Another win against Fundy nutters in UK

[5thHorseman]

[KichigaiNeko]

I think this Dorries needs to get laid.

When the bill was first proposed, Dorries said it would counter the fact that society was "saturated in sex".

[reverendjeremiah]

I have no problem with abstenance being taught in addition to a comprehensive sex ed... of course going without has its obvious safe guarding.

But that isnt usually what they mean when they say "teach abstenance" from people like this...does it? these people usually make lies such as "the HIV virus can seep through a condom", and other bullshit.

[5thHorseman]

[Cyberman]

Oh noes; I'm actually in agreement with "Call Me Dave" Cameron! Next stop aran cardigans, briar pipes and male pattern baldness, then it's all stations to garden centre by way of the Mail on Sunday. Think I'll just get out now and walk.

[Tiberius]

I don't believe Nadine Dorries has ever proposed replacing sex ed with purely abstinence based teaching.

[5thHorseman]

I don't believe Nadine Dorries has ever proposed replacing sex ed with purely abstinence based teaching.

She didn't, but her bill is sexist as it only goes for girls ages 13-16, not boys. But it's an archaic nonsense to teach such drivel at all. Abstinence is against nature, you should be taught about safe sex, STI's, pregnancy and all related problems. Abstinence has no place in the modern world, people are going to have sex if they want to, just teach them to be safe.

[Tiberius]

Of course abstinence has a place in the modern world. Far too much pressure is put on young people to have sex these days. Whilst I was at school, having sex as early as possible was seen as something to be proud of, and yet who knows the number of teenage pregnancies it caused. Yes, teaching safe sex is great, but teaching abstinence in addition will prevent girls from being forced into thinking that they need to have sex early, and will teach boys the same.

As for the accusation of "sexism", do you not think that Ms Dorries knew that the bill was going to be controversial, and so limited its scope so it had a better chance of passing? Which bill is going to have a better chance of passing, one that affects the teaching of everyone at school, or one that affects a small group?

[Cyberman]

I don't know how the way our Parliament operates compares with the US Senate or whatever, but it's probably most unlikely that this bill will ever be passed. Parliamentary time is limited and it's almost certain to be all tied up for the next two years at least. More likely it will be used as a sop to appease whatever lobby group is involved or as a pawn against some other unpopular legislation that otherwise might not get through. At the very least it will fill newspaper space which is often the yardstick of success or failure for governments.

[reverendjeremiah]