I see no reason why they shouldn't be, especially if sex ed isn't a once off class and there are sessions as teens get older. But that was not my point.
You think condom use is a necessary part of sex ed, but there are those who think condom use is not. Both parties, you and them alike, have your own idea of what should constitute sex ed or the class colloquially known as sex ed, based on your own understanding of normality. My point is that I do not think the constituent elements of sex ed should necessarily be determined according to whatever a certain group thinks of as normal. Answering FAQs and questions that crop up on the spot, whatever they may be, is probably a good way to go.
My own DS and DDs had separate programmes in their high school, taught at PE and separately from 'Health' (which covered the mechanics of sex of various kinds, as well as self care, importance of hygiene, visiting the dentist and doctor for checkups, eating a healthy diet, getting enough sleep, preventing stds, not doing drugs or drinking, etc.) The PE programme was designed by a local women's shelter and counselling centre. For boys the programme was about self control, avoiding getting sucked into behaviour that is destructive, self destructive and disrespectful of themselves and of girls and women, and was supposed to challenge any definitions of masculinity that involved violence or controlling and domineering behaviour, asking boys to examine what was at the root of any desire they had to engage in that sort of behaviour. For girls, there was a strong component designed to counteract the idea that they have to put up with crap from males, that their purpose in life is to attract and hold onto a male, that their value lies in their reproductive capacity and ability to hold onto a male, and to try to get them to always look out for their own best interests, including their capacity to earn a living through working in school and not getting distracted by relationships. There was a self defence component too. I think it was a great programme. I have probably described it badly.
I don't look at legs or armpits much. I see plenty of women as I swim, but honestly I do not notice whether their legs are shaved. Armpits maybe, but only if they are sporting a lot of dark hair there. The changing rooms are communal and without cubicles, and there are showers, but it's a bit like the train you do not look directly at other people in such a situation. Boyshort-style swimming attire seems to be very much in favour where I am so I have no idea how much trimming of pubic hair may go on. Where work goes, women generally have at least shaved as far as their skirts go but then again they may just not have hairy legs to begin with; my mother would be in that category and there are some ethnic groups who have little or no body hair -- and I have no idea about armpits. Many women wear trousers to work too, so you would have no idea what was underneath. I assume those who shave their legs for work do so because they have an idea about grooming themselves suitably for work. Some men shave facial hair for the same reason. In some jobs or professions, it seems that stubble, beards and moustaches on men convey the wrong message or are in some way unacceptable. Lawyers in my experience tend to be clean shaven, for instance.
Workplace grooming especially when it comes to curly hair is a question that interests me as a woman whose hair (on my head) is very curly. Very curly hair if worn long is seen by some as 'unprofessional'. Same goes for Afro hair, or hair that is styled in African braids or dreadlocks. It is maybe a topic for a different thread though.