It’s a telltale sign that I’m a product of Generation X, but when I saw this news report talking about a study on the dangers of oral sex, all I could think of was the line uttered by Dante in the original Clerks: “You sucked 37 dicks?!”

I’ve long believed that the 1994 Kevin Smith movie played a role in blow jobs becoming, for better or worse, the teenage equivalent of making out in recent decades. My husband often laments that the movie hadn’t been made yet when he was a teenager; I tell him to quit complaining and then I start making up for lost time.

A study from Johns Hopkins University, however, shows that unprotected oral sex, especially with multiple partners over time, may not be the “safe sex” alternative many teenagers view it as. Sure, it can’t get you pregnant, but strains of the HPV virus, shown to cause cervical cancer in women, can be transmitted orally and are linked to head, neck and throat cancer.

Anyone who is not monogamous should understand the risks associated with oral sex without a condom or dental dam. Not only can HPV be spread through unprotected oral sex, but so can gonorrhea, syphilis, herpes and HIV. Maybe this is old news, but it bears repeating.

What surprised me is the prevalence of HPV-related throat cancer. According to the Johns Hopkins report, the cancer afflicts approximately 11,000 people in the U.S. each year, making it an equal threat as cervical cancer.

To date, no study has been done regarding the effect of Gardasil, Merck’s questionable vaccine to protect against certain strains of HPV, to prevent throat cancer.

Now, I’m the first one to rail against “alarmist” studies. But I feel this is important information that should be shared. Condoms and dental dams can reduce the risk of spreading HPV, but not eliminate it entirely.

Still, with the lines of colorful and tasty condoms available today, there’s really no excuse, if you’re not in a monogamous relationship, to use a condom during oral sex.

And if you take some time and learn to put the condom on using only your mouth and tongue, I seriously doubt you’ll hear your partner complain!

For decades, ever since boys and girls were brought into separate rooms in fifth grade and shown grainy films with titles like, “My Body, My Self,” Sex Ed has been a hot topic of controversy. Many of us, to this day, aren’t quite certain what went on in the “other” room, and it was never discussed between boys and girls.

Today, it’s all too clear what’s being taught in publicly-funded sex ed classes for middle and high school students—and it’s all too clear that it’s not effective education, either. Since 1998, the U.S. government has provided 1.3 billion dollars in funding for abstinence-only sex education programs in public schools. And, as Jon Stewart so succinctly put it in his segment titled “The Global War in Your Pants: “Apparently, teenagers STILL want to do it!”

Older studies have shown that students who receive abstinence-only education are inclined to delay sexual activity longer than those who receive a well-rounded, or comprehensive, sex education, but that one-third of those students taught an “abstinence-only-until-marriage” curriculum are not using condoms when they do have intercourse. Teaching abstinence-only, when teens fail to listen, does nothing to prevent the spread of STDs and HIV. A group called Advocates for Youth calls abstinence-only education “ineffective, unethical and poor public health.” The group’s report spotlights just some of the misinformation being spread to teens in abstinence-only classes.

A recent study by the CDC shows that teenage boys who had comprehensive sex ed in school were 71 percent less likely than those with no sex education whatsoever to have intercourse before the age of 15, and were also more likely to use contraceptives the first time they had sex. Other reports show that comprehensive sex ed programs hold the most promise for lowering the rate of teen pregnancy and the spread of STDs.

Fortunately, these findings have opened the eyes of policymakers in Washington, and the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform held its first-ever hearing on abstinence-only-until-marriage sex ed programs last month. A number of witnesses, including researchers and other health professionals, touted the advantages of comprehensive sex education, and said that federal funding should go toward comprehensive sex ed, which has proven to be effective. Currently, federal funding is only available for abstinence-only curriculum.

If parents, or even parochial schools, wish to teach abstinence, that’s their prerogative and I support that wholeheartedly. But government funding – and public school sex ed – should focus on unbiased, medically-sound, and practical, sex education, including such topics as the use of condoms and other birth control methods.