In 2010, the Diocese of Lancaster invited Jason and Crystalina Evert to speak to Year 10 & 11 pupils at every Catholic secondary school in Lancashire. This was part of the Sex and Relationships Education which is on the statutory curriculum for secondary aged pupils in England and Wales. As an example of the kind of thing Jason Evert tells kids:
The TUC is rightly concerned that a booklet Jason Evert wrote, Pure Manhood: How to become the man God wants you to be, teaches homophobia.
You can read more of the booklet here:
- A guy who has these attractions may not want them, or even know where they’re coming from. Perhaps they stem from an unhealthy relationship with his father, an inability to relate to other guys, or even sexual abuse.
- Even if a person does not believe in God, he cannot argue with nature. For example, the life expectancy of homosexual men is half that of heterosexual men.
- Furthermore, imagine what would happen if all people with same-sex attractions were placed in their own country. It would be empty in a century, because bodies of the same gender are not made to receive each other.
- Before long, part of the blade is exposed and the wolf’s tongue is nicked. But since its tongue has been numbed by the icy blood, the animal is unaware of the damage that’s been caused. As more goat’s blood is cleaned off the blade, it is replaced with the warmer blood of the wolf. In an excited frenzy at the taste of fresh blood, the animal licks more ravenously, is cut again and again, and continues to bleed until it becomes faint. Within hours, the wolf will die of blood loss.
This is standard evangelical-Christian teaching about gay men in the US. Jim Burroway describes how this affects the parents of lesbian and gay children here:
With that, a very painful groan rose from the audience. This was probably the second-most effective line delivered that day (I’ll get to the most effective one in just a little bit). I looked around and saw heads shaking, couples looking at each other, and a general sense of horror filled the room. My cheeks flushed as I wondered how many of those groans came from fathers and mothers themselves who made up a sizeable chunk of the audience.
This claim is regularly used by the Christian Right in the US. It is often sourced back to an article published by the Journal of Epidemiology in 1997 “Modelling the impact of HIV disease on mortality in gay and bisexual men”. The kindest thing one can say about this claim is that it is way out of date.
Jason Evert doesn’t appear to be aware that bisexuals exist. But never mind that. What if an imaginary country were populated entirely by lesbians and gay men, who had never experienced any heterosexual sexual attraction in their lives? Not in a century but in one generation – every child would be a wanted child. Why would anyone – least of all a Catholic – think this would be a bad thing?
But it’s not just homophobia that’s the problem with this booklet:
If you’re wondering WTF? I can’t say I blame you. In this erroneous piece of natural history, the knife is pornography, the blood is animal lust, and the wolf is a teenage boy. Yes, it doesn’t make sense to me either.
What’s really interesting is that the Snopes.com community sourced this story of how to kill a wolf to a 1978 novel by John Norman, Beasts of Gor [Update, 20th February: But see caveat below and discussions in comments.]
Jason Evert says:
In the case of porn, the most troubling effects usually come later in life, when you actually try to love a woman. Research about people who looked at porn found that they were less likely to be satisfied with their partner’s affection, physical appearance, sexual curiosity, and sexual performance. Some husbands even come to think that they have the right to be aroused by fantasies. They seem to feel that if a wife isn’t flawless, it’s her fault.
John Norman is the author of about 25 books set on “Gor”, or “Counter-Earth”. The general assessment among SF fans is that while the first five or six are standard sword & sorcery stuff, thereafter the series descends into BDSM soft porn. There are some who argue that the Gor series is not pornography, but there’s no denying the sexism:
Women on Gor are slaves. Sure, there are “free women” – but, as you’re reminded over and over again throughout the course of the series, a free woman is just a slave without a collar. And they love it. Only in slavery and in submission do women (both Earth and Gorean) realize their true femininity. Men are real men – they’re beasts, brutes, and warriors, chockfull of honor and honest-to-goodness manhood, not the tepid stuff men from our world try to play off as masculinity. So sometimes? Those mysterious forces have a not-so-mysterious motivation: profit. Gorean slavers often raid Earth in order to kidnap its women, who are known for their “hot bellies” (ease of arousal) and overall craving for REAL MEN.
Already, it’s a mixture for problematically awesome times. There’s the many proud, bratty women (all women in this series are proud and bratty, until forcibly reminded to be otherwise) who realize they in fact love being topped and collared. There’s the men who are eager to top and collar them. There’s the static gender roles. There’s the constant denigration of the feminist movement, the insistence that equal rights squashes women’s sexuality, the idea that lesbian/assertive women just haven’t met the right man, and on and on. Underlying all this is the insistence that these sexualized gender roles are a biological necessity.
Jason Evert, apparently, is a Gor series fan. [Update, 20th Feb: Actually, the weight of evidence – see comments – suggests that by the time Evert heard this knife-licking story it had mutated from John Norman’s Gor to anonymised glurge. Second update, 21st Feb the story has now been sourced to Chapter XIV of an 1881 account of the US expedition in the Arctic to find the Franklin papers, 1878-1880 – Schwatka’s Search] At least, that’s where he’s taking his illustrative examples from, to teach to teenage children at Catholic schools. [21st Feb, again: Jim Dixon found the reference (see comments): I had never heard of Schwatka or Gilder till now. I am thoroughly impressed, though I have to say it does not make the story or anything else about the booklet less repellent.]
I oppose homophobia being taught in school, as every decent person should; no child should sit there in class listening to their teacher or an invited adult explain how that child is inferior or their parents are inferior.
A report released in 2004, Stand Up for Us – Challenging Homophobia in Schools, cites a 2001 study that suggests 85% of lesbian, gay and bisexual men and women experienced homophobic bullying at school.
Another UK study found that more than 50% of LGB men and women who had been bullied at school contemplated self-harm or suicide, while 40% had made at least one attempt to self-harm. A further study found that more than 20% had attempted suicide.
Three years ago Phil Beadle wrote:
These figures stand as testimony to an issue that I’ve witnessed, day-to-day, over the space of many years: British schools are the final bastions of homophobia, which is, and has always been, at epidemic proportions. In schools where racism is unheard of and sexism is petering out, protecting the rights of gay children is perceived as an equality too far. Homophobia, in British schools, is the last acceptable prejudice.
This appalling state of affairs is even worse in faith schools. A Stonewall report says that while 65% of pupils in non-denominational schools have experienced homophobic bullying, this rises to 75% in faith schools. Students experiencing such bullying in faith schools are also far less likely to report it.
That the Diocese of Lancaster thinks that homophobia is such a good thing they need to import American “experts” to have more of it, is appalling in itself.
But in the video (I don’t blame you if you didn’t listen to it) Jason Evert is lecturing on how contraception isn’t necessary because natural family planning is what you need. (2% of sexually-active Catholic women in the US use NFP. All the rest use contraception. The Catholic Church has accepted contraception is not sinful, even if the celibate hierarchy are still catching up.)
In the booklet, which was handed out to schoolchildren at state-funded schools as part of their Sex and Relationships Education, Jason Evert claims
“scientifically speaking, safe sex is a joke”, explains that “the homosexual act is disordered, much like contraceptive sex between heterosexuals. Both acts are directed against God’s natural purpose for sex – babies and bonding.”
Apparently every teenager in a Catholic school in Lancashire got this anti-contraception message.
From The Blackburn Citizen, a Lancashire local paper:
The number of women having abortions has risen in East Lancashire — with a ‘worrying’ number of young girls undergoing the procedure.
Fourteen abortions were undertaken by girls aged 14 and younger last year across the area.
Coun Ron O’Keeffe, Blackburn with Darwen Council’s health watchdog, said abortion was “a major problem in the borough”, especially in deprived areas.
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Inviting a guest speaker to tell a large number of teenagers that contraception is “disordered” and safe sex is “a joke”, does not necessarily imply a connection with a rising abortion rate.
But it is certainly true that a rising incidence of contraceptive use invariably parallels a drop in the abortion rate. Put simply: Preaching chastity to teenagers as a substitute for telling them about safe sex is already proven not to work.
I am disturbed about the homophobia. I am alarmed and amused about the Beasts of Gor being used as a teaching aid. I am appalled that the Diocese of Lancaster considered it more important to impose Catholic doctrine on the children in the state-funded schools their Church runs, than to give them accurate and helpful information about safe sex.
And as for Michael Gove, who argues
The education provisions of the Equality Act 2010 which prohibit discrimination against individuals based on their protected characteristics (including their sexual orientation) do not extend to the content of the curriculum. Any materials used in sex and relationship education lessons, therefore, will not be subject to the discrimination provisions of the act.
Well, he is unfit for purpose as Secretary of State for Education: he should resign.
Edinburgh Eye 
So it will be OK in England to teach that Tories are evil. and the spawn of the Devil? Which, unlike the anti-gay rubbish has more than a grain of truth in it.
Definitely a topic for the National Curriculum!
Pingback: Cheryl's Mewsings » Blog Archive » UK Government OKs Sex Ed. Guide Based on Gor Book
It is a well-known and widely-held opinion in the science fiction & fantasy communities that John Norman is considered a lukewarm hack. After his first several GOR novels failed to display much talent in the genre, Norman deliberately set out to lace his books with lowest-common-denominator, sexually-offensive images & “theology” to boost sales (you can find the interviews with Norman where he unabashedly admits this).
No one in the legitimate SF or Fantasy fields thinks John Norman is anything more than a soft pornographer, mostly due to his cheerfully admitting this on several occasions. He has stated that he sought “the most deliberately-offensive material” to weave into the GOR series because, as a writer, he fails to rise above schoolboy-mediocrity.
My authority? I taught science fiction in a literature class.
I cannot argue with such well-reasoned authority!
Besides, I was there when, at a TAFF auction, a copy of a particularly thick Gor novel (in all senses of the word) was offered for auction and had to be ripped up into smaller and smaller pieces before anyone would buy any of it, even for TAFF.
Miso Susanowa,
You are quite correct concerning the prevailing opinion of the Gor novels in the science fiction community, but many of Jonathan Swift’s contemporaries thought he was insane, too, especially after he published “A Modest Proposal”. There was a method to his “madness,” though.
“John Norman” is the pen name of Dr. John F. Lange, Ph.D., a professor of philosophy at Queens University in NYC, who also has an M.A. in Ancient History.
For very different perspective on the Gor novels, you might want to take a look at two posts concerning them by an academic librarian who apparently possesses a background in philosophy and ancient history as well: and Perhaps there’s a method to Norman’s “madness” as well! 🙂
Let me try again with those links:
http://www.whiterose.org/howlingcurmudgeons/archives/010653.html#comment-120543
http://www.whiterose.org/howlingcurmudgeons/archives/010653.html#comment-121999
Everyone who can use Wikipedia knows about John Norman’s academic alter ego – but having a PhD and a MA still doesn’t make the Gor novels better than soft porn trash.
In my experience, anyone who can use WIkipedia could certainly find that out by checking it, but not everyone does, which is why I’d mentioned it.
I used to feel pretty much the same about the Gor novels, but analyses such as that I’d linked to above changed my mind (I’m not rigid in my opinions and am willing to listen to others’ perspectives, especially if they’re thoughtful, well-informed and able to back up their contentions with documented facts — bare assertions, even if agreed to by a crowd I don’t find inherently persuasive.
Did you actually read the librarian’s comments I’d given you the links to with any care? I should have linked to her 3rd post, which was particularly helpful: http://tinyurl.com/d99gaan
If you disagreed with her, can you explain why, with more than a bare “because it’s soft-porn” assertion? There was surprisingly little sex in any of the Gor novels I’ve read, far more sociobiologically-flavored discussions of male-female relationships in nature, and it seems to me that whether you agree or disagree with the sociobiology, that’s hardly “pornographic.”
In my experience, anyone who can use WIkipedia could certainly find that out by checking it, but not everyone does, which is why I’d mentioned it.
Fair point.
Did you actually read the librarian’s comments I’d given you the links to with any care?
Yes. Charlotte posted those long comments in 2007. I forget exactly when I was first linked to them and read them.
If you disagreed with her, can you explain why, with more than a bare “because it’s soft-porn” assertion?
…No.
I mean, yes, I suppose I could probably if I took considerable time and effort, explain in detail why I disagreed with her then as now. But the fact of the matter is – and I say this having read at least ten Gor books (though the last was at least twenty years ago) I feel about them the way I now feel about Enid Blyton: they are without doubt appealling in some awfully bland ways, and there is a stage of development at which no one need feel embarrassed in after years that they liked them, or try to pretend they didn’t like them when they did. And there is a transitional stage of quite appropriate disgust/amusement at them. But now I feel that I have already spent a couple of hundred more words on them than they deserved in the first place. They’re just not good books, and citing a PhD will not make them so.
Enjoyed Charlotte’s comments, though. They reminded me of an enjoyable collection of essays: The Pooh Perplex.
Funny. But to be fair, the Snopes community merely notes that the anecdote is also found in Gor – plenty of other places where the story was heard are also proposed, some of them likely predating Gor. As wonderful as it would be to conclude that Evert actually plagiarized Gor, it doesn’t look like he actually did. 😦
“plenty of other places where the story was heard are also proposed”
Not really – at least not on that community page. It is, if you think about it, an odd story – it’s certainly not an actual method of killing a wolf: it is not (to the best of my knowledge) any kind of Inuit folktale about killing a wolf: it is, in fact, a pretty unlikely story if told to an audience of people who actually knew wolf behaviour (or dog anatomy – dogs don’t bleed to death if they cut their tongues). It could be a story that was told to newcomers in the Alaskan gold rush, a tall tale: I wondered when I was looking for a source if I’d find Jack London, though I’ve read quite a few Jack London stories and I coudn’t remember it.
I did not find any pop culture references to this story that I could date to earlier than 1978, the year Beasts of Gor was published. I do think that’s the most likely route of the story into the grab-bag of myths that the Christian Right use – as Snopes note, a story eventually takes on a life of its own. I did, today, find a reference to a book Of Wolves and Men, by Barry Lopez, also published in 1978, which apparently also retells this “how to kill a wolf” story, but uses “frozen fat” instead of blood – John Norman’s contribution to the myth seems to have been the bloody knife and the wolf unable to tell the difference between the blood on the blade and the blood from its tongue.
So: did Jason Evert actually read the early Gor books? Possible but unproven. (They do depict a very Christian Right kind of relationship between male and female, apart from all the sexing going on.) Was Beasts of Gor how this tall tale got out into pop culture and turned into Christian glurge? I still think this looks like the most likely option.
Whatever the source, the leaflet is not something I want to have handed out as a reference for the National Curriculum.
I wrote “So: did Jason Evert actually read the early Gor books? Possible but unproven.”
And I finally thought to look up Evert’s DoB – 1975. Doesn’t say he didn’t read the Gor novels, but I have to admit, it makes it much more likely that he first heard the story of the knife-licking wolf as Christian glurge.
I haven’t seen the booklet in question – did Jason Evert reference Beasts of Gor as a source, or is this simply a case of plagiarism?
Posted at Atlas Forum I found part of the text of the leaflet the Everts were distributing – the warning against porn certainly seems to have been glurged from Gor. Since this post has had over 2000 views in the past two days and rising, I’ve been checking/re-checking, and the best I’ve got is: I still think Beasts of Gor was the back source for this story of “how to kill a wolf” – which has been glurged into “why you shouldn’t read porn”, but the weight of evidence suggests that Evert picked up the story as a piece of Christian glurge, and probably has no idea it can be sourced to John Norman. So to answer your questions: No, he doesn’t, and no, I don’t think using glurge constitutes plagiarism – almost by definition, once a story is glurge, it’s no longer considered to have an author. Even when it does.
From Schwatka’s Search: Sledging in the Arctic in Quest of the Franklin Records by William H. Gilder (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1881), page 224:
“He killed two of his assailants [i.e. wolves] with his rifle, and two others by the most infernal traps ever devised. He set two keenly sharpened knife-blades in the ice and covered them with blood, which the wolves licked, at the same time slicing their tongues, the cold keeping them from feeling the wounds at the time, and their own warm blood tempting them to continue until their tongues were so scarified that death was inevitable.”
Nice one! I had never heard of this guy (I just looked him up in Wikipedia).
Will add this as footnote.
(Er, and add the link to Project Gutenberg – you’d put in the A-ref, but not the html link.)
I ran across this discussion a little late, but in the interest of adding a little more background and context, the knife-baiting of wolves as a traditional hunting technique of the Inuit was also described by the renowned early 20th century Smithsonian anthropologist, Frederick Webb Hodge (see Wikipedia for a brief bio) in the 1910 edition of the Smithsonian’s “Handbook of American Indians North of Mexico”, Vol 1, p. 801 (see the bottom of the 2nd column, 10 lines above the bottom margin).
Thanks for your comment.
At this point I’m frankly more interested in why Christians think this improbable method of wolf-killing which white anthropologists used to tell stories about, is an appropriate metaphor for masturbation.
You’re welcome. The link to that 1910 Smithsonian volume is here http://tinyurl.com/dxq4lwq
I’m not an evangelical Christian, so I’m not defending in any way the use of this Inuit hunting method as a metaphor — “appropriate” or otherwise — for masturbation (it seems quite silly to me), just observing that its practice by the Inuit of Hudson’s Bay had been initially reported by the19th C. explorers Scwatka and Klutshak (who were NOT anthropologists), then corroborated by Hodge and another renowned anthropologist, Dr. Franz Boas, in 1884-1885, as also being practiced by the Inuit of central Canada, quite far from Hudson’s Bay and members of a different Inuit tribe. http://tinyurl.com/dxkvn3w While there’s good reason to be skeptical of old white male anthropologists’ assessments of cultural meanings, that’s not so true of hunting methods corroborated by multiple observers over great distances.
If you search for use of this story, BTW, in Google Books, you’ll find, as I did, that it’s been used in a number of quite different contexts by many different people to illustrate (appropriately or not) the concept of heedless self-destruction in the pursuit of pleasure. The most notorious was by Mohammed Bouyeri, the Dutch-Moroccan Islamist who murdered Theo van Gogh in 2004, and who’d previously posted an essay on the internet entitled “To Catch a Wolf,” that had described the Inuit hunting practice, but using it as a metaphor for the supposed self-destructiveness of liberal Western Europe. http://tinyurl.com/bpxxtk5 The story seems to have been revived post-WW II by the American broadcaster Paul Harvey, during one of his “Rest of the Story” shows, during which he typically recounted a hodge-podge of little-known facts and episodes from history. Several writers I found attributed their awareness of it to having heard it from him, including a number of conservative Christians, but obviously it’s a metaphor that could be applied (or twisted) across ideologies.
Ironically enough, it wasn’t used in that fashion at all by John Norman, who merely described it as a hunting practice by his quasi-Inuit characters.
Your statement that only two percent of sexually active Catholic women in the United States do not use birth control, is false. 11% of women in the study admitted to using no method whatsoever, so unless there can be 111% in the study, there is no way 98% were using birth control. The study was also highly targeted. It would be like me doing a study on the number of computer-users who use a mouse, and then only interviewing people with desktops. You can find a better interpretation of the study, along with links to the study itself, here: http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2012/02/how_to_lie_with_statistics_exa_1.htm
Thank you for being honest about the Evert-Gor connection.
Respectfully,
-Tally Marx
Executive-summary answer:
Throughout their sexually-active lives, 98% of Catholic women will at some point use a method of contraception which is effective and banned by the Catholic Church. At any given point in their sexually-active lives when they don’t intend to get pregnant, 87% of Catholic women will be using methods of contraception which are banned by the Catholic Church – and 2% will be using the only approved method, NPF, which works exactly the same way as the Pill. (This deserves a separate blog post.) Of the women who are sexually active, are using no contraception but don’t intend to get pregnant, the odds are high that they’ll get pregnant anyway and the likelihood is that they will then have an abortion.
Most good healthcare centres which perform abortions then provide advice on using contraception to their patients so that their patients don’t end up having another unwanted pregnancy and another abortion.
Long answer:
The exact figures, for your benefit (that links to an executive summary which links to the full report, which is multi-Mb to download):
Among all women who have ever had sex, 99% have at some point in their sexual lives used a contraceptive method other than natural family planning. This is 98%, among sexually experienced Catholic women, which corresponds to the data from a similar survey in 2002. (And by their early 20s, 89% of never-married Catholic women have had sex and presumably, all married women have done so.)
If you want to study mouse use, you ask people who have desktops. If you want to study contraceptive use, you ask people who are currently (at least once in the past three months) having heterosexual intercourse and don’t intend to get pregnant.* So your point about how “The study was also highly targeted” is true, but not relevant – it’s classic misleading to misunderstand right out of Darrell Huff. (I read How To Lie With Statistics for the first time when I was 14, and have studied statistics at college.) This may not be your fault, I expect you got this information from some misleading article about the Guttmacher report which you did not wish to understand.
The “89%” figure you are misleadingly quoting is from “Supplementary table to Figure 3. Current contraceptive use among women at risk of unintended pregnancy, by religious affiliation, 2006–2008”. Among that group, 11% of Catholic women are currently not using any form of contraception. Only 2% are currently using “Natural Family Planning”, and 63% use the pill or get sterilised, because both those methods do exactly what NFP does but more simply and more effectively. (Sterilisation is ordinarily available only to women who have already had all the children they intend to have: the 36% who are using the Pill or an IUD versus the 32% who get sterilised presumably represent women planning their families versus women who have already had their families.) 15% use condoms, which a Catholic friend’s priest more-or-less recommended on finding she was marrying a Protestant husband: he isn’t sinning, and it’s not her fault. But 15% is only a point above the national average rate for condom use, and indeed American Catholics appear to be completely average in using contraception.
The stats also tell us that 46% of women who have abortions had not used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. Of these women, 33% had perceived themselves to be at low risk for pregnancy, 32% had had concerns about contraceptive methods, 26% had had unexpected sex and 1% had been forced to have sex.
27.4% of Catholic women ages 15-44 in the US had had at least one abortion; 27.5% of all women ages 15-44 in the US have had at least one abortion. About 25.2% of the American population identify as Catholics.
I would expect a pro-lifer to be anti-contraception, because in my experience pro-lifers – as you demonstrated in our last discussion – are completely indifferent to preventing abortions: online prolifers talk nastily about women who have abortions and blog against contraception; and in the real world prolifers campaign to make abortion more expensive/less safe and to ensure a high level of abortions by campaigning against access to contraception. But demonstrably, this does not include most Catholics, who are both pro-choice and pro-contraception. The minority who want there to continue to be a high level of abortions and who want those abortions to be performed unsafely and illegally and expensively, are both Catholic and Protestant, but primarily misogynistic.
*”Importantly, this category excludes women who are pregnant, postpartum or trying to get pregnant; women who have never had vaginal intercourse; and women who have not had sex in the last three months.” None of these women would be likely to use contraception anyway, regardless of religious affiliation, because they have no practical need for it.
“If you want to study mouse use, you ask people who have desktops.”
If I make the claim that 98% of computer users employ a mouse, I would not cite a study that only interviewed desktop users. Why? Because that study doesn’t support my claim. It would only support my claim if my claim were, “98% of desktop users use a mouse” or “98% of an unknown fraction of computer users use a mouse.”
Perhaps the Guttmacher institute had a reason for so restricting their study, but the fact remains that your claim based on said study is a lie. 98% of sexually active Catholic women do NOT use artificial birth control. 98% of sexually active Catholic women who aren’t pregnant, post-partum, and do not want to become pregnant, use artificial birth control.
Given that we do not know what fraction of sexually active Catholic women–much less Catholic women in general–actually met the requirements for the study, it is a very big leap to then say that the majority of the Church has accepted birth control, and that the celibate hierarchy is just “catching up.”
“98% of an unknown percent of sexually active women of an unknown percent of Catholic women” is not a very convincing premise, and it is the only premise the Guttmacher study gives you.
“Among all women who have ever had sex, 99% have at some point in their sex lives used artificial contraceptives. This is 98%, among sexually experienced Catholic women, which corresponds to the data from a similar survey in 2002. (And by their early 20s, 89% of never-married Catholic women have had sex and presumably, all married women have done so.)”
Click to access Religion-and-Contraceptive-Use.pdf
This study says that 89% of never married Catholic women ages 20-24 have had sex at least once, and 70% of never married catholic women, 15-44, have had sex at least once in their lives. Despite your 99% statistic, it does not follow that 98% of sexually experienced Catholic women use contraceptives. The study linked above says that figure two describes “sexually experienced” women, and figure three is limited to “sexually active” women. If the same thing were meant by these terms, the same terms would have been used. They are not the same thing. So your assumption that the figures in chart three can be applied to merely “sexually experienced” women, is unfounded. You don’t know how many sexually experienced women qualified for inclusion in chart three (when whence you get your 98%).
“Of the women who are sexually active, are using no contraception but don’t intending to get pregnant….Most good healthcare centres then provide advice on using contraception…”
This assumption is no excuse for including the 11% of those who use no method with the 87% who use artificial contraceptives.
“The “89%” figure you are misleadingly quoting is from…”
I never typed the number 89.
Thanks for your comment.
Pingback: thebackbencher.co.uk – Watching Michael Gove from a safe distance.