Oral-sex issue hits middle schools (posted 6/10/2002)

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."

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.

"Ninety percent of our kids," he said, "make good decisions in every aspect of their lives."

When I say "more than 3 months" it doesn't mean, exactly 3 months. It means longer than a short period of time so that you have a pretty well established idea as to who he is. And the phrase "sleeping around" implies sexual activity with more than one person in a short period of time with no relationship attached.

I wonder how many of the guys with all the moral underpinning married a girl who wasn't a virgin.

That is what you believe. There are just as many women who were not virigins when they were married who have happy and wonderful marriages, despite the fact that their hymen is not intact. Lack of virginity does not imply promiscuity.

If memory serves, Washington and Jefferson were two of them. Both married widows.

No, dear, you ay MB> attempt to " play " with the adults; however, you can't win , or even come out equal to them. You are a minow, playing with the sharks.

Not sure what the first 5 words are supposed to form...anyway. Am I a minnow? I think this is a very simple debate. I don't care who others sleep with as long as it doesn't affect me. Conservatives think otherwise because they want to run others lives for them. Good luck. It won't work. I believe it is the parents job to teach their children what they want them to believe. Much of the time, a child will come to disagree with a parent and form their own life philosophy.

Should 12 year-olds be engaging in sex? No. From an biological point of view, the bodies of many a twelve year old cannot handle childbirth nor are their emotions developed enough to handle such activity. It's all fun and games at that time.

Also, in case you missed the topic of this thread, it's about oral sex in middle schools. You know, 11, 12, 13, 14-year-old kids. That's who we're talking about. That's who the educrats think need to be taught how to put on a condom. Why does an 11-year-old need to know how to put on a condom, other than to have sexual activity?

It doesn't matter. The school shouldn't be teaching kids anything other than science, math, literature, history, and grammar.

If Libertarians believe in " live and let live ", then WHY were you being an authoritarian and telling your 11 year old friend what to do ? How judgemental, dear . You're a hypocrite.

Because she put herself in danger. She was my friend and asked my opinion.

Two years ago we did a survey for the high school newspaper on sex in an attempt to get parents to realize the seriousness of the problem. The school has 950 students. However, the survey only covered 511 students who were enrolled in English classes. In any case, we found that 230 of those surveyed had oral sex (yes, I consider it sex, since it has the name sex in its title after all)....that is 45%. Then, we found that 186 surveyed....36%, had committed sexual intercourse. Keep in mind this was done here in a pretty conservative, Free Methodist, Bible-thumper town. I can only imagine how saddening the numbers are for those that are living in the inner city.

Oral sex CAN give you STD's. I only wish the kids knew that. In our article we tried to get them to understand that.

I have graduated this year, but I am very proud of the journalism I did while on the paper. Sometimes our editorials were liberal, sometimes they were conservative (of course my columns were always conservative). But, in every case, we tried to get people to think and that is what matters. I am glad I will get to continue this in college.

the majority of Christian witness over the last 2000 years would find that comment appalling

Let me clarify. I'm not including anything that defiles another one's spirit. I'm talking about what occurs between a husband and a wife.

There is no sex manual in the Bible; and there are FEW things we are told are wrong pertaining to sex within the bounds of marriage. Various ministers/priests may state that one act or another is sinful in marriage, but those acts (specifically oral sex and masturbation) are NOT condemned in the Bible. We have a differing view point because your perspective is from the Roman Catholic Church whereas mine is from the Bible.

The sin comes into the picture when our minds use another person outside of the marriage as a part of the activity (fantasizing about another while making love to the spouse). Also, any act that totally replaces intercourse (ex: completion of the act without intercourse as in oral sex) OR causes one partner or the other to be mentally separated from the other (I would use pornography as an example) OR becomes the only method of pleasure, thereby avoiding God's purpose, would be unacceptable.

From an biological point of view, the bodies of many a twelve year old cannot handle childbirth nor are their emotions developed enough to handle such activity.

What does childbirth have to do with it? I thought that's what condoms were there to prevent.

As far as emotional maturity is concerned, you're still engaging in special pleading. What makes a 17-year-old "mature enough" and a 12-year-old not "mature enough". Lemme guess: the fact that you're 17, right?

Call me back when you're 27 and tell me you haven't matured a whole lot, emotionally, in those intervening 10 years.

Yes, they are bought cheaply. Bargain-basement girls don't get far in life.

You are a little too wound up in your rhetoric. As with many things, some are and some aren't. All kids that start off with a wild streak do not end up in the bargain basement.

It helps when you have reinforcements from your like-minded buddies, as I do not on this forum that lacks diverse opinions (it is, after all, clearly stated that it is a conservative forum and many threads consist of everybody agreeing with eachother until somebody comes in and disagrees and is promptly jumped on; yes, there is a discernable pattern here).

Don't worry about that. While I disagree with your posts, you have at least tried to remain civil, which is a lot more I can say of your buddy you flagged, from his other threads.

At least you are on a forum which will not immediately ban you, like the DUmpster.

With all due respect, that's the same place I ended up, being chaste and proper.

You missed my point. I said AFTER all the playing. If that's what you're doing now, you'll understand what I mean when you're playing plays out.

Being lonely and chaste, and being spiritually empty from sleeping around are two different things IMO.

Someone lighting up a joint in their livingroom and hanging around will be the end of the American civilization.

At the very least, that damn fool will cost me money. Under the present system, I'll have to pay his unemployment benefit because he's too stoned to get work, I'll have to pay for his hospital bills when he gets too whacked to realise his heart ought to beat and his lungs take in oxygen. If he's disorderly and all over the place, I'll have to pay for the police to get the idiot off my doorstep.

If I hear Liberatarians first advocating getting rid of unemployment insurance, "free" medical care, and making drug addicts pay for what they do, then I might consider it. But the Libertarian approach is always legalisation first without considering the consequences it would have.

Of course even if those conditions still did exist, I'd have to pay for the police at the very least. And given how the price of drugs would fall right through the floor, consumption would rise. And given that the deep shame of being a drug user from the 19th century no longer exists, all the constraints would be off. Heroin parties after work for everyone would be next. Oh, joy.

Ivan

At least you are on a forum which will not immediately ban you, like the DUmpster.

That's why I love FreeRepublic. I can't expect to be able to back up my opinions and become a better debater if I don't try my hand at debating.

Apparently the girls (who knows what the boys think) can pretty much emotionally divorce themselves from it in a way they cannot or do not from actual intercourse.

I have never understood this. For me, putting some man's penis into my mouth is a very intimate experience (as is intercourse). These girls have had to have been de-sensitized long before this to do this so freely. This is not an overnight thing --- it is years of schools "sex education" programs which end up equating sex with any other bodily function, divorcing any sort of emotion from it. Jocelyn Elders is a strong proponent of masturbation and oral sex as a replacement for intercourse, and the public school sex ed programs are pounding the same drum.

Which is why I leave the judgement up to the people involved in the relationships to determine what care is feigned and what care is sincere

But JediGirl, kids in middle school don't know that stuff.
BTW, I am a believer, but not particularly "religious". I hope you will understand you don't have to choose to be part of the "religious right" to be morally right.

Various ministers/priests may state that one act or another is sinful in marriage, but those acts (specifically oral sex and masturbation) are NOT condemned in the Bible.

Lots of things aren't explicitly condemned in the Bible. And lots of people who are enamored of particular sins can convince themselves that those sins aren't condemned in the Bible. Bill Clinton convinced himself that abortion wasn't condemned in the Bible. Homosexuals are happy to tell you that a "committed relationship between consenting adults" isn't condemned in the Bible.

As I said, what you said goes against 2000 years of Christian witness -- Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant. That you think it's not condemned in the Bible doesn't change my point.

Amen. I am a teenager (19 and just out of HS getting ready for college) and I find the whole concept of oral sex to be well, not just immoral, but plain gross. I am sorry, but I don't find it very appetizing even as a guy who would essentially be on the "receiving end" of the deal. And I don't know why a girl would find ejaculating into the mouth exactly a fun experience....it frankly about makes me throw up just thinking about it! If I was a parent, there is no way I would be approving of a guy trying to be my daughter's bf that thought such an activity was appealing. Any parent that doesn't care, like the poster you replied to, is negligent and an unfit parent.

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.