CHAPTER XVAGENCIES 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 vitallyaffects 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 The former antipathy to any reference to the subject is now being slowly superseded by a nobler and purer sentiment which invites the formation of plans and methods designed to obviate the grave physical and moral dangers attendant on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 sympatheticunderstanding 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 thepedagogic 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 Federationfor 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 thepresentation 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, ofunduly 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 broadenedto 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 andscientists 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 perniciousfirst 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.”