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.

And as for Madame Castafiore/ Squeakypop

should single mothers on benefits have to put their children into nurseries and work too?

and who is to say that they need " help to bring up their children properly" any more than you do? (or anyone else)

That is the most patronising thing I have read so far!

Do you lump yourself together with all teen mums, though, Cazbody.

You have said that your DH worked hard to support you and you have also worked when you could.

They are not all like you.

I wasn't talking about work, although you make a good point. I was referring to education. Education that will lead to employment which means that they won't need free handouts - they can pay their own childcare costs.

We all need help to bring up our children - some people have families to help them, others have church family, neighbours, healthcare professionals and even books and Mumsnet. We don't know all the answers. If we make mistakes, we should learn from them.

It isn't me that generalises...... If you are talking about teenage mums then you are talking about me.... I am one...... even if I am an exception to the rule.... do you not think there are other's? ......That is what is so hard.... You ( and I mean everyone not just you) can't make rules for everyone when not everyone fits the mould.

I thought you were at least 25.

I too am a teenage mum - twice over. I am now 23 and have 3dc.

I hate the tarring with the same brush thing too.

Why is it always about the mums?

Why is the father never addressed as being responsible in any way?

You see it time and again on here, 'Partner and I are splitting up, need benefits advice.'

Fair enough, but why is he never being held responsible for the kids he fathered and punsished for not making an effort to support them at least somewhat?

It's like he's just out of the equation entirely if there's a relationship breakdown and it all falls on her shoulders and she's the bad guy all around.

Misogynistic to say the least.

People don't just get themselves pregnant.

Expat - it almost seems as if young fathers are seen as victims of the situation; not contributors.

I've been really offended by many of the age-ist posts here and the negative responses to teenage mothers.
I was a teenage mother and gave birth to my DD a month before my 20th birthday. She was very much wanted and not for the many reasons expressed in this thread.
We were lucky enough to already own our home and financially stable, enabling me to stay home and look after my DD for the first year of her life. I hadn't started university and 'followed the crowd' as the majority of the sixth form at my school did. Instead, I spent time caring for DD and thinking about where the future would take me.
I am now a third year teaching student and manage my time effectively so that I am able to gain the classification I deserve, despite being a teen mum. I don't feel that I've missed out on 'life' by becoming a mum when I did. I'd already had a few years working and observing many of my friends living the o-so-fullfilling life that university brings. I also felt as ready as I could to start a family (is there ever a right time?) and does being a mature mother mean that motherhood is less difficult?
And, not only teenage mothers claim benefits - there are plenty of older women doing this too and why not? Should their children starve? Should they be forced to live in poverty - they didn't asked to be born. I'll gladly pay my taxes if it means that a lot of the children I work with are able to eat and have somewhere warm and comfortable to sleep.
Women will always be slated for their choices on when to start a family - teen mums are too young, mature/career driven mothers are too old...Can't we move away from these negative stereotypes?

I think there are two different arguments. Of course children should be taught sex education at school and by their parents but if a teenager happens to become pregnant they should not be stigmatised either.

I live in an area where there is quite a high rate of teenage mums and the nhs is actually pretty suppoprtive. We have 2 new sure start centres in our quite small town, teen mum groups, free baby massage courses, free other courses (like podiatry etc) I dont see the Vicky Pollard image that is portrayed in the daily mail. I just see women that are younger with babies. Most of them are good mothers, like most women in their 20s, 30s and 40s are. Age does not make a Mother.

I agree with whoever said earlier that as a women you have a great desire to have children. I did too. I was older (21) when I had my first, 22 when i had my second and almost 30 when I had my third. I coped much better when I was younger. My life was less rigid, I actually had more money, a lower mortgage, I could afford not to work. I had less expectations of the material things in life, I just got by on what we had. As I have got older I suppose i have become a bit more spoilt and think we should have x, y and z. I see it with alot of first time mums the same age as me now who think having a baby shouldnt change them. Of course they still need 2 holiodays abroad a year etc. It isnt the MAIN POINT of having children though. The main point is you have them, you love them, youcare for them. You encourage their dreams and hope they will fulfill them. You can do this at any age. Age does not make a good or a bad mother

Alright then SqueakyPop - I was one - I am 27

Um if teenagers have a stable relationship and can afford to support a child then that's all well and good but I don't think this is the case most of the time hence the attempt at education.

hey cazboldy, my Gran was one. She had a shotgun marriage and was happily married to my Grandad until his death 50 odd years later. She had a happily life.

rbelmum, are you really trying to say 'most' women in their 20s, 30s and 40s are in 'stable' relationships?

Agreed - but education about what?

I bet most of the time the teenagers involved know the mechanics of sex, about contraception, quite a lot of the time how to use it even.......

I don't know if it is about education or more about changing things to make them less likely to find it acceptable in the first place - how I am afraid I have no idea!

filz - glad your gran was happy

Two good points - this is not a recent thing, and yes, as I said earlier aswell ....

Age is kind of irrelevant - it is the relaitionship/circumsyances that matter when any baby is born....

I think the education needs to be much more explicit for it to sink in. We would get letters from girls who were using crisp packets as condoms, or who thought they couldn't get pregnant on their period, or whose boyfriends told them anal sex was safer . There was also pressure from boyfriends not to use condoms. Again, making the boys a hell of a lot more responsible financially for the child might help change this.

I remember seeing a TV clip of a Scandinavian sex ed lesson where kids were being taught how to put a condom on a model penis. That's what we need -- not just diagrams in biology lessons.

christ am I working like a bastard, having only one child as I can't afford two so other people can have baby massage classes and reap the benefits of my hard labour? It's perverse. I don't want to pay for someone elses unplanned pregancy. I'd rather pay for my own planned one!

This debate is not about good/bad mothers and their age.

This is about whether it is ok to start hatching babies before you can afford them, expecting the rest of us to pay for your home and daily life.

I think it is not.

Having a home of one's own is not a universal right. We all have our own homes when we can afford to have one. It is outrageously unfair that young girls who get pregnant are allowed to live off the rest of us, who study, work, save etc until we can actually afford to have children.

cazboldy - that is exactly the problem, I am confident that most teenagers do grasp the mechanics, if the education is to make them think it less acceptable it will stigmatise some teenage parents.

I don't even know if it is possible to stigmatise it when the state support is at least as reliable as most of the alternatives!

crisp packets? .. there was a girl at my school who was rumoured to use baguette wrappers!

they should air drop condoms into the playground!

Another issue is not just knowing about contraception but going out and getting it. A lot of kids don't know that you can get condoms or the Pill for free and a lot of girls in particular are scared that if they go to their family GP for the Pill then their parents will find out.

Cazbody - to me it is morally wrong to bring a child into this world and not be responsible enough to ubderstand that YOU should be financially able to support that child.

So yes the children should be put into a nursery situation where they are cared for and the mother canbe taught life skills that will be of benefit to her and the child and give her some pride and ethics and morals.

We all have choices - some of us are lucky to have more choices than others but people who go to work and earn a living and get by shouldn't have to pay for choices that some people make in their lives.

I think the whole biology thing is really missed out, i had only a vague idea of what was biologically happening to me when I had periods where my eggs and fallopian tubes are ..

Rebelmum, in my dictatorship the Pill would be in the drinking water until everyone was 16 and had their GCSEs