Tuesday, February 28, 2006

Contraception, Contraception, Contraception

This is why schools with the name 'Community' are best avoided.

"Apause, or Added Power and Understanding Through Sexual Education, will offer the morning-after pill, condoms and testing for sexually transmitted infections"

The scheme is sad, the acronym sadder.

20 comments:

The Remittance Man said...

I may only be a dumb mining engineer, but I was under the impression that acronyms should be based around the initial letters of the title name or phrase missing out "minor words" such as "and" or "the".

By that logic we should have APUTSE. Admittedly this does sound a bit unsavoury (think pustule), but then the who topic of teen abortions, pregnancies and sexually transmitted disease is somewhat unsavoury in my view.

Anonymous said...

Whats wrong with it? It involves better education, why is that a bad thing? Better to leave them to have unprotected sex and spread STDs? What's your real objection?

eskimo fox said...

Abstention rather than contraception might be a better line to push with 14-year-olds.

Very few girls want to have sex at that age but they are pestered into it by boys. So the girls could be taught about the need to stand up for themselves and say 'no', while the boys' 'Loaded' mentality should also be tackled.

Antonia said...

Laban - I would have thought you would have liked aspects of the APause programme, which is one of the few available that supports young people to delay sex by giving them the tools to negotiate relationships and make decisions. More info here.

Ian said...

Whats wrong with it?

Someone, somewhere, is having sex with a schoolchild, and that someone might be slightly older.

In popular terminology these people are called paedophiles, they are criminals in the eyes of the law, sex offenders that should be on a register, and not someone I'd particularly like hanging around my kids' school.

This scheme helps mask paedophile behaviour, it helps criminals evade the law under the guise of "helping the victim".

Pathetic.

Chris said...

Firstly a seventeen year old having sex with a fifteen year old is hugely morally different than a fifty year old.

Secondly, I grew up in North Devon, frankly there isn't much else to do with your time as a teeneager. Where someone the idea that 'girls don't want to have sex at that age' I'm not that sure. From what I remember a few girls in North Devon did....and so did a few more boys.

Anonymous said...

'isn't much else to do with your time as a teeneager.'

homework...playstation..sports....hobbies...reading....watch tv.etc etc etc......yeah kids these days nothing to do

Anonymous said...

Sex is hobby...and a sport in a way...and also a playstation in another.

Anonymous said...

Chris,

Why is having sex with a 15 year old "hugely morally different" when done by a fifty year old, rather than a 17 year old?

You sound remarkably ageist.

chris said...

One's explitative and the other's a teenage fumble.

If, as I assume you do, sex is actually a reasonably 'serious' activity to undertake I don't think 15 and 364 days=sex with no one and 16 years old=legally allowed to be triple penetrated by three strangers as someone else comes on your face is a really sensible way for the legal system, or society to decide that things should be done.

Dave said...

The report mentions 14 year olds.
I remember when I was 16-17 years old, age difference seems bigger at that age, its not like someone of 18 with 20 year old. When I was 16-17, 13-14 year olds were tiny and looked very young.
I agree with Ian.
This is the government trying to keep 16-17-18-19 year olds off the sex offenders register.

Remember Soham murderer Ian Huntley, had been caught several times with 'slightly' under-age girls in the past. How many more of these perverts are there?

Whats wrong with it 'anonymous' is that these programmes don't reduce STD's but infact dramatically increase them. Almost any statistics will show this. For the simple reason that if you take the pregnancy risk out of sex more people will have more reckless sex.

Dave said...

gotta draw the line somewhere Chris.

Anonymous said...

Chris, should there be an age of consent at all? Or should every case be argued in court by maturity experts to ascertain whether the individual was mature enough? What about the age of criminal responsibility, drinking, voting etc. No age restrictions there? 17 years and 364 days old can't vote and 18 years can vote, arbitrary yes but what exactly is your alternative?

Laban said...

Antonia - the effectiveness of these 'tools for negotiation' is shown by the STI and abortion figures.

And should those who don't play the reproductive game be involved in making the rules for those who do ?

Ian said...

Firstly a seventeen year old having sex with a fifteen year old is hugely morally different than a fifty year old.

Sorry, but you are assuming that the sex being provided for here is strictly between teens with close ages, what safeguards are there that a 14 year old claiming a morning after pill wasn't having sex with a 20 year old the night before, which is paedophilia by any moral view.

Why don't you tell me that a 14 year old would never be attracted to a mature 20 year old with a job and money and prefer some spotty skint 16 year old instead ?

Chris said...

You don't have to draw 'a' line at you you just have to draw several lines. I'm in favour of allowing a two year sliding scale from 13 to fifteen and four year from 16 to 18.

The Remittance Man said...

Do we actually have an effective "age of consent" law in this country?. Does anyone remember that story a few months back? The one about the single mum with four daughters all of whom now had bastards of their own and were demanding more state handouts?

In at least one case the report stated that the daughter had become pregnant at well below the age of consent and that the father was a 38 year old man. As far as I can tell he wasn't the subject of a major manhunt.

Then there's the case of Bill Wyman? He bonks a thirteen year old and virtually gets praised by the press. He even married the girl once she turned sixteen, if I remember rightly.

Seems to me that so long as the girl's past puberty and you don't strangle her in the bath after bonking her everything's alright.

Not that I intend to put the law to the test.

RM

Dave said...

RM, I suspect like everything else in this country its not what you do but who you are.


Chris, I don't quite understand what you are trying to suggest.
Its ok to have sex with one 'partener' at 13, two at 15, 3 at 18 ???
Who is going to enforce this, I suppose you will want to watch?

Chris said...

Dave, No. I'm saying there should be a two year age gap at thirteen (ie 13 year old can sleep with 15 years olds) and this should increase as the chils gets older.

Chris said...

Dave, No. I'm saying there should be a two year age gap at thirteen (ie 13 year old can sleep with 15 years olds) and this should increase as the chils gets older.