Should sex education classes teach about homosexuality?
 

I say absolutely. Not only would it help to create a better understanding for people who are prejudiced against the gay community, it would also help gay/curious/confused students to understand their situation and not feel alienated by it.

Sex education is also about practicing safe sex, and all situations should be taught about, not just heterosexual relations.

My brother was five years behind me in school. When I was in high school, there were NO openly gay students, and the one teacher (French) who was suspected of being gay was talked about in hushed tones. I remember on a school trip, I had that teacher staying in a hotel room with me and a couple other students, and a few days into the trip, another teacher asked me if everything was okay ("... you know?") with that teacher in our room.

Five years later, that teacher has come out and it's no big deal. The women's soccer coach is out and it's no big deal. There's a student group of GLBT (yes, T too) students.

Here's the really amazing part: this all happened in Salt Lake City.

It's my belief that society is rapidly coming to terms with homosexuality--to the point, I would hope, that it doesn't take sex education classes to expose people to the existence of homosexuality. By then it's too late to significantly impact prejudices anyway.

Now, should sex education INCLUDE education about gay sex and safe sex practices as they affect gay sex? Absolutely yes. I'd be very surprised if any of them do right now, but it's a VERY good idea.

Sex education is about the human body (male and female) in a biological sense, the consequences of not practicing good hygiene and safe sex, and practical customs in maintaining a healthy, sexual being. It is about informing the student of safe sex protocols, preventing child-birth, and avoiding STD's. It is not about how to put "tab A" into "slot B" and so forth, so I really don't think the mention of homosexuality OR heterosexuality is fundamentally necessary in sex education classes.

I further believe it is not unreasonable to include the mention of same-sex activity in a relatively equal amount as opposite-sex activity, when explaining such things as preventing life-threatening diseases or the lack of good clean hygiene common practices.

I agree with the OP. Homosexuality is just part of the spectrum of sexuality. The problem is there are many who are still in denial about this.

Yes.

I would say yes but wouldn't stop there. I would expect teachings to include the history of homophobic biases and discriminations against gays and also debunk the rhetoric against gays mainly directed by the religious community

Absolutely.

Doesn't they already? I'm ancient, so I never encountered a lot in the way of Sex Ed, but I'm pretty sure that - at least in the public school system here in Ontario - it is discussed.

Doubt the Catholics do so, however.

very simple.

yes.

as should a small section about transgendered invidividuals and bisexuality.

but there are allot of people who think that it might turn their kid gay to be exposed to such ideas .... ;)

It would be kind of difficult teaching that homosexuality is wrong, a sin and abnormal according to the bible when the Catholic institution has such a rich history and tradition of sodomizing young boys, and then covering it up.

yup...

Yeah, particularly the part about being gay isn't a choice (most kids believe it's a choice...hell, most adults believe it's a choice).

what is sex education in school???! haha. i never got that and I have no problems in life. and till now, i don't know if that same school ever changed. (7years since i graduated).

It depends on how educated you want the class to be. Not teaching about homosexuality means you aren't getting the full story. It would suck to be gay and be left out of the picture. Not something a young mind needs when they're already being marginalized outside of sex ed.

Yep, full disclosure on all aspects.

Absolutely. If not from the psychological standpoint, then definitely from the disease prevention/awareness standpoint that the classes I had way back when focused on.

I think it would promote a greater understanding of those with different sexualities at a younger age (instead of letting them find out on their own later on), which would hopefully reduce the number of those homophobic towards their peers.

Mmmm since they tend to show you 'where the penis goes' in sex ed, will they show it where it goes for homosexual anal sex?

You can teach all about sexual diversity you want but you won't keep one 15 year old male from calling another one a fag, or change that basic nature of males.

You may help some young gays come out earlier, but don't expect a whole lot of anything else.

I think with some careful consideration and creative forethought, same-sex activity can be broached and even discussed, to some degree, every bit as much as anything already discussed. I'm not suggesting full blown (pardon the pun) videos, but with some common sense, it wouldn't have to be like ....

"hi, my name is jimmy and I want to experience anal sex with mikey."

"ha ha, jimmy's gay ... let's get jimmy."

i got a "who the hell cares" from my lesbian friend.

but i say sure, why not?

How about sexual health education amongst the LGBT community? It isn't all about mechanics.

I completely agree-I believe sex ed. should emphasize protection not only for heterosexual encounters, but homosexual encounters also. You're probably also correct about it at least "enabling" those people that have same-sex or bisexual tendencies, in a way allowing and approving their lifestyle.

I grew up in a town with a large Lesbian and Gay community, and I have several friends that are gay or bisexual, so in our case I don't know that it would necessarily help to add it to our sex ed. program (though obviously it wouldn't hurt).

How to avoid STD's are the same for everyone.

How to avoid pregnancy isn't and issue.

Which health issue would need to be specifically addressed?

In fact, I did not get the "where the penis goes in the vagina" part of sex ed... as I recall, it was all about learning the proper names for anatomy, learning about condoms (the banana demonstration), STD's, how to get tested, pregnancy, childbirth, etc... but nothing about how to actually have sexual intercourse. I have never heard of such a thing in sex ed... so I really can't imagine why they would teach about "where the penis goes in to the ass."

I actually think it would be even better (and less controversial) if they simply included anal sex when discussing the safety of certain practices (for example, anal sex being much more dangerous for disease transmission than vaginal sex, due to the fragile tissue/blood factor). Hetero and homosexuals alike have anal sex, so the message would benefit all parties, without having to distinguish between the two and embarrass people.

Of course, bringing up anal sex in a classroom of high schoolers would require me getting either very drunk or high first, in order to survive the event. Which would also lead to me losing my job as a teacher, in that case. :lol: Anyway, just a thought.

I do think that some introduction of the Kinsey Scale would be extremely helpful, the way it's often done in college-level human sexuality classes. Of course, I got sex ed as an 8 year old 5th grader and then again in jr. high, when really a mature understanding of human sexuality probably can't occur until at least age 16-18, if not later (if ever, with some people).

+1

I don't mean to hijack the thread, but homosexuality hasn't been proven to be genetic just yet. There's a lot of research going into it, but it seems to be (just like virtually all other human behaviors!) both a combination of both genetic predisposition and environmental effects. This is not to say that being homosexual is a conscious choice, but rather that even if someone has a genetic propensity toward it, the effects are not set in stone.

I personally believe that sexual education in the US can be greatly improved, and not just by including homosexuality in the topics covered. When I got the "sex ed" talk in 8th grade (the only year it was talked about in that school district; I also got the basic puberty talk in 4th grade in another district) there was already a shift toward abstinence-only education. We never saw condoms, nor were we given bananas to learn to put them on. Sure, we were introduced to the topics of pregnancy and STDs, but very briefly and not seriously. My phys ed (and therefore health ed) teacher was male for a class made up entirely of female students. He had some difficulty speaking about female-specific issues, as well as having to tread on dangerous ground bringing up sex with teenage girls, even in a sex ed classroom. The situation wasn't very conducive to good coverage of sensitive topics.

There are teenagers who think you can't get STDs from oral sex. Anal sex needs to be addressed, though many still view it as sodomy. When it comes to STDs, vaginal sex and anal sex have different issues.

Pregnancy shouldn't only be taught in the context of avoidance. It should be taught in it's entirety. Lesbians get pregnant, gays have sperm.

Human sexuality is more than just mechanics and STDs. Sex education should include topics of identity and relationships. To exclude homosexuality could marginalize anywhere between 1 to 10 out of every 100 students on issues that pertain to them specifically.

There are many people who believe that a lesbian sexual relationship isn't really sex, so there are no risks such as those found in heterosexual relationships. This is what education is for. These things need to be understood. Do not underestimate the ignorance of youth, especially when it comes to the topic of homosexuality, which still greatly stigmatized. Actually, it is because of this last point--stigmatization--that teaching homosexuality should be standard.

I guess I'm in the minority when I say no.

I think sex ed should only be about disease and pregnancy prevention. "Emotional" concerns and the mechanics of it aren't something you can teach, and even if you could, I don't think public schools should be teaching it.

To be clear, I don't think they should discuss the mechanics of heterosexuality either. This has nothing to do with homosexuality and more to do with what we should be focusing on.

Abstinence-only education is foolish, but teaching people about their "identity and relationships" seems like an incredible waste of time in an area where teachers already have too little time to teach the basics of literacy.

I'm more concerned about producing safe children who can read and write than safe children who've been taught "topics of identity and relationships", but barely understand how to read or write.

And if you don't think literacy is a problem or that children today aren't already undereducated, then you haven't seen a high school lately.

So you don't think there is a need to address homosexuality in the context of disease prevention as I touched on above?

I had to teach myself how to choose a mate, but it took me years to get down the basics, and I still think I missed stuff. My parents never discussed it with me and it was never covered in school. Should there be relationship education in schools or did my parents just forget?

I didn't say it was genetic, I said it wasn't a choice. Environmental effects can certainly cause it but it doesn't mean the person wants it or made the decision to be gay. It simply is, exactly like heteros simply like the other sex.

No - the advice is the same, regardless of orientation. If you're putting your dick somewhere organic, it needs to be covered. Mouths, anuses, vaginas, animals and even potting soil should be treated the same way with regards to disease prevention.

I think that in the interest of public health it is important to cover everything in sex ed. Yes, homosexuality should be addressed. Yes, the mechanics should be addressed. The more we talk about sex, the less it becomes some act of teenage rebellion to do it.

Haven't you all noticed that the less we talk about sex--abstinence-only education--the more the teen pregnancy and STD rates go up? Clearly, how we educate children and teens about sex is a public health issue, and therefore we need to be open about talking about all of it, to keep kids safe and healthy.

That is not a gay issue, its just stupid kids being stupid. It could be handled in the course of any sex ed class.

But this is about homosexual sexual education. This is all covered as well in normal sex ed. Unless you had a section 'for gays only' I don't see where any issue is here.

To play devils advocate you are talking about using up limited class time on 1-10% of the kids? Also on a more serious note, teaching sexual identity and relationships seems rather silly. I see little real value beyond psychobabble feel good stuff. Forming relationships is what humans just do, you might as well have them read Dale Carnegie. Forming your own sexual identity is not going to be shaped by your gym/sex ed teacher unless of course it involved inappropriate touching. Thats an ongoing process and I can't see it being handled well by a school in a group format.

Yes kids are stupid, and after advanced sex ed they will still be stupid. Many are still stupid here even after having a lot of sex and being in college, its just part of the human condition.

I still stand behind this might make SOME gay students feel a bit better about being gay. Thats a good thing. Its going to do NOTHING about the social stigma of being gay when you are 16 though, as they will instantly fall to the bottom of the dominance game that highschool is.

Need source, last time I heard pregnancy rates are very much down.

They were until this last fall, and then they began to rise again.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/74005

http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/r...NCHS_2006.aspx

So the first increase in 14 years is a trend that the more we talk about it the more teen pregnancy goes up?

I think you overstated your case.

Ustwo and JinnKai, should this be the full extent of sex ed? If so, then your model needs not address homosexuality, as it barely addresses sexuality in any full scope. But maybe this is what's practical for the public school system.

"Just be careful where you stick it."

Educational.

My bad. :sad:

Would you have actually learned anything by having someone explain "sexual identity" to you when you were 15? Even if so, do you think your peers would've? It seems like a phenomenal waste of time, to me. And no, I don't think it should be that simplified, but I don't believe that homosexuality or heterosexuality need to be addressed specifically and separately, but only in terms of pregnancy and disease avoidance.

I think our difference of opinion is highlighted in the wording of your question: "barely addresses sexuality in any full scope." I don't think sex-ed should address sexuality. I think it should address sex, how it's dangerous, and how to avoid that danger.

It's like teaching skydivers about the theory of skydiving, the different way that people like to skydive, the reasons one would want to skydive a certain way or another, and how a parachute works when really when what the two lesson plans should be SKYDIVING IS DANGEROUS and HOW TO USE THE PARACHUTE TO AVOID THAT DANGER.

I think I know where you're going, and while I'm inclined to agree with it on a practical level, the skydiving illustration isn't very useful.

you'd be surprised to know that anal sex isn't the prevalent form of homosexual intercourse.