From: briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Organization: Anasazi Inc Phx Az USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 02:30:51 GMT

In article <1993Jan01.185941.9656@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>In article <1992Dec31.214245.11967@anasazi.com> briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec31.062907.6352@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec30.233732.20913@anasazi.com> briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass) writes:
>>>>
>>>>Why would homosexuality or hetrosexuality have to be taught?  That is if
>>>>the class focused solely on the biology of human reproduction, the means of
>>>>suppressing such reproduction, and the types and symptoms of diseases
>>>>transmitted through such reproduction,
>>>
>>>    Disease can be transmitted through non-reproductive sexual contact.
>>>Are you suggesting that those diseases, the types of contact that
>>>can potentially spread them, and the methods of preventing that
>>>spread should be excluded from the curriculum?
>>
>>The class should deal with all STDs, and their means of transmission and
>>symptoms.  Sorry if I didn't make it clear.
>
>     If it's reasonably inclusive, then I think we're in agreement.
>Sounds pretty good to me.
>     The Sex Ed class I had when I was in high school was notably
>deficient in the area of non-vaginal sex.  I was assuming that you
>were advocating something similar, which it apeears that you aren't.

Well, sort of.  The question reasoning behind the subject.  For instance
oral sex would be mentioned due to the transmission of bodily fluids.  Just
as these same fluids can be transmitted through vaginal sex, oral sex does
not provide inherit protection.  However, the same means of protection in
vaginal sex exist for oral sex (i.e a condom)

So, as long as the discussion remains focused on the disease issue, it is
in bounds.  However discussions as to morality, procedure, positions, etc,
no, that would be outside the jurisdiction.  I mean when it comes to STDs,
exchange of bodily fluids through whatever means (herpes through sores for
example) HAS to be taught.  Education is the only means of arming people
with the knowledge they need to avoid becoming a statistic.

>>>> moral questions regarding sexuality
>>>>can be dealt with in a psychology class.
>>>
>>>    I don't think anyone is asking for the moral aspects be
>>>examined in the sex ed course.  All anyone is asking for is
>>>equal time.
>>
>>Equal time for what?  The class focused on the biology of reproduction, and
>>diseases control.  Very public health kind of stuff.
>
>     Equal time for sexual practices that certain heterosexuals find
>icky.  Oral sex can still spread disease - students should know that.

A again as relating to disease prevention, sure.  However, not as an
alternative practice to vaginal sex in order to avoid possible pregnancies.  
This is where the line begins to blur.

>>  The moral questions
>>are things like when do you have sex with someone?  Why?  What do religions
>>say on the subject?  And things of that nature where generally there are
>>two sides to the coin.  These are the kind of questions dealt with in the
>>psychology course.  So, I don't see what you're asking for in regards to
>>equal time.
>
>     I think our basic assumptions on what would go into the curriculum
>were not the same here.  If you're saying what I think you are,
>I think we pretty much agree.

You kind of lost me here.  In general, the sex-ed class should deal in the
absolutes.  Do this, you get pregnant.  Do this, you stand a good chance at
getting a life thretening disease.  Don't do it, you won't get it.  Use
these, and it won't happen.  (While some on the extreme right disagree in
talking about condoms, the pill, etc, always remember, we're not just
educating these kids for high school, but for life.  When was the last time
anyone here had a sex-ed class?)

>>>>At the public high school I went to, Sex-ed was a 6 month course taught by
>>>>a biology teacher.  The class was taught in a very clinical manner
>>>>resticted to information of only biological content (reproduction,
>>>>pregnancy prevention, disease control) and it was required.
>>>
>>>     How useful was that class to gay students?
>>
>>Very useful, I would guess, since we had no publically avowed 16 year old
>>homosexuals.  Disease control is useful regardless of orientation, STDs
>>doesn't discriminate.  The class didn't talk about oral copulation, sodomy
>>(that has such a religious connotation, is there a better euphimism, anal
>>sex isn't much better.), as it purpose was to prevent pregnancies and diseases,
>>not on how to.
>
>     OK, this is where you lose me.  Oral copulation and anal sex
>can both spread diseases.  The students should be aware that these
>types of sex exist, and how to prevent disease transmission in those
>cases as well as vanilla vaginal sex.  This is useful for students
>regardless of their sexual orientation.

I thought your question, hence my answer, was related to how to
successfully practice of oral/anal sex in the same manner as vaginal sex to 
reproduction.  A how to.  (I mean our teacher even explained the biology 
behind a male and female orgasm, the 4 male glands involved, female anatomy, 
etc.)  As far as this kind of detail in regards to oral/anal sex, that was
left each student to discover themself.  After all, it was a required.
(though it dealt with a lot of non-sex health issues.)

>>  So, for what it was intended, I think it did its job.
>
>     Sounds like it fell short, to me.  Sounds very much like
>my own sex ed class, in fact.

How about now?

>
>
>>I still think this is the best way to provide sex-education, and
>>enlightenment, tolerance, and all that other nifty social enginneering
>>to kids.  At the right age, and of their own valition.
>
>     I like the idea of the separation of the moral and biological
>aspects of sex - I just want that biological portion to be more
>inclusive.  It could save lives.

This is the strongest point.  Whatever information is necessary to save lives,
clearly applies to the biological portions.  Again the absolutes.  Issues
that don't have right or wrong answers, excepting according to viewpoint,
were left to the Psychology course.

>					-Phil
>-- 
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
>philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 
>Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.


-- 
"The best government of all is that government which governs the least."
	Jefferson
Brian Douglass		briand@anasazi.com 	602-870-3330 X657
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh