Posted on 06/10/2002 4:35:38 AM PDT by Pern
Isolated incidents of oral sex on campus and talk among middle-school students of the behavior occurring at off-campus parties has alarmed some Fayette County school administrators and parents who plan meetings on the topic.
Physicians, including one who has seen an increase in sexually transmitted diseases among middle school students, and other professionals are promoting frank discussions about oral sex to discourage students from engaging in it. Still, all agree the practice is limited to a small number of students, some of whom do not equate oral sex to intercourse.
Since Beaumont Middle School principal Tom Mowery wrote to parents in December asking them "to be aware of the prevalence of oral sex at off-campus parties at the middle-school level," administrators at one school referred an incident to law enforcement, and administrators at another school, Jessie Clark Middle, called in parents to discuss a situation.
Diane Woods, the district's middle school director, put the topic on the agenda for a future principals meeting. She said she was notified of a report of oral sex occurring between two students on campus at Tates Creek Middle School several weeks ago.
Without releasing specifics, Tates Creek Middle School assistant principal Earl Stivers said the incident was investigated "both by law enforcement and administratively."
Students' remarks have made doctors and parents fear the activity is more widespread.
Dr. Hatim Omar, a University of Kentucky specialist in adolescent medicine, said that just since January, he has treated at least 10 middle school-age students for sexually transmitted diseases they said they had contracted through oral sex. That's up from six cases in 2001 and two each in 1999 and 2000.
Four students, treated for tonsillitis caused by gonorrhea, attributed their conditions to so-called "head parties," Omar said.
Also since January, he has seen students from every middle school in Fayette County who admit that they have engaged in oral sex or attended parties where students have engaged in oral sex.
Parents and administrators are responding. Besides principals addressing the topic, Beaumont PTA president Debbie Boian wants middle school PTA leaders to discuss developing programs at each school to talk to students about risky behavior.
"It's easy to say, 'Oh those kids are just bragging about having oral sex,'" Boian said. "But if there is any truth to it, you should" address the issue.
Nationally, public-health experts report that teen-agers appear to be engaging in high-risk sexual practices without caution and with alarming casualness. Nearly 1 in 10 reports losing his or her virginity before the age of 13, a 15 percent increase since 1997, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. According to several surveys, as many as half of teens ages 13 to 19 say they have had oral sex. Other communities across the country are grappling with the problem and are instituting policies that require more supervision and education.
Lexington pediatrician Tom Pauly said his patients are asking him about oral sex and telling him they think it's safer than vaginal intercourse.
"It's a new issue," said Bryan Station Middle Counselor Lynette Schmiedeknecht. "It's more part of the culture, more talked about. It seems that in talking with the kids, they don't consider oral sex (to be) sex. They just think it's something they do as an adolescent."
Dealing with incidents directly and speaking bluntly with middle school students is key to helping them understand the ramifications of their decisions, parents and doctors said. Damage to reputations and illnesses are two of the dangers.
"We advise them to abstain," Pauly said. "We talk about medical complications and the psychosocial complications of engaging in oral sex at such a young age."
After Jessie Clark Middle students talked about the popularity of oral sex with an assistant principal this spring, principal Steve Carmichael said: "We invited two moms to come in and shared our concerns. It wasn't a conversation as awkward as you might think. We would rather overreact than underreact."
The issue isn't a routine part of sex education classes, officials said.
Mike Kennedy, acting health education coordinator, said that until 1990, the district had a sex education curriculum. But now, site-based councils at each school are responsible for deciding what kind of sex education is dispensed, he said.
Seven middle schools offer programs that teach abstinence only, Kennedy said. Other schools cover sex education in health classes. But Kennedy said he doesn't think oral sex is discussed anywhere as part of the middle school curriculum.
At Beaumont, principal Mowery said the quick intervention -- writing to parents -- was successful. Parents responded to meetings about how to discuss sexual issues with their children. And as the year progressed, counselors and administrators had fewer kids talking about the parties.
Only a small minority of students have actually had oral sex, Mowery thinks.
"Ninety percent of our kids," he said, "make good decisions in every aspect of their lives."
Many, yes. I seriously doubt that the "bargain-basement" girls that we are talking about would be virgins since that is the topic of this discussion.
Allowing 12-year-old children to make their own decisions about some matters indicates profound immaturity, not to mention stupidity.
They're children, not adults. I would no more permit my 12-year-old daughter to have a boyfriend (much less be alone with him, much less sleep with him) than I would permit my 2-year-old daughter to stick paper clips in an electrical outlet.
Speaking in an ideal context of disease free world, sadly, hedging your bets is not for the womb owner. Care should be exercised in choice of men for women, not in hedge. After all a single woman has only a limited shot at having children, and if she blows it from the get go through hedges she cannot afford (men that dump her, the more burdensome she is with children, the more frequent), she will be very disapointed and frustrated. Men on the other hand CAN afford to have many women and to hedge to spread their risk accross different women, though they cannot choose but only be available through widespread exposure.
In a sex diseased world things get worse though for women especialy. Hedging their bets mean they will get exposure to disease more so to the elusive perfect husband (and lord knows how unfair this search is if one cares to compare the fears of skirted husbandry obligations vs. a government in charge of single women that is hardly sinless, liable and responsible). Men on the other hand become those vectors for disease, but men were always expandable in the first place.
So in the real world men's conditions remain the same, it is women and society that suffer most from immorality in the end. Whatever the feminists will say, expanding man was always the goal, and by tracking down men and attempting to feminizing them, they are destroying morality, women and causing society to suffer a backlash in men dominance. Even "socialy" progressist nations like the Soviet Union or China are very much dominated by men. Sure, I hear now and then a Russian policeman will go to jail for running after his wife with an axe, and she will consider herself happy if it happens once a week.
Your nic is the name of my favorite murder myster detective ! It's also the name of a lovely little wild flower. Either way, I like it !
We can assume a lot of things. I don't know many teens who have lost their virginity at 14. I had one friend who lost it at 11. Very sad. But. we could come up with numbers based on assumptions all day long. This doesn't hold true for all people. Look up statistics on the average number of sexual partners a woman has before marrying and get back to me. I always am willing to stand corrected.
Disagree. Men also suffer greatly from immorality, including sexual morality.
Right. And conservatism is just another philosophy that depends on the government to funnel ridiculous amounts of money into social programs that are more appealing to the right....no better than the money-grubbers of the left.
We were not talking about children. Rather, older teens and adults. You know that.
They are less valuable to many serious men looking for a life long mate. My wife was a virgin when I married her and I appreciate and value that. I am touched and moved by that - that she would have waited for me. I will never forget that sacrifice on her part. And she has born three of the most beautiful and wonderful children on this planet. I will value and treasure and love her forever.
Nowaday's sexual immorality forces women and children to take part in those duels from which they were protected back then as those were the domain of men only. This of course does make men suffer too indirectly, but the direct hit of immorality is on society, women and children.
Most conservatives would be ecstatic to get rid of government social programs. I would.
I'm NOT a Fundamentalist, and I doubt that anyone could stick the label " religious right ", onto me, and make it stick, dear. Civilization ( even primative peoples ) have enforced, without what you so offhandedly keep calling " the religious right " , sexual codes on people. Your abject lack of knowledge of history, and your continual use of an improper term, debases your stabs at refutation.
You're trying to " play " with the grownups and you can't win this .
Are you just attemting to validating your own sexual promiscuity ?
But why sad, JediGirl, if she knew the guy for three months and cared for him?
Adult children=the most expensive and destructive kind. Whiney-butt dopers and hedonists shoving the costs of their idiotic behavior onto the rest of us.
I have a nine year-old who likely has far better self-control and more common sense than the lot of adult pro-dope libertarians who post here.
Snivelling freeloaders.
So true.
You can think whatever you want to, dear. Writing it all down, on FR, gives those who disagree with you, the opening to shoot you down, and your theroies, full of holes. You don't know enough to clearly argue your positions. You don't understand enough, to graps the points that you are attempting to make.
Whether you like it or not, this is a two party country. Libertarianism may look good ( to you ) on paper; however , like Communism , it is totally unworkable.
This isn't the topic of this thread , sooooooo ... why don't you try to get back on topic ? LOL
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.