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

[steamedtreaclesponge]

Erm.... sorry, what?

I don't even know where to start with this one. How about teaching teenage boys not to pressure women into sex?

I mean, yes, it's important that women feel they can say no. But this is just so, so wrong.

I am starting to wonder if it's supposed to be classes to empower girls and The Guardian has spun it into this weird, creepy thing because they hate Nadine Dorries (understandably).

SURELY this can't be about women being held responsible for men's actions.

It is a step in the right direction. Why not educate the boys as well. Why is so acceptable for our children to be overtly sexualised at such an early age. why is abstinence so terrible.

"Why not educate the boys as well." Precisely.

It isn't a step in the right direction if only girls are the one being "educated". It is a step backwards.

If it was for both boys and girls I would be for it.

There is a link ^^ to Hansard ad you can read her words, Laugs. You can guarantee that when the word "empower" is involved, then a bit more digging is required.

alemci, why do you think the proposal is girl-focussed?

It's been a great success for Bristol Palin, though. I read the other day that she was paid about $260k for her work on the campaign. Was "Don't do what I did" ever an effective message for teens?

I saw this somehow this morning (can't remember where). It's mentioned on the Abortion Rights page.

I thought I would watch it whilst ironing rather than just reading Hansard.

Some of what she said re sexualisation was ok but it was not put into any context and the speech started rather weakly quoting a Joan Bakewell article which seemed to be saying that sexual liberation in the 60's had "gone too far" and that Mary Whitehouse had had a point. (I'd love to see the actual JB article if anyone knows where it is).

Basic tenet of "it's ok to say no" is fine - however this focus on girls is awful.

They should be teaching consent - proper informed consent not "no means no". Proper discussion of consent/rape/coercion/peer-pressure/abusive relationships/manipulation/abuse of power to both boys and girls would properly cover the issues around "it's ok to say no".

How dare they debate this in HoC without mentioning the above issues plus the major issue of Violence Against Women and Girls.

Labour response was along the lines of boys should be included however the male MP went off to talk about teenage pregnancy being due to poverty etc and his whole speech was very party political in terms of cuts/poverty etc. He did mention the failure of abstinence programmes and the comparison with more explicit, earlier sex education in eg Netherlands etc.

Some points he made which I agreed with talked about ""ex and relationships" education being the key plus that no school should be able to opt out of this.

He also mentioned that girls should know about sex and changes to their bodies well before periods start. This was a point well made which countered some of Nadine's more OTT OMG they teach 7 year olds about sex type language.

He did mention that perhaps as a man (especially a gay man) he was not best qualified to talk about this matter. I think it is a shame that Labour did not put a woman up to talk about this - indeed a mother. (Nadine did the whole "as a mother blah blah" thing.

BTW you can see the broadcast from Parliamenthere - (it seems to open straight away and start playing).

The whole Labour argument was undermined by him interjecting, in response to her pointing out the display of porn magazines in newsagents, that girls shouldn't be taken in shops.

That seems to me to be an increasingly common attitude - that it is the parents' responsibility to keep children away from porn culture, which would effectively mean that the range of places children can go is hugely curtailed, particularly if you live in an urban area.

Yes, I've just seen that MillyR by looking at Hansard (didn't pick up from the VT who said the remark). Although to be fair her last remark on this was "In fact, in some newsagents now there are more sex magazines available than any other kind of magazine. "

I am not sure that I've seen a newsagent with more sex mags than any other so the interjection was perhaps not quite so bad as it seemed.

I was interested in this "Pleasure leaflet" which apparently

"Sheffield NHS trust released into secondary schools?to children from the age of 11?a pamphlet which told them that sex every day keeps the doctor away. It also said that for too long experts have concentrated on the need for ?safe sex? and loving relationships. Alongside this, there was a slogan saying that ?an orgasm a day keeps the doctor away?. It also said: ?Health promotion experts advocate five portions of fruit and veg a day and 30 minutes? physical activity three times a week. What about sex or masturbation twice a week??

This is a pamphlet going out to 11-year-olds at secondary modern schools in Sheffield.

I thought this seemed like not quite the whole story and indeed a quick google seems to imply that this was a leaflet for teachers:

"?The pleasure leaflet is in response to professionals across the country saying that they wanted support and guidance around this issue. It is designed to support professionals to speak to young people to ensure they are emotionally ready for sexual relationships, to help build their self-esteem, and to help them to be able to better resist peer pressure, and negotiate and practice safe sex when they feel they are ready. Far from promoting teenage sex, it is designed to encourage young people to delay losing their virginity until they are sure they will enjoy the experience. The resource was produced in conjunction with academics and experts in the field of young people?s sexual health and is based on best practice from the Netherlands.?

(quoting from here).

There is an article about it here and there seems to be lots of really good things for teachers to think about including in lessons:

• Promore masturbation - it can feel good and pleasureable and teach you about your body

• Ensure the role and function of different parts of the body are discussed eg clitoris and not just vagina

• Dispel the myth that there is one proper way to have sex i.e. penetration

So it looks like Nadine has her facts wrong and has just used newspapers for research.

Haven't read it but on the radio they were just saying - in an article entitled "Girls should be taught how to say No instead" - that she doesn't want them to say No instead, she wants them to know they have the option to say No. Which I think is a very good point. Obv, boys need to know this too!

Since when has teen sex been something that boys exclusively pressure girls to do?

When I was a teenager, there were just as many girls pressuring the boys to have sex. Boys need to know it's ok to wait too.

I'm listening to her now. She sounds sensible imo. Her points are that kids are being sexualised too you (her examples were of 7-year-olds) and that girls literally don't know it's OK to say No. She's not said anything like what the press reported!

The feminist they brought in to argue with her had to make stuff up, as they were both saying the same thing

Fair enough... still doesn't explain why it has to be solely aimed at girls though!

"Boys need to know it's ok to wait too." Precisely - so why aer only girls being targeted.

i think Ms Dorries is one of those freakish "New Feminists" and this is all really just about "no" being a form of contraception.

It's got nothing to do with young women and (young men) empowering themselves or being responsible and everything to do with a covert attempt to push her religious views into the secular national curriculum.

I heard about this yesterday and haven't followed the debate in parilament (cannot recall name of local MP he is new and some bonkers tory is all my brain can summon up)
BUT, British Humanist Association says it's VV unlikely to get a 2nd reading (not sure how they know that really)
but a more relevant point is that teachers would surely not be able to implement any such proposal...and some might be mad enough to...because it flies in the face of equality legislation, probably also the convention on the rights of the child to which the UK is signatory

1 (Tory )MP voted yes, 2 (Tory) MPs out of 3 locally. How about picketting their surgeries, letters to local papers etc? Thanks for putting lists on, v helpful.

Wouldn't this approach just make it the girls' "fault" if she got pregnant or an STD? As in, she knew that she could say no, but didn't, ergo she is at fault.

It's bloody stupid. I don't have a problem with being taught that saying no is ok, but as part of a broader subject of healthy relationships and what they entail, taught to both boys and girls.

I know - this is awful, but is 90% certain not to get anywhere. If it did, a hell of a lot more MPs would vote on it. Good showing for Labour and the LibDems in the No list though, if only 7 more of them had showed up.

Dorries is not a "New Feminist", she has consistently tried to roll back women's rights to access abortion, for one thing. (My stance on abortion is that personal conscience is fine regarding your own life & decisions, but it is not a feminist act to try to restrict access for other women who do want abortions.) She is trying to move the discussion over to whether abortions should be permitted at all basically, more like the debate in the US.

Those whose MPs voted "Aye" - how about writing them a quick letter demanding to know why they think that abstinence education is effective, and why if it is effective are they only extending it to boys. You could point out that it perpetuates a dynamic where boys are removed from responsibility for sex, whilst girls are expected to be the gatekeepers. Also it fails to offer the idea to boys that they should not feel pressurised into sex.

elephants

new feminism is a crock of crap which tries to pretend feminism, but is in support of patriachies. it's catholic emperor's new clothes stuff.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_feminism

Oh dear lord, well I've never heard of that. MN always keeps me well-informed. If it's alright though I'll just keep referring to those types as antifeminists or people working against feminism. Don't want to confuse people :o

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

"New feminism is a predominantly Catholic philosophy"

Bugger off, you smarmy patriarchy-hugging twats, and stop stealing our words!

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)