Home› Politics & Debate
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

Sterilise young girls, says Daily Mail columnist

BillieTheBotBillieTheBot Posts: 8,721 Bot
in Politics & Debate
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=514542&in_page_id=1770

I can only hope the above article is a joke...

Though it wouldn't surprise me if some people said it is a good idea...
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
«1

Comments

  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Have you read the comments for the article? Most seem to think that it's a wonderful idea, that we should sterilise boys as well, and Penny from London thinks that girls should be sterilised from 12 to 20+ years! fucking hell.

    If we banned the daily mail would people still think like this? :chin:
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Knee High Stripy Socks wrote: »
    If we banned the daily mail would people still think like this? :chin:

    Yes. The Daily Mail is simply their mouth piece. :thumb:
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Now I wonder what the Daily Mail would say if someone suggested free contraception and morning after pills for girls 12 and over...:chin:
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I must admit I didn't read the article at all. When I noticed it in the paper, I just went straight to the next feature.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Haha, this is the same paper that was outraged at the suggestion of contraceptive injection when it was first mentioned. Because as we all know, the Daily Mail couldn't give two shits about teenage pregnancies or STDs, it's only interested in the sex lives of others. But now it gives them the opportunity to demonise another group of society, they're all for it. She blames teenage girls for "knowing everything" about getting pregnant and still doing it, when she writes for a paper that has fought tooth and nail against any progress in sex education. And if they had their own way, the only form of prevention that young girls would have would be the fear of being institutionalised for their "sins," which she seems to even make a pathetic attempt to justify in this article (the Catholic church would be proud - all we need now is the odd bit of torture to cleanse your sins, and we're sorted). Hypocracy, immorality, demonisation and justification of past atrocities all in one article. The Mail really has outdone itself with this one.

    For the record, I have always been for offering such things to teenage girls. Certainly not a nationwide immunisation to go along with your TB injection in school though.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Message to one or two posters (you know who you are ;) ): All of the above is why the Daily Mail is a disgraceful, abominable, disgusting filthy worthless rag a trillion times worse than any of the broadsheets- including the Guardian.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Message to one or two posters (you know who you are ;) ): All of the above is why the Daily Mail is a disgraceful, abominable, disgusting filthy worthless rag a trillion times worse than any of the broadsheets - including the Guardian.
    Git. :p In fairness, I should point out that I never actually buy the Mail - my parents do, hence why I read it. I don't agree with everything that the Mail publishes, far from it. But it's nowhere near as controversial as you all make out. I love the way that, on P&D, the "tabloids" are always being demonised. Yet you all seem to know exactly what's in them every single day. If the newspaper that dare not speak its name was Aladdin's wife, the Sun and the Daily Mail would be his mistresses. :p
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well If I were to have a mistress I'd like her to be pure filth so it makes sense :D

    Going back to the article, nice photograph it's illustrated with is it not? I'm surprised they didn't use an image of Vicky Pollard to drive the message home even further...
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    "photo posed by model" - nice stereotypical view they have there, what a surprise!
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Knee High Stripy Socks wrote: »
    "photo posed by model" - nice stereotypical view they have there, what a surprise!

    Hey, give them some credit. They decided against having a heroin needle sticking out of her left arm.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think if you take it as it is - that girls will be informed about long term contraception methods rather than the typical pill / condom - I don't see why it's such a bad thing. Of course we shouldn't be pushing kids into taking anything but the more informed they are the better, surely? I know if there was a pill I could take that would quite healthily make it so I couldn't make a baby for the next 5 years I'd be interested.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    J wrote: »
    I'd better not comment. Freedom of speech only seems to be ok when your free to copy everyone else.

    How so? No one's censoring your comments on this board.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Of course, from what I read it doesn't seem to pay any heed to the concept that knowing you can't get pregnant=less likely to use a condom=more likely to catch an STI. Complete joke, as Aladdin says.

    On a side note, I'd love to read her non-fiction book mentioned at the bottom - "What Makes Women Happy". Sounds like it would a right laugh!
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Acrobat wrote: »
    Of course, from what I read it doesn't seem to pay any heed to the concept that knowing you can't get pregnant=less likely to use a condom=more likely to catch an STI. Complete joke, as Aladdin says.

    On a side note, I'd love to read her non-fiction book mentioned at the bottom - "What Makes Women Happy". Sounds like it would a right laugh!

    I think it's a bad idea to advise people not to get long term contraception because they won't use a condom and then catch an STI - it's in some ways similar to how people in Africa were told just not to have sex because condoms weren't effective against AIDs. Less information -> fear -> supposedly making people take extra precautions. Unfortunately it never seems to work like that.

    I really am an advocate of informing people about as much as they can get. The pill doesn't stop STIs either yet people are happy to use that, and look back and don't regret not using condoms.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    J wrote: »
    Hating me for them is as good as sensoring. Nobody likes to be told they're wrong especially when they are. Dents the pride.

    It's not though. Censorship means you aren't allowed to express your opinion but this is a pretty free, open forum here. Not completely free - it's for young people and so there have to be some boundaries, as people who get banned for posting porn / racism / youname it show.

    But people disliking you for your opinion is never the same as not allowing you to speak it. As for that, I don't know who you think hates you on here?

    You've got a point about 'dealing with symptoms not problems' but look at the size of society now - I think yes it's good to have idealogical changes over generations that make people respect each other more - but day to day you need measures in society to stop exploitation, danger, all that kind of thing.

    Mind you there was a poster several years ago who made a reasoned argument for anarchy, but I don't think it's viable - and more to the point - I don't think it's a discussion for this thread either.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think improving sex ed and offering cheap, reliable protection to teenager would be a better start...
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    StrubbleS wrote: »
    I think improving sex ed and offering cheap, reliable protection to teenager would be a better start...

    Plenty of condoms are available to kids though, unless you walk around blindfolded / with your ears covered. For me and friends part of the problem was certainly the taboo - none of our parents were open about sex and so going into a shop to get condoms - or even going to the school nurse, was always scary and put me off from the get go.

    But I don't see any harm in giving kids the option of 5 year contraception through a pill or injection or whatever. Making it compulsory is a bad idea, but having the info there...
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    J wrote: »
    Hating me for them is as good as sensoring.
    I think the comments that might have provoked the most anger (and understandably so) are those in which you were bragging about shagging a girl you couldn't stand "out of sympathy".

    Cuntish thing to say, and do.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    I think it's a bad idea to advise people not to get long term contraception because they won't use a condom and then catch an STI - it's in some ways similar to how people in Africa were told just not to have sex because condoms weren't effective against AIDs. Less information -> fear -> supposedly making people take extra precautions. Unfortunately it never seems to work like that.

    I really am an advocate of informing people about as much as they can get. The pill doesn't stop STIs either yet people are happy to use that, and look back and don't regret not using condoms.

    Oh, I'm all for advising them of their options and letting them make an informed decision about things. The writer seems to be advocating more than just informed decisions though; "steered towards" is the phrase used. And on a more personal note, from my experience trying to get the doctors to give out long term contraception if you aren't in a stable relationship is nothing short of a nightmare.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Acrobat wrote: »
    Oh, I'm all for advising them of their options and letting them make an informed decision about things. The writer seems to be advocating more than just informed decisions though; "steered towards" is the phrase used. And on a more personal note, from my experience trying to get the doctors to give out long term contraception if you aren't in a stable relationship is nothing short of a nightmare.

    Yea but doctors are pretty awkward full stop. I know they know what they're talking about but they do see themselves as higher beings :p. Two weeks ago I went to one and he didn't believe the symptoms I was describing :confused: he thought I'd misinterpreted them. Losing vision in one eye and not the other is not misinterpreting it :p (textbook definition of migraine sometimes causes some loss of vision in both eyes, I was just unusual and had total loss of vision in one eye, without any other migraineos symptoms)

    I'm not sure how to take steered towards though, afterall - it's the daily mail :p anything coming from them is 90% imagination and 10% prejudice.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    J wrote: »
    Not if you'd understood my goal. And to be honest it's me that suffers the most in that situation. She's none the wiser. And to be honest it's her fault for taking advantage of me the first time when I was so drunk I ruined 7 years of celibacy.
    She's no angel you know. She's the manipulative one out of us, I'm just the cock for hire.
    If you have any respect- for her and for yourself- you should end it immediately.

    Such fucked up relationship can only end up in bitter tears and it's going to create far more grief than it's worth it.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    J but what about someone whose best decision they can't make, because of the law or some other limitation.

    Or what even about someone whose best decision is actually a really poor one, but they can't help themselves (heroin addicts, for example).

    It's never going to be about 'one rule to answer them all', every situation that ever occurs in the history of everything will always have many different interpretations with no single one being the right one.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    J wrote: »
    Not if you'd understood my goal. And to be honest it's me that suffers the most in that situation. She's none the wiser. And to be honest it's her fault for taking advantage of me the first time when I was so drunk I ruined 7 years of celibacy.
    She's no angel you know. She's the manipulative one out of us, I'm just the cock for hire.

    It's her fault you're having sex with her?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yerascrote wrote: »
    How so? No one's censoring your comments on this board.

    Just to make people aware - whilst I don't consider it censorship J's recent postings seem to make it clear that these boards are encouraging rather than helping a mental health problem, and allowing an outlet of often offensive postings that may otherwise be delt with in a more professional setting.

    So whilst I don't want to censor anyone, I do consider it important that if someone is becoming more unwell do this place, that it may be better for them to take a break - as they have in the past.

    J's already been spoken to about this, and I want to do my best to hope people understand the decisions we may have to take soon.

    We'll see though.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    J - what were talking about is giving you a chance for a break - but let's leave this for private messages
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fortunately, for the sane and rational amongst us, there is one line in that article that confirms that Daily Mail hacks spend all day with their heads up their arses and are so out of touch it's a wonder they can even turn the computer on to type the tosh they do;
    I'm afraid we are now in a time when sex is mere recreational pleasure to thousands of young women.

    I think it's quite obvious the author has been living on the moon for the past, say, ever.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Depending on the culture and age at the time, many young people have had sex throughout history.

    However the concept that sex for fun is wrong is relatively new in the context of human history. Civilisations 2000 years ago were certainly more socially advanced in certain aspects than our own civilisation was only a few decades ago.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Daily Mail suggesting puritanical approach... surely not?

    Next you'll have nepotism at the Guardian...
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But I think they have a point, I don't think kids were having sex in the past as much as they do now. I'd ask my nan but I think it's inappropriate.
    You would have been called a whore or worse in the past if you weren't married before sex. Am I wrong?

    It being disapproved upon doesn't mean that it didn't go on.

    Was it the Tudors or the Victorians who shagged a lot?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    clementine_the_tangerine wrote: »
    Was it the Tudors or the Victorians who shagged a lot?

    Thankfully both, or we wouldn't be here... ;)
Sign In or Register to comment.