It astounds me that someone writing in HSJ thinks that a charity dedicated to promoting reproductive choice and sexual health is about 'rude bits'. Are we to believe Monitor is the Benny Hill of journalism?

I am appalled at the misogynistic tone of this piece.

If he only classes penetrative sex as sex, can I suggest that he is doing it wrong, (if at all, judging by the excitable language).

If teenage sex and, by definition, potential pregnancy are not something to take seriously - particularly bearing in mind the additional pressure it is putting on the health service - then can I ask what is?

Monitor has succinctly demonstrated why so many teenagers are afraid to seek advice and help with birth control in this country.

Keep up the good work - we may double those figures yet!

Name and address withheld