do you believe sexual variations should be discussed in an academic setting?

Question

I'm writing a paper and would like some input. Because sexual variations occur among a small percentage of our population, they should not be discussed in an academic setting. It is a waste of valuable time and energy. Do you agree or disagree?

Answer 1

If a class is scheduled to discuss sexuality, then some of the more common variations should probably be discussed.

If a class is scheduled to discuss music, then the answer is no.

Answer 2

Absolutely they should be taught, no matter what your definition of "sexual variation" is. For some people it would be anything other than the missionary position in a heterosexual marriage, and then only when the female is fertile.

Even if were true that what you are defining as "sexual variation" occured among a small percentage, there is academic justification for it being taught in an academic setting.

For instance, acting and calculus are only used by a small percentage of the world's population, but would you argue that they not be taught?

Answer 3

Well as a person with a History major and a LGTB minor, I would disagree. We don't just discuss the popular things in academia, we're supposed to be discussing the world and ALL the elements within it that we can pack into one class semester. That means representing everyone. I find your idea that numerical minorities should not be studied to be distressing. Where do we draw that line? There were much fewer Native Americans then Whites in America by 1730, do we just forget that they existed after that point? A very small number of Japanese were put into camps during World War II - is that unimportant because the number was small? Even now, there are between 10-14 million gay people in America and people in national politics are going on and on about the rights of such a small group to marry. Do we ignore that because the group is small? There are not that many terrorists in the world, only a couple thousand, should we not study them because their numbers are small?

And then to take it even further, should we not study great individuals because there was only one of them? Should we ignore Winston Churchill or Einstien or Edison or Hitler or Nero because they were only one man and hence an extremely small part of the population? And what about those great individuals who were gay, like Hoover or Lincoln? Should we just ignore that part of them?

What should be discussed in an academic setting is everything you can squeeze in and that should be at the discretion of the prof. I can definately see subjects where gayness is not relevent (physics, engineering, comp sci, music, math) but in subjects where PEOPLE are being studied like bio, history, psych, soc, etc I don't see a justification for ignoring anyone just because they were a minority. History in particular should be the history of everyone, not just the majority. Just because gay people are a small number of the population doesn't mean that we haven't had huge impacts on the politics, life, and culture.

Answer 4

I disagree.

By sexual variations, what do you mean?

If the class is a sexuality class or a sex education class -- then common variations, particularly homosexuality, should certainly be discussed. So should transgenderism. If the class is, oh, I don't know -- history -- then no, not unless its a controversy of meaning in the field. If its cultural studies/social studies -- that depends -- if ancient human culture, certainly, as homosexuality was highly regarded in several of the ancient cultures, likewise, if for example, you were going through the history of the Kingdom of Valencia (middle ages) or modern cultures then yes, homosexuality is relevant to any of those areas of study. Otherwise, no -- there is no academic need and no pedagogical purpose for discussing homosexuality when discussing academic areas (math, certain parts of history, etc) where homosexuality has no relationship.

Regards,

Reynolds Jones
Schenectady, NY
http://www.rebuff.org

Answer 5

I would disagree with that.

1.) Noone is wholly sure of the percentages on sexual variation. They may be a lot higher than we originally thought. People are finally feeling free to admit their variant sexualities, whatever they may be.
2.) Atheists/no religion are 10% of the population, and yet they're discussed in an academic setting.
3.) People of variant sexualities (whether it's homosexual, bisexual, or perhaps even BDSM/kinky) are at a high risk for harassment. Any education that we can give people to make them more understanding that people of variant sexualities are just like everyone else in the ways that count is extremely important in the fight against bigotry and hatred.
4.) Variety is the spice of life. Learning about variations can be extremely interesting, whether we're talking about variations in cuisines or religions or sexualities.

Answer 6

I wouldn't consider 1 out of 10 or even 1 out of 100 to be a small enough percentage worth disregarding. How is it a waste of time to discuss what affects such a significant proportion of the population? But, then again, we discuss things that are even rarer in academic settings. Part of the learning process is learning about things that don't fall into the norm or the majority of cases. Life is about the exceptions to the rule. When you learn about them, you learn how to properly deal with them.

Answer 7

I disagree lets apply your logic to other areas. In medicinie hermaphodites are born in a very small percentage of the population so we should not study or discuss any treatment options for it. Only 1% of the US population is believed likely to die if the bird flu become easily spread person to person therefore we should not study or prepare ourselves for it. In psychology/criminal science true serial killers occur in such a small percentage in society they aren't worth studying, or profiling.

Answer 8

If you think the only reason for education is to create a group of narrow-minded clones who only act the bully and support the masses, then it sounds like you've already got your topic selected. But why should education be used to only support the majority? Isn't exploration and reason to learn? What about exploring new ideas, new thoughts, even if they don't directly relate to you. Only by challenging your thoughts can you really come to any sort of certainty about your positions. Fear of the unknown isn't the basis for learning, it's just dogma.

Answer 9

People talk about who is male and female, who is black and white, who their wives and husbands were, about children, sex education and sex is in schools, so just not talking about something because you don't like it or don't understand it is silly. It is not a small percent either, you need to get your more facts. School is for learning. School is the perfect place to be educated about all the different people and things in the world.