Wednesday, February 18, 2009

An Immodest Proposal

Little boys have willies. Little boys with willies sometimes get erections. Little boys with erections will sometimes feel like having sex with little girls. Little girls who have had sex with little boys will sometimes have babies. Little girls with babies are probably not going to make terribly good mummies.

Clearly, something must be done.

Someone could help the little-girl take care of her baby. It could, for example, be adopted by its grandparents, provided they can show themselves to be suitable people to raise a child. Unfortunately, the question "Have you allowed your 15 year old daughter to get pregnant by a 13 year old boy" tends to feature quite prominently in most "Are you a fit person to raise a child?" examinations. Alternatively, then, the baby could be taken into care by her local authority: initially placed in some idyllic care-home; then looked after by loving foster-parents; finally adopted by one of the many childless couples who are desperate to give happy homes to motherless infants.

The trouble with this is that the very same people who are wringing their hands about the thirteen-year-old-dad have a deeply held fear of the state, and of social workers in particular. They doubt that governments should ever decide what is in the best interests of a child; and they doubt that social workers ever really have those interests at heart. They suspect that their actions are really motivated by politics or ideology or social engineering. (Apparently, social workers get a cash bounty every time they take a child away from its natural parents and place it with hoh-moh-sexuals. Would Richard Littlejohn lie to me?)

So, then: the little-girl who foolishly allowed the little-boy to make her pregnant could be prevented from actually having the baby. Medical science can manage such things, I am told.

But the very same people who are wringing their hands about the thirteen-year-old-dad think it very wrong that pharmacists should give morning after pills to little-girls, or indeed teenagers. Many of them think that it is wrong that doctors should give free, confidential, honest advise about terminations to little-girls: or, indeed, anyone else. Many of them have an a priori belief that abortion is wrong even in these messy circumstances: some of them have been honest enough to say so. (The Pro-Life Alliance praised the little-girl for having been brave enough to have her baby rather than getting rid of it.)
So, then: steps should be taken to stop little-girls becoming pregnant in the first place. Little boys should be taught (straightforwardly, honestly) about the likely results of having sex with little-girls, and what to do about it. If this little boy had been taught how to put a condom on a banana before he put it anywhere near a girl (or, indeed, a boy, but for different reasons) then we wouldn't be having this conversation.

But the very same people who are wringing their hands about the thirteen-year-old-dad think it wrong that teenagers should be given access to contraception; or even given information about contraception. Contraception causes pregnancy, don't you know? (Would Melanie Phillips lie to me?)

So. The little boy who didn't know anything about contraception shouldn't have put his banana anywhere near a girl, but dealt with it in the way that little boys always used to in the olden days when there were no teenage pregnancies at all. [Check this - Ed.] But the very same people who are wringing their hands about the thirteen year old dad think that it is outrageous that the subject of, er, you know, Thing, should be broached in sex education lessons. Sex education should be all about the human reproductive cycle and not at all about feelings, emotions, or strange movements in the trousers. And (of course) no-one of any age should have access to pornography and the internet should be banned.

So. We'll probably have to re-organize our society in such a way that little boys are not allowed to go anywhere near little girls until they are old enough to know about and cope with the consequences of their stiffies. Let them be raised in all-male prep schools; socialize in all male sports clubs and Scout troops; educated at all-male boarding schools and all-male universities; and spend a few years in a presumably all-male armed forces. If it is absolutely essential for them to interact with females, let them be accompanied by parents, chaperones, maiden aunts, burkhas etc. (Of course, the very same people who would probably find this a perfectly sensible suggestion also think that sodomy is a very great evil, but let's not go there.)

Or, if that's not possible, then at least let's implement a regime of Rugby Football, Scout Camps, Look and Learn, cold showers and Mecanno to deal with the problem at source. No-one in the olden days ever got an erection - they were all far too tired.

But even this wouldn't really address the basic question, which is: why do boys insist on having willies in the first place? They didn't have them in the 1950s. Look at an Action Man, or any boys comic book. Crime only began in 1945 (would Tony Blair lie to me?). I'm guessing that people started to have willies at about the same time. Probably TV, or the internet, or coca-cola, or feminism caused them. If we could only go back to the sensible world where everyone was neuter, then this sort of thing simply wouldn't happen.

11 comments:

innerbrat said...

Given the date, is it too much of a leap to suggest crime (and willies) are the fault of the Nazis?

Andrew Rilstone said...

By george, I think you've got it.

Jacob said...

I'm afraid I think you're twenty years out. Sexual intercourse began in 1963, not 1945.

Andrew Rilstone said...

That was Doctor Who.

Andrew Stevens said...

Common mistake.

dotdash said...

The occurrence of sexual intercourse seems to roughly correspond to the fall of Tory governments. The repeal of the Corn Laws must have set off an epidemic of exposed ankles and naked table legs in Victorian Britain.

Lirazel said...

Oh golly, and here I was under the impression that the problem was all this Feminism that taught little girls that sex was fun. We really need to stop teaching girls to read and write.

dagonet said...

the entity Dotdash wrote:
"The repeal of the Corn Laws must have set off an epidemic of exposed ankles and naked table legs in Victorian Britain."

To be fair, covering up table legs was an American perversion, & 1 for wich our noble Victorian ancestors mercilessly mocked them, whilst simultaniously inventing the concept of the sex killer.
Wich just goes to show how demoralizing the repeal of the Corn Laws REALLY where.

The entity known Lirazel wrote:
"Oh golly, and here I was under the impression that the problem was all this Feminism that taught little girls that sex was fun. We really need to stop teaching girls to read and write."

Quite a lot of "feminists" seem not to agree on that, though.
Can still remember one time in the tube, where all the ad posters for an erotic magazine specifically aimed at the Ladies had a neat little "porn degrades women" sticker over the (male) front page models bulging groin.
Plus, reading & writing are definitly patriarchial sun-cult tools of opression!

A. L. Brackett said...

A careful study of early nudist material (and trust me I have) Reveal that penises did not exist until 53, although a sort of proto-penis existed as far back as 37 and Germans may have had penises even earlier.
But perhaps for the current crisis a rigorous regimen of masturbation for boys could be employed.

dotdash said...

Germans were forbidden from possessing penises under the terms of the Treaty of Versailles. Apparently that's what Sir Eric Geddes' comments that we should "squeeze the German lemon until the pips squeak" really meant.

dagonet said...

"But perhaps for the current crisis a rigorous regimen of masturbation for boys could be employed."

Whilst, as lirazel suggested, keeping same regimen secret from the girls? One risks a bit of a mix-up otherwise.

No, sorry, there is only one thing that will truely put thing aright: nice, relaxing spanking!