Sex
Education (Required Content) Bill,
House of Commons 4th May 2011
Motion for leave to introduce a Bill
Nadine Dorries (Mid
Bedfordshire) (Con): I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in 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.
I am sure that many Members will be
aware of the broadcaster Dame Joan Bakewell. I always had the
impression that she and I were on separate sides of the
political divide, but I was intrigued a year ago to read
something that she had written in the Radio Times and in the
newspapers, in which she said that Mary Whitehouse, who
campaigned against declining moral standards on television, was
right to fear that sexual liberation in the 1960s would damage
society.
Dame Joan was a long-time and fierce
opponent of Mary Whitehouse, and that is why her piece was
intriguing. She has now changed her mind in terms of her
opposition, saying that the freedom granted by the introduction
of the pill has been abused, resulting in the sexualisation of
young girls and the prevalence of pornography. She said:
The liberal mood back in the '60s
was that sex was pleasurable and wholesome and shouldn't be seen
as dirty and wicked. The Pill allowed women to make choices for
themselves. Of course, that meant the risk of making the wrong
choice. But we all hoped girls would grow to handle the new
freedoms wisely. Then everything came to be about money---so now
sex is about money, too. Why else sexualise the clothes of
little girls, run TV channels full of naked wives, have sex
magazines edging out the serious stuff?
In fact, in some newsagents now there
are more sex magazines available than any other kind of
magazine.
Dame Joan said that 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.
Let us move on to look at some of the
examples that are now available. Primark, a store that is
frequented by many young girls, including my own daughters, was
recently chastised for selling padded bikinis for
seven-year-olds. Without going into too much detail, I am sure
that everybody in the House understands why women would buy
padded bikinis, but to make them available to and target them at
seven-year-old girls seems to epitomise how far the
sexualisation of young girls has gone within our society.
On 5 March 2010, explicit videos were
shown in schools which depicted to seven-year-olds a cartoon
graphic of a couple having sexual intercourse. This resulted in
some children being removed from schools that showed those
videos. It will not be a surprise to any mother, or parent, in
the House that seven-year-old children do not want to see a
cartoon of a couple having sexual intercourse. I have never yet
met a mother who said, I want my seven-year-old to see
cartoons of couples having sexual intercourse, so why on
earth would schools think it appropriate to show such videos to
seven-year-old children in the classroom? Some children were
reported to be frightened, alarmed and disturbed by the videos.
In July 2009, a Sheffield NHS trust
released into secondary schools---to children from the age of
11---a pamphlet which told them that sex every day keeps the
doctor away. It also said that for too long experts have
concentrated on the need for safe sex and loving
relationships. Alongside this, there was a slogan saying that:
an orgasm a day keeps the doctor away.
It also said: Health promotion
experts advocate five portions of fruit and veg a day and 30
minutes' physical activity three times a week. What about sex or
masturbation twice a week? This is a pamphlet going out to
11-year-olds at secondary modern schools in Sheffield.
We have to ask ourselves whether, in
the midst of this kind of society, with the over-sexualisation
of children, we have got our sex education in schools right. It
is often argued that compulsory sex education and effective
teaching of safe sex will help to tackle a high pregnancy
rate among teenagers and underage children. Sadly, the evidence
suggests that this is not the case. The British Medical Journal
found that 93% of teenagers who became pregnant had seen a
medical professional prior to the pregnancy and 71% had
discussed contraception. The journal found that: teenagers
who become pregnant have higher consultation rates than peers
and most of the difference is owing to consultation on
contraception.
According to data published by the
Office for National Statistics in 2007, Britain has the highest
teenage pregnancy rate in western Europe, so we must be doing
something wrong. That is why I am introducing this Bill.
I believe that the answer to ending our
constant struggle with the incredibly high rate of teenage
sexual activity and underage pregnancies lies in teaching our
girls and boys about the option of abstinence---the ability to
just say no as part of their compulsory sex education at school.
I recently spoke to a 16-year-old who used these very disturbing
words: The thing is, if you reach the age of 18 and you're
still a virgin, and you meet somebody you'd like to be your
boyfriend, he's going to think you're a freak. It never
enters the minds of young teenage girls, who are taught in sex
education classes about safe sex and about making their
decisions on whether to have sex based on how they feel that day
or on their wishes---feelings and wishes are the
key words---that they are empowered and have the ability to say
no. That is not taught alongside information on making the
decision based on their feelings and wishes and on safe sex,
but it should be an equally viable option.
We have to re-examine thoroughly the
content of sex education that is provided in schools, and
consider whether what is currently offered is in the best
interests of our children and society as a whole. Children learn
about puberty and intercourse at the age of seven, and about
pregnancy and contraception from the age of 11. Teaching a child
of seven to apply a condom to a banana, without telling them
that they do not have an obligation to go and do it, is almost
like saying, Now go and try this for yourself. At no
stage of the curriculum does the teaching cover anything about
relationships and the option to say no. Girls are taught to have
safe sex, but not how to say no to a boyfriend who persists in
wanting a sexual relationship. They are given no guidance on
that whatsoever.
In a letter to the Daily Mail, a
14-year-old, Josie Parkinson, described the sex education that
she had received at her local secondary school: As a 14
year-old girl, I have had to attend four talks in the past nine
months from a woman from a family planning clinic. I have been
taught three times how to put on a condom; how easily pupils can
acquire condoms free at a clinic; how to recognise sexually
transmitted diseases and have them treated confidentially at a
clinic; and that we do not need to tell our parents, GP, the
police or anyone else in authority about being provided with
contraception, or even having an abortion. There was not one
mention of abstaining or any discouragement of sex.
For a girl or boy to have sex before 16
is unlawful, but they are told in school, It is unlawful, but
it's okay. You can have the condoms anyway. They should be
told, It is unlawful. You can have the condoms anyway, but
why don't you consider, because it is unlawful, saying no and
waiting until it is lawful? That just is not taught to girls
at school.
One factor constantly ignored by
society is that peer pressure is a key contributor to early
sexualised activity among the children of our country. Society
is focused on sex. Our sex education teaches children how to
have sex, not how to say no to sex. We ignore at our peril the
fact that many girls feel pressurised into having intercourse
when they are far too young, when what they actually need is
their childhood.
In our sex education programmes, we
need to promote the notion of abstinence and all the advantages
that it brings, such as self-respect and not making relationship
mistakes. It needs to be seen as a safe alternative. We need to
let young girls know that to say no to sex when they are under
pressure is a cool thing to do; it is as cool as learning how to
apply a condom. It is as important as all the other issues that
they are taught in sex education. It has to be taught alongside
everything else so that young girls can say, I have been told
to say no.
The proposal to introduce the bill was passed 67-61
Offsite: Nadine Dorries Rants
19th May 2011. See article
from blog.dorries.org,
thanks to emark
Nadine Dorries again, winging about "the left" on Twitter, over
objections to her girls-only abstinence plans:
Also includes this gem:
"Parents feel that the bombardment
of sexual images and easy access to online porn, the
availability of lads mags, the over sexualised adverts at
bus stops and on the sides of buses, the incessant
references to sex on prime time TV, the prodigious number of
teenage magazines aimed at the very young which discuss
sexual positions and techniques in graphic detail, the high
street marketing and provocative perfume advertising
billboards, to name just a few, all achieve one goal – the
over sexualisation of our young people at too early an age."
...Read the full article
Update: Out of Time
24th May 2011.See article
from christianvoiceuk.blogspot.com
Nadine
Dorries's Ten-Minute-Rule Bill to include teaching on abstinence
for girls in sex education, will not become law, Christian Voice
has learned.
The Government have said that there is not enough time for
the Bill to become law.
Minister of State for Health Simon Burns MP (Chelmsford) was
asked by a constituent to support the Bill and help it become
law. He replied:
Thank you for your email but I am
afraid you are almost 3 weeks too late. The Ten Minute Rule
Bill was debated on 4th May and I am sure you will be
pleased to know that it past (sic) the first hurdle but it
will not become law as Ms Dorries has named 12 January 2012
for a second reading debate and there is not enough time in
this session for the Bill to progress to the statute book.