We’re now trolling Newmania this blatantly?

Not even Newmania would back “Mad Nad” Dorries (famous last words). Just because someone is nominally a Tory, doesn’t mean they have the backing of most, let alone all Tories:let’s own up to the fact that nominally, James” workhouse” Purnell and Andy “rid libraries of books, and have Govt control the net” Burnham are nominally Labour.

I have always suspected you spent a lot time sniffing rings Sunny , perhaps you should get your head out of whichever fundament it currently resides . The US phenomena of fetishizing virginity is located in low social groups related to fundamentalist religion and in specific geographical areas .It is especially prevalent precisely where teenage pregnancy and the ensuing social problems you like so much are rife .
You might just as well say “ Black people commit more crime “ . I expect that’s true and naturally I regard it as more or less meaningless.

Having said that I suspect that simply focussing on sex and its place for a socialised and emotional mature adult is not enough . The sort of advantages Nadine is looking for come from a network of social ties and constraints evolved to guide the young and promote health and happiness . Nadine may be taking a far better approach than someone who thinks of sex only in terms of “STIs and pregnancy “ but the wider social context is the real issue . We know who and what we are talking about .
I cannot see that handing out condoms and boring girls with lectures about disease is the answer . What we need is a reassertion if marriage , family , self respect and self reliance. What we need is the end of the infantilised human zoo where only frenzied copulation provides any passing sense of purpose .

Well said, Newmania. I’m not a big fan of Nadine in general, but she has hit on something rather important here. Teaching people about STIs without discussing family, marriage, stability, relationships etc is doomed to fail – and it is failing.

To compare her thoughts to crazed US virginity programmes is ridiculous and she makes no comment related to virginity in her blog post so the link is entirely unwarranted.

Incidentally, I have met Nadine and she seemed a perfectly nice woman I am not sure why she is the subject of quite so much spleen.
What she says here is surely not such a dreadful idea ? Let me put it this way .For all I know ,by handing out thousands of condoms and training “At risk” women to use them , by the application of electrodes perhaps ,you might stop STDs and teenage pregnancy.
Am I really the only one who would ,nonetheless ,looks at the near bestial misogynistic culture of the welfare waste lands and regard a young woman fucking her way around the local gangs and wasters with less than complete satisfaction
There used to be such a thing as a decent working class which was , by bourgeois standards highly prudish . You may recall reference to it in Pygmalion . Wasn`t it a good thing now one looks back ?

In this context Iain Dale did a Survey recently about when people lost their virginity and how many partners they had had. Those who were BNP members were astonishingly continent . Interesting I thought .

( Liberals of course showed themselves to be quite disgustingly licentious , more is worse has never been truer )

In the red corner, we have 4 billion years of evolution urging teenagers to have sex whenever possible.

In the blue corner we have… Nadine Dorries.

Who do you think is going to win out?

I’m amazed by the idea that, even if we wanted to, we *could* change the sexual behaviour of teenagers. How exactly do we plan on doing this? What’s the evidence showing that our preferred method of propaganda would work?

All the anti-drug and anti-alcohol propaganda in the world hasn’t stopped teenagers drinking & drugging away to their hearts content. Some of you may not remember your teenage years but I do and the teenage mindset is roughly a case of “If the government says jump, you say screw you.”

Sexual behaviour, like all behaviour, doesn’t change because people are saying it’s good or saying it’s bad, it changes because of massive-scale sociological and cultural changes which we can barely fathom, let alone change.

To think otherwise is, frankly, Stalinist. Dorries social engineering will fail, although fortunately, given that this is Nadine “Laughing Stock” Dorries, I doubt anyone in power will ever try it.

“What we need is a reassertion if marriage , family , self respect and self reliance.”

from who? Do you honestly think that if the government, or anyone linked to the government, said that, people would listen? You, Newmania, don’t listen to a word New Labour says. Fair enough, but young people are just like you, they’re not going to listen to a word Nadine Dorries says either.

Am I really the only one who would ,nonetheless ,looks at the near bestial misogynistic culture of the welfare waste lands and regard a young woman fucking her way around the local gangs and wasters with less than complete satisfaction

You really have no idea, do you? Do you seriously believe that teenage pregnancies only occur amongst welfare claimants, or perhaps that all young working class women spend their time “fucking around gang members”? It’s like a picture of inner city life seen through the prism of a cheap movie.

Either way, if you think that sending government preachers around the streets of our inner cities distributing metaphorical chastity belts will solve the issue, you are simply deluding yourself. There is not one example from a comparable, contemporary nation of abstinence programmes working, and there is no reason to believe that the same failed strategy would work in the UK. Dorries and her fellow representatives of the nascent UK religious right can rant away about it for as long as they like – even via wedge strategies like “values education”, it still won’t make their vision anything other than what it is: an ideologically motivated stance.

Further, yes there is a question of “values” here in a different sense – since when was it the role of government to tell citizens what is or is not the “right” thing to do in consensual sexual relationships? Coming from people who object in so many circumstances to the Nanny State or New Labour’s supposed cosseting of the public, I find that utterly bizarre.

They don’t mind, as long as it’s *their* nanny state.

In the red corner, we have 4 billion years of evolution urging teenagers to have sex whenever possible.
In the blue corner we have… Nadine Dorries.

As a well preserved married man in possession of a superb physique and ruggedly attractive features I am frequently obliged to calm my more primitive urges for the sake of the fuller and more complete satisfaction of not getting divorced and living with myself . You woebegone , may find you are unable to resist throwing yourself upon any poor unsuspecting woman that falls into your orbit but it is really not impossible .
More generally your assertion that we cannot change our behaviour because of evolution is ridiculous . We all do every day . Some of what you say I agree with though which is why I am against social meddling from the state . Institutions that have grown can be helpfully supported though. Marriage for example .We listened to the cultural leaders of the 60s who told us it was worthless , you screw yourself through the British army ‘lady ‘ they said ,

So now we can listen to the new voices who say , we have thrown the baby out with the bath water and need to adjust. What is dreadful about that ?

You really have no idea, do you? Do you seriously believe that teenage pregnancies only occur amongst welfare claimants, or perhaps that all young working class women spend their time “fucking around gang members”? It’s like a picture of inner city life seen through the prism of a cheap movie.

Au contraire. Mrs. N is a working class black woman brought up by her mother on a Bermondsey Council Estate. We lived for years next to the infamous Andover Esate where I canvassed and from whom we got a good response ( much better than in leafy media land ).The picture I give is true but there are equally many neighbours who deplore it . “They live nocturnally ..” I remember one despairing man telling me

Teenage pregnancies occur all over the place but it is only in circumstances where this entails a life of dependency and exclusion from so much that it is a problem. That why the working classes used to be so prudish compared to the carefree wealthy. I specifically did not say that preaching was the answer , although it might help. In the context of breaking up these Labour strongholds and re establishing civil society employment and fathers it would be part of a change to the country

If you think the picture I paint is not one anyone will recognise can I suggest you get your head out of your pontificating arse.

XX

Well no indeed, I daresay it”s one that will be recognised by Daily Mail readers everywhere. However the reality is that (in spite of many real issues), most inner city areas do not actually resemble a scene from Mad Max. Sorry to disappoint you.

“More generally your assertion that we cannot change our behaviour because of evolution is ridiculous . We all do every day . ”

Well, yeah, to an extent. What I said though was that Nadine Dorries – or more generally the government – isn’t going to do it.

I mean, 1 in 4 men in *Iran* have sex before marriage. According to the Iranian government. This is a country where such sex is severely punishable. the true figure therefore is going to be much higher. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/4001421/Rise-of-pre-marital-sex-in-Iran.html)

If a theocratic, authoritarian government can’t stop teenagers having sex, we don’t have a chance.

P.S This statistic is also interesting for what it says about the Iranian people. Those of you who see them as a nation of Islamic robots, think again.

most inner city areas do not actually resemble a scene from Mad Max

Oh really how do you fancy a night time walk around the Kidbrooke estate then ?. Where do you live ,The Hamlet of Babbling Brook by the farm in 1950s-shire ?

Well, yeah, to an extent. What I said though was that Nadine Dorries – or more generally the government – isn’t going to do it.

Not alone, its to do with working with the grain not imposing doctrine against it . This is why Conservatives are interested in “Nudge ” thinking . I have three sons so it does not arise quite as crucially but if I had a daughter I would certainly want her not to be a slut with or without condoms . Would you ?

Now surely public Policy ought to reflect this almost universal preference to some extent by providing advice and support for women along these lines who may not have any father or family support thanks to New Labour .It has to be part of the story

Err no. I live in Birmingham.

There’s a league table here, no obvious trends although it looks like there’s a tendancy for the more social democratic countries to do better. English speaking countries also tend not to do so well.

One thing Mad Nad might have a point on in my view is culture, it might just be me, but it seems that sex in popular culture (magazines, TV etc) has become far more common. It also seems that it’s portrayed in a glamourous way. Anyone else think this?

It’s too bloody complicated to just trust to ideology!

We introduced the divorce laws because up to two thirds of marriages were living hells. Usually worse for the woman and any children.

The liberalised the abortion laws were created because we recognised that abortion happens anyway and unless it was done by a competent medical practitioner, abortion could kill the woman.

The pill freed women from the risk of pregnancy in case a broken or no condom.

These events lead to an increased reporting of teenage pregnancy and STIs, whether real or an artifiact of increased confidence in reporting. To change the rates we need comprehensive sex education to tilt the balance back in favour of enlightened condom use as well as relationship skills. Where young people are educated to recognise sexual exploitation and have the self confidence to say no.

What Nadine Dorries seems to want, and Ian Duncan Smith too by his more recent lunatic outbursts, is a return to 1950s culture. Where man, woman and child(ren) are trapped in abusive marriages with no hope of release. Where the teenage pregnancy rates are still just as high, but aren’t talked about, and the unfortunate girls are shuffled off to relatives till the birth or are sent to a backstreet abortionist for a unsterilised coathanger up the vagina.

Harking back to a past golden age with rose tinted spectacles, ignoring the horrors that were finally beaten only in the 1960s, is a sure fire way to cause twice as much harm. Regular intra-family violence, rampant sex abuse, and a culture of ignorance and silence is not the golden age you are thinking of.

Labour might not be doing a good job of actually carrying out the solution, but they have the right idea. Poverty relief and sex education are the only ways you can change the rates of teenage pregnancy and STIs.

AT @ #8. “You really have no idea, do you? Do you seriously believe that teenage pregnancies only occur amongst welfare claimants, or perhaps that all young working class women spend their time “fucking around gang members”? It’s like a picture of inner city life seen through the prism of a cheap movie.”

You don’t have to have worked for the DWP or the CSA (although it helps) for 10 minutes to realise that teenage pregnancy and the problems that go with it are overwhelmingly problems of the lower socio economic groups. The reasons for this are complex but that does not alter the basic fact that the life created for many by welfarism is exactly that, a cheap movie, and one which we are all paying a fortune to watch. Although of course to the social workers, probation officers, housing officers, support workers and the hordes of great unwashed left wing “professionals” and nu lab apparachanics “more of the same please, these people are keeing us in a job”

“We introduced the divorce laws because up to two thirds of marriages were living hells. Usually worse for the woman and any children”.

LOL – evidence for this absurd assertion please ? Divorce laws were introduced to buy off middle class feminists who, largely because they didn’t like men anyway – hugely overstated the disadvantages of marriage (which were and always have been greatest for men anyway) and imaged that liberation from the 1950s nuclear familiy model would lead to some kind of never fully defined nirvanaha.
Given that in 40 years it clearly hasn’t worked, they are now making all marriages analogous to a rapist/wife beater living with an unpaid sex slave, whilst conveniently ignoreing the er liberated women who are married to the state and are busy overpopulating the local estate with tomorrows prison population, all at our expense. It truly is the logic of the madhouse, the problem has become the solution.

“Regular intra-family violence, rampant sex abuse, and a culture of ignorance and silence is not the golden age you are thinking of.”

Er is baby P, Victoria Climbie or Shannon Mattews your idea of a golden age then ?

Ouch …that was a brutally effective work from Matt Munro .

Divorce laws were introduced to buy off middle class feminists who, largely because they didn’t like men anyway – hugely overstated the disadvantages of marriage (which were and always have been greatest for men anyway) and imaged that liberation from the 1950s nuclear familiy model would lead to some kind of never fully defined nirvanaha.
Given that in 40 years it clearly hasn’t worked, they are now making all marriages analogous to a rapist/wife beater living with an unpaid sex slave, whilst conveniently ignoreing the er liberated women who are married to the state and are busy overpopulating the local estate with tomorrows prison population, all at our expense. It truly is the logic of the madhouse, the problem has become the solution

If it were not for this site’s comment policy I would be saying a series of very nasty words right now.

Don’t let that hold you back. The reactionary wanker Munro deserves some righteous invective for his pathetic caricature of feminism.

“Not alone, its to do with working with the grain not imposing doctrine against it . This is why Conservatives are interested in “Nudge ” thinking .”

Nudging is fine when you’re dealing with things like (sorry to harp on about it) smoking or diet, where you can just introduce taxes & subsidies to make certain things more or less attractive.

Sex, though, doesn’t require anything. It’s free. So you can’t use financial incentives.

What else is there? Propaganda – doesn’t work. What else?

Not even Newmania would back “Mad Nad” Dorries (famous last words).

Famous last words indeed! Never overestimate Newmania’s willingness to spout reactionary shite in the true form of Toryism.

LOL – evidence for this absurd assertion please ? Divorce laws were introduced to buy off middle class feminists who, largely because they didn’t like men anyway

Oh dear… it looks like the Mad Nad support brigade is out in force today.

A study of the statistics of infidelity and happiness show that most marriages pre-liberal divorce laws were unhappy. With large scale infidelity on both sides.

Er is baby P, Victoria Climbie or Shannon Mattews your idea of a golden age then ?

Go on, tell me how two cases, tragic though they are, compare to the domestic violence committed in traditional marriage. Only the reforms of the 1960s and 1970s were to give hope, with victims finally being able to leave abusive partners.

“Oh really how do you fancy a night time walk around the Kidbrooke estate then ?. Where do you live ,The Hamlet of Babbling Brook by the farm in 1950s-shire”

Yeah, I’m game.

I’ve lived in working-class inner-city bits of Manchester and London for the last 10 years; Daily Maily suburban comedians have tried to tell me forever that they’re Oh So Dangerous and Oh So Terrifying; and yet I’ve not been beaten up, threatened or mugged [*].

The simple fact is, social breakdown is a steaming pile of nonsense made up by people who wouldn’t dream of setting foot in the East End or Moss Side now, or 10 years ago, or 50 years ago, because they’re Not Very Nice and full of Rough Sorts.

[*] OK, I was mugged once, non-violently, when I first moved to Manchester, staggering home blind drunk /and/ talking on my mobile for 30 minutes. This learnt me.

I’m amazed by the idea that, even if we wanted to, we *could* change the sexual behaviour of teenagers.

We already have. When we trivialised marriage, actively promoted abortion and marketed contraception, we encouraged teenagers to have sex wherever possible, preferably unprotected. Now we act surprised when we have the highest teen pregnancy rate in Europe and massive numbers of abortions.

Be honest you lefties – you don’t care about teen pregnancy, social breakdown, STIs and so on. You just want people to be as sexually liberated as possible and to hell with the consequences. Just be honest and admit this, then we can have a grown-up discussion.

They don’t mind, as long as it’s *their* nanny state.

How ridiculous. Do you think there is no connection between a permissive culture in which social breakdown is rife, and a nanny state that comes along with a taxpayer-funded mop and bucket to clean it up?

People are only free if they are independent. The family, strong, self-funded and private, is the bedrock of liberty.

Now we act surprised when we have the highest teen pregnancy rate in Europe and massive numbers of abortions.

You left out the important bit of the information. We have the highest rate of teenage pregnancy and abortion in Europe. We also have the lowest level of sexual education.

Whereas the Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands have the highest levels of sex education and the LOWEST numbers of teenage pregnancy and abortion.

It’s pretty obvious that you righties don’t care about teen pregnancy, social breakdown, STIs and so on as you flatly refuse to accept the evidence that comprehensive sex education works.

You seem to be blind to the fact that the countries with the the most developed social security systems and the earliest and most comprehensive sex education also have the lowest abortion rates because hardly any teenagers get pregnant. Even though the levels of sexual activity are the same.

You get low abortion rates from low unwanted pregnancy rates. You get low unwanted pregnancy rates from sex education and high levels of social security and employment.

Maybe if you allowed people to be well educated instead of actively promoting and raising the levels of ignorance this country would be in better shape.

We already have. When we trivialised marriage, actively promoted abortion and marketed contraception, we encouraged teenagers to have sex wherever possible, preferably unprotected. Now we act surprised when we have the highest teen pregnancy rate in Europe and massive numbers of abortions.

So why is it that European countries with similar attitudes to abortion, contraception and marriage don’t have the same problems?

“You just want people to be as sexually liberated as possible”

Isn’t this a good thing, ceteris paribus? Or aren’t you even willing to admit that…?

we encouraged teenagers to have sex wherever possible, preferably unprotected

Who’s “we”? Wow, I must have missed those articles on LC… or in the Guardian… Or maybe, its because that stuff is in lads magazines…. which, amazingly, feminists also dislike for promoting sexualisation of women. What would you like? Lads magazines banned? Stuck on the top shelf? Because when feminists say that, then you libertarians start crying again and cursing nasty lefties.

Some of the trolls we get here are right thick, I swear.

@33 Actually, I’ve found Social Conservatives to be against porn, hard and soft, too. What their problem is is that they’re totally disingenuous.

They complain about single mothers and teen pregnancies. But will they do anything to lower the numbers? No.

What they actually want is the disempowerment of women. Back to Kitchen, Church and Children, barefoot and pregnant. They’re not complaining that girls are having children too early or that it’s a drain on the state. They’re complaining that these scandalous women have actual sexual autonomy.

It’s no use showing them that sex education lowers teen pregnancy rates, and that in turn lowers the abortion rate. Simply because the sin to them isn’t being a teenager who gets pregnant by accident and has an abortion. The sin is that the girl isn’t married, pregnant and adding to the population as fast as they can.

They will fight tooth and nail to prevent an abortion but won’t raise a finger to prevent the pregnancy that caused it.

You know we aren’t all the same Sunny, just because we disagree with some of what is said on LC!

From my perspective, it isn’t the culture, its the economic incentives. If you pay people to have more kids, you’ll get more kids. The culture re-adjusts around that. I don’t see any necessary connection between sexual liberation and unwanted pregnancy. Hell a more expansive and exploratory sexual culture is hardly likely to limit itself to heterosexual intercourse anyway;)

From my perspective, it isn’t the culture, its the economic incentives. If you pay people to have more kids, you’ll get more kids

That’s saner than the social conservative view, sure – but how do you square it with the observable fact that countries with more generous benefit regimes (Scandinavia, Germany, Netherlands) have lower single teen birth rates?

Well I am not an expert on the whole field, but in the case of the Netherlands, their welfare system is better structured not to radically benefit people who have children they cannot afford to support themselves.

Col. Richard Hindrance (Mrs)
“They don’t mind, as long as it’s *their* nanny state.”

Never a truer word said. Once you start talking about social issues, you quickly find that the real socialists, and big govt lovers are the Conservatives.

“When we trivialised marriage, actively promoted abortion and marketed contraception, we encouraged teenagers to have sex wherever possible,

Wherever possible, yes. I can’t even go to the shops nowadays without stumbling over a couple of compadres, going at it like a pair of mango-crazed bunny rabbits.

preferably unprotected.”

Except for the science lessons where they say “use contraception”, or the PSHE lessons where they say “use contraception”, or the assemblies where they say “use contraception”.

You don’t have to have worked for the DWP or the CSA (although it helps) for 10 minutes to realise that teenage pregnancy and the problems that go with it are overwhelmingly problems of the lower socio economic groups.

Notwithstanding that most benefit claimants are, de facto, from the “lower economic groups”. You would rarely run into anyone else working at the DWP, genius…

You know we aren’t all the same Sunny, just because we disagree with some of what is said on LC!

The sane libertarian voices I’m afraid are getting drowned out by the nutjobs though, aren’t they Nick? Even you have to admit that.

Which ones are which?

Interesting how Newmania implicitly suggests female promiscuity is a greater sin than the male form…

John B – Its the marginal difference . You get a property and a living from nothing . In Sweden they have 70% of your money anyway ; its all welfare . In any case international comparisons are pointless there are an infinite number of variables I usually assume an argument is at the desperate stage when someone says in X land blah blah. Who really knows ?

James -Interesting how Newmania implicitly suggests female promiscuity is a greater sin than the male form…

Did I ? Well theoretically I do not agree but if I `m really honest I would find it easier to live with a promiscuous son than the school, bike . I wouldn’t read too much into it , perhaps at some level one is conscious that she is the one who will suffer worse consequences and the additional protectiveness is not entirely malign. What about you ?

“School bike” eh? Hmmm, what a lovely “protective” sentiment that term betrays…

They will fight tooth and nail to prevent an abortion but won’t raise a finger to prevent the pregnancy that caused it.

This is absolute cock. Like the majority of the country but not the Labour Party I feel that when people are walking around who could have been killed at birth for convenience the late stage abortion is too late as it stands . There is a very definite bottom end to this logic though and it is not that far from where we are. Starting from the other end , if after 12 weeks the girl has not made her mind up you wonder why or if any reasonable legal frame work can cope with a such a self destructive person..
Additionally I would like more young women to join the overwhelming majority who have safe and responsible sex , usually in a relationship and should things go awry take prompt action. I feel some guidance would help and so would a reappraisal of our pro rent brat anti marriage fiscal system .

Why not have a number of approaches , a balance . No Conservative wants to ban abortion an absurdly extreme position . You are confusing the British Conservative Party with aspects of the American Republican Party which is a long long stretch nowadays . On the other hand to allow the revolting myth that an unborn baby can be flushed away with no more though than a used condom is warping attitudes to what sex is too far

In any case international comparisons are pointless there are an infinite number of variables I usually assume an argument is at the desperate stage when someone says in X land blah blah. Who really knows ?

Strange that you would refrain from accepting strong statistical data from an internationally respected source whilst claiming that yourself and mad Nad’s solution is correct whilst having absolutely no proof of it’s efficacy, other than to hark back to sentimental and outdated modalities that create their own slew of problems?

Face facts, if you want to prevent social disintegration and teen pregnancy/abortion, we need much improved education with strong social safety nets.

Labour does it wrong in exactly the same way the Tories do, by forcing strong authoritarian measures that please the red-tops. Rather than giving people the education and they need and closing the gap between rich and poor that’s left this country crippled in comparison to the more enlightened parts of Europe.

Alan you are the origin of the specious

if after 12 weeks the girl has not made her mind up you wonder why or if any reasonable legal frame work can cope with a such a self destructive person..

If after 12 weeks her situation changes? She or her partner loses their job? or another myriad things?

It’s a disingenuous example anyway as the VAST majority of abortions in this country are well within the 12 weeks you state. You’re just bringing up an emotive outlier to prevent access to a perfectly valid service.

As for mistaking the Conservatives with the Republicans, your own social conservatives refused to even accept the idea of improved sex education lowering pregnancy rates and thus abortion rates in the recent HF&E Bill debates. Anne Widdecombe was interrupted and asked directly about it in the chamber without it even registering to her.

The accusation stands. You won’t countenance comprehensive sex education. Education that has been proved to reduce unwanted pregnancy rates and thus abortion rates. Tories want to reduce access to abortion no matter the situation, using scare stories and unlikely and statistically irrelevant anecdotes. Whilst the real cause of high abortion, unwanted pregnancy, could be cut by an order of magnitude by following a more liberal Scandinavian model of society.

Actually Newmania I’m just interested to know why it would appear that you have such a thing about women having sex. “Fucking gang members”, “The school bike” etc… would it amaze you to know that some perfectly well-adjusted women have happy and consensual sex outside of marriage because they enjoy it?

Akheloios- Well lets see I am talking about encouraging both a mature attitude to sex and a moral framework for human relations . You think teachers are the right people for the job do you ? You obviously do not know any !
If schools reflected what parents wanted and not what teaching colleges from the 1960s wanted ,you might have a point .

BTW – Your name is the god of the horn of plenty , was that a nickname you got from the wild orgies I assume you regularly attend ?

szzzzzzzz

Akheloios – if he’s right about the wild orgies then give me the address, sounds top notch

@46 Additionally I would like more young women to join the overwhelming majority who have safe and responsible sex , usually in a relationship and should things go awry take prompt action. I feel some guidance would help and so would a reappraisal of our pro rent brat anti marriage fiscal system .
~~~~~~~~

And what about more young men advocating safe and responsible sex. Women and girls are not the gate keepers of sex and certainly not of male sexuality. It is girls and boys who are having sex so they both need to take equal responsibility.

Invitation sent.

Alan …. you think I want to stop that ? Come on

Akheloios

Go to Sweden. Hand over your 70% and live like battery chicken. We are not a country with the population of London which sat out the war ( and then exploited its advantage built under a free economy) has virtually build only housing costs ,,colossal resources and inherits a brutal dullness from its strict religious past which has translated into a sort of voluntary living death ( usually quickly followed by suicide ). You cannot compare, actually I find the thought of all those etiolated Swedes copulating consensually and re-coupling daily in dark saunas rather sinister. If an alien wanted to breed us for food thats what it would look like .

Back in the real world , personally I would countenance sex education but not when the manner and matter of it was set by New Labour rabid feminist groups who seem to dominate this area of policy and teachers .I can’t say I find the notion of the sate sticking its grubby fingers into the souls of the young all that appetising at best but I have no doubt Widdy and I could draw up some lessons which would have you whining about cultural coercion quicker than £10 blow job.

It is girls and boys who are having sex so they both need to take equal responsibility.

Well yes , but you would not want your own daugher to rely on it . Still good point

New Labour rabid feminist groups

Contradiction in terms, old boy.

Did I ? Well theoretically I do not agree but if I `m really honest I would find it easier to live with a promiscuous son than the school, bike . I wouldn’t read too much into it , perhaps at some level one is conscious that she is the one who will suffer worse consequences and the additional protectiveness is not entirely malign. What about you ?

Well I consider the contrast (you clearly couldn’t find a negative phrase for a male without many sexual inhibitions, whereas doubtless you picked one of many disparagements available when it came to females acting in the same fashion) to be a clear instance of double standards. The same behaviour is perceived as somehow distinct in character due to the actors, in an obvious instance of gender based prejudice.

Not that I buy into the feminist line that this gender binary damages females more than males (at least not any more) and indeed having a load of women under the impression that they need to be “pure” or “good girls” is highly irksome for the less inhibited males, I suspect. But what we have here is a classic example of someone considering conduct to be suitable or unsuitable upon a basis of largely imaginary conceptual constructs imposed upon people actually differentiated solely by a few physical traits.

Of course, that does mean that one half of them can suffer more than the rest through unwanted pregnancy. That’s an interesting point you raised and insofar as it providing the origins of this dichotomy you could well be correct, it’s actually not something which I had considered from that angle. I was imaging it being something more of the C.G. Brown argument that women were considered to be the ones who needed to be pious by pre-’60s society, indeed were the only ones truly capable of it, as the menfolk were irredeemable on their own and needed those possessing femininity to rescue them from their moral squalor. According to this line if women were acting “immorally” they were letting down not merely themselves but all the men that they were required to save. Accordingly female piety was of immense importance. Your rather more physical suggestion could be a plausible alternative, and it clearly is the case that women can be placed into a worse situation than men (who always have the chance to run away, not an offer available to somebody with an impregnated womb).

But the way to deal with that problem is contraceptive usage, as opposed to terming them “slags” and so on. Doing the latter will unquestionably be counter-productive.

58:Not that I buy into the feminist line that this gender binary damages females more than males (at least not any more)

Girls so far on this thread have been called sluts, slags and bikes so no damaging gender binary there then.

Clue: there are no equivalent names for boys who have sex (except as you note by using ‘disparagements available when it came to females acting in the same fashion’)

Calling girls these names is both damaging and derogatory for heavens sake stoppit!

Girls so far on this thread have been called sluts, slags and bikes so no damaging gender binary there then.

Everything is a matter of balance. Females have suffered a lot more in this respect, yes. But were they ever conscripted onto the front line of a battlefield? In many, many ways males get it a lot worse but trying to treat the binary like an abacus is non-sensical: its brutality affects different “sides” differently by its very nature.

Rendering both my point and yours something of an irrelevance, really…

Instead of trying to tote up grievances and working out which side has suffered more than which we should just form a consensus that it needs tearing down and start thinking about how.

What Paul said, in spades.

Uh…I think that the extent to which I disagree with him is probably pretty limited…

But were they ever conscripted onto the front line of a battlefield?

They were, in Sikh battles and in India with some examples . The problem here seems to be that men were thought of as able to fight, and women were thought of as weak and therefore unable to fight.

They were, in Sikh battles and in India with some examples.

I meant in Britain. Different geographical groups treat genders differently, that being one of the ways in which the sham of the binary becomes most exposed.

And I think that I would much rather be a woman seen as weak and stay as home than be a man seen as strong and be forced to get myself killed, frankly. The gender binary causes problems for both genders and if I was pushed I would probably actually say that it is men that suffer most, as it is men who are most often the victims of war and crime (excepting when indiscriminate weaponry is being used, as occurred during the Blitz here and is happening in Gaza at present).

Oppression, repression and suppression are all very unpleasant but losing limbs or your head is more so. Sorry.

But that, as I have stated previously, is something of an academic point. If we are agreed the binary is more bad than good then who it harms is a side-issue which we would do well not to delve into for too long. What we should be looking at is how to improve things.

I find the thought of all those etiolated Swedes copulating consensually and re-coupling daily in dark saunas rather sinister.

A pint to the person who works out the Somethingawful-esque forum whose trollites hang around here using the nick ‘Newmania’. Seriously, I feel my life has been enrichened by the sentence above….

I find the thought of all those etiolated Swedes copulating consensually and re-coupling daily in dark saunas rather sinister.

Sounds great to me – as long as they’re using protection etc!

“The sane libertarian voices I’m afraid are getting drowned out by the nutjobs though, aren’t they Nick? Even you have to admit that.”

Yes, but what else is new?

Take ‘em in hand, Nick. Someone’s gotta do it.

James – on a more serious point I’m not quite seeing where the direct comparison comes from. Of course I agree that being on the battlefield is dreadful, an experience that I certainly wouldn’t want to have and which I’m sure none of us would want to go through unless absolutely necessary. However, it just isn’t related to the day-to-day misogyny and sexism which works through our political system against women. I wouldn’t want to say that either one is worse, purely because they’re so different.

One of the reasons why I’ve gotten a bit bolshie on this thread is the way in which the rightie tendency (for it is he) appear to be so willing to use throwaway sexist terms about women in vulnerable situations. I really do think that’s very revealing of underlying attitudes which often work in defiance of overtly stated positions.

Alan – Well the role of the “househusband” and the disparagement aimed at it is often overlooked. The word “emasculating” is an overly common view of the effect their domestic indolence upon those who have their wives working while they stay at home. That’s a fairly good example of the restrictions men face and the negative rhetoric they face should they opt to confound these expectations.

As for the political system, well New Labour has shown that even women as incompetent as the average male New Labour minister can achieve a ministerial brief. Even when morbidly inappropriate situations can arise (members of Opus Dei looking after sexual minorities, for instance…) as a consequence, women can rise high. The ultimate in equality, I would say.

Finally, as for a direct comparison I can’t really see why you expect me to make one. I said that I don’t think those who are expected from birth to conform to the gender of “Man” get it so much easier than those expected to conform to “Female”. I maintain that that is correct and that it is not the most important issue confronting us when it comes to gender. The most important issue is how to rid ourselves of the binary, the source of a vast amount of harmful prejudice, bigotry and false expectations.

James I think it comes down to a fundamental question (and here I’m going to be in the highly unlikely position of agreeing with our bloggertarian friends) of the role of the state and the question of morals. I don’t honestly see this as a binary about men and women. I actually think it’s about class and social position in roughly equal measure. Yes I do think there’s an issue with placing all of the responsibility for sexual health upon women: I imagine you’ll have seen the various TV ads around this Christmas which as far as I’ve seen all appear to be telling women what the consequences of their own “irresponsibility” (ie having sex after a party… oooh) could be. But what concerns me more overall is that there is a particular vitriol directed against benefits claimants and other poor/working class women. It’s obviously OK to do what you like if you can afford it.

Which leads me on to the other point, which is that there seems to be an imperative from social conservatives to “morally” (it has no relation to my understanding of the word) direct women’s lives via the force of the state. What actually is wrong with women pursuing the sex lives that they want – just like men do? Nothing, as I’m sure you’d agree. But read back through the right-wingers’ comments in this thread. It’s almost all concerned with alleged morals and how women, especially working class women, do not live up to those artificial ideals. And that is not right. That is all I’m trying to say.

Well I suppose class could come into it? But the binary is unquestionably there and unquestionably causes a lot of problems. I don’t disagree with anything you say with regards to identical behaviour needing to be viewed in an identical light, but I do believe we’re rather talking past each other here.

I suppose that of the two of us, you are the one staying closer to topic. So carry on.

James – on a more serious point I’m not quite seeing where the direct comparison comes from. Of course I agree that being on the battlefield is dreadful, an experience that I certainly wouldn’t want to have and which I’m sure none of us would want to go through unless absolutely necessary. However, it just isn’t related to the day-to-day misogyny and sexism which works through our political system against women. I wouldn’t want to say that either one is worse, purely because they’re so different.

One of the reasons why I’ve gotten a bit bolshie on this thread is the way in which the rightie tendency (for it is he) appear to be so willing to use throwaway sexist terms about women in vulnerable situations. I really do think that’s very revealing of underlying attitudes which often work in defiance of overtly stated positions.

Exactly. Pray tell how the battlefield has got anything to do with misogyny and sexism in 2008 whist discussing sex-education? Boggle moment! (for what it is worth my family lost men in WWII but thankfully the surviving men didn’t feel it gave them any rights to denigrate my female family members)

While I enjoy the articles of LC unfortunately these sort of threads remind me of the Tory cry from the sixties “if you want a nigger for a neighbour – then vote labour”

Maybe we should start using the words nigger, coon, pakki, spik, dago, darkie, faggot, tranni again. They will blend in very nicely with slut, slag and school bike. No wait. The former involve men and the latter…alas only those pesky sluts sorry I mean females.

Sexism like racism/ classism/ disableism/ ageism/ homophobia and so forth really needs to be laid to rest guys.

Paul – I think “PC” for want of a better term is a very fine line – my own natural instinct is to kick against taboos and that goes in terms of words as much as anything else. However in the context of a discussion like this one I’m just not happy with the idea that, if you like, the gals are the only ones being judged. What’s more I’m not happy with what they’re being judged about, which is when and how they choose to enter into a consensual sexual relationship (“school bike” etc). It’s the sentiment rather than the word itself which is what really gives me the creeps, but broadly I agree with you.

James – I wasn’t trying to be too critical, your points are perfectly valid even though I don’t necessarily agree with the equation!

It’s easy to snigger at poor misguided Nadine Dorries but she is just a marionette in the hands of the gruesome Josephine Quintavalle, a woman widely disliked even in Pro Life circles. That said, just because Nadine Dorries points out that sex “education”, or as it should properly be called, birth-control indoctrination, is crap, doesn’t mean to say that it’s untrue. It’s not.
Sunny titters about abstinence education. It’s an easy hit. The thing is, that sex “education” hasn’t been found to be much more effective at reducing teenage pregnancies, abortions and STIs as the example of the UK shows. We’re almost at the end of the government’s ten year Teenage Pregnancy Strategy, set by the laughably entitled “Independent” Advisory Group on Teenage Pregnancy. It’s not independent at all, of course, being drawn almost exclusively from members of Pro-Choice organisations. Unsurprisingly, given its membership, it recommended more and more explicit sex “education” as well as freer and easier access to birth control drugs and devices up to and including birth control dispensing clinics on school sites. The government complied and to that end poured hundreds of millions of pounds into the strategy and recruited an army of bureaucrats to implement it. It can fairly have said to have been the dream Pro Choice policy.
The results have been decidedly unimpressive. The strategy missed its interim target of reducing teenage pregnancies by 15% by 2004 and is set to miss its final target of slashing them in half by 2010. The UK continues to have the highest teenage pregnancy rate in the EU, STIs have skyrocketed and abortions have continued their inexorable rise while during that period, the leading age group for abortions has shifted downwards from 20-24 year olds to 19 year olds. If there are any gimmicky policies deserving criticism they are those advocating sex “education” which have proven to be a demonstrable failure.
The failure of the Teenage Pregnancy Strategy could have been – and was – easily foreseen. Critics had already pointed out that hard evidence for the efficacy of sex “education” programs was thin, to say the least. In 2002 a study by left-leaning economist, David Paton on the impact of family planning progams on teenage pregnancy rates concluded that family planning facilities have little implact on teenage pregnancy rates and “may even be counter-productive” and noted that the one time the teenage pregnancy rate stalled in the UK was during the period the Gillick judgement was in force.
I’d like to see Sunny mature as writer and stop just churing out easy playing-to-the-gallery pieces on these sorts of topics.He’s old enough now to tackle this sort of thing more honestly.

Incidentally, who’s writing this nonsense about the appalling and unjust divorce laws?

“We introduced the divorce laws because up to two thirds of marriages were living hells. Usually worse for the woman and any children.”

and

“Divorce laws were introduced to buy off middle class feminists who, largely because they didn’t like men anyway – hugely overstated the disadvantages of marriage (which were and always have been greatest for men anyway) and imaged that liberation from the 1950s nuclear familiy model would lead to some kind of never fully defined nirvanaha.”

Rubbish in both cases.

The present disgraceful and unjust anti-family divorce laws were introduced for men so that they could abandon their wives and children at very little cost at all. They were vigorously opposed by grassroots womens’ organisations and by that crusading Labour feminist, Edith Summerskill who rightly described them as a “Casanova’s charter”. They have facilitated an epidemic of male callousness including widespread fatherlessness and remain a blot on the national landscape.

Exactly. Pray tell how the battlefield has got anything to do with misogyny and sexism in 2008 whist discussing sex-education? Boggle moment! (for what it is worth my family lost men in WWII but thankfully the surviving men didn’t feel it gave them any rights to denigrate my female family members)

Well, I just mentioned in passing that I didn’t agree that the negative consequences of the gender binary where mainly the burden of the females. I suppose it wasn’t relevant but once it was picked up on I was rather required to defend point and I did so to the best of my abilities.

To the cost of derailing the thread somewhat, but I was only attempting to be obliging…

Maria: what about women who got locked into loveless marriages prior to the divorce laws?

Do you mean women who freely and willingly consented to get married in the first place, Alan? Freely and willingly vowed to live with their spouse til death do them part?

No, I mean women who married because they were forced to by mid-20th century social strictures that said they had to enter into a life-long contract in order not to face social approbroium just for being in a relationship with someone for whom they had feelings.

Or even “approbrium” I meant there, shurely.

Alan, they weren’t forced to get married in 1950s Britain. That’s feeble. If they were forced, they could avail themselves of an annulment. Stop using these non-existent cases to deflect criticisms of the disgusting anti-woman, anti-family divorce laws which cause phenomenal damage to women and children. And address that point. Address the harm divorce causes children.

And I should add, very pertinent this, children from divorced families are more likely to have sex younger than their counterparts in intact families.

No, you meant opprobrium.

All marital relationship breakdown damages children. However, parents who hate each other, or have violent relationships, and who stay together, do far more damage than amicable divorces do.

In terms of “forced”, I obviously don’t mean literally in the daddy-had-a-shotgun sense. What I do mean is that this was what was socially expected of couples in sexual relationships. Whilst personally I’m a great supporter of the choice to marry (if you’re a Catholic or a Sikh, readers, I’m especially happy to be invited for the party), I don’t see it as a moral obligation that the law should place upon a couple. Equally I think they should be able to break up amicably without having to annul the reasons for being married in the first place. People change after all.

None of that BTW means that I don’t have the greatest admiration for people who marry and who remain completely adoring of each other until the day they die. It’s a great thing. It’s just not the natural fate of every relationship or every marriage.

Yes, “opprobrium”. Dear oh dear, my old Latin teacher would be spinning in his grave if he weren’t still knocking about…

Wrong. There is NO such thing as an amicable divorce for one thing. Secondly, it is a complete fallacy that any intact marriage can damage children as much as divorce does. It is a fallacy spread by people who want to justify the appallingly unjust anti-women and anti-family divorce laws which are cyring out for wideranging reform.
If people – adults – can freely vow to live with a person under any circumstances til death do them part, they should be held to that vow. And keeping those vows is not beyond the capability of anyone.
Divorce is bad, bad for children, bad for women and bad for society. We all have to pay the costs of traumatised depressed children and impoverished mothers. The divorce laws need urgent reform.

You’re going to have to come up with some reasons for that, given it defies both obvious logic as far as I can see it, and also more than one anecdotal example I can think of.

One reason for what?

I should also mention divorce is bad, very bad for the housing market. And what better reason to reform divorce laws could there be than that, eh?

Oh alright, try this: if divorce is as amicable as all that, the couple would have stayed together anyway. Second: divorce involves the splitting of assets. That means women and children are impoverished. Poverty is baaaad, very baaaad.

The issue with the so-called “market” in mortgage debt – sorry I mean housing – is separate.

As for divorce, I would think it perfectly obvious that if a mature couple decide that their relationship in untenable and then go their separate ways, with access/custody arrangements for children mutually agreed etc, then it is perfectly possible for them to do that without irreversibly psychologically damaging their children. Furthermore, I would think that if pissed dad comes home and beats up mum in front of the kids for 20 years, that is worse, and that their marriage certificate does not alleviate that situation in the slightest (even under the eyes of God, I daresay).

Yes, povery is bad. Which is why childcare should be freely available to every working mother who has a family income (single mum or not) below a level at which they could reasonably afford it, and also why single mums should have money thrown at them for job training programmes and reasonable incentives offered to employers to consider them at interview stage.

Also go on then, address the other points too but what are these divorce reforms which you advocate?

In many, perhaps the most cases, it isn’t a mature couple which decides that their relationship is untenable but one party unilaterally insisting on the dissolution of the marriage. Hardly surprising then, that divorce has been shown to be so traumatising for children – and it has. That is a point you have still conspicuously failed to address. Divorce is bad for children. It is not in their interests. It harms them. So far you have been very careful to defend adult autonomy. You have said not a word – not a single word – about childrens’ welfare. I submit that is the wrong way up. I further submit that if society is as careless as you are about childrens’ welfare, which it is, it pays the price in terms of anti-social teenage behaviour, up to and including the most violent crime. I say – and many will agree with me – that that is a price we cannot afford to pay.

The radical divorce law reform I would, therefore advocate would start with making the free consent of BOTH spouses a condition of divorce. Currently the law allows people, many people, to be divorced without their consent all the time. That has to stop. Forcible divorce is an outrage which cannot be tolerated in a civilised society. Second, divorce should be prohibited until children are 21 or have completed full time education. Third, children should have a veto on divorce. Fourth, legal separations should be encouraged as an alternative to divorce. Fifth, tax breaks should only be available to first time marriages, not to divorcees who remarry. Sixth, divorcing couples assets should be split equally and women paid generous, index-linked maintenance by their former spouses for life, irrespective of whether their former spouse remarries or has children with another woman.

Such progressive, enlightened reforms to family law would discourage adultery, reduce divorces overnight and ensure that people entering into marriages would take them more seriously. The lives of women and most importantly children would be incomparably improved. Poverty would be slashed, the housing market put on a more stable footing, deadbeat dads put on the run and inevitably more people would marry as they saw the status of marriage was protected in law. The benefits would just go on and on, at least equal to a cut in income tax for everyone.

OK, so your divorce reform would allow a violent man to keep a woman too scared to report DV in marriage, and even if she did report it in confidentiality to the police, give her six year old (who she’d kept it from for the sake of his/her own welfare) a veto. Niiicee…

No it wouldn’t. Where did I say that?

There would be nothing to stop a woman in a violently abusive relationship reporting the violence to the police, or from availing herself of a legal separation.

Sunny, can you do a IP check to see whether Red Maria = Newmania? Just a hunch, like… If not, this could be the start of a beautiful relationship.

(still no answer to 36/49, I note…)

“or from availing herself of a legal separation”

which, in your crazy world, differs from a divorce how exactly? because if the difference is negligible, then you’re playing silly word games; if it’s significant, then 94 is correct.

Not at all. She would remain married to her husband – or wife as the case may be – and able to access the financial benefits of that relationship, which are her right.

John B – no I’m not Newmania and Alan will vouch for me. Also you’ll see that our styles are rather different. He talks of welfare wastelands and bad women, I talk of deadbeat dads. Different. Stop being shocked and start thinking.

No, they’re not the same person, and she’s not saying what he’s saying, although they’re both wrong in my view.

John B – 36: Governments giving small economic incentives to women to have children have never been shown to be effective. Look at Mussolini’s Italy for further evidence of that.
49: Comprehensive sex “education” has not been shown to reduce teenage pregnancies at all. See the UK’s Teenage Pregnancy Strategy, which hinges on sex “education” and birth control provision. The Strategy has missed every one of its targets and seen an increase in teenage abortions, where the peak age for terminations has shifted from 20-24 to 19 and a massive increase in STIs.

Did the teenage pregnancy strategy replace abstinence only education, Maria? And do you think that would work in the UK?

I’d like to see Sunny mature as writer and stop just churing out easy playing-to-the-gallery pieces on these sorts of topics.He’s old enough now to tackle this sort of thing more honestly.

LOL! Awww… that’s very kind of you Maria. I was only pointing out the obvious, which was an easy hit. That’s the point of blogging sometimes. If you’ve got better ideas about reducing teenage pregnancy, let’s hear them.

As for the reformation of divorce laws… to what end? Making them harder? I can’t agree with that. Make them more economically equal? Possibly. You’re just throwing out dismissals without answers.

No, you weren’t just pointing out the obvious, Sunny, you were playing to the gallery and you know it. You’ve had good fun with Nadine Dorries over the last year, richly entertaining even those of us who come from the Pro Life side. You missed one thing in your Dorries attack, though, namely the main person behind her. And I don’t mean that monumental loony tunes, Andrea Minichiello Williams, either, Sunny. Wrong, wrong, wrong. You missed the real target there. Just try looking at a recent Minichiello Williams court case. Look at the person involved with her. She’s even more fun than her marionette, I can assure you of that.

But where was I? It would have been less easy but more honest of you to admit that comprehensive sex “education” is just as hopeless a venture as abstinence “education”. Both are ideologically-driven. What would be more effective? Increasing parental involvement, getting rid of confidential contraceptive advice for under 16 year olds. Look at the pattern of conception rates around the Gillick ruling.

From The Economics of Family Planning and Underage Conceptions, D Paton, Journal of Health Service Economics 21 (2002):

” … In 1984 (the year before the Gillick ruling), the conception rate in England and Wales was 1.37% higher than the previous year. In 1985, when restrictions were imposed on underage family planning, the conception rate in England and Wales was unchanged. In the following year, when the restrictions had been lifted (although family planning attendance had not yet recovered to previous levels) conception rates rose by just 0.01%. Across the 15 affected regions, seven experienced an increase in their underage conception rate in 1985 and eight experienced a decrease. In 1986, conception rates increased in eight of the 16 regions and went down in just six. In contrast, conception rates in Scotland (which was not directly affected by the ruling)
increased by 7.58% in 1985 and again by a further 5.63% in 1986, whilst conception rates of 16–19 years old increased by 3.32 and 1.30%, respectively …”

Regarding reform of divorce laws, yes I would like to see divorce both made much harder and settlements based on a yardstick of equality.

Making divorce harder is tackling things from the wrong end: by the time it gets to that stage, the relationship has broken down, and it’s wishful thinking to think that repairs can take place in most instances.
A better ‘solution’ is actually to make marriage more difficult, raising the level of commitment each partner has to the other. Blimey this could play to all the audiences: the Right would inevitably give tax breaks/rewards to those showing this super-level of commitment, the Left could use it as leverage to fully equalise civil partnerships and marriages, it ought to help in reducing forced marriages, could see a reduction in lawyers’ bills as divorces are fewer…
So, you only can only get married after at least a year and a day (always liked that old legal timespan, now gone) has passed from your initial meeting with a registrar. Let’s throw in a few extra meetings in the interim, with pre-emptive relationship counselling if you like (hey, job creation). Hmm. what else might make it harder to wed..?

[n.b. this has no relation to the fact i'm getting spliced in 5 months time, no siree]

Here’s a suggestion – those who don’t like teenage pregnancy and don’t have anything sensible to say about can kick each other firmly in the nuts. That’ll reduce the pregnancy rate.

I love Red Maria

Yes, I would also like to see Boy Sunny mature as a writer as well . How does sure maintain this querulous sanctimony into middle age. Its a bit like mums in leather trousers. He needs to colour and swell from the unappealing smelly pod we see today into some glorious legume . I share you concern RM, we must all pray for Sunny`s ripening .(snicker ….)

This is also interesting

‘The radical divorce law reform I would, therefore advocate would start with making the free consent of BOTH spouses a condition of divorce. Currently the law allows people, many people, to be divorced without their consent all the time. That has to stop. Forcible divorce is an outrage which cannot be tolerated in a civilised society’

Well , what a superb insight for years I have been confused , honestly . Let me explain …..
I am on the second Mrs N having been summarily dismissed after about a month by my first wife who decided ( with a timing that still ghasts my flabber ) that marriage was not after all for her ,after a month . Having entered the contract with serious intent it took me four years to recover .No children were involved and the beauteous current Mrs. N, mother of my three god like boys , is of a quite different kidney . Still ,what struck me forcibly at the time was that I had done absolutely nothing wrong or played any part in this decision .
I was amazed at the ease with which one partner can renege on an agreement which carried , for me implicit duties of care and commitment in a denial of the spirit of marriage. The concencus ad idem. I actually think the trust of a contract with penalties would encourage marriage as trust encourages all transactions . The benefits to children are unquestionable as I recently demonstrated .

BUT
Where Red Maria gets the idea that divorce laws are framed or the advantage of men lord only knows . If the woman for any whim decides she has had enough , after children she gets the kids the house an income , access to shadowy boyfriends at your expense . The man gets nothing but a small room a tear stained picture of his children ( which he will never see) and a death only discovered when Alsatians start sniffing at the grimy door behind which his rotting corpse lies un mourned . This may well happen to him because he is working so hard she is bored . This happens .
So I thimnk what RM is saying is that the woman should acknowledge what she owes or get on with her exciting career in retail and buy a cat .

Men are usually honourable and honest as a Summer’s day and need less of a cattle prod to fulfil their obligations. Only the outrageous legal dispensation we live under reduces them to impotently leaping about dressed as Spiderman .

So, you only can only get married after at least a year and a day (always liked that old legal timespan, now gone) has passed from your initial meeting with a registrar.

Not a bad idea

Also you’ll see that our styles are rather different.

Actually, it is only your content that distinguishes you. Your styles are pretty much identical.

Oh that’s not fair, I thiink Maria’s quite classy – albeit magnificently wrong on almost every point she makes here.

I am finding that a fuller consideration of the Red aspect of Red Maria is cooling my ardour somewhat. I see no stylistic convergence , I am a harlequinesque exquisite scattering insights like sparks from a Catherine Wheel while she is a , a sort of moral bulldozer. Infinitely preferable to the grumbling Muppets in the box though.

Less than a third of traditional marriages were happy, there was massive infidelity, more by men than women. The Divorce Laws were liberalised to allow both partners to escape loveless and often violent marriages. Before the liberalisation, domestic violence and abuse was often ignored or even blamed equally on both partners. The rise of women’s shelters helped this somewhat, but it was only after the availability of easier divorces that public opinion began to shift away from the stereotype that it was often the women’s fault that she was beaten to the, hopefully, current idea that domestic violence is squarely the fault of the violent partner.

Poverty was endemic in a lot of marriages anyway, with women working just as many hours as men in most cases. Housewives were only middle class phenomena, with working class families much too poor to have a woman stay at home. So with the liberal divorce laws, women could escape from poverty stricken, violent, unhappy marriages, to just poverty, and that’s where a lot of them remain.

Poverty and ignorance remain the correlated factors to teen pregnancy. I f we did spend more of our money on good education and provided better paying jobs by closing the gaps between rich and poor we’d solve the problem in the same way the Scandinavians did.

The present disgraceful and unjust anti-family divorce laws were introduced for men so that they could abandon their wives and children at very little cost at all. They were vigorously opposed by grassroots womens’ organisations and by that crusading Labour feminist, Edith Summerskill who rightly described them as a “Casanova’s charter”. They have facilitated an epidemic of male callousness including widespread fatherlessness and remain a blot on the national landscape.

These are some of the best words I have read on the subject.

Now, to tackle a wider point. Small ‘c’ conservatives (vaguely: people who value freedom) do not want women subjugated nor homosexuals persecuted. What they want is a free society in which mature adults are capable of behaving responsibly.

It is no coincidence that in the Soviet Union, the family was aggressively undermined: children were encouraged to rat on parents, divorce was common, abortion was available on demand. All powerful dictatorships begin by breaking into the small private space of the family (the Nazis were no exception with their Hitlerjugend and doctrinal prescriptions for how women should behave).

Social conservatism is not about the state policing our bedrooms. It’s about creating a societal framework in which mature behaviour is rewarded and destructive choices discouraged. That can be done most effectively by stopping ideological state pro-sex propaganda, stopping subsidies for fatherlessness and letting parents be parents.

In other words, less state interference, not more.

Less than a third of traditional marriages were happy,
Pure invention obviously
there was massive infidelity, more by men than women
More fairy tales ;we do not, and cannot , know ‘Poverty was endemic in a lot of marriages anyway, with women working just as many hours as men in most cases ‘ ( This is increasingly true for most households )….This is just saying some people are poor I think . Genius ; and the childish wish for us all to be richer and have well paid jobs is pricelessly banale .We are certainly not going to get any richer under the sort of thoroughgoing socialism we are facing under idiot Brown .
Education will,stop teenage pregnancy will it ? Do you know , I have a feeling that girls who get pregnant did not do so by falling off their high heels onto an erect penis ( an objet trouvé” you might say ) and failing o register the significance of their mishap Do you seriously think there are girls out there who do not know how you get pregnant ? This fantasy figure could only be invented by someone who like Don Quixote has read so many silly books he has gone ga ga . Given that we know everyone knows ,I am at something of a loss to imagine what education is going to achieve. I remain impressed by RMs evidence that the answer is nothing at all.

All powerful dictatorships begin by breaking into the small private space of the family

Well said Cicero

In amongst all the posturing I note that no one has mentioned the easyily accesible hard porn that is on offer on the internet and the effects this has on young peoples attitudes to sex.
It seems to me that if you wish to go down the Newmania road then you will certainly need to put the web porn genie back in its box and that seems pretty impossible to me. So really the only way forward is to create better sex education/safer sex education.
The world of the hormonal teenager has always revolved around sex and always will – its free for starters! So rather than blather on about how bad it is, how marriage is the key etc, why not just begin at the begining with useful sex education.
Also the days of the state paying youngsters to have more children for more benefits is begining to end as government starts to put more pressure on single mums to go back to education/work.

It seems to me that if you wish to go down the Newmania road then you will certainly need to put the web porn genie back in its box and that seems pretty impossible to me. So really the only way forward is to create better sex education/safer sex education

Bullspizzle ! the only people who can do that are parents and the technology exists now and and is commonly in use . Bad luck .