**4. Results and interpretation**

the school year 2013/2014. The participation of students was voluntary, free from any pressure, and anonymous. They were informed of the aim of the study and given enough time to ask for additional information. They were asked to provide descriptive answers to eight open ended questions regarding their conceptualization of sexuality in general, sexology as a science and its relevance to their professional field, and their attitudes towards homosexuality and same-sex parenting. They wrote their answers on a piece of paper. Textual material was generated from 49 students of occupational therapy, 16 of orthotics and prosthetics, 39 of radiologic technology, 36 of sanitary engineering, 28 of nursing, and 29 of midwifery. Their answers were typed into an electronic format, and then coded and analysed using a critical discourse analytic framework [9,11]. Acknowledging the purpose and theme of this book, the primary analytic attention was attributed to the answers of midwifery students. In particular,

In democratic societies, social norms prescribe tolerance and prohibit prejudice and discrim‐ ination among citizens. Speakers breaking this social norm by expressing negative opinions against certain individuals or social groups, therefore, need to apply denials or at least some form of mitigation strategy to maintain positive self-presentation in public. A disclaimer enables this impression management. According to van Dijk [7], a disclaimer (an apparent denial) is a specific structure of language use, the prototype being: "I have nothing against them, **but**...." In the first part of the structure, a generally tolerant attitude is stated while the second part continues with a specific negative opinion. This structure does not support inference from specific to general and as such presents a defensive strategy against potential accusations of socially unacceptable intolerance. On the other hand, the denial is only apparent, because the specific disregard is nevertheless inconsistent with the prevailing social norm. What is negatively stated is not really denied, at least not completely. Rather, the speaker wishes to deny the possible negative inferences about his social intolerance and to establish positive self-presentation. The tolerant attitude is left unsupported by evidence that the speaker really does not have anything against them. At its best, it therefore expresses limited

Billig [24] claimed that the social value of not being prejudiced is so general and deep-rooted that is also shared by the most extreme political agents. The disclaimer represents an advanced justification against the accusation of being prejudiced. It is not merely public impression management. Speakers also justify themselves to those who hold similar values and to themselves. It is therefore also a discursive strategy of self-justification: by the self to the self.

The analysis focused on disclaimers, through which prejudiced viewpoints against gays, lesbians, and same-sex parenting were identified. Results are presented by excerpts from direct writing collected from the midwifery students that participated in our study. Each excerpt is labelled with a code in brackets, where M stands for midwifery and the number for a random number attributed to the study participant. Excerpts are grouped under several sub-headlines

according to themes that appeared to be most prominent.

the analysis focused on disclaimers.

170 Sexology in Midwifery

social acceptance.

Among midwifery students, 12 of 29 were supportive of gays and lesbians in all aspects of their lives, 10 expressed prejudiced opinions against homosexual couples having the right to get married and especially to adopt children, and seven struggled in forming a clear standpoint on the matter. In comparison to the first year students of other programs participating in our study, the ratio of supportive answers was quite high. Their positive attitude was related to the ethical principles of (post)modern societies — accepting and respecting diversity:

*I accept homosexuality, I treat it equal to heterosexuality, which I believe is the only appropriate way of thinking in a modern society. (M3)*

*I accept them, they do not bother me. We are not all the same, I accept differences. (M17)*

*Homosexuals are completely common people, the same as heterosexuals. We all have the right to choose a partner at our own will. (M13)*

*My attitude to homosexuals is positive as I have two friends who are homosexuals. I can talk to them practically about everything. I have never scorned them and I never will. They are people just like us. (M15)*

All of our respondents were aware of the social norm prescribing the same rights and treatment for all citizens, and consequently condemning discrimination. That is why homophobia was rarely explicitly stated; in all 29 cases of midwifery student answers, it appeared only once:

*Personally I do not approve of homosexuality. I believe it is some sort of a mistake (in thinking, genes, development of a human being), as it is not natural. (M4)*

On the other hand, the responses of those who expressed some sort of disregard or did not yet form a clear opinion on that matter, were full of disclaimers. Two different patterns were recognized. Intolerance was either disclaimed within a single sentence or across larger meaningful instances of talk:

*They do not bother me, but I avoid them (if I can). (M19)*

*I have nothing against them. I am tolerant to people different from me. If somebody is a homosexual, it does not bother me. But I do think they expose too much in public. That is why they are often laughed at or attacked. (M23)*

Before we tackle the topic at hand in greater detail, we shall consider student opinion on sexuality and midwifery in general from a broader perspective. From this context, we shall then return to our respondents' attitudes towards homosexuality

### **5. Sexuality**

Mostly, the students agreed that in Slovenia sexuality persisted as a taboo topic in public discussions. In their opinion, the older generations still found it very difficult, even inappro‐ priate, to talk about it publicly, while the younger generations were becoming much more relaxed and ready to discuss it among themselves and in public. Also, in their opinion sexuality was related to health. They not only explained this relation in terms of pathology and sexually transmitted diseases, they often defined it as a vital human need and an element of happiness and quality of life. In broader terms, they explained it as an intimate relation between two people who loved and cared for each other, which means they also took consideration of partnerships in terms of a much wider perspective. Focusing on the intercourse, they stressed:

*Sexual intercourse with the right person relaxes, which bears influence on wellbeing, means less stress. (M5)*

*It is known that during sexual intercourse the hormones of happiness are released. Our body is more relaxed and at the same time it is a type of physical exercise and contributes to our health. (M19)*

These aspects become very important when interpreting standpoints expressing negative attitudes towards homosexuality and the rights of homosexuals. If sexual relations with the partner of one's own choice can have such positive effects on a person's health and wellbeing, why is it acceptable for heterosexuals but not homosexually oriented people? Standpoints against homosexuality do not only deprive a group of people of the free choice of a sexual partner, but also prevent them from the positive effects of sexuality and partnership on their health, wellbeing, and general quality of life.

Although society at large, in the opinion of our respondents, was becoming more relaxed and open, sexuality was still considered to be a fairly intimate matter. Even the younger generation was not always willing to discuss it seriously and frankly with anyone. As one of the students said, she was more likely in public to exaggerate, make things up, and present herself in a more socially favourable light. For the practice of midwifery it is important to stress that in the opinion of one of our respondents, some people also considered health professionals (poten‐ tially also midwives) as strangers, that is, people they did not feel able to discuss their sexuality with completely openly and frankly:

*I can talk about it quite relaxed with friends and my partner. But I feel uncomfortable to discuss it with strangers (a nurse at gynaecologist). (M18)*

On the one hand, therefore, sexuality is perceived as a highly intimate matter, but on the other hand, it also exposes the influence on public health and is a topic of public discussions and political action.
