Abstinence classes for teenage girls - please let this not become an actual law...

I still don't understand why "just say no" is acceptable and common sense, whereas saying to boys "just don't ask" - don't pressurise girls into sex - is never ever taught?

great post Want2b mum

I think I would be mortified if my DS got a girl pregnant. But I think if either of my DD's became pregnant I would support them. I suppose there goes the double standards again.

I think the peer pressure for the teenagers now is terrible.

When I read an article on this my first thought was that boys and girls should both be taught to say no. Then I thought back to when I was 14 and had boys coming up to me trying it on. It wasn't girls going up to boys.

I had a teacher who taught us both how to use contraception and who reinforced the idea that saying no is perfectly ok. At 16 an old girl came in to talk to us during assembly. She was in her 60s and real live wire. She stood before us and told us, 'The best form of contraception is oral. Just say no!' I went to an all girls school and we had boys coming up to us all the time. Most girls did sleep with their boyfriends but none got pregnant and only one girl slept around (the school bike). Even she managed to not get pregnant or

The reality is that males do not bear the same consequences as females when it comes to having sex. The sexes are not equal and won't be until males are getting pregnant. I think saying no should be part of sex education for both girls and boys but it should not be the sole focus.

i agree with Chris Bryant.

"But ... this is not the way to solve any of those problems ? for a start, it's just about girls. You've got to talk to the boys and the girls." He said there was no evidence that teaching abstinence would lead to fewer pregnancies or sexually transmitted diseases."

I'm sure other posters know much more about this but I had heard that attempts in the US to promote abstinence among teens is seen as a failed experiment. In some case studies I heard that teen pregnancy and STD went up.

There needs to be a lot more intelligent approach to this than just telling girls not to have sex - thats for sure. However, we know some teen pregnancy occurs because of incentives in the benefits sytem, we also know a lot is about peer pressure in the sense that 'everyone else is doing it so I should as well'. Boys feel that peer pressure a lot from other boys.

I guess we'd probably most prefer our daughters to be allowed to mature emotionally and sexually in sync. Do those of you with sons feel the same? (or would that entail some of them being celibate till about 40? )

Excellent post nobetterthanthat - would you like to be in charge of SRE in schools??

Also we all know that it's a short step from "let's teach girls that it's ok not to have sex" to "abstinence is the only truly effective form of contraception/preventing STDs" to teaching abstinence only. We've seen it happen in America, and Dorries has obviously seen that and thought we could could do the same here.

claire201 - your aims for your daughter are totally understandable, but unfortunately there is no evidence that abstinence actually works at all in terms of improving prospects for girls.

I don't think anyone's arguing against sex education or teaching young people that it's ok to say no.

The problem with Dorries' proposal is it's all about girls. It implies that teen pregnancies, STIs amongst teens, etc is all down to girls being incapble of saying "no". Thus removing all resposibility from boys and also ignoring the fact that boys need to be taught about consent and respecting sexual partners and about consequences of sex as much as anything.

Its a bad thing because it specifically targets girls to maintain the moral high ground whilst perpetuating the myth that boys/men can't help themselves and needn't bother trying.

It makes girls responsible if they are coerced into sex they don't want because they should just say no, be stronger, be more moral. It doesn't but any responsibility onto the boy to not try to coerce unwilling/unready girls into sex but to only have sex when their girlfriend enthusiastically consents.

It makes girls who do want to have consensual sex with a willing partner feel guilty for saying yes, for giving in, for letting the boy 'win'. It makes sex into something that girls possess and can reward a boy with if they are good rather than something they can enjoy on an equal level.

I want my dd to wait until she is ready and be strong enough to see that a boy who trots out the ' if you loved me you would/ all your friends do it/ I'll tell everyone you're frigid' etc is a dickhead and not someone who she needs to give the time of day to. I also want her to not feel guilty for having sex that she wants to have. However I thinks its more important that my son is educated to see that he needs to be respectful of other peoples wishes and to not try to talk people into doing things they don't want to do and if he badgers a girl into sex she doesn't want then he is no better than a back alley rapist.

Boys need to be taught that coerced sex is rape. Girls shouldn't have all the responsibility for preventing their own rape because they just can't do it.

it's the fact it's targeted at girls though - sex carries risks for both boys and girls, and it's arguable that boys are actually under MORE pressure to be up for sex and push for it due to the cultural expectation that they will!

I think it's a fantastic idea to do a bit more on the fact that sex, regardless of how safely you try to have it, still carries some risk and its fine to delay it till you feel ready to deal with any unwanted consequences. I also think it would be a brilliant idea to do more work on actively seeking consent, enforcing boundaries and respecting the boundaries of others in SRE. But I think these things are equally as vital for girls AND boys, and that it would be ridiculous for this abstinence part to be the ONLY statutory part of the SRE curriculum and only to be statutory for girls!

While I totally get the feminist point of view and why feminists would be against this policy, I also know that I will not want my own daughter to have sex until she is in her late teens. This may seem outdated but it is how I, and I know a lot of my friends also feel. If this abstinence policy manages to get young girls to hold off until they are a bit more emotionally mature, is it really a bad thing? By the time girls leave school they will work out for themselves it is a bit over the top! At the end of the day young girls really will have very little interest in patriarchy, all they will care about is wether jimmy in 4b wants to go out with them!!

Grimma, they did say for boys as well, though afaik Dorries's bill only mentions girls

Anastasia - every single time they have sex with a female they're essentially consenting to becoming a parent should contraception fail and the girl/woman decide to continue with a pregnancy - That's really well put. And, yes, it has slipped out of general consciousness.

If anything, surely it's males who need to be getting more education on the benefit of weighing up the risks of having sex at all - given that if a pregnancy does occur the decision about if they want or are ready for a baby at that point in their life may be taken entirely out of their hands.

I think that's really important - that males know every single time they have sex with a female they're essentially consenting to becoming a parent should contraception fail and the girl/woman decide to continue with a pregnancy.

Lets have more education for boys on resisting peer pressure and saying no to sex until they're ready to deal with any consequences :o

Both women are demanding a more holistic approach to sex education: the mechanical, biological, social and relationship aspects to be taught all at once. Personally, I can't see what's wrong with that.

Nothing wrong with that. So it should apply equally to boys.

In the interview I heard, Dorries made a big point of the increased risk to girls (pregnancy, loss of education, etc) from early sex. Her feminist 'opponent' told her off for making girls out to be victims. They did agree, though, that the risks Dorries highlighted are real and that young women these days aren't being taught that it's okay to say No.

Both women are demanding a more holistic approach to sex education: the mechanical, biological, social and relationship aspects to be taught all at once. Personally, I can't see what's wrong with that.

For the man it's ALWAYS worth it, because there's no risk to him.
Perhaps girls should be taught that men don't risk anything by having penetrative sex but that they risk a lot. For males it's win-win.

Not really, there's STDs.... which is why boys and girls should be taught that penetative sex is not a safe game.

When I read the title and OP I was assuming this was going to relate to some other country, not the UK.

Thanks for link OP. I'd missed this. Dorries is as nutty as they come. What an outrageous proposal. Why would you target this at girls and not boys?

can they teach boys that it's better for them not to have penetrative sex with any girl/woman unless they want to try for a baby.
That way girls wouldn't have to suffer abortions and or worry about birth control and what have you. It would also mean the sex industry would disappear overnight.
Boys can be taught that there are other ways to make love. Penetrative sex is nice, but is it WORTH it. For the woman? Often, no.
For the man it's ALWAYS worth it, because there's no risk to him.

Perhaps girls should be taught that men don't risk anything by having penetrative sex but that they risk a lot. For males it's win-win.

Although, I would say teaching girls to reject penetrative sex might be a good thing as long as they're also told that masturbation is healthy, and that sexual relations with a boy is okay.　They need to know they're not obliged to "take it further" .

The problem girls and boys are taught that males "can't help themselves" (lie)

teaching abstinence has been an utter disaster in Africa and has contributed to the spread of the AIDS epidemic

INdependant article

"Uganda was a beacon of hope in Africa's struggle against HIV, but the Christian right's grip on US policy is undermining this effort with fatal consequences, reports Oliver Duff from Kampala"

The more I think about this, the crosser I am getting - how dare he vote yes while representing me?! I am moved to write - will be mentally composing my letter on the school run this afternoon. Anybody have any suggestions for points I do not want to miss out?

you could write him a letter to that effect, Bramshott :o

Even better if you could imply that the people who voted for him, won't be doing so again if he carries on with this sort of caper. (Always best to keep them guessing about whether or not you voted for them - they aren't going to be able to find out so you might as well scare them)

at Treacle. Quite.

The more I think about this, the more I am profoundly depressed that my MP supported it. I mean Nadine Dorries is clearly a fruitloop and has form for this sort of stunt, but my MP is in his 40s, has a young family, has just been elected to Parliament etc. Yes, I knew he was a Tory, but I didn't realise he was a misogynistic fuckwit .

Nadine Dorries, for example, is a twat.

I had never heard of her until I went to an event where she was speaking and she came out with "the economic situation is so bad now, even some nice people are poor". I looked her up, and she is just a catalogue of utter fail.

She outright lies, especially about her own history - eg she says she set up a school for African kids. She actually worked as a nursery nurse in a school for wealthy ex pats. She actually got elected in the first place on a pro choice ticket, then consistently voted against. There are even accusations of benefit fraud flying around - apparently she and her husband "split up" (but continued to act like they were together) when he became offically disabled, and then he claimed disability benefits. She claims to have grown up in a council house, when in actual fact she grew up near some council houses.

She is a nob, and she is desperately trying to become a "personality" politician. She is the worst kind of right wing collaborator with the patriarchy, and she plays the female card so often she is giving women a bad name, and discrediting the female politicians who are working hard for the good of all.

...ahem. I don't like her.

(all of the above is allegedly - I have kids needing my attention, but google and ye shall find)

completely agree. i think it's pretty loathesome that they dare use the word feminism to describe their philosophies.