most kids’ romances are not exclusively about sex – and there’s no reason for them to assume that gay kids are any different than themselves in what they feel. I also liked the “ask an adult you can trust” element much better than what I said.
In excuse for what I posted, it was a first cut, since nobody else over a three-hour span seemed inclined to offer any comments on what ought to be taught.
You do realize that you have coined yourself a new designation here, don’t you, Patrick?
Mothchunks, I think there are age-appropriate ways of answering that question. I don’t propose to ever tell a kid about fisting, for example – but if they ask what Joey meant by “a blow job” I think the only honest thing to do (as an adult faced with the question) is to answer the question frankly and with a little guidance about what’s good and bad about it. The values part can get a little touchy in a school situation, but can be done with tact and without prejudgment. If a 13-year-old kid asks, verbatim, the first half of your question, in a school situation, my answer would be, “Use your imagination.” 
And here I thought that the public schools weren’t allowed to encourage that sort of thing anymore. 
So, describing vaginal intercourse isn’t “graphic”, but describing any other sexual practices is? The answers should be given on exactly the same level as the descriptions of sexual activities that are already mentioned, if that isn’t too even-handed and consistent a practice for anyone.
The only graphic descriptions I got in sex ed were about the mechanics of vaginal intercourse between a man and a woman. There was no discussion about oral sex, anal sex, or the use of foreign objects during sex. Come to think about it I don’t believe there was any discussion about birth control or the prevention of STDs. If homoseuxality were covered under sex ed courses you’d have to include the same graphic descriptions for sex between homosexuals.
Marc
Ok, the intercourse between heterosexuals wasn’t the only graphic lesson. We all learned about the period but I’ve tried eliminate all memories of that.
When I took sex ed the boys were in one class and the girls were in another. We all saw the same films but I guess we were seperated to keep everyone feeling comfortable. Would sex ed courses be further divided by sexual preference?
Marc
The answer to the first question would be “anything they want to do”. I remember in my health class, the acts in the latter sentence were described as nothing more salacious than “mouth to genital contact” and “genital to anus contact”. I don’t remember dildos being discussed, but what else is there to explain past “they take the place of the penis”.
We were always free to ask questions. I remember just asking if blue balls were a myth. Hell, why not?
We WERE told that oral sex and all that can spread disease as well.
In my experience, there would probably be a lot of giggling, more than anything else.