The Metropolis

Sex or death? Daily Mail attacks women’s health

Cila Warncke | Tuesday 2 November, 2010 20:40

If the Daily Mail was honest the headline would read: Teenage girls who have sex deserve to die.

But because bullies are also cowards, it headed its 26 October rant against the cervical cancer vaccine with the ostensibly less offensive: HMV voucher bribe for teenage girls to have cervical jabs: Fury at ‘promiscuity scheme’ as NHS faces cuts.

This “fury” is aimed at a Birmingham health trust offering teenage girls a few quid in shop vouchers if they complete a three-part cervical cancer vaccination. Or, as the Mail styles it the “promiscuity jab”. The assumption is, apparently, that one prick is much like another and if a teenage girl gets a taste for penetration from the experience of having a needle full of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine plunged into her arm there is no telling to what tawdry depths she’ll sink.

This is journalism straight out of Humbert Humbert’s fantasies, complete with sweaty- palmed speculation that vaccination “encourages girls to have sex earlier than they would.” Apart from anything else, that’s gibberish. Should it read “earlier than they would have otherwise”? If so, how is the Daily Mail able to determine how and when women “would” have sex? I’m astonished its sleazy marketing minions aren’t out flogging the information to the highest bidder.

Common sense, grammatical or otherwise, is not on the Daily Mail agenda. It hates women so much not even fiscal responsibility comes between it and its misogynistic anti-vaccine campaign.

The Birmingham voucher scheme costs a paltry £22,500 per year. By comparison the NHS spends over £200 million annually on cervical cancer screening and treatment. Nevertheless, the Mail believes the social cost outweighs the financial benefits of vaccination. It quotes Norman Wells, of “pressure group” Family and Youth Concern, who says: “This is yet another example of public money being thrown at a problem that has its roots in declining standards of morality.” According to this line of reasoning (if you can call it that) public money should be withdrawn from everything that “has its roots in declining standards of morality”—so why not do away with sexual health services full stop? Might as well get rid of AIDS hospices, domestic abuse hotlines and the NSPCC while you’re at it.

The real issue, of course, is sex, not money. The Mail is railing against a safe, inexpensive, effective public health initiative simply because it removes death as a disincentive to women having sex. “There is already evidence that the vaccine is giving some girls a false sense of security and leading them to think [they]… can therefore engage in casual sex without consequence” the article warns. Heaven forbid that girls should grow up thinking they have the right to enjoy sex without risking their lives for it. As for the “promiscuity jab” sobriquet – women aren’t having casual sex by themselves. In fairness, and in tribute to condom’s potentially deleterious effect on male morals, I propose we start referring to prophylactics as the “promiscuity sheath”.

cilawarncke.wordpress.com

---