Earlier this afternoon, a bill proposing the teaching of abstinence to girls in sex and relationship education lessons passed a first vote in the House of Commons.
Proposed by the moralising anti-abortion Tory MP Nadine Dorries, (the same Nadine Dorries who had an affair with her best friend’s husband) the motion reads:
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require schools to provide certain additional sex education to girls aged between 13 and 16; to provide that such education must include information and advice on the benefits of abstinence from sexual activity; and for connected purposes."
The motion talks only about girls, reflecting the conservative view that it’s female sexuality that is the real problem, while unknowingly insulting boys, who apparently know no better.
The American Academy of Paediatrics has this to say on abstinence related teaching:
“Abstinence-only programs are not only ineffective but may cause harm by providing inadequate and inaccurate information and resulting in participants’ failure to use safer sex practices once intercourse is initiated.”
Backing the motion is the Conservative Christian Fellowship, a group of Tory MPs dedicated to rolling back the right of women to control their own reproduction.
Thanks largely to our lazy MPs not bothering to turn up, the motion passed by 67-61 votes.
On the back of winning this vote Dorries will likely get the publicity she craves – the real objective of the motion, for a change in the law at this point is extremely unlikely.
Together with Frank Field and a grouping of socially conservative MPs, Dories has already been attempting to get Andrew Lansley’s Health and Social Care Bill amended so as to give "independent information, advice and counselling services for women requesting termination of pregnancy to the extent that the consortium considers they will choose to use them."
"Independent" information in this instance means information given by bodies who do not themselves provide abortions. As pointed out at Liberal Conspiracy, the aim of the amendment is to "exclude some of the most knowledgeable providers of information to women on abortions."
Nadine Dorries' bill should be seen as part of a wider effort to push back women's rights and foister fundamentalist, crackpot beliefs on the rest of us.
OK, at the risk of sounding like a Daily Mail reader, I have an issue with your heading. It implies that all Christians are "crackpots."
ReplyDeleteNext, I do agree that just having girls for these lessons is sexist, for the reasons outlined.
Having said that, I do believe that we don't make teenagers feel they can say "no" to having sex if they don't want to. Certainly that was my experience in the 90's.
Am I saying we should only have abstinence only? No, for the exact reasons mentioned above. I feel that we need a multi-tracked approach, one that explains about STIs (again, something else I felt was lacking), offers teens a way to not feel like scum if they don't want to have sex, and gives ways to protect themselves if they do.
Hi. I have to disagree that my heading implies that *all* Christians are crackpots. If I had really wished to do that I would have foregone the inclusion of the word "the". "The crackpot Christians" is intended to mean the grouping around Dorries. If I had meant all Christians I would have simply said "crackpot Christians".
ReplyDeleteI understand your second point but I still do not think this requires any abstinence teaching. Teenagers are pressured into things such as drinking, taking drugs and cigarette smoking - as well as having sex. Abstinence simply teaches one that one does not need to have sex - that there are benefits of not doing so. The point is not really that one should have sex or not, but that one should have sex *when* one wants to. To think for one's self, essentially. Abstinence teaches the value of no sex. Far preferable would be the promotion of good sex - i.e. sex because one actually wants to have sex. Unfortunately the promotion of independent thought is not something schools excel at.
Why have you included a quote based on abstinance only programs? They have nothing to do with this.
ReplyDeleteWhile i found dorries language a bit odd, and her beliefs deeply illiberal, I really really don't think it makes you look good not to distinguish between including abstinance as part of sex education, and teaching only abstinance.
Because in my opinion there is a longer-term goal here to teach abstinence only sexual education; just as the long term goal of Dorries re abortion is for a blanket ban, in my opinion. There is little evidence on the effect of the teaching of abstinence mixed with regular sex education. However, there is ample evidence that when abstinance is taught alone great harm is done.
ReplyDelete"I understand your second point but I still do not think this requires any abstinence teaching. Teenagers are pressured into things such as drinking, taking drugs and cigarette smoking - as well as having sex. Abstinence simply teaches one that one does not need to have sex - that there are benefits of not doing so. The point is not really that one should have sex or not, but that one should have sex *when* one wants to. To think for one's self, essentially. Abstinence teaches the value of no sex. Far preferable would be the promotion of good sex - i.e. sex because one actually wants to have sex. Unfortunately the promotion of independent thought is not something schools excel at."
ReplyDeleteSo you would agree that other things that teenagers are pressured into, things such as drinking, taking drugs and cigarette smoking don't require any abstinence teaching? Abstinence simply teaches one that one does not need to have drink or drugs or tobacco - that there are benefits of not doing so. The point is not really that one should have drink or drugs or cigarettes or not, but that one should have them *when* one wants to. To think for one's self, essentially. Abstinence teaches the value of no drink or drugs of smoking. Far preferable would be the promotion of good drinking or drug taking or smoking - i.e. using them because one actually wants to have them. Unfortunately the promotion of independent thought is not something schools excel at.
I take it you believe that, for example, children should be taught that, whilst adult studies show a slight bias towards possible harm from second-hand smoke, those on children show second-hand smoking to have small, but unequivocal health benefits. That they should be taught that smoking itself has beneficial effects in a number of diseases. And that, above all, as smokers pay several times the total cost (including that of anti-smoking clinics and advertising) of smoking to the NHS and save the country a fortune because they die before drawing a pension or become one of the old that put such a strain on NHS resources, children should be encouraged to smoke when THEY feel ready to!
After all, we want the promotion of independent thought, don't we?
If a child wants to smoke, or feels ready for sex at 9, surely they should go for it!
Mr B J Mann
"Earlier this afternoon, a bill proposing the teaching of abstinence to girls in sex and relationship education lessons passed a first vote in the House of Commons.
ReplyDeleteProposed by the moralising anti-abortion Tory MP Nadine Dorries, (the same Nadine Dorries who had an affair with her best friend’s husband) the motion reads:"
Cue logic based argument......
"Because in my opinion there is a longer-term goal here to teach abstinence only sexual education; just as the long term goal of Dorries re abortion is for a blanket ban, in my opinion."
Whereas you, of course, have the long term aim of euthansia for anyone who disagrees with your political standpoint.
In my opinion, of course.
Mr B J Mann