"Teaching a child to apply a condom on a banana is almost saying: 'Now go and try this for yourself'."
That's what Conservative MP Nadine Dorries told parliament as an argument in favour of teaching teenage girls "how to say no to sex". Dorries said conventional sex education wasn't doing the trick and girls between the ages of 13 to 16 should be taught abstinence as part of their compulsory classes.
MPs voted 67 to 61 in favour of allowing Dorries to bring forward her bill. It will have its second reading in January, but is unlikely to become law without government support.
This is tricky-- definitely a fine line to walk. And I should know -- I was raised in the most liberal part of America, granted, but America nonetheless and from a very young age was barraged with "abstinence is the answer" at school in place of proper sex ed.
The result of this dominant message was, quite frankly, disturbing. Had it not been for my wonderful hippy parents ensuring me otherwise, the sex "education" I received at school would have convinced me that:
1- If you have sex, you will inevitably get pregnant. Birth control is just not very effective (which I suppose is technically true when compared to abstinence, but still, it's pretty frickin good these days).
2- Once you get pregnant, as you inevitably will, you will be rejected by your friends and family.
3- This will lead you to a life of misery, and as you will have no support, you will become impoverished.
4- Poverty only leads to one thing: drug abuse (our sex ed was combined with the D.A.R.E: Drug Abuse Resistance Education programme (I'm not making this stuff up), to ensure a double whammy of fear).
5- To support your crack habit and illegitimate child, you will have to turn to prostitution. It will be your only option.
6- This will, of course, inevitably lead to getting pregnant again (see 1).
So in summary, we were told that a tumble in the back of your boyfriend's Chevy was an express ticket to the life of a crack whore. Seriously-- a number of my classmates were pretty messed up about this subject for awhile, some even into adulthood.
And, more importantly, because teachers were so busy banging on about these dangers, we weren't properly taught about safe sex and birth control. Which, of course, led to a whole heap of trouble for some. It even took me awhile truly to believe that the Pill wasn't some kind of really twisted scam.
While Ms Dorries isn't saying abstinence should be taught as the only option, I can't help but fear the swift slide into teachers being discouraged from presenting the other, safe options, as my teachers refused to do.
Some of my fear is based on Dorries' language about the issue. The Guardian's article quotes Dorries as saying that society is "saturated in sex" and teenagers should be taught that it is as "cool" to say no to sex as to know how to put a condom on their boyfriend.
First of all, I dunno about Dorries' personal life, but when has any experience involving teenagers and a condom been cool? Awkward, embarrassing, verging on slapstick, sure, but cool? Really?
But I digress.
Dorries sounds alarmist. She sounds Puritan. Her objections to banana-condom practice hint at a disregard for lessons on safe sex altogether.
My other concern is Dorries' focus on girls. What about the boys? Should they not be taught responsible behaviour in a relationship too?
We'll be watching this space and hope you will be too...
photo credit: Public Domain Photos
That's what Conservative MP Nadine Dorries told parliament as an argument in favour of teaching teenage girls "how to say no to sex". Dorries said conventional sex education wasn't doing the trick and girls between the ages of 13 to 16 should be taught abstinence as part of their compulsory classes.
MPs voted 67 to 61 in favour of allowing Dorries to bring forward her bill. It will have its second reading in January, but is unlikely to become law without government support.
This is tricky-- definitely a fine line to walk. And I should know -- I was raised in the most liberal part of America, granted, but America nonetheless and from a very young age was barraged with "abstinence is the answer" at school in place of proper sex ed.
The result of this dominant message was, quite frankly, disturbing. Had it not been for my wonderful hippy parents ensuring me otherwise, the sex "education" I received at school would have convinced me that:
1- If you have sex, you will inevitably get pregnant. Birth control is just not very effective (which I suppose is technically true when compared to abstinence, but still, it's pretty frickin good these days).
2- Once you get pregnant, as you inevitably will, you will be rejected by your friends and family.
3- This will lead you to a life of misery, and as you will have no support, you will become impoverished.
4- Poverty only leads to one thing: drug abuse (our sex ed was combined with the D.A.R.E: Drug Abuse Resistance Education programme (I'm not making this stuff up), to ensure a double whammy of fear).
5- To support your crack habit and illegitimate child, you will have to turn to prostitution. It will be your only option.
6- This will, of course, inevitably lead to getting pregnant again (see 1).
So in summary, we were told that a tumble in the back of your boyfriend's Chevy was an express ticket to the life of a crack whore. Seriously-- a number of my classmates were pretty messed up about this subject for awhile, some even into adulthood.
And, more importantly, because teachers were so busy banging on about these dangers, we weren't properly taught about safe sex and birth control. Which, of course, led to a whole heap of trouble for some. It even took me awhile truly to believe that the Pill wasn't some kind of really twisted scam.
While Ms Dorries isn't saying abstinence should be taught as the only option, I can't help but fear the swift slide into teachers being discouraged from presenting the other, safe options, as my teachers refused to do.
Some of my fear is based on Dorries' language about the issue. The Guardian's article quotes Dorries as saying that society is "saturated in sex" and teenagers should be taught that it is as "cool" to say no to sex as to know how to put a condom on their boyfriend.
First of all, I dunno about Dorries' personal life, but when has any experience involving teenagers and a condom been cool? Awkward, embarrassing, verging on slapstick, sure, but cool? Really?
But I digress.
Dorries sounds alarmist. She sounds Puritan. Her objections to banana-condom practice hint at a disregard for lessons on safe sex altogether.
My other concern is Dorries' focus on girls. What about the boys? Should they not be taught responsible behaviour in a relationship too?
We'll be watching this space and hope you will be too...
photo credit: Public Domain Photos
Bit of a strange one from the US today-- 
