Then yes, it is likely that at least some boys will either look or mention that they can look and see.
Indeed, the teacher who sparked protests at Lytchett Minster School in Poole, Dorset, on Friday – when she told girls who had complained they had to cover their backsides with books as they walked up the stairs that “having your skirts too short is going to tempt boys to say silly things, isn’t it?” – may as well have said “boys will be boys” given the explosion it prompted.
Part of the education process is, as we all know, an attempt to beat the physical expression of such ideas out of teenage boys. After all, it isn’t that gentlemen don’t look at teenage thighs, nor that they don’t think of them, they just don’t mention doing so. There used to be a part of the associated female education process to warn that this was likely and therefore to limit the occasions – to perhaps where the attention would be truly desired – where it was possible. After all, nowt wrong with generating a bit of lust now and again but there is often a value in being selective over who in.
This current argument is symptomatic of all too much of the progressive project. Teenage boys snigger at female knickers. Some mixture of fear, lust, desire, nervousness and all that. You know, adolescence. The progressives continuing to insist that humans not be humans which really isn’t how it all works, is it?