David Cameron’s Getting More Sex Than You

David Cameron’s had sex. Yup, I know, it’s not the sort of thing you want to read about, but then neither did I and I’ve been forced to endure it all week. No not the sex, the story about how Samantha Cameron’s knocked up. Normally this wouldn’t be the business of peasants like us, but seeing as how it’s being used as a blatant piece of electioneering, I’m compelled to comment.

So yes, David Cameron has had sex. And not long ago in a bygone era, we’re talking within living memory, just a few months ago. It’s true, one day you saw him giving a speech, the next you heard him babbling inanely on the radio, and in the meantime he was getting his end away, while you, what were you doing? Eating toast and watching Come Dine With Me?

And now he’s going to get a bump in the polls (“aha”, they must cackle, “a bump for a bump!”), and its well worth the price of a bit of torn vagina nine months down the line. That very pitch is probably going on in all corners of the political spectrum, as eager politicians try to play catch up. Gordon Brown’s probably getting it on in the kitchen as we speak, It doesn’t bear thinking about. Actually, yes, go on, imagine it! Are your eyes and ears leaking blood? Good.

Probably the only one who isn’t doing the dirty right now is Nick Clegg, who no doubt propositioned his partner, only for her to turn around and ask him to remind her who he was.

Not that this is anything unusual, it has happened before, and Cameron’s not going to repeat the mistakes of the past. In 2005 Charles Kennedy’s child was born in the run-up to the election to disastrous results as he appeared zombie-like in a press conference, drooling with a soiled nappy stuck to his head. No, Cameron’s child will be born in September, not so late that he can’t announce the pregnancy now, but not so early that it actually interferes with the campaign. Brilliant!

So thanks to his well-timed fornication I’ve got to read about it. I can only assume it managed to happen because way back in Dec/Jan he was much further ahead in the polls. “Oh your personal-approval rating is sooo huuuuge” she must have cooed as his head became engorged. And I do mean his actual head, which is apt to swell whenever he is angry, excited or defensive, similar to a toad trying to scare off a rival. You can see it every week on prime ministers questions. Priceless.

Finally, something that’s baffling me is all this “Sam Cam” stuff. Is that short-hand for “Samantha Cameron” or is it some tawdry online peep show where we can watch the conception for a small donation to the Tory party? Horrible. What sort of creep thinks of stuff like this?

Sex Education? Vital Information!

365:225 by Lolie SmithA change in government policy means that parents can now only prevent their children from receiving sex education up to the age of fifteen. Previously it was nineteen. Yes, that’s right. Under previous rules a young person could be legally old enough to fornicate, yet their parents could prevent them being told what a condom was.

Despite this welcome change of policy, the current rules are still madness. Sex education is vital education, and a parent has no right to prevent their child receiving it. A child does not chose the family it is born into. It does not decide ‘I would like to be brought up as a conservative catholic’ any more than ‘I would like to be a godless liberal’. It is up to our schools to save the child from the failings of their parents. There should be no opt out for sex education, just as a parent should not be able to opt their child out of being taught evolution.

Denying a child vital information to allow them to operate in a modern society is abuse. It’s that simple. Just because the parent is a sexually repressed moron, doesn’t mean their offspring have to suffer the same fate.