A critique of the FPA’s booklet  - 4Boys

Dr ES Williams

The Family Planning Association (FPA) is the main voluntary organisation involved in sex education in the UK.  FPA booklets, which are partly funded by the Department of Health, include 4Boys: a below-the-belt guide to the male body, aimed at 13- to 17-year-olds and 4Girls: a below-the-Bra guide to the female body.  A review of 4Girls in The Observer commented: ‘It is full of naked women and explicit descriptions of the female body.  Pubic hair, breasts and masturbation are discussed in detail.  But, if it is successful, a copy will be owned by every young girl in the country.’[i]   

The FPA produces a large range of sex education resources, many of which are used in the National Health Service and some of which are used in schools.  This is a critique of the booklet 4Boys: a below-the-belt guide to the male body from a Christian biblical perspective.   

Amoral advice for boys

The most fundamental objection to 4Boys is that it teaches children about sex in an amoral framework.  While it gives advice on a wide range of sexual issues, including masturbation, the right time to have sex, homosexuality and condoms, there is no moral guidance that any form of sexual activity is wrong.  In other words, all forms of sexual activity are presented in a morally neutral framework, and there is no recognition that certain sexual activities are immoral.  This is in direct conflict with the message of the Bible which provides the strongest warning against sexual immorality.  According to the Bible, which Christians believe is the Word of God: ‘The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord… Flee from sexual immorality.  All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body’ (1 Corinthians 6:13,18).    

The right time to have sex

4Boys addresses the question of the right time to have sex.  It points out that ‘the average when both men and women first have sex is now 17.  Many wait until they are older.  If you have any doubts, or think that you’ll regret it, then wait.’  But if a couple ‘think the time’s right… try to make you and your partner’s first sexual experience as good as possible’.[ii]  The message for those who are not ready for sex is to wait for the right time.  So if one partner does not want sex, then be patient and abstain from sexual intercourse until both partners want it.  But what if ‘both ready and willing?’[iii]  Then the advice is, ‘Get your own condoms.  Don’t wait for your partner to ask you to use a condom. Don’t expect them to have one (but don’t assume they sleep around if they do).  Talk to your partner about using condoms.’[iv]  There is not the slightest suggestion that children and young people should refrain from promiscuous sexual intercourse.  Instead, if both are willing, it is taken for granted that they will do what they want, that they will have sex.  The advice, if they want to have sex, is to use condoms.

 Advising young people to delay the onset of sexual intercourse until they feel ready is central to sex education ideology.  All sex education programmes advise those who feel they are not yet ready to say: ‘No, I don’t want to have sex with you now.’  The essential point is that sex education is pro-choice, offering young people the choice between delaying sexual activity and ‘safer sex’. Some people are misled into believing that encouraging young people to delay the onset of sexual intercourse until they feel they are ready is consistent with biblical morality.  But this is not the case.  Delaying the onset of sexual intercourse, or learning to wait until the right moment, is a pragmatic decision based on the feelings and desires of the young people involved, and has nothing to do with what is right or wrong.  Chastity, on the other hand, is a moral decision to remain sexually chaste until marriage.  There is a world of difference between these two positions.  One is based on the morality of desire, the other on the morality of the Bible.

 Nakedness

An assumption that runs through the booklet is that explicit sexual imagery is necessary for boys to be properly educated about sex.  The inside front cover of the booklet shows a frontal view of a group of naked young men.  There are a number of explicit drawings of the sexual organ, including drawings of a condom being fitted to an erect penis.       

 In The Sexual Revolution, Wilhelm Reich, a disciple of Sigmund Freud, claimed that exposing the sexual organs is a crucial element of sex education’s attack on conventional morality.  He believed that society could only become ‘sex-affirming’ when people lost their shyness to expose their genitals.  A key question was ‘whether one should accustom them [children] to the sight of the naked human body, more specifically, to the human genitals’.[v]  Reich made the point that ‘with our approval of nakedness, with our sexual education—dealing not with the fertilisation of flowers, but of humans!—we are pulling one stone after the other from the edifice of conservative morality; that the ideal of virginity until marriage becomes as hollow as that of eternal monogamy, and with that the ideal of conventional marriage in general.  For no sensible person will contend that people who have had a sex education which is serious, uncompromising and based on science, will be able to conform to the prevailing compulsive customs and morality.’[vi]

 Biblical faith, on the other hand, emphasises the virtue of modesty.  It is wrong to expose the sexual organs.  According to the Apostle Paul, the parts of the body that are unpresentable are to be treated with special modesty, while our presentable parts need no special treatment (1 Corinthians 12:23, 24).  In the Old Testament a priest was suitably covered before approaching the altar in the Holy Place.  ‘Make linen undergarments as a covering for the body, reaching from the waist to the thigh.  Aaron and his sons must wear them whenever they enter the Tent of Meeting or approach the altar to minister in the Holy Place, so that they will not incur guilt and die’ (Exodus 28:42,43). As a witness to the holiness and purity of God, Aaron (the high priest) and his sons were instructed to wear a plain linen undergarment to cover their genitals.  It was a heinous sin for the priests of Israel to appear before God with uncovered genitals, whereas in Canaanite worship exposing the genitalia was common practice. 

 In the Scriptures human nakedness and gross sexual immorality are linked.  The principle of modesty, as expressed by the Aramaic word tze’niut, rejects the very idea of nakedness, both in public and at home.  The opposite of modesty is ‘abandon, looseness, and the absence of self-control’ (helkerut).  Extreme sexual immorality is described in the Bible as ‘the uncovering of nakedness’ (gilui arayot).  

 Here is a profound biblical truth—modesty is associated with the covering of sexual nakedness, while gross, shameless sexual immorality and idolatry is associated with the uncovering of nakedness. 

 From the time of the Fall all mankind has struggled against the ‘lusts of the flesh which war against the soul’ (1 Peter 2:11).  The acts of our sinful nature include sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery (Galatians 5:19).  The first chapter of Romans warns that those who reject the truth of God are susceptible to sexual impurity (Romans 1:24).  The natural sexual relationships between men and women have been corrupted and human nature is liable to lustful cravings and impure sexual desires.  Yielding to these desires leads to impurity and sexual immorality.  For this reason it is vitally important for men, women and children to avoid anything that arouses sexual lust.  In particular young men, who are especially prone to sexual desires, should avoid sexual images or suggestions that are likely to entice them into sexual temptation. One of the reasons why sex education is so wrong is because it encourages impure thoughts, inflames sexual desires and leads to sexual temptation.  The Bible protects young people from sexual sin by teaching the fundamental importance of sexual purity, thereby promoting modesty among women and self-control among men.  The modest young woman avoids any sexual display that may arouse lust, while the chivalrous young man practises self-control which helps to avoid sexual temptation.

 Homosexuality

The FPA booklet 4Boys gives young men the following advice.  ‘Getting an erection when you are around other boys doesn’t mean that you are gay.  But you may be sexually interested in other men – or even men AND women.  It’s not a problem; your body is yours to share with whomever you choose.  If you want advice, contact the organisations on the back page.’[vii] The clear implication of this advice is that both homosexuality and bisexuality are natural and should not be regarded as a problem.  It is up to young boys to choose with whom they want to share their body.  And if they want to have sex with members of both genders, then that is their choice, and nobody has the right to judge them.  This advice is consistent with the ideology propagated by Alfred Kinsey, namely, that human sexuality is a continuum between heterosexuality and homosexuality with bisexuality being the norm.

 The above quote make it clear that 4Boys regards all types of sexual orientation – bisexuality, heterosexuality and homosexuality – as moral equivalents; there is no moral distinction between having sex with members of the opposite sex, members of the same sex, or with members of both sexes.  Sex education simply helps teenagers to find their true sexual orientation.  And if they want more advice they are told to contact organisations listed on the back cover, which include Lesbian and Gay Switchboard and Brook, organisations which promote homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle.  This advice encourages children to exclude their parents from a moral choice that has massive, life long implications for the child’s future.  It is a subtle enticement to disobey the fourth commandment to their father and mother.  

The Bible teaches that homosexuality is wrong.  God created male and female, and the purpose of human sexuality is fulfilled in the marriage of one man and one woman. Sexual relations between people of the same sex are described as unnatural.  ‘Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion’ (Romans 1:27).      

Condoms prevent pregnancy

In response to the question, ‘How can we protect ourselves’ 4Boys states that ‘condoms (male and female) can help protect you and your partner against both infection and pregnancy’.[viii]  The booklet advises a young man that if he does not want to be a dad, and ‘if your girlfriend doesn’t want to be a mum’ use a condom.  However, 4Boys provides no warning of the significant failure rate in preventing pregnancy. An epidemiological assessment of family planning in the UK, sponsored by the Department of Health, provides information on the percentage of women who become pregnant in the year of using different contraceptive methods.  The failure rate for condoms is estimated to be between 10 and 19 per cent.  And failure rates among teenagers are higher than the figures quoted.[ix]  Information from the National Surveys of Family Growth in the USA shows that 14% of couples experience an unintended pregnancy during the first year of typical use, a failure rate that includes both inconsistent use and incorrect use, as well as breakage and slippage.[x]  This means that around one in six teenagers who depend upon condoms for contraception are at risk of pregnancy during each year of sexual activity.  Clearly, contraception does not provide foolproof protection against pregnancy.  The advice of 4Boys is negligent in that it does not provide an adequate warning of the dangers of contraceptive failure. 

 Condoms prevent sexual infections

The booklet explains that the reader should use a condom ‘if you don’t want to get (or pass on) any sexual infection such as genital warts, gonorrhoea, or HIV (the virus that causes AIDS).  They are free from family planning clinics…’[xi] There is no warning of condom failure, or that the protection provided by condoms is, at best, only partial. 

An expert scientific panel, which considered published research on the effectiveness of male condom use to prevent STD transmission, concluded that ‘consistent condom use decreased the risk of HIV/AIDS transmission by approximately 85%.’[xii]  (And how many adolescents use condoms ‘consistently’ each time they have sex?)  This means that 15 out of 100 sexually active young people who rely on condoms for protection against HIV are at risk of acquiring the infection if exposed to an infected partner. 

 Moreover, the evidence ‘does not allow an accurate assessment of the degree of protection against gonorrhoea infection in women offered by the correct and consistent condom use’.[xiii]  With regard to chlamydia the conclusion is ‘taken together, the available epidemiological literature does not allow an accurate assessment of the degree of potential protection against chlamydia offered by correct and consistent condom usage’.[xiv]  The panel concluded ‘limitations in epidemiological study design and the lack of primary outcome measurements… prevented the Panel from forming any conclusions about the effectiveness/ineffectiveness of correct and consistent condom usage in reducing the risk of genital herpes infection’.  Moreover, ‘there was no evidence that condom use reduced the risk of HPV (human papilloma virus) infection, but study results did suggest that condom use might afford some protection in risk of HPV-associated disease, including genital warts in men and cervical neoplasia in women’.[xv]  Note the qualifications around preventing HPV, which is the main cause of cervical cancer. 

The evidence, which is based on the correct and consistent use of condoms, provides little support for the belief that condoms are effective in preventing STDs in children and young people.  The advice of 4 Boys is misleading, for its unqualified claim that condoms prevent STDs, is false.  Young people who rely on condoms for protection against HIV and STDs must understand that they are taking a risk with their health. ‘Safer sex’ is no more than a slogan.

 Conclusion

This analysis of 4Boys leads to the following conclusions:

1.        The advice is amoral.  It teaches children about sex without warning of the dangers of sexual immorality.  This is tantamount to child abuse.  There is a great danger that the booklet will inflame sexual lust in young people.  To refer boys confused by their sexuality to the Lesbian and Gay Switchboard is tantamount to promoting homosexuality among children.

2.        The advice is misleading.  To teach children that condoms prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, without any warning of the obvious fail rate is misleading and probably negligent.  Return to top of page