Just say no?

Sex, wonderful thing that it is tends to cause massive problems for any politician minded to step into the minefield that surrounds how we go about it, with who where and when. When it comes to schoolgirls though you’d better be ready to take it on the chin if you decide that it would be good for schools to teach them to say no.


Nadine Dorries, Conservative MP for Mid Bedfordshire, said all schoolgirls should be given lessons in “how to say no” as part of a new-style sex education curriculum.

Speaking in the Commons, she insisted society was “saturated in sex”, with pupils currently being shown how to put condoms on bananas and self-diagnose diseases but not to reject sexual advances altogether.

The early sexualisation of girls was being fuelled by television references to sex, newsagents stocking pornographic magazines and high street stores that sell provocative items such as padded bikinis for seven-year-olds, she added.

On Wednesday, she presented a Ten-Minute Rule Bill in the Commons calling for schools to give girls aged 13 to 16 extra sex education, including the benefits of abstinence.

MPs narrowly voted to allow to Mrs Dorries to bring her Bill forward, although it is unlikely to become law without Government support.

Anyone spot the major flaw here? You know the part separate from self gratification that usually requires another person involved? In the case of heterosexual sexual relations that would be the male, in other words Nadine Dorries is only dealing with half the problem in that getting pregnant which is what I think she’s aiming at takes two.

Now I’m all for kids being kids and not young adults as some would have them be, I also don’t think it’s a good idea that they should be sexualised by their parents, but that’s something that needs to be dealt with by parents and not schools. Nor do I think that any message in school about the joy of abstinence will sit well unless there’s a seed change in attitudes in society. It’s all very well telling a bunch of teenage hormone driven adolescent females to keep their legs crossed when the male part is being ignored and they are getting very different messages from advertisers in various different media.

If we want to change the pattern of sexual activity in the country then we have to change the way people think, believe and act. At the moment though the arbiters of guilt morality are the church and they are either ineffective, ignored or up to their necks in sexual abuse and immorality anyway. Oh not all of them to be sure, but certainly enough to keep the headlines going at least a couple of times a month. Nor would I recommend much the current favourite to replace it in Islam, yes they might be big on family, but the abuse of women and kids runs quite deep there too.

This is one area in which the government is powerless to do anything about unless it goes extremely draconian on us and tempted as they might be at times I don’t think they’d survive such an attempt, at least not at the minute anyway. The sort of change Dorries et al want to happen has to come from a change in the way society thinks and respects itself, not from legislation.

No I don’t know what will work, I just know this won’t.

9 comments for “Just say no?

  1. Paul
    May 5, 2011 at 9:27 pm

    What about those that actively want to explore and enjoy their sexuality? There are lots of those people.

    It’s about saying ‘yes’ and ‘no’ at a time that’s right for you. A man might get lots of offers but if he feels that they aren’t right for him then he must say ‘no’. Same for any woman.

    Again, I believe the answer is liberty with responsibility. A lot of people have forgot the first bit though, which is the problem.

  2. May 5, 2011 at 9:41 pm

    seed change?

    I agree though – not an area for government.

  3. May 5, 2011 at 10:07 pm

    I bet you could go back fifty or sixty years and find prurient articles warning about the dangers of teenagers and children becoming ever more sexualised – in whichever country.

    I can’t see it myself, teenagers will always do it, if they can find somebody to do it with. It’s like these washing powders that say they are “New and improved”, if they get better every year, how shit were they fifty years ago? Answer = they were much the same. Washing powder is not getting better and teenagers are not having sex at younger ages.

    The alarming rate of teenage pregnancy in the UK is more to do with the welfare system than anytthing else.

  4. May 5, 2011 at 10:15 pm

    I’m pretty much with Mark on this.

    Over-statist government has usurped the position of parents: and screwed it up.

    Best regards

  5. May 5, 2011 at 10:16 pm

    This is one area where libertarian is not a good thing. Without having their noses rubbed in it, a certain percentage will but most kids will eventually get to it around 18/19, not the 11/12 which the leftists are so desperate to get kids into in school.

    We always would but it was the girls who went coy. Not all but the ones who didn’t, you wouldn’t touch with a ten foot barge pole. From the standpoint of their best interests, a culture where the girl automatically says no is a good one.

    It gets that mystique back and makes them safer. From our point of view, it’s cutting off the supply of nookie. Two obstacles – parents in this day and age and pornography. If parents won’t bring the girls [and boys] up right, then no amount of courses are going to help. As for porn, it’s a great mystique and respect remover.

    One of my main topics, this one.

    • May 6, 2011 at 5:43 am

      “If parents won’t bring the girls [and boys] up right, then no amount of courses are going to help. “

      Spot on!

  6. May 6, 2011 at 6:58 am

    Nearly stopped reading when I saw “sex” and Nadine Dorries in the same sentence.
    I don’t think that it is porn, we had access to plenty of that as teenagers in the 70’s and neither I nor anyone I knew got anyone up the duff. There was virtually no discussion about any aspect of sex in School and I daresy that constant harping on about abstinence has the opposite effect.
    Social policies don’t help like the fact that pregnant girls STILL go to the top of the Council free housing list and boys about to go to HMYOI STILL get their girlfriends pregnant for the reason above as that gives them a fixed “family” address and thus improves their chances of early release.

  7. May 6, 2011 at 12:12 pm

    “This is one area where libertarian is not a good thing.”

    I don’t see what this means. Libertarianism is based on individual responsibility. It is not based on exhorting everyone to debauch themselves in wild licentiousness.

    The main issue is whether the state should be interfering in such matters, but given the status quo is massive state interference (we’re talking about state schools), you could make a case to try to push this state existing interference in the direction you support. Certainly it is the parents’ job to bring up their kids – but that’s not actually the situation in the 21st century. Besides, peer influence is arguably more important than parental influence on teenagers.

    These kind of issues are thrown up by politicians like Dorries even though they have little chance of becoming law. Leaving aside the issue of the state, if it was merely an individual school matter, how many parents of teenage girls would object if their school wanted to introduce ‘how to say no’ into the discussion of sex?

  8. May 6, 2011 at 2:23 pm

    Nadine Dorries? Where have I heard that name before…

    Ah yes, I remember. She was the one who had an affair with a married man. Yet here she is lecturing other people, saying they should keep their legs shut. She didn’t, so why should anyone else?

Comments are closed.