From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Organization: LLNL
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 14:45:04 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.155938.8130@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>In article <1993Jan8.053221.27263@news.columbia.edu> rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston) writes:
>
: Dave, we do not have wide spread sex-ed in the US. About 1 week in a
: high school health class is all I ever had. (NYC public school). The only
: topics that get discussed are pregnancy and VD. No mention of human
: sexuality is ever made, beyond the strictly physical sense of the female
: ovulatory cycle.
: 
: 12 Years of schooling, 2 HOURS of sex-ed. From the people I have met, I
: would say this is about average elsewhere.
: 
: Robert Johnston
>
>OK!  I've had all I can stand!  I can't stand no more! 
>    (to quote my favorite sailor)
>
>I believe that Robert's illusion of what goes on in public school sex-ed, 
>even after my several posts concerning the subject, begs me to post my 
>public school sex-ed report.  Here it is.

	Where did you get it from?

	Do you have course outlines or surreptitious tape recordings
that prove that the things discussed below are typical?

	And how many school systems did you survey.

	I think that someone who has a big hangup about the Ten
Commandments should not forget about the one that states "do not make
false accusations" (in King James English, "thou shalt not bear false
witness").

>I am not going to post the graphic phrases that appear in 
>those books.  (Call me a prude if you will.) 

	Ted Krueger, your attitude towards sex sticks out like a sore
thumb. You seem very uncomfortable with _any_ discussion of sexuality.
I seriously hope that you will realize that not everybody shares your
hangups or the conviction you apparently have that being hung-up about
sex makes you a saint no matter what.

... What I will 
>do is tell what is described in which books and on what 
>page number.  If you are further interested, you can get 
>these books from your local school board, Planned 
>Parenthood office, or public library.  They may be found 
>in college libraries as well.

	How many libraries did you check out? Did you make a tally of
which ones had which books, and see how common various books were?

>Again, let me state my disagreement with public school 
>sex ed courses.  I am not against physical biology, the 
>teaching that masturbation or homosexuality exist, or 
>birth control.  What I am against is instruction of morals 
>which I do not share, encouraging sexual activity on the 
>part of minors, or graphic instruction in sex methods and 
>practices.

	I think it legitimate to describe how to do it. How did _you_
learn how to perform various sex acts, assuming you know how to
perform any at all?

	_Encouraging_ sex? Why is it so _horrible_ to encourage (say)
masturbation? After all, masturbation is the safest sex their is.

	And _your_ morals, buster, are not universally shared either.

>The following four books are used in many public school 
>districts.  The pamphlet is distributed in many school-based 
>birth control (family planning) clinics.

	Did you check???

	I think you ought to post your tally sheets some time.

>From "Boys and Sex,"by Wardell B. Pomeroy, published by Dell 
>Publishing, New York:

>(1)  "Premarital intercourse does have its definite values as 
>      training ground for marriage or some other committed 
>      relationship ... It's like taking a car out on a test 
>      run before you buy it."    (pg. 117)

	What he is recommending is sex between unmarried lovers.

	Why is that so *HORRIBLE*? After all, it's not like picking up
lovers at random, and it's not like going to prostitutes (something
none of the professional prudes seem to enjoy discussing).

>(2)   Specific instructions for masturbation   (pg. 49)

	The safest sex there is. Why not?

>(3)   Explicit advice on petting   (pg. 125)

	That's pretty safe.

>(4)   Vivid descriptions are given for three specific 
>      positions for intercourse   (pg. 127)

	If you think that objectionable, then please explain how
people are *supposed* to learn how to have sex. I see no more
objection to that than instructions on how to drive a car.

>(5)  "Any of the farm animals may become a sexual object -- 
>      ponies, calves, sheep, pigs, even chickens or ducks.  
>      Dogs are also commonly used, but cats rarely ... If 
>      this kind of sexual behavior should ever happen to you, 
>      you would be best to keep knowledge of it from other 
>      people."   (pg. 171-172)


	Just describing some people's sexual tastes, with rather
diplomatic advice on what to do if one practices interspecies sex.

	I, for one, don't see why it's so _horrible_.

>From "Girls and Sex,"by Wardell B. Pomeroy, published by Dell 
>Publishing, New York:

>(6)   Graphic descriptions of heavy petting, hand-to-genital 
>      stimulation and oral-genital stimulation   (pg. 74-75)

	Why not? Women like sex also, and they might also want to
learn how.

>In "Changing Bodies, Changing Lives," by Dr. Ruth Bell, 
>published by Random House, New York:

>(7)   Graphic descriptions of mutual masturbation including 
>      value judgement "It was great."   (pg. 96)

	Just describing how enjoyable this was. I don't see anyone
saying that describing how tasty an ice cream was constituted a value
judgment, which is, of course, a no-no.

>(8)   Specific techniques for oral sex described   (pg. 96)

	Why not? Oral sex cannot lead to unwanted pregnancy and it is
often very enjoyable.

>(9)   Descriptions of various woman-to-woman sexual 
>      techniques   (pg. 122)

>(10)  Descriptions of various man-to-man sexual techniques
>      (pg. 122)

	Again, what's wrong with how-tos? Even heterosexuals may find
it enlightening how gay people Do It.

>In "The New Our Bodies, Ourselves," published by Simon & 
>Schuster, New York;

>(11) "The question of whether or not to sell ourselves to men 
>      [in prostitution] is a false one:  The real question is 
>      how to sell ourselves in the way that is least destructive 
>      to ourselves and our sisters.   (pg. 113-114)

	This is just "making the best of a bad situation."

	I'm continually disappointed that the man who goes to
prostitutes keeps on getting off scot-free.

>(12)  First person dialogue is used to portray the "turn-on" 
>      of anal sex   (pg. 178)

	Some people _like_ being screwed in the rear end (oh, my!).
Why deprive them of their fun?

>In the pamphlet "You've Changed the Combination," published 
>by Rocky Mountain Planned Parenthood, Denver;

>(13) "There are only two basic kinds of sex: sex with victims and 
>      sex without.  Sex with victims is always wrong.  Sex without 
>      is always right."   (pg. 10-11)

>(14) "Decide honestly what you want from your relationships with 
>      women.  Do you want a convenient warm body?  Buy one.  
>      That's right.  There are women who have freely chosen the  
>    business."   (pg. 18)

	That seems strange for Planned Parenthood to say.

	I'd like to see the full story on that one.

>Again, please remember that I am not trying to prove any specific 
>point with these quotations, I am simply showing that explicit 
>material is indeed being taught in many public school sex ed
>classes.

	Again, did you check?

	And why are you whining about that, Ted Krueger? Sex education
isn't really sex education _unless_ it is explicit. After all,
instruction in how to drive a car isn't really so unless it features
how to turn it on, how to steer it, accelerate it, brake it, and what
to watch out for on the road, what various signs and signals mean, and
so forth.
-- 
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/lip@s1.gov
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12920 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11413 alt.politics.clinton:19549 alt.politics.bush:15456 alt.politics.homosexuality:8890