To think all this talk of sex education is patronising to teenage mothers

[roseability]

A lot of teenagers want to start a family and know perfectly well how to use a condom

As a society we have actually created the problem by stigmatising teenage pregnancy. It doesn't conform to socioeconomic norms of educational and economic success thus it is wrong. By making it 'wrong' teenage mothers are marginalised and often receive poor antenatal care and fewer opportunities for themselves and their family.

There were actually more teenage mothers in the 1950s than in the 1990s. Of course in the 1950s it was acceptable to have a baby under the age of 20 (as long as you were married). I am not advocating forced marriage but the fact that society accepted it meant teenage mothers got a better deal (in terms of their image anyway)

Define teenager. There is a big difference between a 13 year old who does fall pregnant accidently through poor knowledge and a 19 year old who chooses to start a family young, but doesn't expect to be judged just because she isn't fulfilling society's expectations.

We are not going to stop teenage pregnancy. There are much wider socioeconomic, psychological and political issues surrounding young motherhood than sex education.

Personally I would be more worried about STDs and the damage to young people's health, this is where sex education should be aimed at.

I am sure teenage motherhood is tough and there are issues about the welfare of young mums and their babies but to conclude my point, it is society that has caused such issues. I am also sure that there are many great young mums doing a better job than older mothers.

"It's about encouraging young people to reach their potential."

"What if that is having a happy family?"

Having a happy family is a great ambition, but TO ME it's important that if this is what you want you need to need to be able to provide for your family without expecting the state to keep you.

To me the Benefits system is there to help people who find themselves in circumstances beyond their control. If you lose your job,if your partner leaves you in the lurch, if you get sick, if you need to care for a partner or child etc then you deserve help and probably should get it at higher rate than is currently available. Also the tax system should be overhauled so as not to penalise those who want to work.

But too many people have kids they can't support - some ARE teenage mothers, and some are very grown up ones. To me it is the same. These kids are brought into the world in a scenario where the state pays. Children are a responsibility - not a right! I know it's sounds harsh and I fully expect to get my arse kicked. But I think other truly needy people get less help than they should because some people take the piss.

There are probably some mitigating circumstances such as rape or abuse, but for schoolgirl pregnancies I think the family should support them, or tough.

Yes Spice that's exactly the point i've been making for the past 7 years whilst being priced out of a home and I won't be going bust, I don't do debt.
Sorry completely OT blush

In my experience some teenage girls do plan to get pregnant at a young age - often because they have no other aspirations. Often their mum had them at 14 or 15, they have no concept that there is any other life plan except getting pregnant.

Many dream of having a baby, forgetting that they aren't just having a baby, they are having a child that will grow up into an adult and who will forever be theirs, not just when they're a cute ickle bubba that they can dress up and play with.

Interestingly though, far fewer very young mums seem to get PND than older mums - they often have much lower expectations/pressures of motherhood and their own parenting, and much more support from their own mothers (often as they are still living at home).

I also think young mums get more support now than they have ever had - maybe that perpetuates the cycle?

Pumpkin - when the family couldn't support them tough used to bethe magdalene laundries fancy going back to that ?

Going back to the earlier post about condom failure & how rare it is for one to actually burst if used properly, a lot of ppl claim the condom burst when in actuality he didn't put it on early enough in the proceedings i.e. only just before ejaculation.

KatieDD, no I don't fancy going back to that. I'm not talking about shunting them off somewhere all hush hush like and subjecting them to abuse - but there are many other options today.

By "them" I mean schoolgirl mothers of course. I was the first born child of one such mother. My dad married her though, and supported me through to adulthood (and beyond).

Apart from teaching young ladies about their choices, I do think that young men need to know about responsibilities - why is it ok to be "jack the lad" and be a feckless dad? This cuts across socioeconomic strata and isn't exclusive to teenagers. A big part of the problem is that many boys and men can easily shrug off their responsibilities with few repercussions.

It's not Ok though. The young men used to have to behave in an "honourable" fashion. It used to work both ways - it takes two after all. There are NO repercussions for those who can't keep it in their pants and aren't mature enough to cope with the consequences. There are loads of sad tales on MN of feckless wasters who impregnate one girl after another and then move on. It's truly tragic.

I am surprised at the attitude here that a young man's options in life re sex are (1) "keep it in his pants" i.e. not have sex at all, and (2) settle down with the one night stand if she gets pregnant

Does he not get a say in this at all?

No, he can't drag the girl to an abortion clinic, and neither should he be able to. But a stand along the lines of "Look, I don't want to have a child at the age of 17. I have school and career to work on, and my youth to live before I settle down and have kids. So if you want to have this baby, I (or my parents, rather) will send the money I am legally due to pay, but don't expect me to be a father to him." is entirely reasonable imho and does not mean the young man in question is lacking in morals, honour, or backbone.

Yes of course he has a say cote - he can ensure it doesn't happen in the first place. A condom if properly used is a very effective form of contraception. If he really doesn't want to get anyone pregnant, if he uses a condom properly it's very unlikely he will.

That clearly isn't happening at the moment

I have just been skimming this thread again and what I find curious is that a lot of the time the stereotype of teenage/schoolgirl mothers being bad parents is actually being perpetuated by those who had children as teenagers. I may have missed a post but I haven't found one written by someone who disagrees with how the benefits system is being used who has actually critised the parenting skills of those who do. But there are plenty moaning about how they are stereotyped as bad parents and feel the need to reiterate how much they love and want their children even though they were an "accident".
I don't think any parents here actually don't love or want their dcs and don't want to do their best for them be they single parents living on benefits or multimillionaires!!! I don't think that is the question here. What is is that, whether we like it or not there is a significant element in our society who use the benefits system set up to help those in crisis as a lifestyle choice. For every single mum who has every intention of returning to education and working when their children are older there is one who will spend their whole life living on benefits having children who will be loved and wanted but supported by the taxpayer. That may be unpalatable but it is true imo. If more people took responsibility for the financial support of the children they choose to have (because, flame me if you like, but I don't believe that in this day anyone, but a very few, very extreme and rare cases, has to have a baby they don't choose to have) then there would be more money available to those who really can't do anything to support themselves. I would rather see some of the taxes paid helping someone who was at least partially doing something to help themselves and their children in the form of ctc and wtc than supporting someone who is more than capable of working to support their family but choosing not to. And I do mean both parents.

Cote.... I am [shocked] by your view that a young man who is willing to lay down and foolishly sew his seed is then allowed to leave a child fatherless. To 'father' a child but not parent them is a disgusting outcome for the child. Why should the girl be left holding the baby?
Fair enough if he doesn't want to be part of her family but he shold be part of the child's. So how about the boy ensures he wears a condom has the balls to discuss what would happen if she did become pregnant. No boy can be trapped into fatherhood if he doesn't have unprotected sex.

Teenage Mums do produce children with more mental and physical health issues, more likely to come from a 'benefits' background and/or low income. It is not to say these are all bad mothers, in the slightest, but the odds are against them.

I was a "teenage" Mum at 19 - although I don't think this age is included in government stats - might be wrong.

Anyway, I'd just finished my A levels, and was about to start uni... However I also lived with my DH (then DP) and had our own house. I worked by day and studied at night.

I was given some very ropey advice re my contraception when being discharged from hospital following a blood clot on my lung. My Mum was with me when the nurse stated that the medication I was given would NOT interfere with my pill, which I was to keep taking while they eliminated it as having caused my blood clot. Two weeks later at my follow up appt I was already pregnant.
Thus my DD was a genuine accident. However that said, we were both thrilled.

I constantly faced the stigma of being a teen mum, and I ended up with very severe PND. I was happy with my home and baby, she was perfect, neither of us had any tears and we were all sleeping through the night! I was just so paranoid about all the tut tutters finding fault in me that I tried to become perfect. Every item of clothing for my DD had to be bought in either 7 - one for each day of the week, or had to completely match - I wouldn't buy it if you couldn't also get every accessory with it. This also extended to blankets, bottles, toys etc... I'd go to baby clinic and the HV would chat away to the "accepted" mums, but would only do the necessary with me. When DD had a rash on her face my HV suggested it was because I wasn't sterilising properly. So I promptly bought a new steriliser, and would regularly clean until 2am. I got treatment after I took out a credit card to buy a Mamas and Papas pram, with all the accessories - that was identical to the one I already had - just so I'd have a clean one to use if the other needed a wash!

Anyway, despite all this, I do understand why teen mums are stigmatised! I was very, very much in the minority, in that I supported myself. In this town we are surrounded by teens who have babies as career choices. People will probably hang me out for saying this but, they get enough money to live on, when you take into account the reduction they get on C tax, water, etc. My cousin had her son at 15. She doesn't work, she was housed in a brand new flat overlooking a marina and given £1500 to furnish it with. The flat next door is selling for £280,000. She doesn't pay council tax, has reduced household bills. She spends a lot of time at her mums because she can't afford electric/gas = her mum ooks after the baby. But guess what? She's preg again because "I really want a girl"

Round here pretty much all the social housing is brand new, and these girls laugh that they are more of a priority then anyone else.
What do I think the answer is? I'm not 100% sure, but I do think the fathers should be made more accountable. They can physically put on a condom which will pretty much prevent pregnancy and STI's, whereas a girl can lie about being on the pill. Boys/men should have their benefits reduced for every child they father while claiming, and the money should go towards their kids. If they work, they should be forced to pay - and this is what they should be educating, not sex - they know what sex is and what it does. However the reduction would be removed if they stayed with the Mums, maybe then they'd look at the state of their relationship before having babies, and certainly work harder at staying together. Lastly, your benefits should not go up because you choose to have another baby. You get what you get, and you budget how you budget. If you want more, earn it. Also they should have to do their sex education lessons, with the sound of a screaming baby in the background, so they know how hard it really can be!

I'm not a benefit basher - we claimed when my DH was made redundant. But we wouldn't have been stupid enough to have another baby while claiming. When we got close to losing our house, and no one would help us because we were making ourselves homeless - so all we were offered was a B and B long term because we weren't vulnerable, my DH and I took a succession of low paid jobs to keep the roof over our heads until DH got back into his chosen vocation!

"Why should the girl be left holding the baby?"

Because she is the one who insists on carrying that little embryo to term and making a baby out of it. She does not have the right to force another person into parenthood.

Personally, I would prefer to have a baby who is wanted by both parents and will be born into a stable relationship.

I'm assuming we are not talking about DPs leaving when the girl is 6 months pregnant or something, in which case, the girl would be "left holding the baby" and I agree the guy is a bastard.

they can learn to use a condom properly, Cote, these young men.

but if they don't, well, why should she just have an abortion because he doesn't want to take responsibility for what he did, too?

if he doesn't want that, well, as my good pal said, 'unless it's rape, NO is always an option.'

don't have any sympathy for him, either, if he didn't use a condom.

If condom breaks, is it OK that the young man in question doesn't play daddy?

'If condom breaks, is it OK that the young man in question doesn't play daddy?'

So the state and the girl can do it instead?

Nope.

Sex makes babies and accidents happen.

Don't like it, learn some self-control and say no till you're done doing what you need to do.

Takes two to make a baby, and so two should pay up and parent if that's how it goes.

Don't see why he is in any way less responsible than a girl or why a female should bear all the responsibility for contraception/disease prevention.

Ever.

Even beyond teen years.

I don't think anyone thinks the father isn't equally responsible, but unless he steps forward, the girl has to pursue him for support. A lot just can't be bovvered.

That was to show the absurdity of the situation but you didn't see it.

Yes, it takes two to have sex. Then if an accident happens and an embryo results, it should also take two to make the decision to keep that baby.

Instead, we are talking about the cases where girl wants to have a baby and boy doesn't.

You argue as if "pregnancy = baby". It doesn't.

Your stand seems to be that boy gets no say whatsoever in whether or not he wants to have a baby. Even if he took all the precautions, if contraception fails and girl gets pregnant, he should suck up and suffer in silence, erase all his plans for the future and cater to the whim of this one girl who has decided she wants to have a baby.

I disagree.

If sex (especially the casual kind) results in an accidental pregnancy, this should not mean a life sentence for someone who does not want to be a parent.

If it were the girl who didn't want a baby, I'm guessing you would not advocate physically preventing her from getting an abortion, even if the future father wanted to have a baby. And I would agree with you.

Why the double-standard when it comes to men?

"Don't like it, learn some self-control and say no till you're done doing what you need to do"

Huh?

Do you mean men should ejaculate outside if they don't want kids, or that they should not have sex (ever) until they are done living their lives and consider having children?

Well said Cote.

'Do you mean men should ejaculate outside if they don't want kids, or that they should not have sex (ever) until they are done living their lives and consider having children?'

I think both males and females should be aware that sex creates babies and that no form of contraception is 100% failsafe and be prepared to accept the consequences of that, be they financial or in terms of time.

I don't see why it makes a difference if they're male or female, because you need both sexes to create a baby.

And that a lot of the problem is that this society and many others are sexist in that the man is basically allowed to skate off scot free and take zero responsibility for his actions and let the state and others pick up the tab.

I think that's dead wrong, no matter what the age of the parents.

Condoms have a 2% failure rate if used correctly. I would suggest that very, very few accidental pregnancies are the result of condom failure. So if the boy takes responsibility for that, there will be very few unplanned teenage pregnancies. FWIW I was rather sexually active in my early 20s and it was never the men who were that keen on preventing pregnancies - it was always me who insisted on a condom. As far as I can tell, the situation hasn't changed much.

In cases of contraceptive failure, then I think it's pretty appalling to suggest that the boy can just walk away if the girl doesn't want to have a termination.