I know, I know, the title is horrendous. But actually I think that this programme on BBC3 is worth giving a chance, particularly for teenagers and their parents (who the show is primarily aimed at). The basic premise is that the relationship between the teenager and their parent(s) has broken down. They go to visit Maria Schopman, who is a Dutch "sexologist" and family therapist helps families to talk about sex and their experiences of it, and attitudes towards it.
As a family, they have to involve themselves with various tasks which involve a great deal of nervous giggling and red faces. Some of the tasks have included making clay penises, putting dolls into a variety of sexual positions, and drawing stick people of the number of sexual partners that you have had. But, despite the initial embarrassment that these tasks of course cause, they seem to work. Teenagers and their parents use these exercises as a way of opening up a dialogue about sex which has been missing previously.
One of the most positive things about this programme is that fundamentally it accepts that teenagers are sexual beings, and that that is OK. Whilst teenagers in the last show (who were using casual sexual relationships as a way of trying to seek intimacy) are encouraged to moderate their behaviour, I actually don't have a problem with this. Once they had been able to be honest with themselves and their parents about sex, then they actually made the decision for themselves that they did not necessarily want to engage in that particular behaviour any more. They were not pressured into making this decision, and Maria Schopman appears to be entirely unshockable and unjudgmental.
I think that not talking to children and teenagers about sex, relationships, STDs, pregnancy, and a wealth of other issues relating to sex means that they can feel lost. They engage in risky behaviour because they are not aware of safe sex. As Maria Schopman points out, in the Netherlands, teenage pregnancy and the rate of STD infection is significantly lower, and she believes that this is because they discuss these issues with their children in depth, giving them the tools to go and and enjoy sexual relationships safely, and knowing that they have the support of their parents. We should be doing this in the UK too, as this programme aptly demonstrates.
Showing posts with label contraception. Show all posts
Showing posts with label contraception. Show all posts
10 January 2008
01 January 2008
Belated post: Idiot of the day: Norman Wells
Apparently, the reason that the teenage pregnancy rate is not dropping as quickly as the government hoped when it set its targets for 2010 is because schools are relying on sex education and contraception too much;
Norman Wells, of the Family Education Trust, told the Sunday Telegraph that the government had allowed the "systematic removal of every restraint that used to act as a disincentive to under-age sex".
"The problems associated with teenage pregnancy will never be solved so long as the government persists with its reliance on yet more contraception and sex education," he said.
Yeah, because abstinence only education has such a great history of success in the states! And we really aren't making young people feel bad enough about their sexual choices. I think single mothers are getting a particularly easy ride. Norman Wells, thank you for enlightening us.
14 December 2007
The pill available from chemists?
This is some news which should fill you with Christmas cheer. Anything which widens access to contraception is good with me.
But, a couple of years ago, I needed to buy the morning after pill. I went into one pharmacy, actually it was a Sainsbury's pharmacy, and requested that I speak to the chemist about the morning after pill. The assistant went away and spoke to him, and then came back and told me that he would not come to speak to me "because it was against his beliefs, and he thought that emergency contraception was immoral". Several things incensed me about this:
1) He was male. My general view on issues to do with female reproduction is no uterus = no opinion. He is in the very privileged position of never worrying that he might be pregnant when he doesn't want to be.
2) He did not have the courage in his convictions to come and tell me himself. Instead he got his assistant to do his dirty work for him.
3) OK, he absolutely has a right to hold those views. I am not arguing with that. But, if you are not prepared to fulfill your duties as a chemist, then find another job.
4) It was fucking 5.30 in the sodding afternoon. I did not have the option to go somewhere else that day. (Luckily, I still had time to get up early the next morning, and go to the chemist, so all was well for me :-)) What if I had been at the end of the 72 hours when the pill is effective? He could well have been partially responsible for me having to make an extremely difficult decision, which (certainly according to his world-view) would be much more ethically murky.
So, although I think that this is potentially good news, I am worried that obstructive pharmacists like the one I met will prevent women from accessing the pill as easily as they should be able to. We'll have to wait and see!
But, a couple of years ago, I needed to buy the morning after pill. I went into one pharmacy, actually it was a Sainsbury's pharmacy, and requested that I speak to the chemist about the morning after pill. The assistant went away and spoke to him, and then came back and told me that he would not come to speak to me "because it was against his beliefs, and he thought that emergency contraception was immoral". Several things incensed me about this:
1) He was male. My general view on issues to do with female reproduction is no uterus = no opinion. He is in the very privileged position of never worrying that he might be pregnant when he doesn't want to be.
2) He did not have the courage in his convictions to come and tell me himself. Instead he got his assistant to do his dirty work for him.
3) OK, he absolutely has a right to hold those views. I am not arguing with that. But, if you are not prepared to fulfill your duties as a chemist, then find another job.
4) It was fucking 5.30 in the sodding afternoon. I did not have the option to go somewhere else that day. (Luckily, I still had time to get up early the next morning, and go to the chemist, so all was well for me :-)) What if I had been at the end of the 72 hours when the pill is effective? He could well have been partially responsible for me having to make an extremely difficult decision, which (certainly according to his world-view) would be much more ethically murky.
So, although I think that this is potentially good news, I am worried that obstructive pharmacists like the one I met will prevent women from accessing the pill as easily as they should be able to. We'll have to wait and see!
13 April 2007
Sue Palmer on 'This Morning'
Ok, so I do sometimes watch 'This Morning', but, in my defense, it does cover quite a lot of topics which I feel are relevant to me as a young feminist. Today the author of Toxic Childhood, Sue Palmer was interviewed about the pressures which we as a society put our children under.
Now, I don't necessarily completely disagree with everything which she has to say, but there is one point which was made again and again on 'This Morning', that bastion of liberalism, which I felt compelled to pick up on. Contraception (including the morning-after pill) being prescribed to underage girls. Apparently this is inappropriate because it undermines the role of her parents. What? She would rather make sure that middle-England's parents sensibilities are not upset than ensure that young girls are given an opportunity to avoid an unwanted and potentially devastating pregnancy. What about the rights of the girl to control her own body? Perhaps we should trust her judgement and trust that she would have spoken to her parents about sex and relationships if she had felt able to. We are more concerned with the "rights" of her parents than the rights of teenage girls to make their own decisions about their own bodies.
This makes me sick. Refusing to provide young girls with contraception on demand does not prevent them from having sex, it just makes it more likely that they will become pregnant, or catch an STD. We should be providing children with comprehensive sex education from a young age, to ensure that they are properly equipped to deal with sexual relationships when the time comes. We should be making it easier for them to access contraception confidentially, and we should accept that teenagers have sex. They always have done and they always will do, and as long as they are aware of the risks, then it is not a problem, and in fact, it is none of our business.
Now, I don't necessarily completely disagree with everything which she has to say, but there is one point which was made again and again on 'This Morning', that bastion of liberalism, which I felt compelled to pick up on. Contraception (including the morning-after pill) being prescribed to underage girls. Apparently this is inappropriate because it undermines the role of her parents. What? She would rather make sure that middle-England's parents sensibilities are not upset than ensure that young girls are given an opportunity to avoid an unwanted and potentially devastating pregnancy. What about the rights of the girl to control her own body? Perhaps we should trust her judgement and trust that she would have spoken to her parents about sex and relationships if she had felt able to. We are more concerned with the "rights" of her parents than the rights of teenage girls to make their own decisions about their own bodies.
This makes me sick. Refusing to provide young girls with contraception on demand does not prevent them from having sex, it just makes it more likely that they will become pregnant, or catch an STD. We should be providing children with comprehensive sex education from a young age, to ensure that they are properly equipped to deal with sexual relationships when the time comes. We should be making it easier for them to access contraception confidentially, and we should accept that teenagers have sex. They always have done and they always will do, and as long as they are aware of the risks, then it is not a problem, and in fact, it is none of our business.
13 March 2007
Abortion, sex education and privacy
I am feeling pretty worked up about this article I read on the beeb earlier today. Why? Well, because it is frequently stated by experts that confidentiality is really important to teenagers seeking advice about sex, relationships, contraception and abortion. If the right to confidentiality is withdrawn, teenagers do not stop having sex. All we have to do is look to the United States to see proof of that. Many schools now only promote abstinence until marriage in place of comprehensive sex education. As a result, they have the worst teenage pregnancy statistics in the developed world, and a population which is woefully under-informed about sex and contraception. After all, a recent survey revealed that 95% of Americans have sex outside of marriage, so we can see that abstinence, despite being 100% effective, is in fact 95% unrealistic!
So, if we know that preventing teenagers from having sex is not going to work, what is the solution? Well, in my opinion, we need to extend our sex education programmes in schools, to make sure that nobody slips through the net. We need to make sure that the physical elements of embarking on a sexual relationship are thoroughly covered by professionals: school nurses, midwives and health visitors, and we need to also discuss the emotional implications with children and teenagers. Ultimately, we need to make sure that anybody deciding to have sex is able to do so knowing the risks involved. Without that knowledge, how can it possibly be described as 'informed consent?'
The above is the only viable way to go about trying to prevent teenage pregnancy and reduce abortion rates. We cannot justify impinging on the privacy rights of teenagers to satisfy the paranoid needs of their parents to know exactly what their activities are. If we educated young people comprehensively about sex, then I feel that we would be able to trust them to make the right decisions about their own bodies and their own lives.
As for the claim that "Parental information laws in the US are said to have resulted in a 15 to 20% drop in abortion rates for minors." What does that mean exactly? It doesn't claim that conception rates have dropped, which I think we can all agree, would be a positive effect, it claims that fewer young girls are accessing abortion services। Is this really a positive thing? If these young women want to carry the pregnancy to term, then of course they should be supported, but my concern is that right-wing pearl-clutching parents are preventing their daughters from using abortion services, and instead are determined to make their daughters face up to the 'consequences' of sex। Basically, they are punishing these young girls for having sex outside marriage by not allowing them to take responsibility for their own reproductive organs. Is this really the situation we want to be left with in this country?
So, if we know that preventing teenagers from having sex is not going to work, what is the solution? Well, in my opinion, we need to extend our sex education programmes in schools, to make sure that nobody slips through the net. We need to make sure that the physical elements of embarking on a sexual relationship are thoroughly covered by professionals: school nurses, midwives and health visitors, and we need to also discuss the emotional implications with children and teenagers. Ultimately, we need to make sure that anybody deciding to have sex is able to do so knowing the risks involved. Without that knowledge, how can it possibly be described as 'informed consent?'
The above is the only viable way to go about trying to prevent teenage pregnancy and reduce abortion rates. We cannot justify impinging on the privacy rights of teenagers to satisfy the paranoid needs of their parents to know exactly what their activities are. If we educated young people comprehensively about sex, then I feel that we would be able to trust them to make the right decisions about their own bodies and their own lives.
As for the claim that "Parental information laws in the US are said to have resulted in a 15 to 20% drop in abortion rates for minors." What does that mean exactly? It doesn't claim that conception rates have dropped, which I think we can all agree, would be a positive effect, it claims that fewer young girls are accessing abortion services। Is this really a positive thing? If these young women want to carry the pregnancy to term, then of course they should be supported, but my concern is that right-wing pearl-clutching parents are preventing their daughters from using abortion services, and instead are determined to make their daughters face up to the 'consequences' of sex। Basically, they are punishing these young girls for having sex outside marriage by not allowing them to take responsibility for their own reproductive organs. Is this really the situation we want to be left with in this country?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)