Masturbation is ‘self-abuse’ and ‘unnatural’, according to SPUC

SPUC (Society for the Protection of Unborn Children) is an anti-abortion organisation which speaks to young people in schools across the country on topics like abortion and euthanasia.

We’ve written before about our concerns with the misinformation that SPUC provides on contraception and abortion, and about the stigmatisation of abortion, as well as non-heterosexual lifestyles. However, a recent blog quoting SPUC’s communications manager Anthony Ozimic exposes another aspect of SPUC’s policies which may not be fitting for schools wishing to deliver relevant and accessible sex education to their pupils.

In addressing the Telegraph’s recent obituary of ‘IVF pioneer’ Robert Edwards, SPUC outlines its problem with masturbation (as well as other aspects of IVF technology). Ozimic states:

“The sperm used to fertilise the eggs in IVF is almost always obtained by masturbation, assisted by the provision of pornography. Masturbation instrumentalises and thus debases the sexual faculty, which is proper to marital union, not laboratory experiments. The sexual organs are structured for depositing sperm into the vagina, not into a jar. A masturbator - even one motivated by a desire to fertilise eggs, even his wife's - is 'making love' to his hand, which is unnatural and a form of self-abuse. Masturbation for any purpose - including providing sperm samples for medical purposes - is intrinsically unethical.”

Remember that SPUC claims to be a secular organisation. When SPUC speakers talk about sex and relationships in schools, they do not do so from an officially Catholic position. Ozimic notes that “Catholics in particular should note that it is forbidden” but implies that masturbation is debasing and unnatural for all.

We know that in fact, a majority of people have engaged in some kind of masturbation. It is safe and can be a good way for people to get to know their bodies without risk of sexually transmitted infections or unwanted pregnancy. It’s sad to think that a new generation of young people is being fed these same stigmatising messages about masturbation which can create guilt and shame around what is a natural and common act.

Standing up for young people's reproductive rights!

Today is the International Day of Action for Women's Health and to mark this, the Women's Global Network for Reproductive Rights issued this call to action:

“Full Recognition of Young People’s Sexual and Reproductive Rights! Recognise Reproductive Rights! Mobilise for Reproductive Justice!”

This means:

• The right of young people to decide on all matters related to their sexuality
• Access to sexual and reproductive health services, including safe abortion where legal, that respect confidentiality and do not discriminate
• The right of youth to comprehensive sexuality education
• Protection and promotion of young people’s right to control their sexuality free from violence, discrimination, and coercion 

Have a look at the full report here. 

We thought we'd let an actual young person tell you why they support this call to action. Here's what Jacob, friend of EFC and founder of S4SRE (Students for Sex and Relationships Education) had to say:


"These issues are important to me because a world of people more comfortable with their sexualities is a place I want to be. I think we need to invite young people to ask directly what sort of help they'd like from sex education, and to be more trusted as the major source of support we are for each other... these questions need not be some sort of public spectacle, like TV 'health entertainment' shows. Access to the services and resources that make sure sex can be safe and supportive is another factor that means youth sexuality stops being a punishable reality, and instead a healthier part of growing up."

Well said Jacob!
If you're a young person with an interest in these issues you might want to submit an essay or opinion piece to the Reproductive Health Matters journal which is currently looking for submissions on 'Young people, sex and relationships'.

 

Teaching about marriage

Current Sex and Relationships Guidance asks schools to teach about the nature and importance of marriage and of stable relationships for family life and bringing up children. This wording recognises a range of different family structures and acknowledges that a child brought up in a variety of contexts can be fine if some basic pre-conditions are met.


It now transpires that conditions for funding for Free Schools and Academies obliges them to teach about the superiority of marriage and its importance in bringing up children, but apparently not other kinds of relationships or families. This new SRE formulation seems to have dropped the term ‘stable relationships’.


Why does that matter?
 I think we can all think of examples of children being brought up by single or non-married parents who are happy and healthy and some who are damaged and vulnerable. We all know marriages that are destructive and that provide a bewildering and distressing context for family life as well as those that are safe and lovely. However, I will leave it for others to discuss the pros and cons of marriage itself and whether it is the societal panacea it is believed to be by some.


As an educator I am most concerned about classroom practice 
When you work in a classroom you become very sensitive to the variety of backgrounds and experiences that make up the student group. You think carefully about the words you use and how they will impact on the feelings and future choices of the young people who are sitting in front of you. If I was teaching about different kinds of relationships and different models of family life, I would be acutely aware of the fact that the young people in my class could be being brought up by married biological parents; could be adopted,  fostered or in care; could be being brought up by a single parent (single through choice, through abandonment, through bereavement); could have a gay parent or two gay parents; a trans-parent may have lost their parents; or may simply have two biological parents who co-habit, but never ‘tied the knot’. The last thing I would want to do is to stigmatise them, make them feel I am judging their family or pre-judging their future life based on their current family life. Unfortunately this is exactly what happens when people try to promote marriage above all other models of family life.


Telling these children that they are more likely to fail, because marriage is the only legitimate model for family life, that it confers some unique protection on children, and guarantees them an advantage in life, is hardly a good educational tactic is it? Whatever your moral or political beliefs about the benefits or otherwise of marriage over other kinds of relationships you have to think about whether stigmatising  a student’s life experience is going to reap educational or emotional benefits.


Most parents do their level best to create a family and home in which children feel safe and loved, are motivated and supported to do their best in life and are healthy. Parents hope their children will find a loving partner and create a loving home for their grandchildren too. Talking about how to achieve this: what makes a child feel safe and loved, how to manage the challenges of parenting, how to make decisions about when/if to become a parent, and how to get the support all parents need to make a good go of it, are all vital parts of Sex and Relationships Education. Most people would agree that children thrive with certainty, security, boundaries, and consistency. With this in mind, exploring the concept of ‘stable relationships’  seems a really sensible approach. Telling a large proportion of our children that their families are inferior, failing or illegitimate because their parents/ carers aren’t married -  or that they, as a result are disadvantaged and set up to fail -  is just plain wrong.

Myth-Busting Monday – Pictures of genitals are ‘dirty’ and ‘corrupting’

This myth-bust was inspired by yesterday’s debate about sex and relationships education on the BBC’s Sunday Morning Live. You can watch it on iPlayer here.

On the show Lynette Burrows, ‘family rights campaigner’ claimed that sex education in schools is ‘unhealthily obsessed with destroying childhood innocence in a way that’s reminiscent of paedophilia.’ She accused sex educators of ‘talk(ing) dirty to little children’ and described SRE as ‘a stranger in a classroom showing (children) dirty pictures’.

She was backed up by Nick Seaton from the Campaign for Real Education who claimed that primary school education included ‘explicit details of male and female genitalia’ as well as, outrageously, non-judgmental teaching on heterosexual and homosexual relationships.

Although a lot of tosh was spoken on the show, it’s this disgust with telling children the names of their body parts which we want to focus on today.  Presumably the ‘dirty pictures’ Burrows references are things like diagrams of male and female reproductive organs. We’re not talking pornography here but likely illustrations of labelled genitalia showing the vulva, vagina, urethra and so on (and yes, there are still plenty of young men and women who don’t realise that women have more than one ‘hole’).  We would argue that in fact, telling young people what the different parts of their body are called is not about destroying children innocence. In fact it gives them the appropriate language they need to describe their own body parts. Body parts they can see every day just by looking down! Body parts they may well need to talk to a doctor (or yes, a lover) about one day. Such language is particularly important for the recognition and reporting of sexual abuse. Through sensitive and evidence-based SRE children can learn which sort of touching is appropriate in which situations.

Alice Hoyle (who also appeared on the show as an actual sex educator) has written a great blog about this with loads more detail. We suggest you check it out. Another teacher adds her thoughts here. Oh and do visit Scarleteen for more information about (and ‘dirty pictures’ of) male and female gentialia.

Myth Busting Monday: Sex educators don’t tell young people about saying ‘no’ to sex

When Nadine Dorries proposed the motion to teach girls aged 13-16 ‘the benefits of abstinence’ she claimed that young people are ‘taught to have safe sex, but not how to say no’. Is this really the case?

The argument put forward by those who back abstinence-based sex and relationships education is often based on the misconception that SRE in schools is focused purely on teaching young people how to have sex, with no reference whatsoever to delaying or refraining from sexual activity. One member of the new abstinence-heavy SRE Council, Challenge Team UK claims:
‘By giving information about condoms and showing teens how to use them, adults who are the authority figures in teens' lives may be giving them, unintentionally, permission to have sex’.

In fact, good SRE is NOT about encouraging young people to have sex as soon as possible. Good SRE will always acknowledge the importance of having sex only when the time is right for you (and your partner/s). Good SRE will make clear that ‘sex’ isn’t necessarily just about male/female penetration and that there are many other ways (sexual and non-sexual) of showing someone affection and feeling pleasure. Good SRE will note that the legal age of consent for young people is 16, but that the age at which people feel ready for sex, or start to have sexual relationships can be different for everyone. Good SRE will of course stress the importance of only having the kind of sex you want to have at a time which feels right for you. And yes, good SRE will encourage the use of condoms (alongside other contraceptive methods) should this situation arise, as a way to reduce the risk of unplanned pregnancy and STI transmission. Good SRE will cover communication and relationships alongside consent – how to say yes, no, and ‘not now’!

Sex Educators aren’t telling young people about safer sex because they want them all to be having sex as early as possible. But because they live in the real world, where yes, some young people may already be having sex and need to know where they can access accurate information and advice. And because, well, the vast majority of young people they speak to in a school or youth centre will, at some point in their lives have sex. Just as with other aspects of education, we teach young people life skills which may not be relevant to them at this very moment but will almost certainly be relevant for their futures.

Why we're supporting the pro-choice demo 9th July

EFC is happy to promote the Pro-Choice demo happening next Saturday (9th July 2011) in London, to its friends and followers. This blog gives a bit more information on why we think this action is so relevant and important. To register your attendance visit the Facebook page and follow @ProChoice9July #prochoicedemo2011 for up to date information.


Recent months have seen a number of worrying intrusions into our reproductive rights in this country. Including:
• Nadine Dorries’ and Frank Field’s ‘Right to Know’ campaign which posits abortion providers as having a ‘vested interest’ in persuading women to end their pregnancies, and argues for ‘independent’ centres to provide pre-abortion counselling. EFC believes these amendments are based on a false premise – that women aren’t currently getting impartial, evidence-based support with their pregnancies.  Our research into crisis pregnancy centres in England also suggests that a great deal of ‘independent’ centres do not provide impartial accurate information but rather, are driven by an anti-abortion agenda. Read a thorough debunking of this campaign by Darinka from Abortion Rights here.
• Anti-abortion charity Life invited to sit on the government’s Sexual Health Forum.  LIFE is a well funded charity with a large profile and has every right to promote its anti-abortion position. However, as a lobbying group with no commitment to evidence-based clinical practice, or to promoting and providing good quality contraceptive and reproductive health care, it simply has no place on this group, which otherwise consists of sexual health experts, clinicians and service providers.
• Michael Gove commends the new SRE council of abstinence education groups. LIFE and Care (a Christian organisation which opposes abortion) join 5 other abstinence/anti-choice groups on the new SRE council which has been welcomed by the education minister. See our blog for more information on these groups and more information on why abstinence doesn’t work.
• Nadine Dorries’ abstinence education for girls. Worryingly, Tory MP Dorries’ misguided bill to teach girls abstinence passed the first stage vote in parliament. Another reason to keep on our toes and make the case for evidence-based comprehensive sex education.


EFC supports the rights of young people to accurate information and good quality, evidence-based information on abortion; and their right to impartial support with pregnancy decision-making. We believe that current developments will impact most on young people by depriving them of essential information and diverting them away from health professionals who could give them the support they need to access services quickly.


Those of us who believe women should have access to safe, legal abortion and they and their partners and families access to evidence-based information on contraception, pregnancy and abortion need to stand up for these rights before they are eroded.


Join EFC on the demo to make a stand for the pro-choice majority and for young people in this country.

We're not scared of talking about sex. SRE...NOW

With the announcement of the new SRE council, consisting mainly of those opposed to comprehensive sex and relationships education and a new bill being presented to Parliament calling for abstinence education for *girls*, it may be timely to print this transcript of a presentation EFC Director, Lisa Hallgarten made to a health conference in March 2011.


'Education for Choice works primarily to ensure that all young people are enabled to make informed choices about pregnancy prevention, pregnancy options and abortion and we have been delivering sex and relationships education for nearly 20 years now. 


Last week I attended a conference where the Public Health Minister affirmed her support for sex and relationships education and I was really delighted about that as I think everyone at the conference was...but she couldn’t provide any concrete commitments as to funding or policy. One of the things that was said was that making SRE statutory doesn’t in and of itself ensure quality.  I think that’s something we can all agree on. Just getting a school to tick a box saying it does it is not enough; just getting a school to provide a couple drop down days a year is not enough; just getting a form tutor who is overworked, under-skilled and unconfident to deliver a couple tutorial sessions on sex and relationships education is not enough. But actually, after 10 years of the Teenage Pregnancy Strategy, Healthy Schools, Sex Ed Forum briefings and more, there's been a kind of flourishing of innovative practice all around the country, and we do know what good SRE looks like now.  Nobody is suggesting that when English, Maths and Science aren’t taught well we should pull them from the curriculum. What we say is we need to invest in workforce training to make sure that teaching and learning of these subjects is improved. I would like to argue that we should be investing in workforce training to make sure that the delivery of sex and relationships education is improved. 


Something else that I heard last week from the Minister and that really, really bothers me, is that we are all scared of talking about sex with young people and that’s the real obstacle to progress.  There’s this common wisdom that everyone in Britain is culturally incompetent, that we all go beetroot at the mention of sex and that we are just tongue-tied around the whole issue. This simply isn’t true. There are hundreds of people out there who are brilliant communicators about sex and relationships, who are experts at talking to young people about sex and relationships and whose profession it is to talk to young people about sex.  Personally I am not in the slightest bit coy or anxious about talking about sex with young people or anyone else.  If you put me in front of a class and asked me to talk about the periodic table, I would be in serious trouble, but talking about periods... piece of cake.  If you ask me to talk about international relations to a history group, I would be paralysed with fear, but intimate human relationships... yes please.  If you want me to analyse the text of Romeo and Juliet with an English class I couldn’t do it, but I can talk about teenage romance... I think you get the picture.  There is an expertise, it’s not rocket science, but there is an actual set of skills and knowledge educators can acquire. What we need to do is get the people who want it to do it and  train them and give them the skills, information and confidence to do it.  For example, my organisation is the acknowledged authority on talking to young people about pregnancy decision making and abortion, that’s a subject that lots of people think is just too difficult to tackle, but actually we do it, and we do it every day in schools.  Teachers like it, students love it, and we have trained about 500 nurses and teachers all around the country to do that every year. Really the cost of that is relatively small when you think how many young people those professionals then reach, it’s a very cost effective way of improving the sex and relationships education people get, in fact you could say it’s a no-brainer.  Young people want it, professionals want to do it, professionals want training to do it and there are people out there like Education for Choice and a load of other agencies who can train them to do it. WIN!


Like most people in this room, I’m not really that worried about the small print, I could even accept that SRE isn’t going to be statutory, I don’t care whether it’s called sex and relationships education, or relationships and sex education, what I do care about is that there will be universal provision of good quality sex and relationships education which means evidence-based information, which means supporting young people to access local health services and knowing which professionals they can talk to about what, where, and how? This means that whoever the child is, wherever they are, whether they are in a community comprehensive school, an academy school, a Faith school, a free school, a private school, a public school, or whether they are being educated at their mum’s kitchen table, that they all have access to evidence-based information which, after all,  is an entitlement; which is a need; and which we know contributes to a whole range of wellbeing outcomes, including reduction in unintended teenage pregnancy. 

Myth Busting Monday: '7 year olds are putting condoms on bananas'

So, since this meeting is taking place in London tonight to get together some like-minded opponents of Nadine Dorries’ recent plans to introduce abstinence education in schools and ‘independent’ pre-abortion counselling we thought we’d be topical and touch on one of her oft repeated myths: That children in primary schools are being taught how to put on condoms using bananas.


Here’s Dorries on her own blog claiming that:
“Girls as young as seven are taught about intercourse, safe sex, how to apply a condom on a banana, where to get condoms, how to detect an STI and that they don’t need to tell their parents anything.”

And she’s repeated the banana thing in quite a few of her numerous media appearances. Now we know that Dorries' blog is, by her own admission, 70% fiction but this little nugget of fiction is particularly galling to those of us who actually work in sex education. Yes, thankfully there are some primary schools doing great SRE, but for children below 11 this focuses very heavily on the ‘R’ – relationships. By talking to children about appropriate relationships educators introduce awareness of boundaries and what is and isn’t safe.

Anyone who does work in schools/SRE will tell you that when condom demonstrations are done they a) generally take place from about Year 9 in secondary school when SRE starts to cover topics like contraception and STIs and they b) don’t tend to use fruits and vegetables but rather an appropriately but perhaps boringly named ‘condom demonstrator’ (which generally look something like this).

What’s worrying here is why Dorries chooses to roll out this myth again and again. This post on the Children’s Services Blog suggests an underlying rejection of comprehensive SRE altogether:
‘Dorries sounds alarmist. She sounds Puritan. Her objections to banana-condom practice hint at a disregard for lessons on safe sex altogether’.

So let’s file this one in the ‘70% fiction’ pile. Busted.

Myth Busting Monday Special - so many myths, so little time

An article in The Independent newspaper today reports that Family Education Trust is circulating a pamphlet to all schools today encouraging them to promote the message that ‘In the context of a faithful, lifelong marriage, sexual intimacy is beautiful and enriching, but where a sexual relationship is pursued to express passing feelings and emotions, it is ugly and destructive and will lead to misery and regret.’

For this Myth Busting Special I look at all the myths that are explicitly stated and implicit in the pamphlet and in FET's decision to distribute to all schools.

Sex before marriage is ugly and destructive?

There are millions of people, young and old, having sex outside of, before and after, marriage all over the world. While we know that many people experience unsatisfying sex, coerced and unwanted sex, which is 'ugly and destructive', or transactional sex which may be far from 'beautiful', millions of unmarried people also enjoy the intimacy and affection and the physical sensation of sex for which human minds and bodies are so perfectly made. The human body which predates the institution of marriage by some fair margin – is made for sexual pleasure. For millions of people sexual pleasure has been the only pleasure they could come by easily in a world in which food, shelter, and other forms of basic comfort, let alone recreation, are not guaranteed. Though it pains some people to hear it, many millions of people in the world enjoy sex within a range of different relationship types from long-term and monogamous to perfunctory. For some the excitement of the one night stand outweighs the technical congruence of the long-term partnership. For others it is the safety and familiarity of the long-term relationship that enhances pleasure and enjoyment. In any kind of relationship where both partners are consenting and enthusiastic and use safer sex practices, sex outside of marriage has no demonstrable negative effect on its participants.

Sex within marriage is universally beautiful and enriching

Given the multiplicity of literature, TV programmes and replies from agony aunts on 'how to keep your flagging sex life alive' and 'how to keep your husband interested' it may be safe to assume that marriage, and the monogamy it implies, does not- in and of itself- guarantee you good sex. Married couples may experience all the same problems as unmarried ones when it comes to sex, a difference in desire and libido, different sexual needs and tastes, different energy levels, physical and psychological obstacles to fulfilling sex, infidelity and jealousy. Some of these things may even be exacerbated by lack of sexual experimentation with each other or others before marriage. While marriage may provide a safe and trusting relationship within which to explore each others sexuality, it can also normalise and cement dysfunction and violence. Good communication, equality and trust are the key ingredients for any couple's sex life and these do not come free with the marriage vows.

Regret always relates to sex outside of marriage

Some people regret that they never experimented more before they committed themselves to a monogamous married relationship.

Sex education is corrupt and corrupting unless it aims to prevent people having sex

Of course we all believe in educating people to have the tools to resist unwanted or unsatisfactory sex. Young people need to know how to make choices they'll be happy with about their sexual behaviour and partners, to better understand how to give and recognise consent, and to address power imbalances that lead to violence and bullying - this is why we advocate for comprehensive sex and relationships education, but SRE isn't just about risk avoidance, it also includes how to give and receive pleasure and feel safe. If it's going to engage young people it's got to be about increasing the proportion of sex which is wanted, safe and enjoyed, not reducing the amount of sex young people have per se.

Marriage is the best relationship within which to live and bring up children (and it's ok to tell children so)

Observing sex education lessons in a girls school in inner city Islington carried out by a group with a strong abstinence agenda, my colleague was upset that the speaker was emphasising again and again the disadvantages of being brought up by unmarried or single parents. She was pretty sure that the majority of pupils in that particular school are not brought up by two still-married parents, so how helpful, or ethical was their message? For many children these kinds of messages don't reflect their reality. Proponents of the 'marriage-only' model might as well call these children a bunch of 'bastards', because that is the logical end-point of their thesis - that all sex out of wedlock ends in misery and despair. I thought the repugnant concept of 'illegitimacy' was dead and buried, but I feel it lurking barely beneath the surface of Family Education Trust's ideas.

We also have to consider those young people who know that they are gay or are already questioning their sexuality. How do they hear these messages and what impact does it have on their sense of how valuable they are and how valued their lives and lifestyles will be as they become adults. It is discriminatory and damaging to teach children that there is only one 'right way' to live your life - and particularly vile when those most vigorously promoting marriage as the only way are also the most outspoken against gay marriage.

Most importantly, I have never seen any convincing evidence that marriage is all its cracked up to be. The studies I've seen heralding marriage as the best formula for a happy family seem to ignore confounding factors and rarely compare like with like by looking at long term committed relationships alongside marriage (I'm willing to be corrected by the army of academics out there who can tell me I'm wrong here).

Telling young people not to have sex is a good way to stop young people having sex

It's not. The evidence is everywhere and this blog post is too long already to exercise these arguments again.

Just telling young people not to have sex, and nothing else is morally acceptable

It's not. On top of any arguments about the efficacy of sex education young people have a right to know about things that effect their bodies and lives so it's not ok to ignore their rights by lying to them or withholding accurate information. In fact to do so would be morally corrupt.

Lisa

Consent - YES PLEASE!

In the lead up to the election, and since, there has been discussion about the role of consent in teenage sexual behaviour and sexual health outcomes. A recent research report was published suggesting a strong association between sexual coercion and teenage pregnancy. Meanwhile the Government seems committed to addressing consent issues:

'To help stop sexual violence before it occurs, we will ensure that the school curriculum includes teaching young people about sexual consent' – Conservative party election manifesto 2010

'...working with schools to teach young people about sexual consent and respect in relationships' – Theresa May at Womens Aid conference in 2010.

I welcome any educational initiatives that reinforce mutual respect and consent as the basis of sexual relationships. However, in case anyone thinks it is an opportunity to promote conservative messages about adolescent sexuality I would sound a cautionary note. Convenient as it would be to believe that sex amongst teenagers was just happening because of peer pressure, coercion and at worst violence, the fact is it isn’t. Sex is happening because it’s natural, it feels good physically and emotionally, because it is fun, because it is exciting and adventurous, because young people fall in love and for a whole load of other positive reasons as well as all the scary negative stuff. It is important that we acknowledge that as our starting point.

It is also vital that we consider what consent means in its broadest sense and once we have defined consent, what the implications of that are for educators and service providers.

We can probably take it for granted that everyone agrees both parties should ‘consent’ to sex, but I bet we’d find a very wide range of views of what constitutes consent amongst both policy makers, lawyers and sexually active people of all ages.

I think that these two things are essential pre-requisites of consent:

i) An absence of coercion: the real possibility of saying no if you want to, or saying yes to some things/activities and no to others, or yes now and no later...

ii) The capacity, education and skills to make an informed choice: to understand the risks (physical, emotional) that you are taking, to be able to predict a range of positive and negative outcomes and to be able to balance these and make a choice

Here are just some of the things that need to be in place in order to meet those pre-requisites so that consent is the norm in sexual relations amongst people of all ages:

• An understanding that coercion is a spectrum of behaviour from persuasion to persistence, to incentives to insistence, to threats, to force and even more shades of behaviour in between and that true informed consent is not possible in any of these scenarios

• An opportunity to explore the association between gender, age, wealth, power and sexual coercion

• An ability to recognise and decipher information presented on the internet and in the mainstream media in order to understand and critically evaluate messages, conventions and representations of sexual relationships

• An opportunity to consider the role of pornography in influencing people’s expectations of their own and their sexual partners desire, physique and performance

• A full understanding of all the possible consequences of having sex including the risks of contracting STIs with all the immediate and long-term health implications

• A full understanding of the risk of pregnancy, a consideration of all the decisions that can lead to and result from an unintended pregnancy and an understanding of all pregnancy options

• A full understanding of the positive reasons that people have sex, including the emotional and physical pleasure it can bring

• A full understanding of the range of sexualities and sexual preferences that exist and understanding that people of different sexualities have the same right to personal safety and bodily integrity

• An understanding that the onus is on the coercer to listen to and hear their partner and not just on the coercee to be assertive and confident enough to keep saying no

There’s a lot more, but this would be a start. Even with this brief list it looks pretty much like a comprehensive sex and relationships curriculum!

I am glad the Government is looking at consent issues. I hope they’ve learned the lessons of the past and they know that it’s not enough to teach us ‘just say no’.

He said, she said: single gender sex ed?

A bit late on this, but Knowsley has been making news in the sexual health community lately. If we had a water cooler, we’d be talking around it about their possible new approach to sex ed: the county council recently announced its intention to consider teaching aspects of sex and relationships education (SRE) in single gender groups. The decision follows a report from the (creepily Orwellian-sounding, if we do say so) Children and Families Scrutiny Committee, which recommended that the Council consider gender-segregated delivery.

Children and Young People Now asked experts to weigh in. Simon Blake, director of national young people’s sexual health charity Brook, points out that young people often ask for elements of sex ed to be delivered separately. Lucy Emmerson of the Sex Ed Forum agrees, and adds that bringing the girls’ and boys’ group together after a separated lesson can also be beneficial for learning outcomes. Dr. John Lloyd of the PSHE Association takes a different stance, stating that as SRE should be delivered as part of PSHE, mixed groups make the most sense.

Education For Choice delivers its Talk About Choice workshops, examining issues around unintended pregnancy and abortion, to young people in a wide variety of settings. Whether we’re working with a single-gender or mixed group, gender forms a key part of our discussions. We encourage all young people to consider pregnancy decision-making from all perspectives, including what it might be like for their partner(s). While young men have no legal rights when it comes to a pregnancy decision, Education For Choice encourages young men to share their feelings with their partner(s) and access professional support where desired. In mixed groups, young men are often surprised about their female classmates’ opinions about men’s roles in pregnancy choices, whether it’s their willingness to consider their partner’s preferences, or to make a decision without such consideration. Likewise, young women find themselves surprised by their male classmates’ strong opinions, or apparent indifference.

Young men and women (and, for that matter, old men and women!) do not discuss the issue of unintended pregnancy and pregnancy choices often with one another. Even long-term partners may never have discussed what would happen if faced with an unexpected decision. This leads to more pressure in the already-stressful situation of unintended pregnancy. Talking about these issues in mixed gender groups encourages young people to talk openly about contraception, pregnancy, and pregnancy choices with their partners and friends, leading to more careful consideration of this situation before it arises. Ideally, this equips young people to make a considered, informed choice about pregnancy in the future.

In the end, I think I’m with Gareth Davies of the Terrence Higgins Trust: this idea perhaps deserves some exploring, but in my experience young people benefit from the diversity of experience that comes with a mixed-gender group. We’ll keep an eye on Knowsley and in the meantime, look forward to abortion education stories here on the blog!

Good news - today's abortion statistics

I was really happy to see the abortion statistics published by the Department of Health today. They show reductions in the abortion rates for women of all ages. Since it is unlikely that women had less sex in 2009 than they did the year before, it probably means that men and women are using contraception more regularly and more effectively and getting offered a better choice of contraceptive methods – good news! For those women who did access abortion the statistics show that services for women are improving too. 94% of abortions were paid for by the NHS and a massive 91% were carried out before 13 weeks into pregnancy .

The figure that shows an increasing proportion of abortions taking place earlier in pregnancy definitely brings a smile to my face. The earlier abortions happen, the safer they are, and the easier to access. Young women are often the last to seek help because they’re scared, lack knowledge or are in denial about their pregnancy, so getting them into services earlier is a challenge we’ve been helping professionals to meet all over the country.

Just in case you wondered, I’m not complacent. Most abortions happen because the women didn’t intend to get pregnant at that point in her life. That’s a lot of people who still aren’t getting support from partners and professionals to use contraception successfully and of course there’s still that pot of gold at the end of the rainbow we are all searching for – the perfect contraceptive method...

No Sir, these figures don’t make me want to put my feet up and light a fat cigar. There’s so much more to do to make sure young people are given accurate information about pregnancy prevention, pregnancy choices and abortion. Education For Choice is one of dozens of organisations which rue the day the Government failed to give us statutory sex education. We still visit students in schools who have been given presentations by anti-choice organisations who quite deliberately misinform and distress them. Young women seeking abortion after 12 weeks, in all but a few large cities, are most likely to have to travel substantial distances to get an abortion – which is extremely difficult for those with no parental or partner support. In a nutshell , there’s still loads to do and these statistics are just showing slight improvements across all areas. Those improvements have been hard won with professional commitment and substantial investment. Let’s hope the money and commitment continue so we can celebrate again next year.