Translate

Monday, 30 June 2014

Why did Nadine Dorries withdraw her "No Sex We Are Still Schoolgirls" bill?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadine_Dorries#Abstinence_advocacy_for_girls_in_sex_education

Abstinence advocacy for girls in sex education
On 4 May 2011, Dorries proposed a bill to require that sex education in schools should include content promoting abstinence to girls aged 13 to 16 which was presented as teaching them "how to say no".[83] While sex education already mentions the option of abstinence, the bill would have required active promotion of abstinence to girls, with no such requirement in the education provided to boys. Owing to Dorries' claims about practices used in teaching about sex, Sarah Ditum in The Guardian accused Dorries of making Sex and Relationship Education (SRE) "sound like a terrifying exercise in depravity".[84]

The bill drew criticism from health care and sex education professionals, questioning claims made during the bill's reading,[85] and the bill was opposed in the House by Labour MP Chris Bryant who described it as "the daftest piece of legislation I have seen".[86] Dorries accused her opponents of behaving as though she was advocating "the compulsory wearing of chastity belts for all teenage girls".[87]

On 16 May 2011, Dorries appeared to suggest that a lack of awareness around abstinence among young girls is linked to rates of child sexual abuse. Dorries stated: "If a stronger 'just say no' message was given to children in school, there might be an impact on sex abuse, because a lot of girls, when sex abuse takes place don't realise until later that was a wrong thing to do... I don't think people realise that if we did empower this message into girls, imbued this message in school, we would probably have less sex abuse."[88]

The sexual abstinence bill was set for second reading on 20 January 2012 (Bill 185).[89] after she was granted leave to introduce the Bill on a vote of 67 to 61 on 4 May 2011.[90] The Bill, placed eighth on the order paper, was withdrawn shortly before its second reading, possibly by Dorries herself.[91]

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/01/20/nadine-dorries-sex-education-abstinence-bill-withdrawn_n_1218486.html


From saying "just say no" to being a fan of the morning after pill with no explanation at all, fancy that!

Is this the ultimate expression of the unreliability and the capriciousness of women?

Why did no journalist even ask her why she withdraw her bill?

Was she threatened by her party?

Or did all the filthy feminist journalists of Britain collectively threaten to burn her house down with her in it or something? Talk about a U turn, eh?



6 comments:

Stephen Gay said...

Abortion is much worse than morning after pill and we should encourage the former to avoid the latter. I don't think abstinence education works particularly well. I had an American friend who's high school girlfriend refused to lose her virginity to him unless they were married but happily agreed to anal. Anal sex is much riskier than the old fashioned vaginal sex.

Claire Khaw said...

The stupid slut should have refused to be sodomised by him if she had any self respect, which she clearly didn't.

snork maiden said...

Why should you care if girls indulge in anal? It can't result in pregnancy so won't cost your beloved tax payers anything.

I disliked the wording of Dorrie's bill because it was sexist to only focus on girls. Boys should also be taught about the value of delaying sexual activity, given that it takes two to procreate. Since boys are also vulnerable to child abuse, shouldn't they also be taught about 'saying no'? Though I think conflating knowledge of abstinence with child abuse is clumsy thinking.

Btw, I don't believe in encouraging abstinence through attempting to impose ignorance, countries who provide comprehensive sex education statistically have lower teenage pregnancy rates.

Claire Khaw said...

Only girls get pregnant so if girls said no, there would be no further problems.

Why should people do things the wrong, expensive and difficult way just because feminazis like you are "offended" by "sexism"? Check your privilege, woman.

Girls get pregnant, boys don't. Grow up and get over it.

It is not "imposing ignorance" to say "If you don't have sex, you won't get pregnant and you shouldn't be a slut."

Which countries have lower teenage pregnancy rates?

snork maiden said...

Feminazi? Are people still using that term with a straight face? And you're calling me one because I highlighted the fact that boys are vulnerable to sexual abuse, and think it sexist if a proposed bill ignores that fact?

And anyway I didn't say I was offended by Dorries' bill, I just said I disliked the wording and thought it clumsy, which is why she attracted so much anger from survivors of child abuse.

It takes two to procreate. Boys get girls pregnant. Why are you so determined to pretend that men have no involvement in decision making when it comes to sex? If the girls are told not to have sex, and the boys are encouraged to have sex, who are they going to have sex with? The women confined to your proposed single mum brothels?

The Netherlands has a very low teenage pregnancy and abortion rate. Though ironically abortions are more common among the growing Muslim immigrant population.

The U.S. where abstinence only education is favoured, has the highest teen pregnancy rate in the developed world.

Claire Khaw said...

Feminazis are militant feminists who insist that women are simultaneously better and equal to men yet in need of their protection and provision. They also insist that a woman is never responsible for her actions while insisting that men should not control women in any way at all.

What was the wording of Nadine Dorries' bill that you found so objectionable?

I do not say that men have no involvement when it comes to sex. Men want sex and it is up to women not to give it up to any Tom, Dick and Harry who asks her for a shag. Why can't the mothers of these knocked-up adolescent females give their daughters a bit of advice? Is it cos they are SSMs? If that is the case then schoolgirl daughters of SSMs should be singled out for special moral instruction by the school.

Girls should be told not to be cheap sluts by their parents and their school and this means not having sex with any man who is not their husband.

I trust my position is now clear.