I think the speeding analogy is stupid because everyone who speeds has undergone a comprehensive tutorial and examination in order to demonstrate that they know exactly what they are legally allowed to do with their car. This process, plus ownership of the vehicle itself, costs a significant amount of money.

There is no such process that teaches kids what they can do with their genitals, and no such financial barrier to access. They can just pile on each other and start hammering away. There’s no comparison to be made.

This may come as a terrible jolt but, like logarithms, calculus, steam engines, Maxwell’s electromagnetic wave equations, the electron, TV transmission, the existence of antimatter, splitting the atom, radar, DNA and DNA fingerprints or much else, electrical vibrators for women were yet another celebrated British invention:

“In 1883 a British doctor, Joseph Mortimer Granville, patented the first electromechanical version of the vibrator and although it, too, was sold as a medical device, it wasn’t long before portable versions were being sold as a sort of ‘cure all’ for female health problems.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/features/article401159.ece

Instead of unsafe sex and getting pregnant, teen girls in Britain could do their patriotic stuff. I suppose the way things are going, vibrators will shortly be avaible on NHS prescriptions in a pilot run to cut teen pregnancy rates in the less affluent regions oop north.

No one has noticed lately that not only was Oswald Mosley, founder of the British Union Fascists in 1932, a rampant and successful womaniser but Hitler attracted a large regular fan mail from women offering their eternal devotion and more.

In 1928, the franchise in Britain was extended to include all women over the age of 21, which left the suffragette movement without a cause. Many took to other political activism as a substitute. Sylvia Pankhurst became a founder of the Communist Party. Others went and joined Mosley’s Fascists instead:

“Julie Gottlieb’s Feminine Fascism would disabuse them. Its brilliant analysis of the place of women in Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists does much to change our preconceptions. Where women played comparatively little part in the fascist movements of other European countries, more than 25 per cent of the BUF members were women, many of whom were prominent in the movement’s activities. All this, despite the macho image, so similar to that of continental fascism, displayed by the leader and by so many of his acolytes.”
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=157840&sectioncode=6

I suppose their excuse was that Mosley had been a cabinet minister in Ramsay Macdonald’s Labour government.

But the relevant issue of social concern in Britain is the relatively high rate of teen pregnancies.

No, the speed limit is 30 so that the chances of someone surviving an “undesirable outcome” is increased. This is why the 20 speed limits are being proposed for areas where there are likely to be children, because in those areas you have even less warning than in 30mph typical areas to start breaking and thus the 20 limit would further increase survivability.

I like the idea that most would drive faster if they could, I guess that shows a failing in the testing system that should be teaching people how to drive responsibly. This is where I disagree with Gwyn because I think the speeding analogy is perfect.

You, Dad, would rather that the state dictates your limits so you are free to do what you like without thinking, as long as you don’t cross the state’s predefined boundaries. You are, no doubt, the sort of person that would drive at 70mph on the motorway while it was physically possible despite the gale force wind and driving rain, because the state has deemed it “legal”

Good drivers, however, will drive at the speed that is appropriate. Unfortunately there are too many of *you* so while good drivers could drive at 40 in some 30mph zones quite safely, they will be punished because of your absence of ability to think for yourself. These good drivers will also stick to 50mph or lower in bad conditions on the motorway (no doubt you’ll call them dangerous while you speed on by), and they’ll not drive more than 10-20mph past a school at the end of the school day regardless of what the speed limit actually says.

And so we bring this to our legal age of consent. You would probably quite happily take home a 16 year old that seemed eager, because it is legal. The state has deemed that this person is “ready”, whatever the fuck that means. The 16 year old could be a completely emotionally underdeveloped individual, abused at home, or whatever, but you could happily take advantage in an absence of that knowledge because you are covered by the law. And, indeed, because of the law many teenagers see 16 as an age that you should have had sex by.

What, you’ve not had sex yet even though you’re now legal? What’re you waiting for?

But putting that argument to the side…like the good drivers, instructed and taught to look for hazards and to read the conditions to ensure they drive at the right speed, isn’t the right situation to teach our kids from the earliest age that is sensible to understand sex, to understand the opposite sex, and to learn how to make good decisions when it comes to intimate acts? That way if a person is sufficiently developed she or he may think it is ok to get together with someone their own age under the age of 16…and hell they might do it with some kind of sense of protecting themselves from disease and pregnancy.

Others might decide that they’re not ready, with confidence, until they’re 18 or older. And more so they will probably be less likely to fall foul of those like you that think that whatever the law says is ok is fair game, and are much more likely to seriously ruin their life in more ways than just knocking them up.

You’re mad. You want young people to understand the consequences of irresponsible sex, and you think criminal liability is the way to go about it? This kind of hamfisted logic makes me cringe, as does your equally inept Speeding analogy.

Much the same can be said about all the other social indicators of concern in that IPPR report where teens in Britain woefully lagged behind other west European countries. The fact is that up to the financial crisis late in 2007, Britain had among the best rates of per capita GDP in the EU according to Eurostat.

Binge drinking, teens afflicted by alcoholism, violence in football stadiums with high admission charges etc are hardly signs of pervasive deprivation.

“Poor white boys now do worse in primary school tests in England than any other main group, latest figures show.

“Only 48% of white British boys eligible for free school meals achieved the expected level in English and maths.” [19 Nov 09]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8368240.stm

“Though white children in general do better than most minorities at school, poor ones come bottom of the league (see chart). Even black Caribbean boys, the subject of any number of initiatives, do better at GCSEs”
http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14700670

I am all for liberty but I think you may have just swung my vote the other way. Your irresponsible “freedom to do what ever you like” approach is what has landed Britain in the pile of lawlessness it now resides in, antisocial behaviour on the streets and in the Bank boardrooms.

Staggeringly naive.

Because a managerial culture like New Labour’s values targets which are measurable over targets which are meaningful?

“When it comes to behaving badly, Britain’s teenagers are the best in Europe, according to a report by the Institute of Public Policy Research (IPPR). . . ”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2006/nov/02/drugsandalcohol.britishidentityandsociety

IPPR can hardly be dismissed as yet another “right-wing” think-tank which can safely be ignored.

From a news report last month:

“The number of teenage pregnancies in England and Wales has fallen by 4%, according to figures released by the Office for National Statistics (ONS). . . The government had pledged in 1999 to halve teenage pregnancy rates among under-18s in England by this year but is widely expected to miss that target.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8531227.stm

Why did the government in 1999 make a target to halve the teen pregnancy rate by this year if the teen pregnancy rate is a matter of little significance?

“Young people (aged 16-24 years old) are the age group most at risk of being diagnosed with a sexually transmitted infection, accounting for 65% of all chlamydia, 50% of genital warts and 50% of gonorrhoea infections diagnosed in genitourinary medicine clinics across the UK in 2007?

They don’t use johnnies.

27% of UK 15 year olds have been drunk 20 or more times compared to 12% in Germany, 6% in Holland and 3% in France

Now, what is going right in those nations compared to the UK? Hmm, and am I mistaken that booze is cheaper in those nations? I could be wrong, but … may be it is the fact they don’t have such a hung up puritanical ideology when it comes to how adults and young adults see the evil drink?

44% of UK teenagers are frequently involved in fights compared to 28% in Germany

Eh? I think that those are rather one-sided stats. There are more kids that don’t fight than do, the ones who do; do often.

40% of English fifteen year old girls have had sexual intercourse, compared to 29% in Sweden, 24% in Canada, 20% in Holland, 18% in France and 14% on Spain.

15% of English girls fail to use contraception.

English girls shag more than Scot’s, Welsh and Irish? Really? 15% of English girls have proved my point, they don’t use the pill or a johnny. So they are gunna get the clap, may be.

A 2007 UNICEF child welfare study placed Britain bottom of a league table of 21 industrialised countries.

That’s what happens when you follow Tory policy.

Between 2003 and 2006 violent crime committed by UK under 18s rose 37%

Define violent crime. Shouting at a neighbour is a ‘violent’ crime, a kid kicking a ball against a window, same thing. The survey used in the UK is useless.

Marriage rates in Britain are at a 146 year low.

So?

Class sizes in Britain are among the highest of 20 Western countries.

Pay teachers better, get more money into schools to give a thorough education, stop cutting spending in schools – Re: don’t follow Tory policy.

British children start school earlier and take more exams than other European countries.

Teaching kids to take a test is just that, educate kids rather than get them to tick the right box. That early start would then help rather than hinder.

But why so much unsafe sex? Besides, the pregnancy rate is not the only social indicator of concern relating to teens in Britain compared with teens in other countries in western Europe:

“Young people (aged 16-24 years old) are the age group most at risk of being diagnosed with a sexually transmitted infection, accounting for 65% of all chlamydia, 50% of genital warts and 50% of gonorrhoea infections diagnosed in genitourinary medicine clinics across the UK in 2007″
http://www.hpa.org.uk/webw/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1216022460726?p=1249920575999

“The survey of 35 countries found the UK had the third-highest number of 15 and 16-year-olds with an alcohol problem.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/5054380/Britains-chronic-teenage-binge-drinking-problem-highlighted-by-European-poll.html

Try also this feature on teens in Britain from Time Magazine two years ago:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1725547,00.html

Some highlights:

- 27% of UK 15 year olds have been drunk 20 or more times compared to 12% in Germany, 6% in Holland and 3% in France
- 44% of UK teenagers are frequently involved in fights compared to 28% in Germany.
- 35% of UK 15 year olds have used Cannabis in the last 12 months, compared to 27% in France, 22% in Holland and 18% in Germany.
- 40% of English fifteen year old girls have had sexual intercourse, compared to 29% in Sweden, 24% in Canada, 20% in Holland, 18% in France and 14% on Spain.
- 15% of English girls fail to use contraception.
- A 2007 UNICEF child welfare study placed Britain bottom of a league table of 21 industrialised countries.
- Between 2003 and 2006 violent crime committed by UK under 18s rose 37%
- Marriage rates in Britain are at a 146 year low.
- Class sizes in Britain are among the highest of 20 Western countries.
- British children start school earlier and take more exams than other European countries.

There have been some very detailed postings on this site covering such claims. Check the archive.

As for the rollicking that the Royals, and indeed, the upper-class got up to, much of the filth who would be the working-class knew about it through rumour and gossip that came from the staff at those houses. A look at the archive of the day is quite revealing. And of course your provided links.

What that does show is that the hypocrisy of all this. The upper-well-to-do can do as they wish, shag anything in sight whether wanted or not, but if a lowly working-class person wants to have a one nighter that is frowned upon because of idiotic middle-class prudery. This does harp back to the Victorian values that Tories and their ilk insist on, never mind the debauchery that went on, so long as the lower-class don’t do it.

“At his death William had no surviving legitimate children, though he was survived by eight of the ten illegitimate children he had by the actress Dorothea Jordan, with whom he cohabited for 20 years.”

C’mon – that’s demonstrable, historic nonsense. Consider the lively extra-marital affairs of Nelson and the Duke of Wellington or the accusations levelled at Palmerston.

Our social betters felt unconstrained by the impediments of conventional middle class morality. By reports, house parties at the Duke of Rutland’s Belvoir Castle in the early 19th century were often grand romps. Gladstone had his concerns for fallen women and indulged in flagellation. Judging by his string of mistresses before he became king, Edward VII didn’t feel unduly bound by conventional morality either.

As for the Duke of Wellington’s conservative credentials, he was deeply and vociferously opposed to the franchise reform proposals of the Whig’s Reform Act of 1832 but then he also conducted an active and varied extra-marital sex life and didn’t worry much about who knew that either – hence his retort: Published and be damned, when Harriette Wilson requested a sum of money for not mentioning him in her forthcoming memoires – try reading up on her memoires – reportedly still in print:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriette_Wilson

Then try the private life of Baron Boothby:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Boothby,_Baron_Boothby

Btw why is the rate of teen pregnancies so much higher in Britain compared with other west European countries?

Introduce male privilege and a lack of empathy to this, and it’s the logical result.

Sex should only be for creating children and for men’s enjoyment. But on no accounts must the woman take pleasure from sex.

Conservative men are so insecure.