Do condoms belong next to crisps?

by Greg McDonald

Religious commentators who claim new TV adverts for the morning after pill offer a green light for teenage promiscuity, and that contraception shouldn’t be advertised “alongside a packet of crisps”, can’t see the wood for the rubber trees.

Our national problem is not consenting adults sharing a healthy human experience – it’s our unwanted pregnancy rate. And if TV ads are effective in lowering that rate, then more power to them.

Yet social conservatives like Catholic Bishop Vincent Nicholls and Ann Widdecombe continue to put the many-wheeled cart of sex education before the virile stallion of sex.

Widdecombe claims young people seeing morning after pill ads “will think there are no consequences to having sex”, while the Bishop opposes TV condom advertising too. Such ads fail to show our youngsters “what human sexuality is about”, claims the lifelong celibate in the dress.

Today’s kids don’t live in Narnia, but a world where the school run is past the local pole-dancing lair and boob-job ads fund the railways. If anything is going to send these sex-saturated teens into a pagan orgy of promiscuity, it’s not a timely reminder of the availability of contraceptives.

“Alongside a packet of crisps” is exactly where contraception should be advertised – as a responsible part of a healthy life free of superstitious guilt and social taboos.

Comments

[les lee]

sex education for the young???
with all the teenage pregnancies surely they have learnt ??

[Anon]

Lexx

Who are you to decide that a mother of under 16 years of age is not good enough to bring up her own child?

What right have you to decide that the child should be automatically taken away for adoption. Rather presumptive of you.

Whether the child is given up for adoption or kept by the natural mother is for the mother to decide, not you or anyone else.

I would add that I know someone who did have a child under the age of 16 and she brought the child up herself. She made rather a good job of it.

[Lexx]

P.S Apologies if this post is on more than once: It's not showing my post but that may just be

my PC Being useless...

[Lexx]

Anon

How did you get from "children of under-age immature law-breaking parents should be given to those who would actually be able to take care of them and raise them to be half-decent people" to "all children of under-age parents should be sold into slavery"? That's some serious readin between the lines there...

And no I don't believe preventing children from raising children is theft, I think it's humane more than anything else. Under 16's cannot drive, smoke, drink, watch most movies, or even play the lottery, and yet you feel raising a human being is not beneath them?

[Anon]

Lexx

Perhaps we should also go back to the days of child slavery!

To consider taking the child born to someone under 16 years without permission is theft.

I find this even more offensive than the offense committed against grandparents who were denied the right to bring up their own grandchild and was taken away to be brought up by two same sex parents.

What you are suggesting is outrageous. You must be a socialist.

[Lexx]

Though as an added point to my previous statements (see the rather large rants from the start of the blog lol) I think children born of mothers under the age of 16 should be automatically put up for adoption- to put it in material terms, it would be something gained by illegal means, and anything else under such circumstances would be confiscated immediately. And the child would go to someone who desperately wants a child but cannot have one of their own, and the best part is, to adopt a child you have to be financially secure and living in a clean, secure, and above all child-friendly environment. No druggies, no chav scum, no benefit scroungers- in other words everyone wins except the ones who did wrong in the first place.

[Anon]

If these kids and their kids need a home then they should get one. By home I mean a house.

Give them a better start in life without all this bitching about social housing and benefits.

Stop making these kids lives a misery because they had unprotected sex. Their lives are going to be hard enough as it is without all you bigots giving them a hard time.

What these kids are now going to see is the other side of society that kicks them in the teeth and gives them a hard time.

Blokes who take them out just for a sh*g because they have done it once then they have no right to refuse!

My own view is they should have had a termination but not everybody holds this point of view and in a democracy we can all have different points of view without hassle from the rest of society.

[Father Ted]

Say 10 hail marys and have a hot bath.

[Yammie]

Well, well, well isn't it just interesting to read all the comments so far about a age old theme that has been around for centuries. I am 36 and I didn't have sex until I was in my twenties and even then we were using condoms and I was on the pill...mnd you my generation was brought up on moral values and responsibility like working for a living and not expecting the local government to hand me the keys to my own place if I ever got myself "up the duff" - the answer stop handing out priority housing and benefits for teenage parents, make their parents responsible for the their offspring and the resulting "bastards" (legal term, look it up)- no money means no free ride. I actually know of several young mums/dads whose first thought upon finding out that they were going to be parents was "cool we can get our own house!" Granted, there are exceptions to the rule about 2% of young mums/dad who work very hard to support their own child/children but these are very rare indeed. Promoting the morning after pill, not a good idea, mind you since when have we ever had any good ideas regarding the "nature of life" come from any government regardless of which party it is? The other half of my family "my aunt's children/grandchildren" have all raised their children on benefits, so I know what I am talking about....

[mandi]

I'm more concerned that its for sale over the counter and frightened or let down teenagers will multiple bring in the hope of a DIY abortion. I am not against the use of the morning after pill the fewer un wanted /not sure pregnancies the better, but it is a bit stupid putting a potential dangerous way of terminating out there so freely available.
As for discouraging teenage sex maybe the findings that having sex with multiple partners at a young age i.e 14 - 18 increases your risk of cervical cancer should be impressed on young girls since the very public demise of Jade Goody has brought this terrible disease to the attention of the age group mentioned. As this country seems to not only not scourn teenage pregnancy but reward it in the form of benefits and housing and free pushchairs, this will hardly be a deterrant maybe dying before you are 30 will be!

[Shafted Britain]

Religious commentators who claim new TV adverts for the morning after pill offer a green light for teenage promiscuity, and that contraception shouldn’t be advertised “alongside a packet of crisps” are dead right.

If they know what their genitals are for they know what condoms are for already.

No matter what you say these kids are still going to have sex because this society isn't too strict about morals.

There are lots of ways kids can get contraceptives without advertising them on tv. Besides which I don't want to see such things on tv I find it embarrassing especially when in polite company and in my own front room.

How about having tv commercials telling them how wrong underage sex is instead of encouraging it. Let's have some morals floating about somewhere instead of all this sleaze we see.

[Qaiss]

when i was taught sex education in school the nurse who was teaching it made it seem to me and my mates in my class by saying that "its ok to have sex if ur under 16, you just have to use a condom ill even give you a free one if u come to the clinic" she never mentioned the FACT that having sex under the age of 16 was ILLEGAL! this country is now destroying it's morals by not teaching ABSTINENCE!

[Malcolm Nicholls]

I am what most would call an aged person and in my day sex was something that you dreamed about but never got round to doing because of the stigma it would leave. Girls then kept their legs together. These young ones of today should do the same. UK is one if not the worst countries for teenage pregancies. Where have our morals gone. Youngsters of today do not respect anything and think they can do what they like, when and how they like until the sh..t hits the fan then they come running for help. Why people call this country Great Britain I do not know, we are fast becomming a third world country. We are rotten from the top down. Just check out how our MP's carry on.

[reg]

with overexposive advertising and PCTs who allow underage girls to get EHC free of charge it will further destroy the moral life of Britain, so yes!

[Mrs P Fowler]

Having sex under the age of 16 is ILLEGAL so why is it allowed. The more you talk about sex the more you draw attention to it.Teach youngsters to say NO.

[Karina Walker]

Why is it all teenage mums are tarred with the same brush?What about the dads?At least the mums stay with the child & brings it up no matter how hard it gets while the dads do a runner.Yes they may grow up to be yobs but its only a small percentage that do others grow up to be well mannered polite children. The boys are just as much to blame as the girls but cause there's no sign of the father its all the mums fault.I look in the papers and I see kids being abused by parent who are nearly 30+ I very rarely see teen mums that do it.I was 15 when I had my 1st baby & yes I am on benefits,since leaving my mentally abusive partner,but I'm working hard at collage so I can get a job to support my family.We're not all free loading, money grabbing tarts the media make us out to be.

[john]

kids will always explore, remember? prevention is better than cure. the moral high ground has been shown never to work. sex is a fact of life. the mistakes dont need to be.

[xxx]

Do contraception ads encourage teen sex?

NO!

[amy]

the whole sex scene is way out of hand now, i mean, Sex is very accessible now i.e. sex shops, porn after certain times, but seeing advertisements on the tv for morning afters makes me wonder how messed up the UK is becoming.

i read the other day a girl of 12 became a mum, my brother is 11 and he isnt even thinking of sex yet! my parents have raised him to know what it is, but to wait.

When i was 14 (im 20 now) my best friend needed the morning after pill, and it was so hush hush then she was very ashamed of what she'd done and didnt have sex again until she was 18. Now its become so public its more of a ''have sex! you'll have help then you can do it all over again!'' alot of the time these tablets don't work either, so teenage pregnancy is on the up!

Well done UK, messing up just that bit more, and making way for more chav families, who sponge off the government and cause trouble. Great.

[Pauline]

Teenagers are having sex whether we like it or not, and at a shockingly young age. The kids of today don't stay young and innocent for very long. We need to be educating and providing them with everything we can to ensure our teenage pregnancy rates drop. The people opposing the new measures need to wake up and smell the coffee.

[xO]

Yeaa, Im A Teenagerr..+ Its Making People Think Its Alright As Long As They Use Contreception

[Adam]

Crazy and stupid 4 me.
If teenagers can have legal sex, than give him right to vote too. Give him chance to be "adult" and no more protection young people when they'll crime.
For me - teenagers AREN'T adult. This is main difference.

Adam - 42, father 2 (15 and 8)

[Jonny]

Has anybody posting on here ever been a teenager or had sex or even... both? Contraception needs to be as normal as sex as it is a vital part of it and sex is a vital part of life.

[John]

Just another thought...
It is illegal to have sex with a person under 16. How many prosecutions have any of you heard of compared to the number of teenage pregnancies you know of?

[John]

Coliflower has got it dead right!!. But further to this, there is no disinsentive to young single girls having children. It is a meal ticket for life with priority free housing and benefits which are higher in value than that attainable by a working family. When trying to find social housing accomodation for an elderly relative at WEYMOUTH in Dorset, I was told she would have to wait at least 10 years. quote "Our top priority is single mums with their baby, we have to give them a good start don't we?" . As they say in the States, "Go figure!"

[No means NO]

Lexx

I enjoyed reading that.

[Lexx]

Wow, that was way loger than I realised. It's almost as long as the Blog itself. Sorry about that lol

[Lexx]

It's not condoning underage sex it's condoning safe sex. Seeing a box of condoms isn't going to convince somewho who preiously wasn't planning to have sex to go out and have sex, but it will have at least a chance of convincing those who are planning to have sex to at least make it safe sex. In a way it's not that I refute your point and in an ideal world you'd be right. But unfortunately we no longer live in a time where we can hide sex from young people, and trying to pretend to ourselves that we can, at the expense of safe sex awareness, is only going to make the situation a whole lot worse. Maybe in time, once we have a handle on the current pandemic of teenage pregnancy and sex-related diseases, we can concentrate on reversing the damage the last 50 years of promoting sex has done, but that time is not now. You have to stop the rot before you can repair the problem altogether.

And I can't deny the existence of the men that will pressurise a girl into sex through charm without her even realising it, and I even agree that in some of those cases, the availability of contraception can help break down her resistance (the whole "I suppose I can use contraception, what's the worst that can happen?" thing) but, to put in business terms (that sound far more heartless towards the victims than I actually intend it to be) you have to way up the pros and cons. The protection of the few (I'm not saying it's rare, i'm speaking comparitively) versus the protection of the many.

Though for the record, I'm only arguing for making contraception more accessable- I don't think condoms (etc)should be advertised on TV, as they will be advertised as something fun and exciting, which is not the message I'm putting across here as I'm sure you'd gathered. I'm also HUGELY against the promotion of abortion clinics at all, that's going down a seriously dangerous road. I'm pro-choice, but advertising aborions will lead to pregnancy becoming no more than just another inconvenient STI to be cleared up with a quick visit to the doctors...

[No means NO]

Lexx

It's like condoning underage sex. If it's on tv it's got to be ok because it's now in the public domain.

Condoms can be bought in supermarkets, in public loos along with other personal items for women. Why do we want them in our face on tv? I don't. Neither do I want to see advertisements for abortions on tv I find it offensive.

I think as for girls being weak willed and the rest of that sentence I don't have to explain what I mean as you already know what is meant by a sweet talking guy.

[Lexx]

I'm really rather confused to be honest? How would seeing the condoms on sale make a girl feel obliged to buy them and have sex? Are you implying that girls feel inclined to buy, and promtly use, every single thing they see? While this would explain my girlfriends shopping bills somewhat, I'm inclined to doubt it, so if this isn't what you're implying then please, explain why condoms are different.

Ah yes, that's fantastic sexism you have there. Girls are weak willed and men are sex obsessed rapists. By any chance do you read the Daily Mail? XD However, should that situation occur, the girl having easier access to condoms instead of having to ask for them over the counter is going to make no difference. If the guy is forcefull/overbearing/pressuring enough to cause a problem in the first place then, sad as it is, it's going to happen, condoms or not.

And I'm well aware not all children have parents who can communicate, which is exactly why we need to have sexual education in schools from a young age.

[No means NO]

You make it sound like a girl will feel obliged to have sex because they don't have to look around so much to find the condoms.

YES THAT'S RIGHT.

Lexx This question is for you

"Are you really that naive?"

You've heard about heavy petting. It's easy for a girl to get caught up in a situation of this nature. If a girl gets caught up with some guy who is really overbearing or on the bullying side of persuasive then she really has a problem.

Not all teenagers have the benefit of parents who can communicate. Idealogy isn't always a reality.

[Lexx]

"How can a girl say no when there's the morning after pill"

It's simple. You be a good parent and actually educate your children! You make it sound like a girl will feel obliged to have sex because they don't have to look around so much to find the condoms. Are you really that naive? I don't mean to be offensive but -news flash- Teenagers already know about sex! And always have done! The legal marrying age used to be fourteen, with parental consent. Romeo and Juliet were pre-pubescent teenagers! And you know what? The generation that is most judgemental and disapproving was no better that us- Vera Drake didn't make a living removing appendxes that's for sure.

[coliflower]

now then is it better for this country to let them do what they do and after 9 months we would have another young mum (13-16yrs is too young) seeking benefits and not being able to cope with it. then once kid grown up a bit mum (then in her 20) will want to use her life a bit, go for a party or stuff, leaving her kid on his own....then the kid turns to be a yob....then...u know the story....am catholic but when i look what is going off in here it is just mad...is it better to see children having children...and has any of you parents sat once with kid and was brave enough to speak about it????

[No means NO]

It's all wrong. It's the green light for promiscuous sex.

How can a girl say no if there's the morning after pill or free abortions to set life back on the rails when it goes flying off track.

Will there also be adverts for free psychological treatment to help dealing with the guilt of disposing of a new life?

Just Labour moving the goalposts again.

Degeneration of another generation of teenagers.