strangely I agree :P

Originally Posted by CAGAN

Sick of my taxes going to unmarried tarts living in their nice little council flats whilst smoking their 30 fags a day.

I have said for many years we should set up dorms for them. This would in turn keep them warm and fed. One could stay at home and look after another 3 sprogs whilst the rest go to work to pay for their keep. Then lets see how many of them go out and get themselves up the stick !!

You are essentially suggesting a Magdalene Asylum/Victorian workhouse style solution. I think you'd be surprised how many teenagers far from "getting themselves up the stick" in order to claim benefits, get pregnant by mistake. Some who do it on purpose do so because they are looking for something to love, in effect a living doll and this is very sad; emotionally damaged women should not be made to feel terrible and forced into dormatries.


A far better way is surely to reduce the number of teenage pregnancies
in the first place and the only way I can see to do that is a complete overhaul of our current sex education syllabus (along the Netherlands model). I'm talking replacing the birds and bees with age appropriate hard cold facts including stds and pregnancy, they should be shown pictures of syphalitic penis, I can think of no better way to encourage them to keep it in their trousers.

Oh and I like the term "unmarried tart" (not), as if the bloke isn't equally culpable!

Originally Posted by Opinionated74

You are essentially suggesting a Magdalene Asylum/Victorian workhouse style solution. I think you'd be surprised how many teenagers far from "getting themselves up the stick" in order to claim benefits, get pregnant by mistake. Some who do it on purpose do so because they are looking for something to love, in effect a living doll and this is very sad; emotionally damaged women should not be made to feel terrible and forced into dormatries.


A far better way is surely to reduce the number of teenage pregnancies
in the first place and the only way I can see to do that is a complete overhaul of our current sex education syllabus (along the Netherlands model). I'm talking replacing the birds and bees with age appropriate hard cold facts including stds and pregnancy, they should be shown pictures of syphalitic penis, I can think of no better way to encourage them to keep it in their trousers.

Oh and I like the term "unmarried tart" (not), as if the bloke isn't equally culpable!

I was waiting for your post or something like it. I find it strange then that there are so many more accidents than there used to be. When a couple of kids don't use contraception it is funny how many ACCIDENTS happen. I don't believe that any kid over the age of about 10 doesn't know what will happen if either a condom or something similar isn't used. The problem is that society is now so accepting of the situation whereas it wasn't that long ago when it was scene as unacceptable.

I am in my fifties and as a teenager I put it around a fair bit. I never got a dose and I never got a girl up the stick, and why, because my parents would have killed me if the girls parents hadn't of got to me first. So the first thing we need to do is improve parenting skills. The second thing that needs to happen is the government should make it clear that these girls have to support the child themselves or it will be taken away.

Sorry, but it's no good blaming the boys, the girls have to take responsibility as a teenage boy will not be able to pay for the kid and if the state threatens to take money from his wages when he is working he just won't bother. I agree with your sentiment but in reality it just won't work.

I didn't say anything about Victorian work houses, this is a mental picture you decided to adopt. I propose taking away the glamour of having their own little pad on an estate where they are surrounded by their mates. I believe they should be kept warm, clothed and fed, as this is what any civilised society should do. My proposal merely removes the glamour and is self financing to some degree. I agree that education should be stepped up, however on it's own it really isn't going to work as you would have to rely on the parents, and if we are honest with ourselves how we can expect a sixteen year old mother to educate her kids properly when she has been such a failure herself. It's these young tarts that are breeding the underclass and we don't do something drastic this society is going to continue to get worse.

Originally Posted by CAGAN

Sick of my taxes going to unmarried tarts living in their nice little council flats whilst smoking their 30 fags a day.

I have said for many years we should set up dorms for them. This would in turn keep them warm and fed. One could stay at home and look after another 3 sprogs whilst the rest go to work to pay for their keep. Then lets see how many of them go out and get themselves up the stick !!

I totally agree. When I was a teenager I put my name on the local council list to get my own place, the women at my local council practically told me I've got more chance of getting pregnant than getting my own flat. Its not fair because that’s all women have to do!
I’ve always had a full time job from 18. I’ve worked hard and always paid my taxes. The state has given me no breaks, no help, nothing. All they have given me is more tax, more immigrants, more crime, more violence, white discrimination and less identity. Thank you very much Britain. I'll scratch your back, you stab mine.

Originally Posted by Opinionated74

A far better way is surely to reduce the number of teenage pregnancies
in the first place and the only way I can see to do that is a complete overhaul of our current sex education syllabus (along the Netherlands model).

Or we could legalise puff (along the Netherlands model) so our kids are too stoned to have sex. Or we could actually create more things for them to do so they dont result to drugs and sex.

The real looming question in the room is this; In an environment where abortions (either medical terminations or morning after pill) are readily available, why do some girls make the concious decision to carry on with the pregnancy even though it severely damages their life chances - arguably before they've begun to live themselves.

Could it be that had society had already cast them on the scrapheap before they even got started?

Originally Posted by JAMC

The real looming question in the room is this; In an environment where abortions (either medical terminations or morning after pill) are readily available, why do some girls make the concious decision to carry on with the pregnancy even though it severely damages their life chances - arguably before they've begun to live themselves.

Could it be that had society had already cast them on the scrapheap before they even got started?

I think a lot of British women are insecure and don’t want to be alone so they choose not to use the pill without the man knowing, knowing they have a safety net of free housing and benefits to fall back on if the man doesn’t want to stay.

Originally Posted by SussexWithLove

I think a lot of British women are insecure and don’t want to be alone so they choose not to use the pill without the man knowing, knowing they have a safety net of free housing and benefits to fall back on if the man doesn’t want to stay.

My initial reaction is that this is an overly-simplistic and patronising view to take - but I think we may be looking at the same thing through different lenses.

The question in my head is; Looking at it from a Darwinian perspective, the need to breed is the overriding factor in all human behaviour. Do you then suppose that if the prospect of "free housing" and "benefits" were taken out of the equation, that the behaviour would stop?

I honestly don't think it would.

Originally Posted by JAMC

My initial reaction is that this is an overly-simplistic and patronising view to take - but I think we may be looking at the same thing through different lenses.

The question in my head is; Looking at it from a Darwinian perspective, the need to breed is the overriding factor in all human behaviour. Do you then suppose that if the prospect of "free housing" and "benefits" were taken out of the equation, that the behaviour would stop?

I honestly don't think it would.

We live in a modern materialistic society. Yes we have the need to breed but our need to breed has to balance with what society expects. Most people in a westernised country would choose not to have a baby if they didnt have a roof over their head and money to buy food.

Originally Posted by JAMC

My initial reaction is that this is an overly-simplistic and patronising view to take - but I think we may be looking at the same thing through different lenses.

The question in my head is; Looking at it from a Darwinian perspective, the need to breed is the overriding factor in all human behaviour. Do you then suppose that if the prospect of "free housing" and "benefits" were taken out of the equation, that the behaviour would stop?

I honestly don't think it would.

Why is it so recent then. It used to be rare that a young unmarried girl got pregnant and now it is common place, so how have you come to your analysis ?

Originally Posted by JAMC

The real looming question in the room is this; In an environment where abortions (either medical terminations or morning after pill) are readily available, why do some girls make the concious decision to carry on with the pregnancy even though it severely damages their life chances - arguably before they've begun to live themselves.

Could it be that had society had already cast them on the scrapheap before they even got started?

No it's because society gives them an easy way to live. Lots of fags, lots of Mc Donalds and a few cans of lager when the sprof goes to bed. Take the easy way out from them and perhaps they will stop breading the generation of underclass !!

Originally Posted by SussexWithLove

We live in a modern materialistic society. Yes we have the need to breed but our need to breed has to balance with what society expects. Most people in a westernised country would choose not to have a baby if they didnt have a roof over their head and money to buy food.

If you sat down and worked it out rationally with a calculator, no-one would have children. There is perhaps an element we're overlooking - namely what is it that keeping a child, albeit in difficult circumstances, offers over and above sticking to what society "expects".

The truly sad part of course is that most people don't actually care what the answer to that question is - they just want to stamp on the trend through coersion.

Originally Posted by CAGAN

Why is it so recent then. It used to be rare that a young unmarried girl got pregnant and now it is common place, so how have you come to your analysis ?

Forgive the smirk on my face reading that.

It's always happened, we just never used to be able to face up to it.

Originally Posted by CAGAN

I don't believe that any kid over the age of about 10 doesn't know what will happen if either a condom or something similar isn't used. The problem is that society is now so accepting of the situation whereas it wasn't that long ago when it was scene as unacceptable.

You'd be surprised! Very few can name more than one form of contraception, many think that the pill protects you from stds as well as pregnancy, and I still hear that classic "if you have sex standing up you wont get pregnant"!

Sorry, but it's no good blaming the boys, the girls have to take responsibility as a teenage boy will not be able to pay for the kid and if the state threatens to take money from his wages when he is working he just won't bother. I agree with your sentiment but in reality it just won't work.

Lets penalise and persecute just the girl then! The boy has 50% of the role in creating a baby he should surely be made to take responsibility.

I believe they should be kept warm, clothed and fed, as this is what any civilised society should do.

How is this different to workhouses?

It's these young tarts that are breeding the underclass and we don't do something drastic this society is going to continue to get worse.

Forced hysterectomies perhaps or go with China and introduce forced abortion?

Originally Posted by CAGAN

Why is it so recent then. It used to be rare that a young unmarried girl got pregnant and now it is common place.

It really wasn't that rare an occurrence it was just hidden because of the shame, hundreds of children were brought up thinking their grandparents were their parents.

Originally Posted by SussexWithLove

I think a lot of British women are insecure and don’t want to be alone so they choose not to use the pill without the man knowing, knowing they have a safety net of free housing and benefits to fall back on if the man doesn’t want to stay.

This may be somewhat true, certainly I have spoken to young girls who are pregnant because in their damaged thinking they think that a baby will be something to love and love back (it really is tragic); but before we pour all the blame on the girls I have also heard "he said if I loved him I'd let him without a condom" too many times.

Originally Posted by Opinionated74

You'd be surprised! Very few can name more than one form of contraception, many think that the pill protects you from stds as well as pregnancy, and I still hear that classic "if you have sex standing up you wont get pregnant"!

Lets penalise and persecute just the girl then! The boy has 50% of the role in creating a baby he should surely be made to take responsibility.
How is this different to workhouses?

Forced hysterectomies perhaps or go with China and introduce forced abortion?

It really wasn't that rare an occurrence it was just hidden because of the shame, hundreds of children were brought up thinking their grandparents were their parents.

One thing at a time

1) You claim that few young people can name more than one form of contraceptive and they think you can't get pregnant when having sex standing up. Complete rubbish and I would like to see some facts to back this up.

2) I agree that a boy should have some responsibility, however this sentiment comes from the heart and not the head. How are you going to make a teenage kid pay for his sprog. The CSA will bleed him dry if he works, so he just won't work, easy. I'm also pretty sure that a large % of these little tarts wouldn't know the boys name, let alone his address.

3) Why do so many people criticise the Chinese government for trying to control a population explosion. Surely this is a responsible move and should be shadowed by any country in a similar position. Or is it you think we should be standing shoulder to shoulder fighting for oxygen.

Whether or not you agree with my solution, I bet you agree there is a problem. the difference is that you want to pussyfoot around whilst the population grows and the underclass increase it's standing in society, whilst I want to see something that may actually work be put into action. If it upsets a few thousand teenage whores and their useless parents is of no consequence to me.

Originally Posted by Opinionated74

This may be somewhat true, certainly I have spoken to young girls who are pregnant because in their damaged thinking they think that a baby will be something to love and love back (it really is tragic); but before we pour all the blame on the girls I have also heard "he said if I loved him I'd let him without a condom" too many times.

Are you a social worker or something. I don't petty stupidity I condone it. Ignorance is no excuse for making the hard working tax payer pay for some silly little tarts bastard child. The more people like you lavish sympathy on these scum girls, the more we will be taxed to keep them going.

Originally Posted by CAGAN

2) I agree that a boy should have some responsibility, however this sentiment comes from the heart and not the head. How are you going to make a teenage kid pay for his sprog. The CSA will bleed him dry if he works, so he just won't work, easy. I'm also pretty sure that a large % of these little tarts wouldn't know the boys name, let alone his address.

well if hes not going to take some responsibility, then why should she.. ?

Originally Posted by Opinionated74

This may be somewhat true, certainly I have spoken to young girls who are pregnant because in their damaged thinking they think that a baby will be something to love and love back (it really is tragic); but before we pour all the blame on the girls I have also heard "he said if I loved him I'd let him without a condom" too many times.

I dont put all the blame on girls. I know boys should also be smart, which is difficult to do when you've had a few drinks. One thinks with a different kind of brain.

Originally Posted by JacquesMagique

well if hes not going to take some responsibility, then why should she.. ?

Look, you have totally distorted the thread. The point is boys don't get pregnant nor do they end up bringing up the child. It is impossible to make them pay for it, so you are waisting your breath and sentiment even thinking about it. Like I said, I agree with you in principal but this is not a boys verses girls thread. There is a big problem that isn't going to be solved by education of either of the sexes, it can only be solved by taking away the prize, and that prize is a council house, free furniture, Mc Donalds and fags.

I don't understand why underage mothers receive help from the state.
Though I understand why, I equally don't understand.
I will attempt to explain.

If you receive a house or other benefits as an underage mum, you are receiving benefits for breaking the law.

Originally Posted by Liberal Authoritarian

I don't understand why underage mothers receive help from the state.
Though I understand why, I equally don't understand.
I will attempt to explain.

If you receive a house or other benefits as an underage mum, you are receiving benefits for breaking the law.

I think the parents of the underage mums (the new grandparents) should take responsbility. If the parents are not around its a difficult one.

Originally Posted by SussexWithLove

I think the parents of the underage mums (the new grandparents) should take responsbility. If the parents are not around its a difficult one.

I think the childrens parents (as you say) should take responsibility for the child. If they are unable to care or do not want to care for the child, it should be taken into care.

Originally Posted by Liberal Authoritarian

I don't understand why underage mothers receive help from the state.
Though I understand why, I equally don't understand.
I will attempt to explain.

If you receive a house or other benefits as an underage mum, you are receiving benefits for breaking the law.

Becoz otherwise you are penalizing a child for being born; although I agree, it is no an ideal system.

In my work with Connexions, more than once, I have heard young women talk of pregnancy as a career option; but then again where I worked it was the only career option for many young girls.

Originally Posted by Marxist Nutter

Becoz otherwise you are penalizing a child for being born; although I agree, it is no an ideal system.

True, when people talk on this subject they always forget about the child.

The situation is extremely delicate, there is no realistic method to control the issue other than education.

It is impossible to force young men and women to abstain from sex, it is unethical to refuse the mothers / fathers benefits & housing as this punishes the child. One cannot force adoption for this is again unethical and a drain on the resources. It is the education which needs to be improved upon many levels.

Originally Posted by CAGAN

One thing at a time

1) You claim that few young people can name more than one form of contraceptive and they think you can't get pregnant when having sex standing up. Complete rubbish and I would like to see some facts to back this up.

Obviously not all young people but there have always been common misconceptions! The most recent survey I know of was conducted by Channel 4 for "the sex show" unfortunately it is not available on 4OD anymore but I have found a review Let's talk about sex: C4's new sex education show - Features, Health & Wellbeing - The Independent with a small number of the statistics

2) I agree that a boy should have some responsibility, however this sentiment comes from the heart and not the head. How are you going to make a teenage kid pay for his sprog. The CSA will bleed him dry if he works, so he just won't work, easy. I'm also pretty sure that a large % of these little tarts wouldn't know the boys name, let alone his address.

It's like your condoning the same attitude in a boy which you condemn in a "tart" why not put the boys in a workhouse too, force them to work?

3) Why do so many people criticise the Chinese government for trying to control a population explosion. Surely this is a responsible move and should be shadowed by any country in a similar position. Or is it you think we should be standing shoulder to shoulder fighting for oxygen.

Most reasonable human beings consider sending a servant of the state round to repeatedly kick a pregnant woman in the stomache untill she miscarriages the opposite of "responsible move"! Most would also be appauled at the sight of hundreds of baby girls (girls are worth less in financial terms) left out on the hills to die from exposure!

Whether or not you agree with my solution, I bet you agree there is a problem. the difference is that you want to pussyfoot around whilst the population grows and the underclass increase it's standing in society, whilst I want to see something that may actually work be put into action. If it upsets a few thousand teenage whores and their useless parents is of no consequence to me.

No the difference is that I have bothered to talk to some of these "tarts" and discovered that shock horror they are real people with a myriad of different experiences that have led them to some less than sensible choices. Also I realise that the world is not black and white and have been taught to respect all human life rather than just react like a daily mail reading neanderthol and propose drakonian unsympathetic solutions. I still think that better education is the answer.

Originally Posted by CAGAN

Are you a social worker or something. I don't petty stupidity I condone it. Ignorance is no excuse for making the hard working tax payer pay for some silly little tarts bastard child. The more people like you lavish sympathy on these scum girls, the more we will be taxed to keep them going.

No, used to be a youth worker. Your proposals would further demonise an already vunerable group of young people, but I don't expect you to have any sympathy.

Originally Posted by Opinionated74

Obviously not all young people but there have always been common misconceptions! The most recent survey I know of was conducted by Channel 4 for "the sex show" unfortunately it is not available on 4OD anymore but I have found a review Let's talk about sex: C4's new sex education show - Features, Health & Wellbeing - The Independent with a small number of the statistics It's like your condoning the same attitude in a boy which you condemn in a "tart" why not put the boys in a workhouse too, force them to work?
Most reasonable human beings consider sending a servant of the state round to repeatedly kick a pregnant woman in the stomache untill she miscarriages the opposite of "responsible move"! Most would also be appauled at the sight of hundreds of baby girls (girls are worth less in financial terms) left out on the hills to die from exposure!
No the difference is that I have bothered to talk to some of these "tarts" and discovered that shock horror they are real people with a myriad of different experiences that have led them to some less than sensible choices. Also I realise that the world is not black and white and have been taught to respect all human life rather than just react like a daily mail reading neanderthol and propose drakonian unsympathetic solutions. I still think that better education is the answer.

No, used to be a youth worker. Your proposals would further demonise an already vunerable group of young people, but I don't expect you to have any sympathy.

This is a great post; but as a former youth worker, I would say that, I suppose.

Indeed by casting generalizations about groups one masks over the differences that make someone an individual. Thus it is easier to demonise a group than an individual.

Originally Posted by SussexWithLove

I think the parents of the underage mums (the new grandparents) should take responsbility. If the parents are not around its a difficult one.

No it's not, the child is taken away and given to one of the many thousands of suitable couples who can not have children !!

Originally Posted by Opinionated74

Obviously not all young people but there have always been common misconceptions! The most recent survey I know of was conducted by Channel 4 for "the sex show" unfortunately it is not available on 4OD anymore but I have found a review Let's talk about sex: C4's new sex education show - Features, Health & Wellbeing - The Independent with a small number of the statistics It's like your condoning the same attitude in a boy which you condemn in a "tart" why not put the boys in a workhouse too, force them to work?
Most reasonable human beings consider sending a servant of the state round to repeatedly kick a pregnant woman in the stomache untill she miscarriages the opposite of "responsible move"! Most would also be appauled at the sight of hundreds of baby girls (girls are worth less in financial terms) left out on the hills to die from exposure!
No the difference is that I have bothered to talk to some of these "tarts" and discovered that shock horror they are real people with a myriad of different experiences that have led them to some less than sensible choices. Also I realise that the world is not black and white and have been taught to respect all human life rather than just react like a daily mail reading neanderthol and propose drakonian unsympathetic solutions. I still think that better education is the answer.

No, used to be a youth worker. Your proposals would further demonise an already vunerable group of young people, but I don't expect you to have any sympathy.

Why is it that feminists live in another world to the rest of us. I have already agreed with you that in principal I agree. Yes the male part of the development of the child in question should indeed pay his way. The problem is that you do not bother to read my posts. A large % of these little tarts (and yes they are little tarts) don't know the details of the boys they have bedded. The ones that do know the boys are normally better off financially not naming them as this would put responsibility on the boy to pay some money that he just wouldn't pay. If she doesn't name him the state will pay it anyway. For the 100th time, please listen, I agree with you in principal but not in a million years will making the male as responsible ever work.

I appreciate there is the odd occasion when a young girl gets pregnant with her long term boy friend through a genuine mistake. This is not what I am talking about. The majority of these little tarts consider getting pregnant a career option, and what I am proposing is to take this option away or at least make it less desirable, SIMPLE

Perhaps you are happy paying your taxes (if you do pay any) to help the underclas multiply and in turn esculate crime even further, but I am one of the greta majority that isn't so keen on the idea.

Originally Posted by CAGAN

No it's not, the child is taken away and given to one of the many thousands of suitable couples who can not have children !!

Paid for by the governement, which means as L.A. pointed out, the government are helping people who break the law.

Originally Posted by Marxist Nutter

This is a great post; but as a former youth worker, I would say that, I suppose.

Indeed by casting generalizations about groups one masks over the differences that make someone an individual. Thus it is easier to demonise a group than an individual.

Originally Posted by Marxist Nutter

Indeed by casting generalizations about groups one masks over the differences that make someone an individual. Thus it is easier to demonise a group than an individual.

That is called generalising and is what humans do. Anyway, I still think they are little tarts !!

Originally Posted by CAGAN

That is called generalising and is what humans do. Anyway, I still think they are little tarts !!

Have you met enough to know (Is your sample size big enough to warrant a generalization outside the sample?) ?

Originally Posted by Marxist Nutter

Have you met enough to know (Is your sample size big enough to warrant a generalization outside the sample?) ?

You don't have to meet them.Walk through Harlow town centre and witness gangs of them sitting around eating their bags of chips and Mc Donalds whilst simultaneously smoking a fag. Of course on the odd occasion they glance down to see if the sprog is still breathing. This is essential if the dirty little tarts want to keep their benefits at the optimum.

Originally Posted by CAGAN

You don't have to meet them.Walk through Harlow town centre and witness gangs of them sitting around eating their bags of chips and Mc Donalds whilst simultaneously smoking a fag. Of course on the odd occasion they glance down to see if the sprog is still breathing. This is essential if the dirty little tarts want to keep their benefits at the optimum.

Ahhh. You are from 'arla (Harlow - for those not from Essex). That explains everything!!

Do not judge lest you be judged.

Originally Posted by CAGAN

Why is it that feminists live in another world to the rest of us.

I am not a feminist although I do believe in equality.

I have already agreed with you that in principal I agree. Yes the male part of the development of the child in question should indeed pay his way. The problem is that you do not bother to read my posts. A large % of these little tarts (and yes they are little tarts) don't know the details of the boys they have bedded. The ones that do know the boys are normally better off financially not naming them as this would put responsibility on the boy to pay some money that he just wouldn't pay. If she doesn't name him the state will pay it anyway. For the 100th time, please listen, I agree with you in principal but not in a million years will making the male as responsible ever work.

I heard you the first time and I addressed it by saying education is the key! That and offering them an alternative. You say you agree in principle but you label the girl a "tart" and then exclude any judgement on the boy, it shows exactly what your attitude to equality is.

I appreciate there is the odd occasion when a young girl gets pregnant with her long term boy friend through a genuine mistake. This is not what I am talking about. The majority of these little tarts consider getting pregnant a career option, and what I am proposing is to take this option away or at least make it less desirable, SIMPLE

Why are you insisting that this is the sole reason why a child chooses to have a baby? Middle class girls and boys are no less promiscuous and yet they are less likely to end up pregnant, if you were to open your mind for a second you might consider that as with most human behaviour there are many different factors and personally I favour prevention. Also one of the factors that seems to increase the likelihood of teen pregnancy is time spent in care, so whoever suggested taking the baby into care, it wouldn't likely stop the perpetuation. Your idea of deterrent most probably wouldn't work (in the same way as the death penality doesn't reduce violent crime) as it is NOT the only reason a child engages in dangerous sexual behaviour.

Perhaps you are happy paying your taxes (if you do pay any) to help the underclas multiply and in turn esculate crime even further, but I am one of the greta majority that isn't so keen on the idea.

Not currently as I am a stay at home Mum but I have in the past and yes I was happy to pay for my taxes to go towards a more equitable and caring society, I would have been even happier however if they had gone to more projects that try to improve the prospects of these children in the first place (and not in tax breaks for the already rich and greedy or on war etc.).

Originally Posted by Marxist Nutter

Ahhh

. You are from '

arla

(Harlow - for those not from Essex). That explains everything!!

Do not judge lest you be judged.

No I am not from Harlow, it is a town I have visited on many occasions and

optimises

the problem. However your posts proves my point