Nadine Dorries MP and the Quest for Sexual Abstinence


by Sean Gabb

I have just heard that Nadine Dorries has withdrawn her Sex Education (Required Content) Bill. If passed, this would have required schoolgirls to discuss abstinence in the classroom. The summary of the Bill taken from the UK Parliament website is as follows:

A Bill to require schools to provide certain additional sex education to girls aged between 13 and 16; to provide that such education must include information and advice on the benefits of abstinence from sexual activity; and for connected purposes.

In her blog entry following the first reading on 4th May 2011 (which passed 67-61), she explains the reasons for presenting the Bill:

“I am not seeking to diminish sex education as taught at present, but to include the empowering option that young girls can just say no. In school, children are taught to base the decision whether or not to have sex on their feelings and wishes. I don’t believe young girls under the age of 16 have consistent feelings and that they can change from day to day. My bill was about making boys wait being an empowering and cool thing for girls to do and that it should be taught as a viable, if not preferable option for girls aged 16 and under – especially as sex at that age is unlawful.”

The Libertarian Alliance is not an organisation that regards itself as judgemental. Our policy has always been one of perfect love and good will to all. This being said, we cannot resist quoting a Daily Telegraph article from the 7th January 2011:

“Nadine Dorries, the outspoken Conservative MP, has confirmed that she has started a new relationship with a married man who has been a family friend for 13 years…..

“Mrs Dorries, 53, said that she begun a relationship with John Butler, a 55-year-old father of two and devout Christian, in December shortly after he left his wife of 30 years….
“Mrs Butler, who found out about the relationship on Friday morning, added to the Daily Mail: ‘Because she’s an MP people think of her as a pillar of society but in fact she’s a marriage wrecker.

“’I’m shocked and hurt. I know it takes two to tango but she shouldn’t have gone after a married man.’”

We cannot find it in ourselves to praise Mrs Dorries for wanting young people to be hectored by their teachers into continence at a time when sexual intercourse is at its most pleasurable. But we do look forward to her denunciation of women who, in late middle age, get into bed with married men. Surely, at this time in a person’s life, abstinence is both easier and more reasonable to expect?

About these ads

28 responses to “Nadine Dorries MP and the Quest for Sexual Abstinence

  1. I would prefer no lecturing either way on the subject at school. None of this “hey six year old kids, did you know anal sex was one of your exciting range of choices in life?”, but also no attempts to encourage abstinence or safe sex either. Really, children know more about it alll than the teachers.

  2. Michael Roberts

    Take your point, but I think we should bear in mind:

    1) Handled well, with a sensible, non ideological teacher (I know, I know, but we have a right to expect it) it doesn’t have to be ‘hectoring’.

    2) No-one knows the intimate details of others’ private lives except those involved, and there will be at least two versions of the Nadine Dorries story. But they are adults and the rights and responsibilities attaching are theirs to deal with. Some of us can remember being teenagers, and I suspect few would claim to have behaved as we would ideally like our own children to do.

    Perhaps, as with Her Maj to Her Government: to advise, to encourage, and to warn.

    Pompous? Maybe, but I don’t care!

    Well, I do, and that’s the point.

  3. Ah, you posted this just to get me ranting about Puritans, didn’t you?

    The problem with this is that Dorries is promoting that Victorian ideal that girls only have sex because boys incite them to. in this model, beloved of many conservatives, and of all Feminists, sex is purely a “man thing”. So therefore they are always coming up with these foolish ideas based on the assumption that the problem is that girls are not able to say no. It never occurs to them that girls have sex because it is fun. It simply doesn’t enter their tiny minds.

    It’s interesting to note that Dorries peddles the idea that a magic event occurs on one’s 16th birthday, when one becomes magically capable of making decisions, and that sex is suddenly “normal”. The whole problem with this whole thing is that the Victorian 2nd Wave Puritans invented this “age of consent” idea, and thus manufactured an illusory period between sexual maturity and sexual legality. The fact seems to be that the normal age for sexual maturity in human females is about 12. Evolution developed a whole series of biological indicators of sexual maturity, just as in other species. The legal age is a falsity. The result is that no law can apply sensibly, because no law based on this idea can make any sense.

    Well, we’re into the Puritan Third Wave now. Last time around, they rapidly proceeded from “saving” girls from sex to locking them up in institutions as delinquent. At the moment they’re primarily focussing on boys, who get labelled in their teens as “paedophiles” for having sex with their girlfriends or just having photos of them on their mobile phones. We’ll have to see how the Third Wave develops but, if history is a guide, it ain’t going to be pretty.

    Anyway, Dorries and her femiservative ilk, in tandem with the left-feminists, are fighting a battle against nature and, perhaps worse, common sense. Unfortunately it looks like it’s going to be a while before the next swing of the pendulum, after which it will be fashionable again to deride them as Comstock is derided. These people are absurd, but have power. They cannot win, but they can ruin a lot of lives in the process of failing to win. That’s the horror of it all.

  4. Strangely irresponsible not to wish to discourage teen mums whose bastards will be a burden on the state, but what should I expect from a libertarian?

  5. That’s because libertarians are far more interested in getting rid of the bastards who run the state.

  6. Just sayin….
    When I spent some time in the old Czechoslovakia before 1993 (officially helpingthe Bruges Group to wreck the communist structures still in place but really in fact having fun and driking beer most of the time with student friends at Brno University) I learned some odd things.

    In South Moravia, what Nadine Dorries would call a “pubescent young woman” (say from age 12 to about I guess 17) is defined as a “kozicka” (pronounced “ko-zzeech-ka”.) It does not translate strictly to English, but freely to “little baby female goat”. At the time, I was informed in ordinary social discussions, as between students and their teachers about “matters”, in the pub, as you do, that the age of consent in Czechoslovakia was legally 16, but “nobody pays any attention to that!”. (it is what I was told also, slightly to my suprise as you can imagine.) The female students at Brno University did, I have to say, seem extraordinarily “experienced”, in all sorts of exciting ways that one could not have envisaged.

    Personally, I think that sex has been so ruined, since Kenneth Tynan invented it in 1963 and forced the government to nationalise it, by the British GramscoStaliNazi State, that it’s hard to see exactly how humans can get back forwards to this time. Tha time when you learned about it from your playfellows aged about 11 or 12, in the school playground. As indeed I did – I thought then…(flashback)…//”pooo! That’s disgusting! You must put your willy into the girl’s front-bottom, and you have to be excused into her….cor, that’s awful! She can’t like that, then! Pooooo!”), or on the ploughfield watching the cows and bulls doing it.//

  7. As Ian says, Claire, if you just get rid of the bastards who run the state, they won’t be able to pay teen mums to breed like barnyard animals, in the hope of garnering Neil Kinnock’s grandson’s votes as he stands for Parliament, and then for the Kingship.

    Anyway Claire, nice to see you over here as opposed to over there – do come back often, it will be entertaining!

  8. I know I’ll be in the minority here, but I find it much more objectionable for tax money to be given to “middle class” couples in their late 30s who’ve finally deigned to breed, to go in their second holiday fund. And if you try to take it away from them, as Cameroon has attempted to do in a feeble and partial manner, they squeal that they’re being “discriminated” against.

    Much of the GFN State has been constructed by do-gooders mithering about the residuum, including the whole ghastly “sex education industry”, or apparently they’re now calling themselves “PSHE”.

    Really, I’m all for breeding like barnyard animals. It worked pretty well for the rest of history. This whole anti-breeding idea only got going when those pampered madams, the Gibson Girls, decided that breeding was dirty and would ruin their figures, and then realised that the lower classes were still having normal numbers of babies, so they started trying to convince everyone else to stop having babies too. And thus, here we are, with most of the Western World below the replacement rate. Not to worry, we can fix that by being a “community of communities”, eh?

  9. http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.com/2012/01/libertarians-disdain-to-discourage-teen.html just about says what I want to say on the subject. God day to you, gentlemen of Libertarian Licence.

  10. Congratulations on the blog post Claire, it nicely illustrates that you appear to be barking mad.

    I particularly enjoyed your previous post about how autism is caused by mothers being “crap” and the sufferers being “bastards”. Keep it up.

  11. Had a look at the site.

    Battlefield of Love?

    Death March more like.

    Tina Turner said it best

  12. Thank you for the link to your blog, Claire. It was good for a laugh. Although I am left wondering if it is wrong to laugh at the emotionally disturbed.

  13. Ian B,

    Abstinence as the norm only really made sense in the era before reliable contraception, safe abortion, when women worked at home.

    I think that people often misunderstand the thing about no sex before marriage as a religious thing, when actually it was more about a rather sensible way to live at the time. When you didn’t have reliable contraception, and women’s work was in the home, it made sense to stop your daughters having inappropriate contact with men until they were married, and you knew that offspring would be provided for.

    As for her point about teenage pregnancies, all the evidence suggests this is about the incentives. If it was about the quality of sex education then we would expect the teenage pregnancy rate to be more uniform across society. We also know that Switzerland and the Netherlands have much lower rates of teenage pregnancy (and both expect parents to sort out the problem). I’m not saying that poor teenage girls are deliberately having sex to get council houses (although I believe it might happen in some cases) so much as saying that the opportunities that better off girls see for themselves make delaying sex a preferred option. If the government wanted to eradicate teenage pregnancies it would liberate the planning system, allowing poorer people to afford housing and would also raise the tax thresholds.

  14. I’m not in favour of unmarried motherhood, especially in the case of teenage girls. But I don’t think school propaganda on the subject works, and I would prefer schools to stick to teaching knowledge. If people want to have children out of wedlock and – here is the key point – don’t require state money (=my money) to finance that, then they can do so. But in no cases should I be required on to pay forced exactions in the form of tax to fund such lifestyles. My way of dealing with teenage pregnancy is to withdraw the flats and benefits that are dealt out to such girls. I set out a Libertarian approach to family values on my blog at http://www.corkirish.com/wordpress/archives/1454

  15. It’s interesting to note that the inventor of the welfare State, Beveridge, was a Fabian-connected eugenicist, so his model was very much one of bureaucratic population manipulation. Indeed, he gave a speech to the Eugenics Society clearly stating that child benefit was intended to be eugenic. His reasoning (such as it was) was that eugenicists had noticed that better-off women have fewer children (and were thus being outbred by the underclass) and so if you give money to women, they will have fewer children, hence universal child benefit.

    Srsly.

  16. Joseph Takagi, a school I worked in had special classes for all the pregnant 16yo girls. At any one point almost a third of the 16yo girls were pregnant. They were very knowledgeable about contraception, they were even more knowledgeable about council house waiting lists and welfare benefits.

    I’ve heard all the arguments, but having met the pregnant girls who happily and openly explained that they had got pregnant purely to get their own house and enhanced benefits I now consider that I know the actual truth of the matter.

    If anyone is actually worried about the number of unmarried teenage mothers then the answer is to stop paying teenage girls to have babies. Sex education has nothing to do with it, whatever heartrending tales we are told about poor ignorant teenagers back in the dark days of the 1950′s.

  17. WE were not ignorant of sex and how to do it and what it was for, in the 1950s. We learned about it as children from each other. When, age about ten, I finally got one of the “cool cats” to advise me. They were boys at school who were “up on” (today we would say “into”) popular culture, like Cliff Richard, the Shadows, Susan Maughan, Helen Shapiro and Dusty Springfield (both later) Radio Luxembourg under the bedsheets with an earphone in the middle of the night, etc.

    Me? I was classed as a “square”. Squares didn’t know what the latest “top ten hits” were. They were reported, occasionally, by “informers”, to have “listened to classical music at home” on “daddy’s gramophone”. This was the Kiss of Death, socially.

    I was shocked, and thought it was disgusting, that you have to “put your willy into the girl’s front-bottom” and “be excused into her tummy”. But the cool cat said it was supposed to feel nice, so I said “ah, that’s all right then!”

    Our teachers, most of whom had fought in WW2, sort of “that morning”, and indeed a couple who’d gone //Over The Top on 1st July 1916// and lived to teach us, would have been so enraged – had they been still alive which I doubt now – by today’s GramscoFabiaNazi “educationists” doing PSHE. These sound, kind, very very hard but human and interesting men would think it none of their f*****g business to try to tell boys – boys, I ask you! – about sex. That job was either for the parents if the boy was “a bit slow”, or for the boy himself to find out by discussing it with his friends in break, or even – for the daring ones – hopping over the hedge at the back of the playground to St Andrew’s Convent School for Girls, Grange Road, Leatherhead, Surrey…and summoning up the courage to…ask a girl!

    Girls could be seen, many of them, in their break time too. Just through the hedge and trees. Strange animals they seemed, sort of mysterious in ways we could not quite articulate, cavorting about in the bushes and grass and sitting in groups, making daisy chains to put on their heads. I thought they were absolutely lovely and magical, and never afterwards lost that opinion.

    Anything that the GramscoFabiaNazi state does to come between boys and girls, and influence their opinions of each other, is bound to fail, and cause utter disaster.

  18. At the risk of one of those “too much information” comments, I must reveal that I was shockingly ignorant of how ’tis done, which only became apparent upon my initial opportunity to do it. I was a nerd, with nerdly friends, none of whom had had any useful information since none of them had done it either and, once out of school in the wider world it is not something one asks, for fear of embarrassment, and lack of awareness of one’s own lack of awareness. Indeed, I can still remember the shocking realisation that, despite being aware of the general plug and socket arrangement, I was not entirely clear where precisely the hole was located, nor how to properly engage with it, and frankly the whole experience still makes me flush red to remember, as indeed I am doing now even as I type these decades hence.

    I had received “personal education” (I believe that was the euphemism at at the time of my schooling) at school, but it had not offered any useful description whatsoever, although there was one memorable film that was antiquated even in the 1970s, which taught us all that the boy with VD is the one with the “readybrek” glow around him, and that girls in poodle skirts should say no to his advances. I also remember a brief description in a biology textbook that usefully explained that “When a husband and wife want a baby they get close together. He inserts his penis into her vagina and sperm is released.” as the opening salvo, which rather illustrated the whole problem I had, that being the question of what an unmarried couple are supposed to do between the beginning and end of the second sentence, which was the information, in retrospect, that I most needed.

    I am being serious, by the way. It is one of the primary reasons that I am a strong supporter of the general availabilty of pornography. I hate the thought that any young man may embark on his “personal education life” as woefully ignorant as I did. I cannot begin to describe the unhappiness it caused me. Whoever it was that said that ignorance is bliss was grossly in error.

  19. Single Acts of Tyranny

    “I find it much more objectionable for tax money to be given to “middle class” couples in their late 30s who’ve finally deigned to breed”

    Er, where do you imagine the tax money comes from in the first place? Not so much given as having trvial amounts returned.

    As for the deigning stuff, it’s when we can finally afford to (and not be a drain on the state) after funding a million and one chaves to do so.

  20. It comes from a variety of places, including “chaves” via purchase/sin taxes. “Returning” actually inolves raising the tax burden to pay for that “returned”. It is a silly argument, especially when you consider how many of the better off are either directly or indirectly on the State’s payroll.

  21. Ian B, of course young people should be educated about their bodies. The problem is that the State automatically sees this as an opportunity, a duty, to preach and propagandise. For a long time it has been spreading propaganda to the effect that anything goes and that there are no moral, only practical constraints on behaviour, now we face the prospect of having puritan morality preached in the schools.

    Better by far that the State should just back out of the whole matter all together.

  22. Oh, I entirely agree. I am utterly opposed to State teaching of such matters, sorry I didn’t make that clearer. What I meant was that I also oppose the State creating a deliberate information famine through draconian censorship.

    My other general point was simply that no amount of embarrassed walks in the garden discussion the birds and the bees in an awkward fashion is as educational as just seeing it done.

  23. AS to “seeing it done”……I seem to detect a kind of trend in the last 1,000 or 2,000-odd-years towards more and more privacy in human interactions. In some ways this might be a good thing. In others, it might not. Perhaps in, say, 5th-century England, the villagers at the local big-man’s wedding-feast would drunkenly gather round the bales of straw in the evening, in what passed for a house, to see him do his business, amid collective cheers and guffaws, with his new bride. Today, we pretend we want to watch him carry her over the threshold, probably a fossil hangover from the earlier customary shared rites.

    I agree with Ian, in that the effect of little lime-green booklets published by (I can’t remember what) and left casually about by one’s tongue-tied father, entitled “The Facts Of Life”, produced a torment of galactic proprtions. How the f***, I thought, can one possibly persuade a girl to agree to such a thing as was (and is) described, in exactly those terms, by you?

    People like King Henry I, who is known to have fathered at least 35 children by a number of (presumably willing) women including his queen, and the insufferable David Lloyd-George who probably had about 50 or 60 lovers (he’d lost count) must have existed in an age when there was no “sex education”, and it does seem that everybody know what to do, including the girls. It can’t just have been from watching the local cows and pigs and chickens.

    Perhaps what is now called “pornography” was simply viewed live, as it went on, on a bed near you, and the participants had no problems with that?

  24. Actually, Ian, it’s not even as simple as the antiquated film made out, described memorably by you in lines 9 and 10 of your second plangent paragraph! (I think I saw that film too, at Public school (it was still doing the rounds in the 1960s) – it was quite upsetting in a sort of cold way.)

    …..Sorry…..I had to leave off to make a leftovers-curry….Errrrr…..The man inserts his…into her…..and…..

    No. Sorry. It didn’t work out like that. Ian, you are not alone! How many millions, and millions, and millions, of ordinary men – most probably in the more developed technological civilisations, those specifically-targetted by GramscoFemiNazis for destruction – have been traumatized by that phrase, and the world-view that led to it being written, in cold blood, as though that was all there was to “doing it”?

    If “The State” were in charge of “sustainable management of sexual reproduction”, I could picture command-gauleiters with loud-hailers, screeching things like “ALL MEN PRESENT! Prepare to insert your penises in your state-designated-female’s vagina….NOW! On the command ONE….thrust once every 0.8 second, for 15 minutes! One the command TWO (which will follow) RELEASE SPERM! On the command three, retract your limp penises, and wipe up after you!

    It would be interesting to see, but I’d love to know if “men” in pre-capitalist-barbarian scenarios (I hesitate to calle the civilisations) have any at all of the same problems? It does not seem so, since the average “ethnic” woman of breeding age in Britain now has 4.9 children. (I’m not a “racist” (whatever that is), no, not at all. I merely quote someone else’s observation.)

  25. In our over civilised sate we do seem to find a certain emasculating of men.

    The risks of confusion and ignorance on the one hand and of an adolescent hypersexualised, emotionally retarded approach on the other.

    An odd paradox indicating that all is not well with the male psyche.

  26. goldendragon2012

    Notes from the Madhouse: “NOTE 11: Again, from the NY Post. The Dept. of Education is mandating that all public schools (middle and high school) begin teaching sex-ed in the upcoming spring semester. Well, sure. Where else are these kids going to learn about sex? …
    Certainly no programming going on here. No interference in home life by the State. No control by the State.”

  27. I feel a sense of real anger here and if that offends them I am sorry, but as a parent of a child who is diagnosed with Aspergers, the comment I found is beyond anything I have yet encountered. I do not know where the blog is or who is responsible for posting that particular vile comment which I have quoted below, but I for one would like a few words with that particular person!

    “I particularly enjoyed your previous post about how autism is caused by mothers being “crap” and the sufferers being “bastards”. Keep it up.”

    Apparantly this was written by someone who calls herself Claire. Well I can tell you this Claire your ignorance is astonishing, your intellectual capacity seriously flawed and your disingenuous comment totally bereft of reason.

    These children have difficult social relationships and it has nothing to do with parenting or the ability to parent. Autism is a cognitive problem and children who are unfortunate to have this difficulty can have serious problems in developing social relationships, are prone to “concrete thinking” and taking things literally, can have profound problems in understanding the world around them and also have difficulty in coping with change.

    Your arrogance is profound and your conceited nature more than obvious, at first my reaction was anger, but I realise that people like you should be pitied rather than scorned! After all it is only pity which can forgive such blatant ignorance and intolerance of others. I once thought libertarianism was a way ahead, but now I see it is nothing more than another dictatorship in the making, with people so blinded by their own ignorant way of thinking, that they fail to see real problems and real difficulties that others have, nothing different in fact to the present Government! In fact maybe even worse! As for Nazi’s, was it not Hitler himself who stated that not only were the disabled not part of society, but that they also should die?

    As a parent of such a young person, personally I find the comment particularly disgusting, but maybe that is in your inhuman makeup! Or maybe you simply lack both reason and common sense, because you certainly have not done any research! My advice before making such a stupid remark is to look autism up, The National Autistic Society is a good place to start, that is if you can read!

  28. Single Acts of Tyranny

    “It comes from a variety of places, including “chaves” via purchase/sin taxes. “Returning” actually inolves raising the tax burden to pay for that “returned”. It is a silly argument, especially when you consider how many of the better off are either directly or indirectly on the State’s payroll”

    I am sorry for taking quite so long to reply to this, for some reason I just got an automated e-mail today. Also apologies for the initial ‘chave’ typo.

    Chavs (or indeed state employees) paying purchase taxes make no net contribution if they are tax funded in the first place. Returning taxes does not mean others have to be raised, spending could of course be cut (some chance I know, but it is mathematically possible).