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."
If so, then , as far as you're concerned , rules of behavior don't matter at all. True ? It's just do whatever , as long as it doesn't harm you in any way ? That's chaos and no tribe, no community, no nation can function that way. Oh, and when the consequences do manage to touch your life, it's too late.
Thank you so very much for pointing out my typo. The message really wasn't so difficult to decipher , though. LOL
The issue isn't over feeling superior. It's a battle for the hearts and minds of our children, and to keep our kids from being corrupted by society.
and just for the sake of argument, what about a woman being the recipient of oral? is that sex? or is that 2nd base?
i personally view those acts as more intimate (and more sexual) than intercourse.
the arguments you present are intellectually weak.
if you intend to defend your position, you must do that.
See how your illogical stabs at refutation can come back to haunt you ?
I don't want to impose my views on others. (I couldn't, even if I wanted to.) Anyone has the freedom to go out and have oral sex, homosexual sex, group sex, sadomasochistic sex and so forth with as many people as they want. But I don't want others imposing their sexual attitudes on my children. And that is what's happening all over the place. When my kids are taught in school that wearing condoms is all that's needed before having sex, and our Boy Scout troop is attacked for not wanting active homosexual men as our scout leaders to go on overnight camping trips with our teenage sons, and when pornographic pictures stare out of every New York City newstand and airport counter when my kids walk by, then MY rights as a parent are being infringed on.
Then it's up to the parents to instill in their children the values they wish them to have. They must counter-act societies "evil" messages, then.
It is a little disconcerting (but hardly unexpected) to see supposed Christians trying to talk dirty to minors -- for the better glory of Jesus, of course.
Well, at what age do you think kids should start having sex and why?
and just for the sake of argument, what about a woman being the recipient of oral? is that sex? or is that 2nd base?
I don't know.
This is ridiculous, and you know it. No person has argued this anywhere on this thread. Women have an abundance of wonderful and beautiful attributes to offer men. However, for many, virginity is one of them. Maybe not to you. So, if it's not, you can marry a women who's done the rounds.
You mean, if you 'care' about a guy you've known at least three months. Go ahead. Give him oral sex. He won't complain, unless he really cares about you.
are you presenting the premise that the state should determine this? or just your gang? or the mob rule of wherever you live?
which is it?
among states, the age of consent differs.
so who should decide?
the individual or individual unit-the family, or the collective-the state, or whatever gang happens to be in power?
surely you dont mean to imply by your answer that there IS an objective morality, which follows from an objective libertarian society?
For many, especially religious Christians, Jews and Muslims, premarital sex is considered something that is against God's will. Since you are an atheist, that won't mean much to you. But for those to whom it does mean something, it also makes a great deal of sense. In my life, almost all I know who've engaged in premarital sex have had less fulfilling marriages than those who have. I trust God on this, and it makes sense to me.
It wasn't an argument, galt-jw, just an explanation. What I said is true. Many people believe in God (you don't have to); many believe that God does not want people to engage in premarital sex. Finally, it is my personal observation that people who've had sex with many partners have had less fulfilling marriages, on average, than people who didn't. That's also true with the people I've known in my life. I'm not asking you to believe in God, or asking you to believe in what I believe God wants.
You're avoiding the question. We discussed the 3 months post earlier.
lol! kinda hard to argue with that! ;)
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.