AGENCIES FOR SEX-INSTRUCTION
The importance of educating the young in the physiology and hygiene of
sex is no longer doubted. The widespread ignorance and misinformation
among boys concerning the human sexual function is proof of the
necessity of substituting therefor normal, accurate knowledge which
will conduce to hygienic and eugenic betterment. However much one may
close his eyes to the fact, it is nevertheless true that many children
acquire distorted information about matters of sex at a very early
age--much earlier than the average parent ever suspects. Among boys,
misinformation on sex matters is the rule and correct information the
exception.
The necessity for scientific knowledge on the subject is based on (1)
the preservation of individual sex health, (2) the improvement of the
progeny; (3) the relief of boys from the mental disquietude caused by
certain normal manifestations of adolescence; (4) his rescue from the
clutches of quack “medical specialists”; (5) the suppression or control
of venereal diseases; (6) the abatement of false modesty which prevents
sane discussion among adults of a question so important to humanity, to
pave the way for sex-education backed by an enlightened and coöperating
public opinion, without which a general dissemination of knowledge
covering the dangers to health and morals resulting from wrong sex
habits is impossible.
There is an ever-present disposition to ring down the curtain of
taboo on the discussion of sex. A subject which so vitally affects
the health and morals of both the individual and the community should
warrant such discreet discussion and thoughtful consideration as will
best conserve these vital fundamentals of life. The former antipathy to
any reference to the subject is now being slowly superseded by a nobler
and purer sentiment which invites the formation of plans and methods
designed to obviate the grave physical and moral dangers attendant
on ignorance and misinformation. A healthier public opinion and
enlightened conscience will clear the way for the instruction not only
of the young but of adults concerning the sacred processes of human
reproduction.
It is obvious to say that instruction on sex can best be given the
child by his parents; they are his natural teachers, possessing the
confidence of the child and having the intimate relationship, affection
and sympathetic understanding which renders personal instruction
effective. But the neglect of this parental duty is so prevalent
even among educated parents who are solicitous for their children’s
future, that courses of instruction in our grammar and high schools
and colleges are now being advocated to supply this parental omission.
Indeed, one or more public high schools in our large cities have
already added sex-instruction to their course of study, while a number
of normal schools and colleges have for some years included it in their
curriculums. Such a revolutionary innovation has not been unattended
by opposition, chiefly from parents and public school boards, but only
rarely from the heads of educational institutions of advanced grades.
The introduction of such a course is attended by some impediments,
not the least of which is the difficulty of procuring teachers who
possess both the tact and the pedagogic knowledge necessary to give
instruction on the subject in its biological, hygienic, and ethical
aspects in such a manner as will inform and warn the child against
the dangers of premature sex excitation and satisfy his curiosity
without stimulating his interest. Another difficulty in the way of
teaching the subject in public and other schools--even when classes are
segregated by sex--is the psychology of the mob, evident in a large
group of boys who already are possessed of copious misinformation
which tends to a more flippant and prurient reception of the subject
than when the information is given privately. This is evident even in
advanced schools. One of our greatest institutions of learning has two
courses of lectures on sex-hygiene for freshmen and seniors, which are
generally referred to by the students as “Smut One” and “Smut Two.” The
American Federation for Sex Hygiene is perhaps the leading advocate
of the policy of sex-education in graded and high schools, to be given
in conformity with a thoughtful and conservative plan which has its
basis in biological study. The heads of many prominent colleges and
universities have given their indorsement to this plan which is endowed
with such elasticity that it may be varied to meet the needs of the
differing mental and physical requirements of the young.
Conceding that the average public-school teacher has one essential
qualification for giving such instruction, i. e., the confidence of
the children, her incapacity because of the lack of a broad scientific
knowledge of the subject, or youth, or both, is generally recognized.
The other alternative--special lecturers of known scientific
qualifications--is open to the suggestion that they would soon be known
as “sex specialists” and the presentation of the subject under these
conditions would place upon it an undue emphasis instead of having it
taught in its natural and orderly sequence as a part of nature-study,
biology, and ethics where it belongs. So, also, the children’s lack
of confidence in an outside lecturer would minimize the good results
of such information. Physicians are generally regarded as the proper
persons to give this instruction, although the suggestion has been made
that inasmuch as the ideal instruction must concern the normal function
of sex, and that a physician’s work is chiefly along the abnormal
line (disease) and a tendency to the development of certain morbidity
necessarily results therefrom--the biologist, especially if a regular
instructor, is the one best equipped for this delicate task. There
is an ever-present danger, either from unqualified teachers or wrong
pedagogic methods, of unduly emphasizing the topic in such a manner
that the curiosity of the child will be stimulated. This is the very
result which should be avoided; the boy should be given only enough
instruction, as an incidental part of one of the broader subjects
with which it is intimately related, to satisfy his natural curiosity
and suffice the physical and ethical requirements of his particular
stage of development. On the other hand, the difficulties connected
with sex-instruction should not be unduly stressed, for they are not
insurmountable.
By whatever instrumentality the instruction is given to classes it is
agreed that, as in private instruction, the information should be only
sufficient to satisfy the psychological and physical needs of the child
at the period of development which he has then attained. During the
period of adolescence the scope of information is, therefore, greatly
broadened to meet the requirements of that period. The opponents of
sex-instruction in schools believe that it will obtrude the subject too
prominently in the consciousness of the youth and thereby destroy the
restraints of modesty which were intended to be conserved.
The advocates of the school plan insist that the beneficent results
of such instruction will greatly outweigh any possible evil which may
follow from it. They submit that the moral and physical dangers to
which children are subject as the result of ignorance, and the presence
of venereal disease in boys to a degree not understood by the general
public, are sufficient warrant for such instruction--wholly apart from
other considerations.
The entire subject is of tremendous moment and worthy of the careful
study, thought, and judgment of parents and scientists for the
formulation of a future policy which can adequately cope with this
great problem.
In a report of the Special Committee of the American Federation for Sex
Hygiene on the matter and methods of sex-education this recommendation
is made: “Your committee would emphasize the necessity of good judgment
and tact in introducing sex-instruction into schools. It should
not be introduced prematurely, but only so fast as teachers can be
found or trained who are competent to give it, and so fast as public
sentiment will support it. On the other hand, undue weight must not
be given to the difficulties attending such instruction even under
present conditions, inasmuch as even occasional mistakes will do far
less harm than allowing children to continue to gain this knowledge,
as many of them now do, from impure sources--receiving a pernicious
first impression which induces in them an attitude of mind toward the
subject that makes it extremely difficult later to give them the best
instruction. In not a few such cases subsequent sound teaching is
practically fruitless.”