Part 14

Miss Repplier's description of her own lack of youthful interest in things sexual is of value simply as applied to a limited number of extra-protected girls. Her experience teaches us nothing regarding boys or even girls under average conditions. We know beyond any doubt that average children in or near adolescence do seek the kind of information that Miss Repplier denies having thought about. It is not "pressed relentlessly upon their attention" by teachers, but by instinct and by environment. Playground and swimming pools and religious influence and work are all helpful in our dealings with young people, but all together they are inadequate without some information concerning sex.

[Sidenote: Conclusion.]

Finally, Miss Repplier, like so many other critics of sex-instruction, has in mind only the physical consequences of wrong-doing. Here again is the influence of the pioneer sex-hygiene. However, she pleads for the "gradual and harmonious broadening of the field of knowledge and for a more careful consideration of ways and means" for sex-instruction. This makes us believe that she will favor the larger sex-education which gives a place to "the cheerful recreation, the religious teaching, the childish virtues, the youthful virtues, the wholesome preoccupation," as well as essential knowledge of physical facts; and all as factors in preparing young people consciously and unconsciously to face the inevitable problems of sex. On the whole, we must regard Miss Repplier's discussion as a helpful contribution to the saner aspects of sex-education.

§ 45. _A Plea for Religious Approach to Sex-instruction_

[Sidenote: Cosmo Hamilton.]

Another prominent author who does not agree with the current tendencies of sex-instruction is Cosmo Hamilton in his little book entitled "A Plea for the Younger Generation" (Doran Co.). He agrees with the sex-education writers that children should be instructed early, and as far as possible by their parents; but he wholly disagrees with the method of biological introduction. He would have parents go straight to the heart of the matter and tell the child, as simply and truly as can be, just how he came into the world. And he would fill the teaching with reverence by using as an illustration the birth of the babe of Bethlehem. Referring to those who in recent years have been working for a scientific introduction to sex-education, Mr. Hamilton says:

[Sidenote: Religious appeal.]

"I think that these professors and scientists are wasting their time, and I have written this small volume not only in order to make a plea for the younger generation as to the way in which they shall be taught sex truths, but also in order, if possible, to prove to the advanced thinkers of the day that it is not old-fashioned to beg that God may be put back into the lives of His children, but a thing of urgent and vital importance. Without faith the new generation is like a city built on sand. Without the discipline and the inspiration of God the young boys and girls who will all too soon be standing in our shoes will go through life with hungry souls, with nothing to live up to, and very little to live for."

[Sidenote: Many not reached by religious appeal.]

All this is very good so far as it appeals to the religious type of mind, but Mr. Hamilton seems to forget that vast numbers of people cannot be approached from this point of view. How can the illustration of the Christ-child help those who do not accept certain orthodox religious beliefs?

§ 46. _The Conflict between Sex-hygiene and Sex-ethics_

[Sidenote: Richard Cabot.]

It has been said in an earlier lecture that several writers have declared that sex-ethics and sex-hygiene are essentially conflicting and should not be associated in teaching; that is to say, that hygienic facts should not be taught with the hope of improving morals. Most prominent of those who have declared that hygienic and moral teaching should be dissociated is Dr. Richard C. Cabot, of Boston. I shall give in this lecture attention to his writings because they have tended to introduce confusion by critical attention to certain weak details and unessentials in the original suggestions for sex-education, and by wrongly assuming that the original "sex-hygiene" was aimed at improved morals, whereas it was aimed directly at health. In a paper entitled "Consecration of the Affections (often misnamed 'Sex-hygiene')," read at the fifth (1911) Congress of the American School Hygiene Association, Dr. Cabot attacked the kind of sex-instruction that is limited to sex-hygiene. He has later returned to the attack on many occasions. I shall quote a number of his paragraphs and follow each with a discussion of its contents.

[Sidenote: Hygiene and conduct.]

(1) "The straight, right action in matters of human affection has nothing to do with hygiene. For hygiene has no words to proclaim as to why you and I should behave ourselves. Hygiene has the right and the duty to make clear the perverted and the diseased consequences of certain errors. But these consequences are far from constant.... Let us disabuse our minds, then, of the idea that there are always bad physical consequences of mistake, error, or sin in this [sex] field, and that those consequences are reasons for behaving ourselves. But even if there were such consequences, I think it even more mischievous for us to preach a morality based upon them."

That hygienic knowledge makes many people control their sexual selves is beyond dispute. Because the consequences of sexual error are far from constant is a weak argument against pointing out possible results. The consequences from pistols are far from constant, and yet I have no doubt that Dr. Cabot would teach small boys the danger of shooting themselves and other people.

[Sidenote: Hygiene and ethics for health.]

The last quoted sentence suggests Dr. Cabot's whole basis of contention against sex-hygiene. He seems to have inferred from the earlier papers, especially those by Dr. Morrow, that the hygiene of sex is to be taught as an approach to morality. On the contrary, the truth is that the aim of most of the first leaders in sex-instruction was to teach hygiene and ethics primarily in order to improve health. Dr. Morrow and others believed that hygienic teaching would secondarily react on sexual morality; but the original aim of the Society of Sanitary and Moral Prophylaxis was to limit the spread of venereal disease by sanitary, moral, and legal means. In other words, moral appeals were to aid in checking disease, and knowledge of disease was not claimed to improve morality, although such knowledge might react against immorality. It is this misunderstanding or overlooking of the real reasons for teaching concerning sex health that seems to have led Dr. Cabot into apparent opposition to the general movement for sex-instruction. One infers from all his lectures that he believes it good to teach hygiene for health, ethics for morality, and biology for science; but that these should not be correlated because to him they are unrelated. It seems to me that he has simply been misled by the overenthusiasm of some of the first writers on sex-hygiene and by the widespread use of that limited term instead of sex-education.

[Sidenote: Is sex-hygiene immoral?]

(2) "Now I say that the preaching about sex-hygiene that is going on in recent books and in the periodical press is immoral in its tendency. It is like saying, 'Don't lie, for if you do, you won't sleep at night, and insomnia is bad for the health.'"

If insomnia often follows lying, then it should be taught as _one_ reason why falsehoods should be avoided. This is not opposed to ethical teaching, for at the same time we can teach the other reasons for not telling lies. Likewise, sex-hygiene offers certain reasons for conduct and may be supplemented by sex-ethics.

[Sidenote: Information and morality.]

(3) "The attempts to consecrate affection and to safeguard morality by teaching in public or private schools what is called 'sex-hygiene' will, I believe, prove a failure. I have very little confidence in the restraining or inspiring value of information, as such. I have seen too much of its powerlessness in medical men and students. No one knows so much of the harm of morphine as the physicians do, yet there are more cases of morphine habit among physicians than among any less informed profession. It is, of course, easy to make young children familiar with the facts of maternity and birth. Compared to the ordinary methods of concealment and lying by parents to children about these matters this is doubtless an improvement, but it does almost nothing to meet the moral problems of sex which come up later in the child's life. One may know all about maternity, without knowing anything of the difficulties and dangers of sex. Many have thought that by thorough teaching of the physiology of reproduction in plants and animals we can anticipate and to a considerable extent prevent the dangers and temptations referred to above."

It is not proposed "to consecrate affection" or "to safeguard morality" by hygienic knowledge; but simply to protect health. Of course, information will not restrain everybody; but if physicians did not know the dangers of morphine many more would be victims of the drug. Dr. Cabot overlooks the fact that physicians know how to use and obtain morphine, while other professional men do not. Teaching concerning maternity and birth will not directly meet the moral problems of sex, but it will help develop an attitude, "a consecration of the affections," that will guard against the dangers of sex. Such teaching to children is only one of many steps in the scheme of sex-education. No responsible advocate of sex-instruction claims that teaching children concerning the reproduction of animals and plants does anticipate and prevent sexual temptations; but it is a foundation for practical knowledge of human sex problems. I have elsewhere referred to the effect of such studies on attitude.

[Sidenote: Contagion of personality.]

(4) "The positive moral qualities which make us immune to the dangers of sex are obtainable not through warnings as to dangers, but through the more positive activities just alluded to. All that is most practical and successful in this field of endeavor may be summarized as the _contagion of personality, human or divine_. What is it that keeps any of us straight unless it is the contagion of the highest personalities whom we have known, in man and God?"

We must admit that, perhaps, "positive moral qualities" are not obtainable through warnings, but in this pragmatic age we must have good social results gained by any honorable means. Many people are kept from crime by warnings of the law. Of course, this is not a "positive moral" result for the unethical individual who must be restrained by fear of legal consequences, but we do not worry about the individual when society gains. Likewise, a man kept from sexual promiscuity by fear of disease is not more positively moral, but he is a better member of society. No one will deny the importance of personality in its influence on positive moral qualities; but there are many people who are not influenced by personality, either human or divine. Other kinds of control, such as hygienic and legal, are necessary for such people.

[Sidenote: Good and evil.]

(5) "A positive evil can be driven out only by a much more positive good. The lower passion can be conquered only by a higher passion."

Here, again, Dr. Cabot seems to misunderstand the aim of hygienic teaching regarding sex. It is not expected "to conquer the lower passion" by hygiene, but to help keep it under control to the end that personal and social health will be improved. The opium evil (certainly a _positive_ one) is being driven out of China by military methods that are good only in their results in suppressing the drug. Likewise, hygiene of sex will be a practical good in so far as it may reduce the venereal curse. "Positive good" in Dr. Cabot's moral sense is only of limited application so far as the majority of people are concerned. In fact, the whole idea of solving the sexual problems by "consecration of the affections" makes its strong appeal only to those who have already grasped the higher view of sex and do not need sex-instruction. Other people cannot understand the phrase. We must find some more direct and practical attack on the sex problems for the masses; and I believe that this means scientific teaching which improves attitude, and hygienic teaching which protects personal and social health. It is worth while to get these results even if we do not succeed in improving morals. That, I believe, is another and quite independent problem.

[Sidenote: Dissociation of hygienic and moral teaching.]

In an address published in the _Journal of the Society of Sanitary and Moral Prophylaxis_, Vol. V, No. 1, January 1914, Dr. Cabot contended that the hygienic and moral aspects of sex-education should not be associated. It is possible that the following review and criticisms may be based upon a misinterpretation; but if so, I shall not feel lonely, for at the close of the discussion, Dr. Cabot said to his audience, "it is evident that I have not succeeded in touching even the surfaces of your minds, and have not made an atom of impression in making the distinction which I desired to make."

Dr. Cabot's main points are quoted below, and my comments follow each quotation.

(1) "Sanitation can often be conveyed effectively by information, but morality cannot be conveyed by telling things."

[Sidenote: Teaching morals.]

It is certainly true that sanitation can be taught by words. That words concerning moral things have no value is a proposition which Dr. Cabot did not clearly and convincingly support.

(2) "People often make sanitary mistakes from ignorance. So far as you are ignorant you cannot be immoral. Morality is conditioned upon knowledge of the right and wrong in question."

[Sidenote: Immoral or unmoral.]

Of course, one who is ignorant is unmoral and not immoral, but this does not divorce sanitary and moral problems of social disease. An ignorant and unmoral man may have unsanitary sexual habits, but enlighten him regarding venereal disease and his habits make him immoral.

(3) "I cannot see that biology has moral value."

[Sidenote: Moral value of biology.]

But it may have moral influence just as literature and history and biography may have. Of course, pure biology alone will not make people more sexually moral, but no responsible biologist has ever claimed that it will.

(4) "In morals, we are dealing with the will, and if we believe that the will is guided by intelligence, we must believe that all people who _know_ what is right will _do_ what is right."

[Sidenote: Knowledge and will.]

It does not follow that to know what is right is to do what is right. All depends upon the relative weight of opposing factors. A medical student may _know_ the facts regarding venereal disease; but he also knows the fact that his sexual instincts are insistent. The fact of his passion may be more weighty than his scientific knowledge; and his will may be guided by intelligent choice based on comparison of the two opposing facts. Hence, it is illogical to contend that knowledge may not influence moral conduct and that the will is not guided by intelligence.

[Sidenote: Cultivation of morality.]

(5) "Any good achieved in any branch of morality helps all morality. A person who learns any kind of self control is helped toward all kinds. Anything that helps self control in one field will help in all fields, the field of sex as well as others. Whatever makes a person more obedient to conscience in matters of truth or courage will help him in matters of chastity. We get morality not by consciously cultivating particular virtues, but by making ourselves useful men and women, by practice and by the love and imitation of our betters. Thus, morality is cultivated in hundreds of ways all at once."

This is sound, but it is in no logical way opposed to any other aspect of sex-instruction discussed in this series of lectures.

(6) "Wherever the conditions of intimacy and interest exist,--intimacy with the right person and interest in the right thing,--moral training is going on."

[Sidenote: Influence of individuals.]

This is Dr. Cabot's strongest point. He believes in the moral influence of individuals. So do all leading advocates of sex-instruction or of any other form of moral education. This is in no sense opposed to any accepted proposition of sex-education.

(7) "Sanitation may increase immorality.... I do care more for morality than for sanitation. Where the two conflict I want morality to lead and to govern."

[Sidenote: Morals rather than health.]

Right here is the basis for Dr. Cabot's repeated attacks on the sex-education movement. He believes that morality and sanitation are decidedly conflicting. His address fails to support this idea with regard to a single point concerned with the proposed sex-education. He mentioned only two points wherein there is apparent conflict, namely, prophylaxis that allows immorality while avoiding venereal disease, and prevention of conception. Neither of these is directly involved in the sex-education movement, and their immoral bearings are highly debatable.

[Sidenote: Ethics of venereal antisepsis.]

Venereal prophylactics may increase promiscuity of some unmoral and immoral men, but if universally and scientifically used by such men, there would be little or no infection of innocent women and children. Therefore, I assert that the good that would come from the use of prophylactics by those who do not recognize moral control would be far more significant than the fact that venereal prophylactics might encourage immorality. Those who would use prophylactics would be no worse morally than they were before, but society would gain hygienically.

[Sidenote: Ethics of contraception.]

Regarding the morality of prevention of fertilization, the best of people hold opposing views. A great specialist in tuberculosis who entered the discussion of Dr. Cabot's paper convinced most of his hearers that hygienic prevention of fertilization of tubercular women is a very moral act for a physician to advise. The real question of morality involved in the problem of contraconception is not whether it is immoral that sperm-cells should be prevented from swimming on towards an egg-cell, but whether there is morality in a sexual union that has its meaning only in affection and is not definitely intended for propagation. It is obviously a complicated problem of hygiene, psychology, ethics, æsthetics, religious beliefs, social traditions, and personal prejudice; and it is absurd to allow it to become entangled in the general propositions of sex-education. As I have often said in this series of lectures, the larger sex-education aims at making the best possible adjustments of sex and life. If the æsthetic demands of affection are in real conflict with the animal function of propagation, then a pragmatically ethical solution is found in intelligent control of the original function. Ideally, the animal function of propagation should be associated with the possibilities of affection that have developed in the highest human life; but there are numerous cases in which there must be dissociation of the functions of affection and propagation, or the alternative is sexual asceticism. Which is moral? This is a question concerning which the individual must weigh his personal views and decide. Only the bigoted victims of arrogance will see immorality in the one who disagrees with him on this question. I insist, then, that even if advanced sex-education for adults should some day come to involve the problem of contraconception, there will be no conflict between hygienic knowledge and ethics, if the teaching leads to more perfect adjustment of sex and life.

[Sidenote: Dr. Neumann's view.]

Probably the great majority of workers in the sex-education movement do not in the least agree with Dr. Cabot's attempts to dissociate hygienic and moral problems. A far more helpful view is that expressed by Dr. Henry Neumann, leader of the Brooklyn Ethical Culture Society:

"Problems of hygiene, whether of sex, or nutrition, or temperance and the like, are no less moral problems. They are problems of habit; and habits are impossible without strong incentives to start them and keep them going.... Ethical instruction is often misunderstood to be barren preaching. It is nothing of the sort. It consists in clarifying views of life. It begins with the fact that there are certain tendencies in our nature which may work ill or good. Then it tries to show to what these lead. It uses what is best in us to make over what is worst. That is why problems of sex-hygiene should be regarded as at bottom problems of sex-morality."

§ 47. _The Arrogance of the Advocates of Sex-education_

In an article in the _Educational Review_, February, 1914, Superintendent Maxwell, of New York City, writes concerning what he calls "the teaching of child hygiene" as follows:

[Sidenote: Dr. Maxwell's criticisms.]

"There are those to-day who claim that sexual information and problems should be thrust upon the attention of boys and girls by the teachers in the public schools, that this teaching is necessary for the protection of virtue and the prevention of disease, and that, if anyone hesitates to encourage the spread of such literature and the teaching of such knowledge, he is an arrant and presumptuous blockhead. The arrogance of the extreme advocates of child hygiene blinds them to certain all-important truths. The first is that our teachers are not prepared, and, in too many cases, are not the most suitable persons to teach the subject. The second is that to bring the adolescent mind face to face with sexual matters engenders the habit of dwelling upon the sexual passion, and in that may lie spiritual havoc and physical ruin. A premature interest in the sexual passion debases the mind and unsettles the will. The third is that parents have no right to ask the teacher to do the work that is peculiarly theirs.

"And yet some good may emerge from this discussion. Parents may be incited to do their duty in placing sex information before their children whenever conditions demand such knowledge. And principals and teachers, particularly principals, whenever they have the acuteness to detect the tendency to wrong-doing, will no longer hesitate to utter the word of warning in season. As for the extravagant claims made for the teaching of sex-hygiene, I have too much faith in the good sense of the American people to believe that it will ever be generally and regularly taught in American schools. Surely, we have learned something since the law compelled us to teach the untruths regarding the effects of stimulants and narcotics that were published in the early school manuals of physiology and hygiene."

[Sidenote: Reply to Dr. Maxwell.]