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."
What I am saying is that someone had to contract the STD first, right? Unless I am mistaken, they don't just "happen". Someone had to have sex with an infected person. Regardless of any statistics out there, I am quite certain that a vast majority of 13 or 14 year olds have not had sexual intercourse, and the ones that have, probably had one partner. So where did the STDs come from? Someone in the school, community or whatever must have been having sex with persons 18, 19, 20 or so, who probably are more "sexually active", thus may have contracted an STD.
I merely try to point out here that the "Sex act" did not cause the increase in STDs. A bunch of people must be having sex with the same person who contracted an STD from an older person(my guess would be a younger female who got one from an older male). Then, these people get other partners. Thats how it spreads. The girls didn't get the STD because they were perfroming oral sex on a boy, they got it because they were perfroming oral sex on a boy who obviously had had sex before, with an infected person.
Honestly? I don't think any of us have it figured out completely. I believe that the marriage, the relationship after the committment is much more important than things that happened prior. As someone in the 32nd year of a strong, happy marriage, I can tell you I didn't arrive at the alter as someone who "saved" myself. I don't know whether things would have been better or worse had I. I just know happiness is not a one size fits all proposition. But let's see if we can agree on some things.
1. The only proper adult response to these middle school children is abstinence. They are simply not mature enough to comprehend anything else.
2. Bill Clinton bears some responsibility for this, but he'll never admit that.
3. The Democratic Party in their attempt to retain power bears some responsibility. They too will never admit as much. (Do you find it ironic that Bill's defense against perjury is that it wasn't sex and the Democrat's defense of Bill was that it was only sex?)
people apportion liberty unto themselves.
You smuggle a lot of socialistic baggage in that.
I mean, if you just mean individuals decided their own personal level of freedom, well, that would be anarchy.
So what you are really meaning, I suspect, is that all other people determine what level of freedom you have.
So we can list the two categories:
1.) Individual self-determines is liberty
2.) Other people determine individual's liberty
Merely saying that "the people determine their own liberty" does not really narrow what you mean. It includes everything from dictatorships, socialistic states, to individual anarchy.
You need to be more precise with your language and with your justifications. Broad definitions like that leave all sorts of room for concept smuggling.
Yes, there has to be a point of origin for the STDs. But the STDs are also spread by oral sex, not just intercourse. That is what we are talking about here, right?
"The girls didn't get the STD because they were perfroming oral sex on a boy, they got it because they were perfroming oral sex on a boy who obviously had had sex before, with an infected person."
I think that you are splitting hairs here. STDs are common among the sexually promiscuous. And, there is no way of telling who has what.
STDs are very common in our society among the sexually promiscuous of all age groups. I understand that something like 47 percent of black dudes over the age of 11 have STDs. That is something that I picked up from another thread a month or so ago. Notice the age given in the stat.
Wow. That's a rare one. All good wishes to them!
That sounds like a line some dad told his white daughter.
I'm afraid that's been, on average, my observation in life. If a true and loving and committed-for-life marriage is important to you (for me, it was something I always knew I wanted, badly), then saving that intimacy for your life partner is something valuable and loving and lasting.
Somebody originally got it from (most likely)sexual intercourse with an older person, otherwise, It would be difficult to explain how the boys transmitted it to the girls. One thing the story doesn't go into is that it is not common or very likely that a boy got an STD from a girl who was going down on him. Its very rare that STDs are transmitted simply through saliva.
STDs are very common in our society among the sexually promiscuous of all age groups.
Yes, but assuming that most young people's first sexual encounter is with someone their age or very close, I guarantee that the "point of origin" is those youngsters who have sex with a young adult - someone in their late teens or early twenties. You dont get an STD epidemic from a bunch of 13 or 14 year old who are just having sex with each other.
I understand that something like 47 percent of black dudes over the age of 11 have STDs.
I have to really doubt that statistic. Just simply looking at the number, you would have to have certain areas where every black over eleven has an STD. I don't quite buy that. And there is no way that every other 12 year-old black kid, on a national scale, has an STD.
I think what MadIvan is saying is that when you give in to all your passions and temptations, you end up restraining your own freedom. People who cannot control their eating end up corpulent and lose the freedom associated with good health and mobility. People who cannot control their sexual passions (Bill Clinton, as an example), end up hurting those around them (Monica Lewinsky, his wife, and most especially his daughter) and themselves (certainly Clinton paid a heavy price for his indiscretions). People who cannot control their anger end up alienating others until they are shunned. And so on. One of the messages of Christianity, though little recognized, is that resisting sinful acts brings you untold freedom. Christ himself often spoke of this. The man who sells himself to the devil gets what he wants today, but loses his soul and the liberation and freedom from evil that God promises after death. What's so sad in today's society is that so many have lost sight of this simple but profound truth. The homosexual men who spend their time engaging in promiscuous anal sex with anonymous partners, the women who provide sex to every man who comes their way (but finding no commitment), the people who end up in accidents because of constant road rage, the drug-addicted and the alcohol-addicted - all have sacrificed freedom and well-being for their passions and temptations. Truly those passions have become unseen fetters. MadIvan is right.
Yes, the incidence of "VD" is probably a crisis, if the numbers are correct. AIDS never has been a "crisis" or an "epidemic". Its a big lie perpetuated by the queer community. If the truth would have been told in the mid-1980's, I sincerely believe the vast majority of the American public would have at least shunned queers, if not have called for their quaranteen.
Yup! Not to speak negativey of DM(I don't think he actually said he believed it, just that someone posted it), but too many people buy into any type of statistics without even thinking about them. This "47%" figure isn't even close to being believable.
You mean to say that some of our desires are in conflict with others? Who could deny that? It is impossible to live without having conflicting needs -- that's why we have to prioritize.
The difference between an individualist and a socialist is that the individualist prioritizes his own conflicting needs whereas the socialist insists on prioritizing everyone elses conflicting needs.
Yup! Not to speak negativey of DM(I don't think he actually said he believed it, just that someone posted it), but too many people buy into any type of statistics without even thinking about them. This "47%" figure isn't even close to being believable.
My dad told me that the first time I screw a girl she'll probably get pregnant and then all of my college hopes will be gone. He also said that if I ever try any drug even once I'll instantly be addicted for life or until I OD. There is actually some value to these scare tactics. I might have to use the STD one on my daughter :-)
There is until it is disbelieved, then it becomes counter-productive because your credibility on all other issues is squandered.
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.