Yesterday Tory MP Nadine Dorries introduced a Ten Minute Rule Bill into parliament - the Sex Education (Required Content) Bill 2010-11"A Bill to require schools to provide certain additional sex education to girls aged between 13 and 16; to provide that such education must include information and advice on the benefits of abstinence from sexual activity; and for connected purposes." [Hansard]
So far, so daft - so what?
It's a Private Member's Bill that doesn't stand a chance in hell of becoming law - these things are more of a way for MPs to get themselves in the papers to show they really, really care about something or other.
What's interesting - and worrying - is that when introducing her bill yesterday, Dorries' brought together several current moral panics. [Full debate here]
Not just teaching sexual abstinence to girls' (and only girls, oddly), but also "the sexualisation of young girls and the prevalence of pornography".
She quoted Joan Bakewell; "Why else sexualise the clothes of little girls, run TV channels full of naked wives, have sex magazines edging out the serious stuff?”
Dorries declared solemnly; "In fact, in some newsagents now there are more sex magazines available than any other kind of magazine."
The Labour MP Chris Bryant, (yes, the Gaydar one), replied rather brilliantly; "Well, stop going to those shops then."
She was not amused. Note how she didn't say "pornographic magazines", but "sex magazines" - presumably allying herself with the campaigns to get lads' mags and gay mags off the shelves.
She also omitted the warning from Joan Bakewell's article which contradicts her;
"Yet there is still resistance in some quarters to explicit sex education for cildren. No wonder young girls get mixed messages and grow up to make bad decisions. Sex as glamour – good. Sex as normal behaviour – dodgy."
Dorries but of course swiftly moved on to this month's hot topic; sexual content on TV pre-watershed.
"Our society is saturated in sex: a typical prime-time hour on TV contains 2.6 references to intercourse, 1.2 references to prostitution and rape, and 4.7 sexual innuendoes."
Bryant - who has done much research on sex education - went on to demolish "the daftest piece of legislation I have seen". [Read his reply in full here] concluding;
"Finally, the only thing that I would add is that, sadly, many youngsters get only 10 minutes of sex education in their whole lives. They do not get proper sex and relationship education; they spend less time on it than we have had to debate the issue today."
Hear hear!
The National Children’s Bureau’s sex education forum said in a statement; "There is strong evidence that young people who have sex education that starts early and covers a broad range of topics are less likely to have sex at a young age, have fewer partners and are more likely to use contraception or condoms.
"There is also extensive evidence that a ‘just say no’ or ‘abstinence only’ approach combined with no information (or incorrect information) about contraception is not effective."
Simon Blake, chief executive of sex education charity Brook, said; "Any debate that polarises views about sex and relationships education is unhelpful. It’s time to recognise that abstinence has been so discredited by the evidence that it’s hardly worthy of debate."
The bill just passed its first reading in a thinly attended House - its second reading won't be until early next year.
As before, it hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of passing, but sometimes private member's bills can snowball and be adopted and/or incorporated into actual government legislation.
Particularly if they chime in with current press prejudices and obsessions - and Nadine Dorries' speech namechecked at least three.
Be warned, it was bonkers backbench bigoted MPs reactionary mumblings in the 80s that led to Section 28.
• Quite awful piece of journalism in The Daily Mail on a small survey by a commercial website, BabyChild.org.uk, of parental attitudes to sex education.
Headline: "Sex education should not be taught in schools, say more than half of parents"
Their survey actually said: "Almost half (48 per cent) of those questioned said children should be at least 13 years old before it is appropriate to teach them about sex, the survey found."
Posts
There's no pornography on the tellybox or in most of those magazines. Not even nudity.
ReplyDeleteThey seem to equate semi-nudity (what they fuck is that anyway? Men with their tops off? You see that in most games of football or on a beach) with sex.
They have over-sexualised branes, probably because they're not getting any themselves.
That's my profound political comment of the day...