Abstinence For Girls Because Boys Are Bad

Girls are naive, vulnerable, precious creatures who need to be coddled and protected from sexually aggressive boys. And yes, all boys are sexually aggressive.

At least that’s what the UK parliament would have us believe with a new bill they are trying to turn to law that sees 13- to 16-year-old girls only being required to take part in an abstinence course in schools.

Nadine Dorries proposed this bill because “girls are taught to have safe sex, but not how to say no to a boyfriend who insists on sexual relations.”

She also says, “Teaching a child at the age of seven to apply a condom on a banana is almost saying: ‘Now go and try this for yourself’. By the age of 18, some girls have been taught three times how to put a condom on a boy.”

Condom classes are not taught to seven-year-olds! It’s not wonder she’s trying to put through such a ludicrous bill. Seven-year-olds are learning how to tell the difference between a good friend and a bad friend. Maybe at 11 or 12 they will learn about puberty. It’s only after that when condom demonstrations will begin.

And frankly, 18-year-olds should  know how to use a condom. Any guess as to why there’s such a high teen pregnancy rate in this country? Probably because people like Dorries don’t want kids to learn about condoms.

This bill passed its first reading in parliament with a vote of 67 for and 61 against. It will go before parliament again in January.

This is wrong on so many levels it’s hard for me to know where to start with my complaints.

I firmly believe that everybody needs to know that abstinence is an option. It is always our right to say no to sex or to even stop what we are doing in the middle of sex. It’s our body and our right. Anything else is rape. This applies for men and women, young and old.

I also think young girls and boys need to know this because a lot of time they feel peer pressure to have sex before they are ready. Yes, boys feel peer pressure, too! Who’d'a thunk it, eh?

Because of this, it is important for both boys and girls to have the skills and knowledge to know how to make choices that are right for them. They need to know how to say no to sex if they don’t want it and how to do it safely if they do. Because of this, any sex education class should be delivered to boys and girls.

I also detest the perpetuation of the myth that all boys are sexually aggressive. Not only has the idea of men always wanting sex been proven wrong in research, but I know it to be true from the many men I have encountered in my life (both sexually and platonically). These men love and respect women and wouldn’t dare force anyone into anything beyond her will. Not all men are rapists, but unfortunately this class will teach girls to be scared of boys.

(As an aside, the heterosexism does not make me happy either. What about the gay and lesbian teens? Where do they fit in?)

This class will also take away the mutual responsibility of the choice to have sex by making girls feel like it’s all up to them.

The fpa opposes this new bill for the same reasons that I do: gender stereotypes would be reinforced and sex education is essential for all young people to make healthy and informed decisions together.

I haven’t seen the curriculum, so I can’t say whether I approve of this new class or not. I doubt I would, because all comprehensive sex education programs will include abstinence as an option already.

But if it does have to happen, I would want it to be taught to all students of all genders and all sexual orientations. Anything less would be negligent.

Contact the author here: mack@morningquickie.com