01/30/2014 Jonathan Taylor

Boy-shaming “sex education” planned for UK schools

We need to be careful when we start singling out only one group of people based on their genetic code and demanding that they “respect” another entire group of people. The reasoning is quite simple: it’s mindlessly discriminatory. It also has the potential to turn into a condescending shamefest.

  1. Not everyone in one group needs to be taught to respect others because they already do.
  2. If we single out only one group to respect other groups, no one is teaching the others to respect that group.
  3. Not every individual in any birthgroup is entitled to respect.

Of course, no one should disrespect someone based solely upon their being men, or women, or white, or black, and so forth. But teaching such values doesn’t mean we have to single out any of those groups, either.

Which is exactly what is being advocated in the UK. From The Daily Mail:

Teenage boys are learning about relationships through internet pornography and need to be taught about how to respect women through compulsory sex education lessons in schools, campaigners have warned.

So…only boys need to be taught to respect others?

Boys are developing worrying sexual behaviours as a result of watching internet pornography, which is often sexually aggressive and easy to access, it has been claimed.

The group, which includes experts from online parenting forum Mumsnet, has said education in schools could also help girls learn how to protect themselves from abuse and harassment.

Apparently boys do not need to learn how to protect themselves from abuse and harassment. Or if they do, that need is invisible to these campaigners.

Mumsnet is a parenting organization with a significant Feminist slant, by the way.

In a letter to The Times today, the group said that one in three girls is groped or experiences unwanted advances at school.

This statistic is useless at best and dishonest at worst. How many of those “1 in 3” are groped, as opposed to simply receiving “unwanted advances” (asked out by an unpopular guy)? One? Two? 0.00001?

For all we know, if 9,999 girls get asked out on a date by a guy they don’t like and only one gets groped, these people would say “10,000 girls experience unwanted advances or are groped.”

It’s a classic fearmongering tactic among Feminists:

  • Conflate two types of undesirable behavior, one of which is far more undesirable but also much, much rarer.
  • Assign those behaviors only to men, or only refer to women as victims.

We see more fearmongering tactics here:

Officials teaching literature for sex education lessons were last updated in 2000, and contain no mention of the internet.

‘In an age of one-click-away violent and degrading pornography online that is becoming the default sex education for some young people, this is woefully inadequate,’ the letter says.

I’m all for making education relevant to the modern age. But there are some problems here. First, violent pornography is not the “default” type of porn, let alone the default type of sex education. Second, a lot of violent porn involves violent women.

Just as these campaigners seem to assume men are never abused, apparently they also live in a fantasy world where women are never violent. I don’t see any reason to encourage those in the UK to throw their hard-earned tax dollars toward a condescending male-shaming campaign.

In September Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg warned sex education should include lessons in the ‘menacing’ impact on young girls.

Translation: teach young girls to distrust, fear, and resent boys.

The Office of the Children’s Commissioner has warned that easy access to online pornography encourages teenage boys to see girls as sex objects and to engage in risky sexual behaviour.

Do women never engage in risky sexual behavior? Do they never say “don’t worry, I’m on the pill” when they are not? Do they never drink while intoxicated? Do women never deliberately manufacture themselves into sex objects to exploit the world around them? Do they never use beauty to manipulate others or get ahead?

Here’s a new idea: we are all responsible for the culture in which we live. Both sexes feel pressure to act certain ways, but many in either sex have also made the choice to act in those ways when it has benefited them.

In a major report it lifted the lid on the corrosive effect of hardcore porn on children, concluding that those who access adult images and videos are more likely to lose their virginity at a younger age.

There were even indications that boys who look at violent porn are more likely to become sexually aggressive.

I’d like to see these “indications,” because almost all the credible studies out there demonstrate that rape has declined as porn consumption has increased. Indeed, it has actually made men less sexually aggressive and adventurous when it comes to real, live women. Feminist Naomi Wolf herself wrote an article about this.

The study called for urgent action by ministers, schools and parents to ‘develop children’s resilience to pornography’ after finding that a significant number have access to sexually explicit images.

If children are viewing pornography at home, especially violent pornography, that is the fault the parents (or whoever is taking care of the children).

In September Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg warned sex education should include lessons in the ‘menacing’ impact on young girls, but revealed his call for guidance to teachers to be updated for the digital age was being blocked by Education Secretary Michael Gove.

Yes: unlike what we would see in the United States, the secretary of education in the UK has the courage to question the dogma of Feminism. Well done, Mr. Gove.

In response, Mr Gove insisted he takes the ‘whole question of sex education very seriously’.

Speaking at a Policy Exchange event, he added: ‘We conducted a review recently of personal, social, health and economic education and one of the conclusions we drew from that is that the right thing to do it to trust teachers.

Did you see that? A politician said that we should trust teachers more than lofty and disconnected government officials. When’s the last time you heard a politician say that in the U.S.?

Seeing the other side, and a brief digression

On a basic, conceptual level there is something missing from the minds of these campaigners. Are women never taught to objectify men by our culture? Are men and boys never under pressure to act a certain way to please women? Shouldn’t we be including the distinctive experiences of men and boys and trying to understand them?

The reality, of course, is that women are taught through all sorts of cultural influences to regard men as their providers, and to use their beauty to attract men in order to gain access to their resources. While some men may do this, it tends to be far rarer among them.

Here’s what Disney teaches young men about how to attract women. Try to find the common denominator:

Disney how to attract women

Yes, men: if you ever want to attract a quality woman, you have to be rich. Preferably a good-looking man with smooth moves, but at the end of the day rich really is where it’s at.

Some may say these phenomena are simply symptoms of evolutionary psychology: the philosophy that much of human behavior is influenced by millennia of humans selectively deciding with whom they will reproduce, with the overall purpose being the survival of the tribe, nation, or species.

Thus men would have more of a natural tendency to desire women who are physically beautiful because such a metric is a good index of fertility. Women, by contrast, would have a greater natural tendency to desire men who are able to provide for them when they are vulnerable during pregnancy.

If we’re going to behave as though men’s “base desires” are crude and unrefined,we shouldn’t pretend that women don’t have them as well, or that their own are somehow morally superior.

Jonathan Taylor
Follow me

Jonathan Taylor

Jonathan is Title IX For All's founder, editor, web designer, and database developer. Hailing from Texas, he makes a mean red beans n' rice and is always interested to learn new things.
Jonathan Taylor
Follow me
Share and rate this post:
 
Tagged: ,

About the Author

Jonathan Taylor Jonathan is Title IX For All's founder, editor, web designer, and database developer. Hailing from Texas, he makes a mean red beans n' rice and is always interested to learn new things.

Comments (18)

  1. David Pittelli

    I think you misread Pride and Prejudice. The narrator (of “It is a truth universally acknowledged that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife”) is neither describing what the rich man wants, nor what she herself wants, but rather commenting cynically on what most women want and most of society believes. She put the claim in universal terms precisely to make it appear ridiculous.

     
  2. The only unrealistic expectation that porn actually breeds is an unwarranted belief in how quickly a plumber will arrive when called.

     
    • Indiana Mike

      Any man that allows his son to be taught manhood by the feminized, homosexualized, perverted school or government systems is himself less than a man. Men, do not surrender your God given sons to Progressive perverts.

       
      • I don’t think there’s anything wrong with men doing things that society tends to stereotype as “feminine” (or vice versa). And interestingly, what society stereotypes as “feminine” and “masculine” do change over time. Poetry, for example, was once thought of as a masculine enterprise. Now it is regarded as feminine.

        The same thing goes with reading and writing, which is now characterized by a lot of society as “girly.” And yet, this is where boys are furthest behind in terms of academics.

        A brief note on “progressives”: yes, these policies are disproportionately advocated by people who call themselves “progressives.” But in the true sense of progressive – of moving forward – there is nothing progressive at all about this “sex education” campaign. It’s actually very regressive, stereotyping and singling out only one sex.

        There’s nothing inherently wrong with moving forward as a society, which is why I think it’s misguided to use “progressive” as an insult. But of course, simply because something is “change” doesn’t mean it is moving us forward. And when that “change” actually moves us backward, it may be more effective to call the advocates of such change Regressives. Because that is what they really are.

         
      • Josh Canalhia

        Femininity and homosexuality aren’t bad things.
        I am a gay male, have two sons and know how to raise they to be a good men. I believe in a progressive society and would never agree to perversion.

         
      • Christopher Wedge

        Not sure if false-flag feminist
        Or racist loony

         
        • Christopher Wedge

          Crap. Sorry, I forgot about sarcasm.
          It could also be sarcasm. If it is, good show sir.

           
    • Josh Canalhia

      I agree it should be addressing both genders. I agree with mostly everything in this post.

      I don’t know, I still see how the looks is the first thing when it comes to a prince as well. Maybe you are a heterosexual guy, so you notice the “richness” first? They are (mostly) all good looking, young, white and charming. Sometimes even the princess is rich as well.
      And evolutionary psychology got it wrong. Evolutionary speaking, there are only few, and arguable, things that would show fertility, like body hair on both female and males, more developed muscles on males and developed hips on females. That is mostly all that is to it. For the rest, look at our past: males dominated all of it, females were only there to give them children. Of course they needed men to provide for them, and women should (most of the times) look good, in the terms of that culture, even thought males have always been extremely vain as well, a lot of times even more than the females in the past. Our culture still is coming out of this circle, so we unfortunately still need to give it more time. Oh, and we still have a lot of societies where the human body is not sexualized, by this we can see how humans don’t choose their mates by their bodies, not necessarily. What is/IF something is sensual and how we see sexuality is relative and can be/is highly conditioned.
      In all nature, it is females that choose males, and they choose by their looks and/ actions; the most colorful bird, the best “dancer”, the strongest, etc. Females, when in heat, already attract males by their smell; most of the times they go after males as well. In all nature, when one is infertile, it is of a higher chance that it is going to be a male, and that is the reason females need to search for these signs. Females of most species also take care of their cubs alone, so a need for a long-term provider is not necessarily right. Humans are trusted to mate for a short time; the male bring food for the female while she is pregnant; after she gives birth they part ways. That is one of the reasons “fitness” could be a thing females look for in a male when looking for a mate – he is healthy, able to provide (IF females really needed that) and mostly fertile. Maybe males will look for any signs a female is fertile as well, but that is mostly unlikely – he is on for mating at any time, while females are only at a point – hence the reason they can be a lot more “loose” about it, missing once or twice won’t be a serious matter at all in evolution. That is the reason why our “in love” passion period is still short even at our times, sometimes not even lasting for a year.

       
    • richard40

      The recent Disney movie Frozen had a commendable twist to the handsome prince meme. In that movie the naieve princess fell for the rich charming handsome prince type, and he ended up being an evil louse, while the gruff poor guy out in the sticks turned out to be the hero that really cared for her.

       
    • Why is it not considered “hate speech” when Gender-feminists specifically target the hetero-male gender???

       
    • Shaming young boys over their sexuality WILL cause some of them to end up with the same symptoms as those seen in victims. This will likely increase sexual abuse in the long run.

       

Comments are closed.