If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
And by the way, when someone comes up with the 15-16 idea (which would technically be illegal), remember that it could also be ignored like the under-16 is now.
Not really. The sentencing differs, but the charge is still statutory rape. Currently, we have a two-tier system, where anyone having sex with someone under 16 has broken the law, because consent cannot officially be given. But under 13, it has to be treated as out-and-out rape, which generally comes with an automatic prison term. In practical terms, they still use their discretion, like in the case of the man who recently had sex with a 10 year old, but didn't go to prison, because the court agreed she looked unusually old. But yeah, generally speaking, a girl under 13 is automatically prison, and a girl between 13 and 15 is based more on the circumstances (who initiated it, whether the situation was planned by the adult, whether they were in a position of responsibility etc). I'm not sure about someone 13-15 having sex with someone under 13 though. Presumably not an automatic prison term in that case.
Generally in this country you don't get to chose your pill as such. Pretty much everyone is started on Microgynon, and then changed if there are any problems with it to something else. I would assume that the choice would be very restricted.
One of my friends got put straight on the mini pill. But i think she had slightly high bood pressure. Another got put on dianette for acne but I heard you're only on it for 2 years because it's strong? She's been on it over 2 years now and her nurse doesn't seem to think she needs to change it. I was started on microgynon though - they told me because it was the cheapest and good for controlling periods.
If you have initial contra indications then you won't get put on it. Women who are on the pill to control acne are often put straight onto dianette, those with high blood pressure usually can't be prescribed the combined pill.
Prescribing guidelines changed for dianette a couple of years ago as it was shown to have higher risks of things like DVT than most other pills, and this risk increases with time, hence the reduced length of treatment. However, some people stay on it, generally if they come under low risk categories for other causes (weight, blood pressure, exercise etc).
Given how much sex education kids receive at school, (forced upon by the state, incidentally, without parental right of veto) they should know what the risks are, shouldn't they? But I somehow doubt it. As the number of hours of state sex education goes up, the number of people with STDs goes up. I wonder why... and the answer of liberals everywhere is "oh, we can't be bothered educating kids properly, so we'll just give them the morning-after pill". What a pathetic and defeatist attitude. I'm taking no lectures from you about choices and freedom of speech. This is the man who works himself into a rage about religion on an almost daily basis, mouthing off how much he hates it, yet when I dare to have a go back, (calling you the love child of Richard Dawkins) you throw all your toys out of the pram.
And Aladdin can't lecture me either here. He'd be the man who opposes giving free speech to Nick Griffin and Holocaust deniers. (that'd be the Oxford Union protests I'm talking about) He doesn't trust people to listen to their squalid views of the world before criticising and laughing at their ideas.
And for those who think that parents shouldn't be involved - do you seriously think the state knows what's best for kids?
I think you underestimate how lacking the sex education in some schools is at the moment. When I did some teaching, we had planned the lessons to be a 'top-up' to what they had already had. Instead we found that some girls thought you only had to take the pill on the night you had sex, rather than continuously. Their parents didn't educate them, their teachers didn't have the time or resources, so we had 3 weeks to start from the drawing board.
I think a more pathetic attitude to have is to keep young people ignorant for the sake of their 'innocence' not arming them with the facts, and not telling them where they can get help, then when something does go wrong, they're the ones to blame as they apparently had a brilliant education, and in the case of an unplanned pregnancy, if they abort, they're a selfish bitch who should have kept her legs shut, and if they don't, they're a plague on society and should be looked down upon.
If they are competent, young people have as much a right to confidentiality as adults. Laws like Gillick are often there to protect children from their parents, sad but true.
And shouldn't parents have a right to exclude their kids from sex education at schools, if they so wish? If a parent wishes to teach kids about sex in their own way, I say let them. I got a fair amount of my sex education from my grandma, of all people. Nothing makes her blush, and her knowledge is simply astonishing! I realise it's not for everyone, far from it, but shouldn't it be an option at the very least?
And the solution to it can and will never be 'punishment' or restriction of contraception on the basis that 'they shouldn't be doing it anyway'. That is never going to stop anyone, and will only create far more trouble than there already was.
At the moment, most sex education teaches biology, and not much else. Nothing on self-esteem, critiquing mass media messages, relationships etc. My sex ed pretty much consisted of, "Now you know how to do it, don't." Biology is simply not enough, and I think it's a very unfair burden on teachers. Learning about sex and relationships is just as vital as learning how to use the toilet, or use a knife and fork - it's for life.
Well, duh. Unforch, teachers have more pressing matters to deal with, ideally sex education starts at home, but some parents just can't/won't do it. My mum was a staunch Catholic and the way she was raised, sex was taboo in the household.
Basing it on the assumption that these parents will do it? Some will, some won't.
What's the alternative? I've posted about the ideal situation, however it's just not going to happen for some. Who else will then teach children and teenagers about sex if their parents won't?
The internet is a good source of information, but it isn't accessible to every young person (although it should be!)
Is that necessarily a good thing?
The internet is an alternative, but it's never going to be the same as discussing things with people face to face. TheSite doesn't cater for young children, for instance, and young children start with basics like where do babies come from.
:yes:
When I was at college, access to this site was banned for a while, and our searches were monitored.
I don't think parents should have a right to veto it. Adequate sex education is essential, not only for each child, but for society as a whole.
SG, it sounds like you are implying that teenage pregnancy is increasing because of the increasing levels of sex education, and the increased avaliablilty of contraception.
I'm personally pretty sure that's not the case, many other factors contribute, kids seems to grow up faster, look at what 11/12 yr old wear now compared to what they wore when you were that age. Kids dresss like mini teens, more and more pop music is about sex and drugs and lots of celebrities have transient relationships which are all over the paper. These are the factors contributing to teenagers having sex younger, education and contraception /std protection needs to take this into account and make sure a reasonable level is getting to kids at the right age.
I was having sex at 15, I didn't give a damn about the law, and I was doing so because I was in a long term mature relationship that had progressed to that level. I was on the pill, as a hormonal regulator, rather than originally as contraception, and always doubled up with condoms. He bought the condoms, he was a few years older and it was far easier and far more acceptable for him to get them than it was for me. I personally don't think that that's the right way to have things.
I didn't talk to my parents about it, we're a Catholic family, and I know now that my parents are very tolerant and moderate thinking but I didn't have the confidence to have that discussion with my parents at the time. Not sure how well 'Mum, I'm going on the pill' would have gone down.
Someone is going to leap on that, saying if I wasn't mature enough to have that conversation then I shouldn't have been having sex. I got on very well with my parents, still do, but I didn't want to do anything to rock the boat. Sex/relationships isn't something we talk about at home, there's a listening ear there if any of us needs it but each of us has our own private lives and that's the way things stay.
Would you like to demonstrate how you are supporting these girls rights to make their own choice to be safe? Or would you prefer to avoid the question, and hope that persistance will make you right, like the infamous liberal elite, if we're going to drag up past threads on here?
I also don't think that parents own their children, or have the right to deny information from them. And actually, now I think about it, yes, the state does sometimes know better than some parents. The MMR jab is a typical example of parents thinking they know better than state scientists and doctors when they don't. Teachers know how to teach better than parents too. This idea that parents always know best is ridiculous. The only question is where the limits of government intrusion and responsibility, and parental intrusion and responsibility into the life of a child lie on individual issues. The government only has so many rights, and the parents only have so many rights. The idea that parents have all of the rights, and government and child themselves have none is dangerous.
But taking that to extremes, by that logic, kids don't need education about anything. All of the information you learn in GCSE English is out there on the internet, for example. A qualified teacher will always get the information across better, and get kids asking the right questions, rather than just giving them the facts. And the qualified teacher thing cannot be stressed enough, because hand up, who here was taught by a dedicated sex ed teacher? We were taught by the biology teacher, and it was pretty much just a biology lesson.
I think that it's this countries attitude more than anything. Mainstream Europe has had all of these things for far longer than us, and yet has managed to keep teen pregnancies down because of their effective sex education schemes, and generally more liberal attitude to the subject.Whereas in Britain, we were a very conservative country. I mean could Page 3 really exist in any other country? Over the past few decades, kids have been increasingly subjected to sexual content in all countries, and in this country, we've done fuck all about it, while Europe has left us behind. The increasing sexualization is inevitable, the question is how you deal with it.
If we agree, as we should, that under-16s shouldn't be having sex because they are not physically or emotionally prepared for it (that is the reason for the age of consent), that promiscuity is not a good thing, that a rise in STDs is not a good thing, then surely it is more humane not to support this considering the fact that it is likely to increase all these things.
Only someone who is completly stupid and was never young would suggest such a thing.
Surely he can't have meant that?
I certainly don't agree that giving the pill to U16s means the law isn't effective in discouraging this type of behaviour.