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."
Way off topic aren't we? :-D Just because someone drinks doesn't mean they are unemployed does it? Being slightly intoxicated in the evening isn't indicative of unemployment is it? Oh yeah, there's a much greater chance that a drunkard will bother getting up to cause a ruckus than someone who has just smoked a joint. Ban alcohol?
It's an activity that many married couples engage in. It's not restricted to unmarried couples. It could easily be said that the specifics of intercourse sound pretty gross, but it doesn't make the act gross does it? Why is oral sex immoral?
Which is why I don't think middle school kids should be having sex.
Then stop posting to a public forum, for crimeny.
So you're young. Big deal!
At least you have the courage to meet these issues directly; something surely lacking in the hackneyed attacks on your personal morality and dignity.
Ignore the gossipy old prudes; if they were sincere, they would do something about the entrenched depravity of school and church authorities. But they lack the moral courage for that--it's more fun to pick on a trusting teenager.
I'm sure that's a principle that is extended through more than one element of their lives.
"Let's get..to the point, let's roll, 'nother joint...let's out on the road. There's somewhere, I gotta go" - Tom Petty
I had to throw that in....
You brought up drugs first. In any event, read your Burke, men are apportioned liberty in direct proportion to which they constrain their appetites. In the 19th century, cocaine, heroin and so on were all legal because it was deeply shameful to take that stuff, and it kept the lid on. As the lid gradually came off, and people ended up dying in hospitals, et al, the laws changed in response. Because law abiding citizens like myself who stay straight shouldn't have to pay for people who are dumb enough to toke up.
Bringing up drink is a red herring. You are talking to someone who used to live in Amsterdam - there is a difference between stoned and drunk. Drunk is self limiting - as a teenager I am sure that you have seen those limits at your average kegger and had to make sudden trips to the loo when the body said, "Please, no more Budweiser!"
Illegal narcotics on the other hand are more corrosive. There is pot out there that is way more potent than the advocates of legalisation were taking amidst the mud of Woodstock. What is worse is that often the only limits to drug taking is usually when the brain forgets to make the heart beat. The potency of marijuana has reached the point that half the tourist population of Amsterdam is wondering if it's on the planet Mars tonight and even Labour MPs reject the idea of legalisation here. Oh, and sadly none of the users are ashamed about being seen in public this way.
However, you are young and haven't had much opportunity to pay taxes for other people acting like jackasses. When you do, I am sure you'll realise the wisdom your elders are doing the favour of passing onto you.
Ivan
I notice the Christian right seems to extensively use the fallacy of ad hominem -- and most of the time it is a straight out lie -- violating their own 8th Commandment about bearing false witness against their neighbors.
I wonder what motivates such a corrupt religious practice? What is the underlying flaw in Christianity that cause so many of them to resort to such base and fraudulent behaviors????
Well, I never cared for seafood, but those are matters of taste. I would say don't do what you find distasteful, but don't rain on the parades of people who don't happen to agree with your tastes. (Yes, I know there are several possible unintentional double entendres in there. :-)
And just who is doing the "apportioning"?
Much of the attack on freedom is merely the inevitable reaction to Gramscian redefinition of "perversity" and "being a complete a**hole" as "freedom." If it keeps up long enough, then when most people hear someone defending "freedom," it will be received as "he's defending the freedom to be an absolute Clymer."
and tonight, as every night, those who pursue the intoxication of alcohol to the extreme are in their own realm. but every glass they drink is another payment to the revenue fund.
if you dont own your consiousness
WHO does?
the state.
kinda like the new definition of "is."
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.