Review: Sex...with Mum and Dad

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.

Idiot of the day: Andy Dolan of the Daily Mail

Entitled, Beware of the Office Piranha: Male bosses warned of man-eating women who are preying on them, the article goes on to outline the shocking risks which men face from women every day when they go out to work. Women are seducing poor defenceless men who are, it seems, unable to say no. Some of these men who end up having sex even have wives, but they can't help it, its not their fault. In fact, I'm surprised that the author of this article, Andy Dolan, has not set up a charity to help the poor victims of these evil man-eating women. One of the worst crimes these women commit is that if they become pregnant, they actually expect the fathers - these poor preyed upon creatures - to pay child support! Outrageous! What has happened to the days when a man could bang his secretary with impunity, and then go home to his wife? What is the world coming to?!?

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.

Don't punish men for the evils of sex slavery?

This article is an interesting one. It starts well, with Henry Porter acknowledging that the current laws in this country, which criminalise the woman selling sex, but not the man buying it, are unfair and wrong. He then goes on to outline some of the ways in which countries like New Zealand and Canada have tried to change this, as a response to changing attitudes. So far, so good.

However, this is unfortunately where things start to unravel. Denis MacShane MP plans to takcle the serious problem of sex trafficking in this country by trying to introduce new amendments to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill, which would allow Police to prosecute men found paying for sex in certain designated areas. Porter outlines this in his article. However, he goes on to say that we should be very sceptical of MacShane's motives, because he may well be anti-prostitution! Therefore, we can't believe anything he tells us about the problem of sex-trafficking, and we should disregard any changes which he tries to make to reduce the number of trafficked women suffering in this country, because basically, he is just trying to stop prostitution! (Or something like that).

MacShane and his supporters may have a strong moral revulsion for the sale of sex, but they insist that their approach is a strictly practical one to deal with trafficking. What they cannot say is that this amendment contains a tacit admission of the government's failure. There are already laws to deal with trafficking and enslavement and it may be that MacShane's figure of 25,000 trafficked women is hugely inflated. In a letter to the Guardian last week, Professor Julia O' Connell Davidson of the University of Nottingham called it preposterous. She pointed out that in the police Operation Pentameter last year 515 establishments were raided and 84 victims of trafficking were found. At this rate, there would need to be 150,000 establishments for MacShane's figure of 25,000 to reached.

Now, I don't have any exact figures regarding the numbers of people who are trafficked in this country, so whilst I can't comment on the accuracy or inaccuracy of the figures discussed, I would like to call Henry Porter out on some shocking journalistic sloppiness. In the same paragraph, whilst he points out that the government is failing to tackle trafficking effectively (which actually, I agree with), he also then quotes Police statistics to demonstrate why it is that we should not believe MacShane's statistics. I thought you just said that the government is failing? Therefore, why are you using Police statistics to advance your argument against MacShane, when you yourself acknowledge that these are unlikely to reflect the scale of the problem in this country?

So we must conclude that the government does not view the act of buying sex is wrong in principle. This is a shaky position to start from if we are about to introduce yet another criminal offence, because it will be clear to everyone that the exchange that takes place between a man and a woman and a man and a man is exactly the same. The same levels of revulsion, pleasure, release, exploitation, abuse, regret and despair may exist in both transactions, yet only in one will an offence be committed.

I don't view the act of buying sex as being wrong in principle. However, this is a ridiculously simplistic way of looking at things. It is naive, and frankly stupid, to claim that selling sex is simply a choice which someone has chosen to make, and so the person buying sex has no culpability. You must look at the reasons behind why people buy and sell sex. Do men need sex? Of course not. Sex is a positive and enjoyable part of life, but men do not have an entitlement to sex, simply because they want it. However, if one is impoverished, trafficked, a drug addict, or otherwise disadvantaged, then money is a necessity. Therefore, the exchange of money for sex is not a fair transaction, made without any kind of duress. The prostitute is in a position where to refuse sex would result in great hardship and suffering. The man is in a position where to not buy sex would result in walking around feeling a bit sexually frustrated for a while. Not the same thing.

Actually, I agree with Porter's final point here, although I don't agree with his reasoning, because I think that either it should be illegal to buy any kind of sex, or it shouldn't be. This part of the law would add unnecessary confusion and complication to the law.

There is clearly a feminist drive to this measure. Nothing wrong in that perhaps, but it does account for the singular bias of the MacShane proposal. Columnist Joan Smith has suggested that critics responded hysterically to it because they have a vested interest in a man's right to buy sex from a woman. That is hardly fair. The objection is not that it deprives men of the ability to exploit women, but that it is ill thought out.

The same feminist voice would no doubt argue that every woman has a right to dominion over her body in matters such as abortion. It follows that a woman has the right to sell sexual services and, if that is true, someone has the right to buy those services. You cannot allow the principle of sale without at the same time consenting to purchase.

So Mr Porter, we start to see your true colours! This is an article ostensibly about legal reforms intended to reduce the number of people who are trafficked in Britain each year. Yet, you rebut any suggestions that one of your concerns about making buying sex illegal is that it would no longer allow you to exploit vulnerable women with impunity. In order to support this point, you use the example of abortion as a way in which feminists argue that women should have bodily autonomy. Of course, I agree with you, and I agree with the fact that in an ideal, egalitarian world women should be free to decide to sell sex for money. But we are not discussing those women Mr Porter. We are looking at these legal reforms through the lens of a country which has increasing numbers of women trafficked into it each year. At this stage, I don't think anyone is able to advocate for a 'perfect' law. We need to introduce reforms which will allow prostitutes the protections which they need, and punish the people responsible for perpetuating the cycle.

Your final point "You cannot allow the principle of sale without at the same time consenting to purchase", is particularly interesting. Again, I agree with you. Are you then arguing that men who have sex with women who are unable to consent are guilty of rape? After all, if women are in a position whereby the are not able to agree to any sort of transaction freely, and you have sex with them, then you are not buying something which they have offered of their own free will. You are raping them.

And what is payment? Most often, it is cash or a credit card, but payment comes in other forms - holidays, goods, jewellery, advancement, property. Many shy from an openly acknowledged transaction; some are candid about a business arrangement in which the parties hope to emerge with profit or satisfaction. We would like it to be otherwise perhaps, but that is the way of the world.

What are you saying here Henry Porter? Are all women who rely on men for financial support prostitutes? Does that make going off to buy a fuck from a trafficked woman ok because you believe that you indirectly pay your wife for sex? Maybe you feel resentful about the leeching bitches who steal mens money, but if you grew a brain and looked around you, you might understand why women become financially dependent on men. Women get paid 17% less than men for the same work. If they are married, or (shock-horror) have a family, then they are less likely to be hired in the first place, because they are perceived to not be committed enough to the job. In most relationships, women do the majority of the child-care and other domestic duties, which allows men more time to focus on their careers. Furthermore, supporting your wife does not mean that you are entitled to fuck her whenever you want. Since 1991, getting married does not mean that you can rape your wife with impunity.

Tougher penalties might be an answer but let's not forget that the police already have powers to deal with every aspect of prostitution, from kerb crawling to enslavement. Instead we need to tackle what drives so much prostitution - poverty and drug addiction. It is right that newspapers are beginning to refuse adverts for escort and massage services but as the cabinet ministers who recently admitted to drug use know full well, making the demand for drugs illegal does little to stop supply.

Denis MacShane may be well-intentioned but his amendment is bad and confusing law because it seeks to remedy a failure by police and immigration officials - which may not even exist - by attacking the choice made by two consenting adults.

So, despite earlier claiming that the government's current policies are failing, you now support your argument that buying sex should remain legal with the the point that the police have all the powers they need in order to be able to deal with prostitution, "from kerb crawling to enslavement". Coherent, consistent, and well thought-out I must say!

To go back to my earlier point, if women are deeply impoverished or addicted to drugs, then they are not able to make a free choice about whether or not to engage in prostitution. In a choice between having sex with a man and being able to eat/shoot up, or not having sex with him, but starving/suffering horrendous withdrawal symptoms, I think I know which option I would choose. However, that does not mean that I am making a free choice to be a prostitute or to have sex. Actually, there are a million other things I would like to do far more. Therefore, it is not a "choice between two consenting adults" that we are discussing here.

I find that I am often very conflicted about my feelings about prostitution. On one hand, I do think that it should be up to women to decide what to do with their bodies, and of course this extends to selling sex. However, this argument is frequently used as a get-out clause by people like Henry Porter who want to bury their heads in the sand and ignore the realities of life for the majority of prostitutes in this country. There are a small minority of women who do freely make the choice to be prostitutes, but as Henry Porter himself acknowledges, the vast majority of prostitutes in this country are there because of poverty or drugs. As I have already argued, this is not a free choice, and these women need to be protected rather than criminalised. Men (and indeed women) do not have an entitlement to sex. Therefore, if one of the things which we have to do in order to protect vulnerable prostitutes from exploitation is to make the buying of sex illegal, which means that punters will no longer be able to exploit people with impunity, then we should take that step. After all, we all have the right to live lives free from exploitation.

This is the reality of churches in middle England today.

My partner's parents are devout Christians. This has caused problems on occasion in the past. However, things have got easier, and these days, the relationship between my (athiest) partner and his parents is generally good. We agreed to go to a carol service with them at their local church on the 23rd. The church itself was lovely, very simple inside, but lit by Christmas lights and candles, which made for a good atmosphere. The service was well-attended, and the carols were good.

Now on to the negatives. I had never realised that there were so many pro-life paternalistic, and patriarchal overtones in the Christmas story. During the readings, I became very uncomfortable with the messages which were being conveyed. Mary, for example, is given no choice in whether or not to carry God's child. Furthermore, when Joseph finds out that she is pregnant, he no longer wants to marry her, but is persuaded by an angel sent by God who assures him that Mary is 'unsullied' and therefore is fit for marriage. There were many other examples, and at some point I intend to read these Bible passages in detail, and then write a critique of the ideologies expressed.

The worst thing was however yet to come. The vicar at this church felt that it was appropriate to start his sermon by making jokes about the name "Mohammed", and encouraging the congregation to laugh (which they did). My partner and I were so paralysed by horror that all we were able to do was to stare at each other in disgust. If this is the sort of 'tolerance' of other religions which the Church of England practices today, then it makes me want to run as fast as possible in the opposite direction. I cannot believe that he is able to get away with that sort of reprehensible behaviour. The Church of England should be deeply ashamed of itself. I am certainly ashamed for it.

Should paying for sex be illegal?

I'm not totally sure how I feel about this. On one hand, it feels paternalistic and patronising to women to make buying/selling sex illegal. Surely we should allow women the bodily autonomy and self-determination to be able to make those choices for themselves? However, on the other hand, there is a massive problem in this country with young women being trafficked and forced into a life of prostitution. It is our responsibility as a society to protect these women, and ensure that they are able to escape this existence, and are then provided with the support that they need to go on and live healthy and fulfilling lives.

I feel very uncomfortable with the notion that it is ok for men to buy sex, because I feel that it reinforces the notion that women are commodities which can be bought and sold, and that men have some kind of entitlement to sex and to women's bodies. However, I feel that if we legalised all aspects of prostitution, making brothels conform to regulations, then there would be a greater level of protection for women involved in sex work. Whilst I don't feel that this is necessarily the best long-term solution, because as a society we need to tackle the reasons behind why men feel justified in buying sex from women, who are often (whether through choice or because of prejudices within our culture) on the fringes of society, and ostracised from everyday interaction with people.

My changing attitudes towards abortion

As I have said before, today I am completely and utterly pro-choice. It is not my place to make any kind of moral judgment about a woman seeking to terminate a pregnancy, whatever her reasoning is. It is absolutely none of my business.

I didn't always feel this way. Anna Clark wrote a fascinating post at RH Reality Check about her evolution from being "pro-life" to being pro-choice. Amanda Marcotte also has an interesting debate on this topic happening at Pandagon. I made the following comment;

Both this post, and the one at RH Reality Check were really interesting. I went through a similar evolution in my opinions on abortion. Although now I would identify totally as pro-choice, there was a time when, although I never described myself as ‘pro-life’, I felt uncomfortable with the idea of abortion being used unless it was in the case of rape or for medical reasons. I don’t really know what changed. I suppose I grew up and had sex, and realised that life is not as black-and-white as I had previously thought. When I look back, I can’t believe that I ever thought it was just or fair to pit a fully-formed adult woman with an independent existence, thoughts and feelings, with a fetus.

I suppose I wanted to expand on this point a little bit. In some senses, before I became sexually active, and was therefore forced to accept that an unwanted pregnancy was a risk for me, I was intellectually lazy about the whole issue. It is easier in many ways to believe that you are not one of the women who might have to have an abortion at some point in your life. You can feel morally superior to the women who do not live in the little bubble that you do. What I realised as I got older though, is that there is no particular type of woman who has an abortion. There is no particular reason why women have abortions, their reasons are as diverse as they are. And whilst I might never become a woman who has had an abortion, that doesn't mean that I shouldn't care about the rights, and the dignity, of women who have had to make that choice. After all, they are no different to me.

Just to add on a slightly different topic, someone in comments asked how pro-choicers should respond to the question, "why is it a baby when it is a planned pregnancy, and a fetus when it is unplanned?" Amanda Marcotte answered the question very well, by pointing out that we trust women to define their own experiences, so, for a woman who has being trying to get pregnant, she of course looks forward to the birth of her baby, and thus refers to it as such. In contrast, a woman who is faced with an unwanted pregnancy does not have that same happy anticipation of the birth. For her, it is only a fetus, and that it valid too. I would just like to add to the examples of self-definition that Amanda used. I think that a very good response to this question would simply be, "why is it 'sex' when you have consented, and 'rape' when you haven't?" Because people have different experiences, and so define those experiences differently.

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.

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?