CHAPTER IX

SEXUAL EDUCATION

In view of the dangers to which children are exposed from the side of the sexual life, the question presses whether and how it is possible to prevent these dangers arising, or, if prevention has failed, to minimise them. To enable us to answer this question, the general question of sexual education will have to be considered. In so far as sexual manifestations in the child may arise from hereditary taint, the sociologist will endeavour to prevent them by hindering marriage or procreation on the part of those likely to give birth to such children (eugenics). Our present knowledge, however, does not enable us to say, when an individual exhibits some particular tendency to sexual aberration, whether this same tendency will appear as a concrete symptom in the descendants. Apart, indeed, from certain cases of very severe taint, we are hardly in a position even to predict with any high degree of probability that the offspring will exhibit morbid endowments. There are marriages which we expect to result in the birth of congenitally defective children, and in spite of this the offspring are healthy; and conversely, we sometimes meet with affections which we are in the habit of regarding as dependent upon hereditary transmission, and yet we fail, in these cases, to find any evidence of such affections in the progenitors. And, apart from these theoretical considerations, the physician's advice is not of much importance, for experience teaches us that in questions of marriage his advice is very rarely followed.

The less power we have to operate by control of the congenital factors, the more necessary shall we feel it to be to minimise the dangers threatening the child by influencing its environment. It is true that in this department, as in others, there is much diversity of opinion regarding the limits of educability. Some contend that we can mould the child like wax, a view which prevailed especially during the "period of enlightenment" in the eighteenth century; others maintain that organic development is predetermined at the time of procreation, and that subsequent influences can have no effect. Although we must be careful not to overestimate the power of education, it would be no less erroneous to assume that development is inalterably predetermined at the time of procreation. This applies to the efficacy of educational influences in general, and to educational influences affecting the sexual life in particular. The following consideration must be given due weight. The power of the educator is limited, not merely by the child's hereditary dispositions, but also by the nature of its environment. Rudolf Lehmann, in his work on Education and the Educator (_Erziehung und Erzieher_), rightly points out that Rousseau, in his _Émile_, when discussing the problems of education, neglects too much the influences of environment. If we wish our reasoning to furnish us with results of practical value, and not to remain confined to the purely theoretical plane, we must give due weight to this consideration. This applies with equal force to the matter of sexual education. We know that the sexual impulse may be excited by innumerable external stimuli. Such stimuli are continuously in operation, and the best educator has no power to exclude their influence. The mere association of the child with persons of the opposite sex provides such stimuli. But a separation of the sexes will not do away with them, as is proved, not only by the homosexual manifestations of the undifferentiated sexual impulse, but also by those that arise transiently, at any rate, when the members of one sex are completely segregated from those of the other--as in boarding-schools, on board ship, and in prisons. The educator cannot even count on being at all times able to safeguard the child from the sight of sexual acts. In the country, but also in the town, children have opportunities for this; not only when the members of a large family sleep in a single room, and the children can watch their parents and others in the act of sexual intercourse; but in various other ways. The mere kissing of affianced lovers must in this sense be regarded as a sexual act, and how is it possible so to bring up a child that it will never have an opportunity of seeing anything of the kind? If we go further, and recognise that through the association of ideas such a sexual stimulus may arise from witnessing the coupling of animals--of dogs, for instance, in the street--we shall understand how the educator's powers are limited by the milieu in which he has to work. _We have, therefore, to recognise clearly from the first, that in the education of the child the complete exclusion of sexual stimuli is impossible._

Obviously, when the external noxious influences exceed a certain measure, we may endeavour to effect an improvement by measures of general hygiene, through the activities of the central government, the municipality, or the community at large. In this connexion, we think of better housing conditions, of the separation of children from night-lodgers, and the like measures. But, even here, we must guard against making Utopian demands, after the manner of many fanatics on the subject of social hygiene, whose proposals are often quite incompatible with the maintenance of human intercourse. Independently of such impracticable demands for future reforms, the educationalist of to-day seeks to protect the child from unduly frequent sexual excitement. But sometimes the result is other than he expects. Sport is recommended to divert the mind from sexual ideas, and yet I have known cases in which marked sexual excitement has been induced in this way. I am not now referring to mechanical stimulation through bicycling or horseback-riding, of which I shall speak later; but many a child has been sexually excited through playing tennis with a girl-companion, and many a boy has been sexually excited through rowing with another. Still, the fact that here and there a child may have been sexually excited in such a way, is no reason for condemning what is invaluable to the enormous majority of children.

This is all that need be said regarding the manner in which general influences may counteract the efforts of the educationalist. But experience shows that the good effects of education are also seriously impaired by individual factors, especially by congenital predisposition, or by a tendency acquired very early in life. Although we no longer assume that human impulses, emotions, and sentiments take their course quite independently of the influence of other psychical powers, such as the reason and the will, still, unprejudiced observation shows that the power of the reason and the will is less than many persons imagine. In very many cases we are able to see how difficult it is, in a child of ten or less, to exert any notable influence upon the impulses, the emotions, and the sentiments. This is no less true in the positive than it is in the negative aspect. In one child it may be just as difficult to induce a fondness for music or reading, as it is in another to break it of an inclination for romping or other games. The same is true of the emotions--fear, for instance. In many cases, logically planned efforts may be altogether out of relationship to the result. Above all, great weight must be laid upon the consideration that there is a tendency to overrate the effect of education in the form of precept as compared with the effect of example. A child may receive the best of instruction without result, if in its own environment it is continually seeing something precisely the opposite of that which it is being told. _This applies with equal force to the sexual life, which can be influenced far more readily by example than by good teaching, if the latter, though daily repeated, conflicts with what the child sees every day in the conduct of its relatives and companions._

Although, for this reason, we must avoid forming an exaggerated idea of the utility of individual sexual education, this is not meant to imply that we should assume a perfectly passive attitude, and leave everything to the uncontrolled course of development, in order to allow the child, as the modern phrase goes, "to live its own life."

Before passing to consider details, we must consider the elementary bases of all matters connected with the education of children--namely, morality and custom. These two words are connected by their inner significance, and not merely by etymological meaning;[127] but they represent different standards for passing judgment upon our actions. Certain things conflict with established custom, without its being permissible for us to speak of them as immoral. If at a social gathering for which evening dress is the rule, a gentleman turns up in light tweeds, he is guilty of a breach of custom, but not of an immoral

## action. If an officer in the army, having impregnated a young girl of

the working class, marries her, his action is a moral one in the positive sense, but in spite of this he commits an offence against the customs of his class. Moreover, we have to remember that an act which is immoral or opposed to custom at a certain time and among a certain people, may at another time, or among another people, be neither the one nor the other. In such matters, opinions change; and this applies also to the case of actions connected with the sexual life. Herodotus relates that in Babylon the virgins had, for a money payment, and in honour of the Goddess of Love, to give themselves to a strange man; and similar customs are reported of other peoples of antiquity.[128] In providing for the sexual education of the child, we have to take into account such changes of view; but we have also to consider the matter in relation to the present condition of our civilisation, for the child is to be a citizen of a real, not of an imaginary State.

Intimately related to custom and morality are certain psychical processes, especially the sentiment of shame. This is aroused by actions which are considered immoral by ourselves or by members of our environment, and by actions which conflict with established custom. The child detected in a lie is ashamed, either because the act is immoral, or more often because the act is by others regarded as immoral; for the opinion of others plays a great part in the causation of shame. The man who has forgotten to put on his necktie, and in that condition appears in public, is ashamed, because he has committed a breach of custom. This dependence of the sense of shame upon morality and custom is true above all in matters of sex. A girl who is undressing in a hotel room, and has forgotten to bolt the door, so that a strange man suddenly enters by mistake, is ashamed; equally ashamed is a girl who encounters an exhibitionist with his penis exposed. These examples suffice to show that the sentiment of shame, which is associated with great discomfort, is a safeguard against immorality and against breaches of custom.

Similar relations exist for the sense of disgust, which is allied to the sense of shame. Shame is felt in the performance of an action disgusting to others, if against one's will one is watched in the process. Defæcation is usually effected in some retired place: in the onlooker, defæcation arouses disgust; whilst by the person defæcating, if he knows that he is being observed, shame is felt. Normal sexual intercourse between a man and a woman, objectively regarded, is a no less unæsthetic act than pseudo-coitus between two men. None the less, in most persons, the sight of the former act arouses less disgust than that of the latter. This difference depends upon the fact that by most persons homosexual intercourse is also felt to be immoral. In this relationship between the sense of disgust and immorality, it is often impossible to determine what is primary and what is secondary. A mutual retroaction occurs: the sense of disgust is increased, because the act is regarded as immoral; and, on the other hand, a strong sense of disgust may increase the perception of immorality. The same mutual relationships with the ideas of morality are found in connexion with the sense of shame. Beyond question, the sentiments of shame and of disgust are closely connected with the ideas of custom and morality; for shame and disgust arise especially in connexion with matters which conflict with our ideas of morality. It will, therefore, readily be understood that in moral education it is of the greatest importance what are the processes in connexion with which the instructor seeks to arouse the sentiments of shame and disgust; and, on the other hand, it is obvious that the ideas of morality induced by education, favour the development, in certain specific relationships, of the sentiments of shame and disgust.

It is a disputed question whether the sentiments of shame and disgust are inborn. In this controversy, two matters are confused, between which it is necessary to distinguish: the general disposition to experience such sentiments, and the special disposition to react with these sentiments to _specific_ occurrences. The fact is incontestable, that the general disposition to these sentiments is inborn. Inborn, also, is the association of specific bodily processes with the corresponding mental states: blushing, with the sentiment of shame; retching and vomiting, with the sentiment of disgust; these associations are certainly not chance products of education. The only point in doubt is, to what extent the tendency is inborn to experience these sentiments as a result of certain specific stimuli. By some it is assumed, that when we experience disgust at the sight of certain animals--a worm, for instance--such concrete reactions depend upon inborn dispositions; whereupon the further problem emerges, how did our ancestors acquire the disposition they have transmitted to us, their descendants. Others believe that influences operating after birth have led to the association with the sight or idea of the worm of the tendency to feel disgust. Very early in life, the child has seen others exhibit disgust at a worm; doubtless he has often been told how disgusting this animal is; and thus gradually the sentiment of disgust has become associated with the sight or the idea of the worm.[129] With the sentiment of shame, similar conditions obtain. If a human being feels shame in connexion with certain matters, and therefore avoids them, this may depend upon influences operating in the individual life (imitation, education, suggestion, &c.), by which the feeling of shame has been associated with certain perceptions. On the other hand, it is possible that shame may be dependent upon a special inborn disposition. Certain processes in the animal world--for example, the fact that many animals deposit their excrement in hidden places, and the fact that bitches and other female animals sometimes behave in a way which is interpreted as the exhibition of shame--may be regarded as the result of an inborn disposition. But others refer to the slight degree in which little girls appear to feel shame, as an indication that this sentiment is acquired during the individual life. Undoubtedly, we sometimes find manifestations of shame in very early childhood. Sikorsky[130] reports that his son exhibited typical shame at the early age of three and a half years. The boy was washing himself, having for this purpose taken off his coat and bared the upper part of the body. When his father unexpectedly entered the room, the boy was ashamed and startled, and said pleadingly, as he endeavoured to cover himself by crossing his hands over the breast, "Please don't come in, for I haven't got my shirt on." Sikorsky rightly points out that this position of the arms is typical of the sentiment of shame. Still, such cases are comparatively rare; and in contrast with them we may often note that older children, even girls of eight or a little more, will in play raise their petticoats so high that it is necessary to turn away if we wish to avoid seeing the genital organs, and often a word of reproof is needed from the mother or nurse to indicate to the child that it is doing something improper. The fact that in little children the sense of shame is so little developed, but that subsequently this sentiment becomes clearly manifest, has been used as an argument against the theory that it is inborn; but this argument cannot be accepted without reserve, for an inborn quality may not manifest itself until a certain definite age is reached--as we see clearly in the case of the sexual impulse--and this apart from the consideration that the development of an inborn quality may be inhibited by influences acting during the individual life. Whatever view we take of this problem, there can be no doubt as to the possibility of exerting a marked influence upon both qualities, the sentiment of disgust and the sentiment of shame, by means of influences operating during the lifetime of the individual. Thus, by education and habituation, it is possible to learn to repress disgust towards certain animals or certain excreta, as is done by the physician, and by nurses, male and female. The sentiment of disgust also depends largely upon general customs. The civilised European makes a mock of the fact that other races, certain oriental races, for instance, eat foods which to us are disgusting. A European invited as a guest at certain foreign banquets, is thoroughly disgusted when he sees food put into the mouth with the fingers instead of with knife and fork. And yet there is no great difference in respect of our own practice, when we put a piece of chocolate, a grape, or the like, into our own mouths. If, in Europe, we saw someone eating a pigeon in the same way as that in which we are accustomed to eat a crayfish, many persons would experience disgust. And yet, objectively considered, there is no reason to be less disgusted at the eating of crayfishes than when some other kind of animal is eaten in the same manner. Such modification of the sentiment of disgust by habit and custom applies also to sexual matters. A girl who experiences disgust at the sight of semen or the act of its ejaculation, may, through habituation, cease to feel such disgust.

Similarly with the sentiment of shame, we find that in some persons it is aroused by matters to which others are more or less completely indifferent--and this is true no less of the sexual sense of shame than of shame in general. We note the way in which habit or other influences may diminish or even entirely suppress the sentiment of sexual shame, from the fact that prostitutes willingly undress in the presence of a strange man without any sense of shame (although it must be admitted that some remnants of shame may remain even in many prostitutes). Finally, the experience of the marriage-bed shows how rapidly the sentiment of shame in respect of certain situations may disappear or largely diminish. Although a refined woman may long, and in some cases permanently, manifest a certain reserve towards her husband, still, there is an enormous degree of difference between the intensity of the sentiment of shame which a young bride experiences when undressing on her bridal night and that which she experiences in the like situation after a year of married life.

Other circumstances show that these sentiments are influenced, not merely by individual habituation, but also by the nature of general customs. A lady of the nobility, president, perhaps, of a Ladies' Society for the Promotion of Public Morals, may regard the short skirts of a music-hall dancer as the acme of impropriety, and yet will not hesitate for a moment to go into society in the evening in a low dress, with her breasts plainly visible to anyone standing by her when she is seated. The same lady would probably be furious at the suggestion that she should show herself to men in the dress of a ballet-dancer, but with a high corsage. And yet, experience shows that in other circumstances the short skirt is quite acceptable, inasmuch as when bicycling first obtained a vogue among the upper classes, ladies of high standing were to be seen in the streets with short skirts and visible calves. In Germany, and in many other countries, it was for long regarded as improper for men and women to bathe in common. The Americans, however, saw no impropriety in mixed bathing, and of late years even the Germans find it possible for the sexes to mix in bathing without any offence to the sense of shame. Here we have nothing more than the revival of an old custom, for in former centuries mixed bathing was practised in Germany.[131]

From the examples just given, we see clearly the way in which the objects and situations with which are associated manifestations of shame and disgust, depend upon habituation and general custom. But just because this is so, both these sentiments are in the highest degree adapted to furnish protection against actions which are opposed to dominant custom, or are condemned by the prevailing moral code. By the sense of shame, the young girl is prevented from surrendering her person to any man who desires her. Shame interferes with the very preparations for the sexual act; for example, with the act of undressing in the presence of a man. The sentiment of disgust may also exert a protective influence, for disgust is aroused in women by the semen and its ejaculation, and by many other things connected with the sexual act.

All these considerations combine to show how important it is that proper care should be taken to promote in the child the proper development of the sentiments of shame and disgust, and also of the moral ideas. It need hardly be said, that the sentiments of shame and disgust are not the only psychical aids in the sexual education of children. There are others, such as the fear of disagreeable consequences, which deters human beings from many immoral actions, and often enough at the outset greatly furthers the development of moral ideas; also there is direct instruction, the influence of which will be considered later.

But in the moral education of children, and also in the disquisitions of adults upon morality, mistakes are made. In particular, no distinction is made whether anything is to be regarded as immoral _per se_, or whether it is only considered immoral in certain circumstances. This is shown very clearly in the formation of opinions, from the standpoint of sexual morality, regarding nakedness and the sexual life. Because, in

## particular situations, nakedness is immoral, the child is often taught

to regard nakedness as being _per se_ disgraceful. Similarly with the sexual life. Instead of aiming at its proper control, the idea instilled is that the mere mention of sexuality, and even its very existence, are things gravely immoral. The very same persons who teach the child to repeat the commandment, Honour thy father and thy mother, educate it also in such a way that it is forced to regard the act to which it owes its own existence as something which must have rendered its parents unclean. It has to be admitted that at times it is by no means easy, in these matters, to find the right way; its discovery demands, not interest merely, but also intelligence; it is, perhaps, an art. But often the right course is not so very difficult to find; and if we only exercise reasonable care in the repression of hypocrisy and of perverse moral ideas, we shall be able to educate the child in such a way that he will come to understand that exposure of his person is not a matter of pure indifference, and yet will not regard nakedness as something unclean. The little girl who draws her petticoats too high, will stop doing so when her mother forbids it. A child will not always ask the reason for such a prohibition; and if it does ask, all the mother need answer in this case, as in so many others in which the child is not yet competent to understand the reason, is that it will understand well enough when it is older. When the child is older, and when its understanding has enlarged, the mother need make no difficulty about explaining the true reason in a suitable manner.

In respect also of the sentiment of disgust, exaggerations must carefully be avoided. From a feeling of shame, and for fear of arousing disgust in others, many young girls refrain, when in the company of other persons, from retiring to satisfy the calls of nature. The physician knows that this may result not merely in discomfort, but in consequences by no means indifferent to health. In this respect also, a just mean must be the aim of education. The child has to be taught that, alike for æsthetic and for hygienic reasons, the evacuation of the excreta must be effected in a retired place. But it is necessary to avoid going to the extreme of producing in the child the impression that there is something disgusting in the faintest intimation of such a physical need, or of making it feel that there is something essentially shameful in the fulfilment of these natural functions. The same considerations apply also to the sentiment of disgust in relation to the sexual life. In this also overstatement must be avoided. The education of young girls aims to a large extent at inducing them to regard the sexual act, not merely as something of which they should be ashamed, but as something in itself disgusting. It is well known that quite a number of women are altogether unable to give themselves up to the sexual act in such a way as to derive from it real enjoyment and satisfaction. A part of the severe disillusionment following marriage, depends upon the lack of normal sexual sensibility in the wife; and it is by no means improbable that this state depends in some cases upon the education received in girlhood. If it is impressed on anyone from childhood upwards that a particular act is disgusting and shameful, ultimately inhibitions may arise, owing to which the natural impulse to the performance of that act, and its natural course and natural enjoyment, may be prevented. And although the widely prevalent lack of sexual sensibility in women has additional causes, nevertheless I regard it as probable that in some of the cases, at any rate, this insensibility directly results from educational influences. In this matter, too, we must guard against exaggeration. We must educate children, boys as well as girls, in the belief that to mishandle the genital organs is forbidden alike by divine and by human law. But we must not teach them to regard the sexual act as in itself disgusting; more especially in view of the fact that such an idea conflicts with the lofty ethical significance of the act to which we all owe our existence.

What has been said about nakedness, has bearings also upon the relationships of the education of children to the matter of the nude in art. No intelligent person will deny the importance to art of the representation of the nude. A clothed Venus is a thing with which the connoisseur would prefer to dispense. Although I am not myself an enthusiastic adherent of the movement started a few years back with a great flourish of trumpets for the introduction of art into the education of children--a movement which has already perceptibly slackened--I do not wish to deny the important bearings of art upon the education of the child. Children who are still comparatively young, have not as a rule much understanding of art. None the less, we must not withhold from the child possibilities of appreciating the beauties of the nude. Apart from this purely educational aim, we have to remember that it is impossible to preserve children completely from the sight of the nude in art. We might, of course, exclude them from our museums; but our own houses also often contain nude statuary, and books with illustrations of the nude figure; and nude statues are to be seen also in places of public resort. A demand for the removal of such nude figures is so stupid, that it hardly deserves serious discussion--outside of the columns of the comic papers. A classical education, too, gives so many opportunities for the sight or the mention of the nude--for instance, delineations of the gods of the ancient mythology that the demands of the "morality-fanatics" could be met only by cutting off the child from the most beautiful sources of culture. But now, let those who, in the lower classes of our schools, have seen in the text-books of mythology pictures of unclad gods and goddesses, seriously ask themselves whether in this connexion they ever experienced even the faintest uncleanness of thought! If in one among thousands of such children, the sight of such a picture is followed by an undesired result, we have further to remember that this fact does not give us the right to deprive thousands of other children of the spiritual nourishment requisite for their emotional and æsthetic development, and for their general culture. There is no need for any anxiety about this question of the nude in art; and we must avoid suggesting to children that there is anything peculiar about the nakedness of statuary. We are, indeed, justified in asking whether the replacement or concealment of the genital organs by a fig-leaf--a practice supposed to have been initiated by the influence of the Jesuits about the middle of the eighteenth century--is a sound one; or whether this is not the very way to lead to objectionable conversations between children. The child compares the work of art with its own body and with the bodies of others which it has seen, notes the difference at once, and is thereby incited to improper conversation.

Those who wish to prevent children seeing artistic representations of the nude are influenced by two very different motives, although by the morality-fanatics themselves these motives are not clearly distinguished. Sometimes we are told that the sight of the nude in art may awaken the child's sexual impulse, sometimes that morality forbids such representations of the nude. These two reasons must not be confused; for even if well-developed moral ideas may repress sexual acts, it does not follow that everything which is immoral is also sexually exciting. A great many pictures are immoral, and yet do not tend in the very least to induce sexual excitement--it suffices to mention illustrations of scatological scenes. Another source of error lies in the fact that things which appear sexual to the adult, may to the child be entirely devoid of sexual colouring. There is an amusing anecdote of a little girl who had been bathing with other children, and on her return home was asked whether boys had been bathing as well as girls; "I don't know," said the little one, "for they were all naked!" This story is based upon a profound insight into the nature of the child, for children in general do not regard nakedness as sexually important--though a few exceptions to this rule may be encountered. Just because the child is so often taught that nakedness is in itself immoral, we are apt also to teach it to experience sexual excitement at the sight of a nude statue; whereas if the child had simply been taught that nakedness at unsuitable times and places was wrong, no such reaction would ensue. I remember the time in which the strong agitation took place which led to the passing of the _Lex Heinze;_[132] and I was acquainted with a gentleman--he was a patient of mine--who was a member of the party by which the new law was so strongly demanded. When one day he came to see me, bringing with him his little boy, the latter noticed in my waiting-room a nude statue of a woman, but which the little boy took for a man. The child, who was obviously attempting to repeat something he had often heard said, asked his father naïvely: "Papa, if that were a woman, it would be improper, wouldn't it?" This remark is at once natural and characteristic; the child would never have felt the possibility that the statue was in any way improper, unless his education had led him to regard nakedness as disgraceful, or as immoral and improper. There is no doubt that our clothing is intimately connected with the development of the sentiment of shame and with the formation of our ideas of morality. But the more we learn so to form the mind of the child that it will not regard nakedness as being _per se_ immoral, the sooner shall we be able, not only to instil into children truly moral ideas, but also to safeguard them against the risks of premature sexual excitement.

The considerations just stated apply _mutatis mutandis_ to the question of what children should be allowed to read. Although we should give to children neither obscene or erotic books, still, we should not withhold from them every poem which deals with love. If such were our rule, we should have to forbid the most beautiful works in our literature, and also our folk-tales. Read, for example, Grimm's tales, and you will find many passages which our morality-fanatics would reject as improper; for instance, the story of the Sleeping Beauty in the Wood, and many others, telling of beauty, love, and kisses. The same remark applies to the folk-songs. There are persons, indeed, who would like to edit such songs and stories especially for the use of children. The case will be remembered in which the song, _In einem kühlen Grunde_, was so modified for the use of children that they were told, not of the "beloved maiden" who dwelt there, but of an "uncle" instead! Now, either the child that hears this song for the first time has as yet no understanding of the idea of love, and in that case there will be no danger in singing in its original form this song whose full beauty will not until later become manifest to the child; or else it has some understanding, and then the replacement of the girl by an uncle will certainly do nothing to safeguard the child's morality, but will merely corrupt its taste. The assumption that by hearing such a song, the awakening of sexuality can possibly be antedated, is almost ridiculous; and little or no proof has been offered that anything of the sort ever occurs. One who in such a song sees the least suspicion of immorality, and who thinks that the hearing of it entails danger to a child, not only betrays the corruption of his own taste, but lays himself open to the countercharge that his own moral endowments are somewhat defective. Similar conditions apply to the theatre, and to the other factors in the mental development of children, and of human beings in general. It is quite impossible to isolate children from every intimation of the erotic or the sexual. Let us remember the wide diffusion of the newspapers of our day. We cannot prevent children from reading newspapers; a statement that applies not to large towns merely, but to small towns and to the country districts as well. I speak here, not only of newspapers which are known to be sensational, but of others as well. The more serious periodicals are to-day often inclined to devote a good deal of space to many sexual occurrences; they even err in transforming many non-sexual matters into sexual ones, giving them a superfluous erotic background. They miss no chance of converting an ordinary murder into a lust-murder; of describing a common assault as the outcome of sadism; and of writing of any woman of whom mention has to be made in connexion with some public occurrence, as a young lady of surpassing beauty. But apart from all this, the newspapers are to-day so full of sexual matters (the question of sexual enlightenment, the prevention of the venereal diseases, the suppression of prostitution, the protection of motherhood, &c.), that with the best will in the world it is impossible to keep children from reading about such things. Nor can this be regarded as unfortunate, so long as these questions are treated in a moderate manner.

It is altogether different as regards erotic and obscene books and pictures. Unfortunately such products obtain a wide currency in schools, in part as printed pornographica, and in part passed from hand to hand in the written form. Thus, from a number of girls' schools come reports of the circulation of thoroughly obscene writings among girls from twelve to fourteen years of age. Especial favourites are descriptions of the wedding-night, mostly in manuscript form; also an obscene version of the story of Faust and Gretchen; and quite a number of other improper poems pass from hand to hand in girls' schools. In boys' schools, the circulating matter consists rather of obscene printed books and pictures. It is evident that the advertisements in many newspapers indicate the chief source of such articles. There is a trade in obscene pictures advertised under the harmless title of "Parisian Landscapes." For the most part these advertisements originate in Paris; to a lesser extent they come from Hungary, Austria, Italy, and Spain. The German traders in such commodities do not venture to advertise their wares in the German newspapers; nor is there any evidence in foreign newspapers of such advertisements proceeding from Germany. Through the meritorious

## activity of the _Volksbund zur Bekämpfung des Schmutzes in Wort und

Bild_ (The Popular League for the Suppression of Obscene Writings and Pictures), these advertisements have of late almost disappeared from our newspapers. But it can hardly be doubted that formerly immeasurable harm was done to children in this way. This is shown by the fact that half-grown boys often buy such things and circulate them among their school-fellows, all the more in view of the comparatively low price at which they can be obtained. The wide diffusion of the evil is proved by the frequency with which such things are confiscated in boys' schools, and with which obscene photographs are found even in girls' schools.[133] For the suppression of such pornographica in recent days we have certainly in great part to thank the League above named, whose efforts for good must not be confounded with the obscurantist aims of the pious and hypocritical individuals to whom every nude statue is an improper object.

The frequency with which such pornographica are circulated in schools is subject to very great variations; but in the production of these differences, certain factors which are sometimes given great weight, really play a comparatively small part. Thus, it is commonly supposed that there is a great difference in this respect between large towns and small; but in the schools of small towns, pornographic writings and pictures are at least as common as in those of large towns; and, indeed, the addresses to which pornographic photographs are despatched from Paris are usually in the small towns. Thus the determining influence is not the difference between the large town and the small; and the character of the school depends, not only upon the moral level of its pupils, but above all upon the moral level and the _personal influence_ of the head of the school and the assistant teachers. I know certain schools, and some of these in large towns, in which hardly a single improper word is spoken by the pupils, and where no sexual improprieties take place among the children, even though it has to be assumed that many of them indulge, at any rate from time to time, in solitary masturbation. But, on the whole, the spirit of such schools is an admirable one, in contrast to others, in which extremely loose manners prevail. Above all, therefore, we must avoid thinking that we state the truth of this matter by using the catch-word of "the corruption of the great towns."

It cannot be contested that the diffusion of these things among children involves serious dangers alike to their morals and to their health. Speaking generally, upon adults pornographic objects have rather a repellent than a sexually exciting effect. In the case of children in whom no sexual sensibility has as yet developed, they exercise no sexual stimulation, but may later give rise to ill effects. But it is to ripening children and young persons, who do not yet understand the sexual life, but to whom it is first displayed in this form, that such pornographic objects are especially dangerous. Thus we find that many offenders against sexual morality show children obscene pictures, in order to excite them sexually, and render them compliant. Such sexual excitement is _per se_ bad for the child's health; but the moral dangers are even more important. Children who have become familiar with such obscene objects may perhaps suffer in consequence from an inadequate development or even from a complete inhibition of the higher psychical elements of the sexual life. The grave injury inflicted on children by these pornographica cannot possibly be doubted. What has been said above should, however, suffice to show that the nude in art has no necessary connexion with this danger from pornographic objects; although unfortunately, for business reasons, many persons hypocritically attempt to justify by false reference to the interests of art, drawings of the nude really intended to furnish erotic stimulus.

The much-discussed question of the common education of the sexes (coeducation) is related to the mental hygiene of the sexual life of the child. I shall deal with this question only in so far as it bears upon our subject; and shall not consider whether other reasons, such as the different endowments of the sexes, are decisively opposed to coeducation. But coeducation has been opposed also for reasons of sexual education, on two grounds: that it leads to a premature awakening of the sexual life, and that it gives rise to immoral practices between the children.

It is true that when boys and girls associate freely together the first sexual feelings of boys are directed towards girls. But a separation of boys and girls at school would here be of little use. Not only would some other person of the female sex be apt to take the place of a girl school-fellow, some person the boy often sees, it may be a grown woman, it may be a child (a school-friend of the boy's sister or of the family, a girl-cousin, or some girl employed about the house); but in many cases, if the sexes are separated in youth, both in boys and in girls the sexual impulse, when it awakens, may perhaps be directed towards a member of the same sex. I may refer, in this connexion, to what was said on page 60 about the undifferentiated sexual impulse.

A further problem is that of the sexual practices which may result from the sexual impulse. It is an indisputable fact that many boys, when the contrectation impulse is intermingled with the detumescence impulse, readily take to sexual practices with others. Examples of this constantly occur in boarding-schools, and in all other kinds of educational institutions; even in day-schools, where the children live apart from one another, we may observe that occasionally they begin sexual practices very early in life (mutual masturbation, and intimate physical contact, especially contact involving the genital organs). We must always bear in mind the possibility that coeducation may lead to the more frequent occurrence of such practices between boys and girls. But we must avoid over-estimating this danger. In the first place, there are many institutions, higher schools and others, attended only by pupils of one sex, in which mutual sexual practices never take place, and in which neither boys nor girls, even though sexual inclinations arise in them, ever effect sexual intimacies with other children. Although mutual masturbation is fairly common in schools, it cannot be regarded as the general rule. Further, it may be pointed out that when boys and girls are educated in common, the girls' natural instincts of self-defence will in many cases lead them to repel improper sexual advances. This is proved by the actual experience of coeducation. Finck[134] gives reports regarding coeducation in the schools of the western states of the American Union, and informs us that there every girl has her beau of fourteen to seventeen years of age. Notwithstanding the fact that these are boys of a fair age, undesirable consequences have not been observed. This view is substantiated by the reports made to me personally by American men and women, in whose truthfulness and judgment I have complete confidence. During a lengthy American tour, and on other occasions, I have elaborately questioned American physicians, ministers of religion, school-teachers, and fathers and mothers of families, regarding this matter. Their universal opinion was that no such undesirable results of coeducation were ever observed. Indeed, I received numerous assurances regarding the customary sexual abstinence of American young men who had been educated in common with American girls. In many of these circles, a young man known to indulge in sexual intercourse, whether with a prostitute or in a so-called "intimacy," was immediately ostracised; and this shows that as far as the question of sexual chastity is concerned, the results of the coeducation of the sexes are at least not more unfavourable than those of the separate education of the sexes. I am well aware that many doubt the harmlessness of these conditions in America, and declare the account given of them hypocritical.[135] My own information, however, leads me to contest this for numerous cases. Of course we have to remember that the population of the United States of America is an extremely composite one, made up of numerous nationalities, whose customs differ as much as do those of the different social strata. The above remarks refer chiefly to the old Anglo-American circles. It is indisputable that even in these circles certain changes have recently taken place. The Americans refer this to their more extensive relations with Europe, in consequence of which European customs and opinions, by which sexual abstinence is not demanded of young men, have been gradually introduced into those circles of American life in which formerly other views obtained.

But even if we believe that in isolated instances coeducation may lead to unfortunate results in the way of sexual practice, we have to remember the objections which may be adduced from the standpoint of sexual education against the separate education of the sexes. Especially we have to think of the fact that by the separation of the sexes during childhood we may favour the development of homosexuality. Apart from this consideration, I believe that in girls the capacity for self-protection arises much earlier in life when frequent association of boys and girls is permitted--a method of education which in Europe of late, at any rate outside the school, has become far more common than in former days, and one which is greatly favoured by the joint playing of games and other joint sports.

If the question be asked whether the sexual life awakens earlier in children who mix freely with those of the opposite sex, or in those whose companionship is confined to members of their own sex, we find it difficult to detect any notable difference in this respect. As regards boys in boarding-schools, the information available certainly suffices to lead us to this conclusion; and from such information as I have received from girls' schools, and from the behaviour of schoolgirls (some of these quite young), I infer that no notable difference in the age at which sexual sensibility first makes its appearance, results from the coeducation or the separate education of the sexes.

One condition has to be imposed, if coeducation is not to entail any dangers. The child must not be allowed to regard such education as experimental, and as possibly dangerous. If the child were to be enlightened with all sorts of warnings, dangers might ensue. It is necessary that the child should regard coeducation as something perfectly natural. In this connexion, the matter assumes a different aspect, according as coeducation is undertaken from the outset, or only after the children are already half-grown. From the latter course, perils might sometimes arise, as Gertrud Bäumer rightly insists.[136] From the earliest days of childhood onwards, coeducation should appear to the child as a matter of course; only if this is not the case, may the practice prove dangerous from the sexual standpoint, and especially from the standpoint of sexual morality.

Here, of course, I make no attempt to offer a decisive opinion one way or the other upon the disputed question of coeducation of the sexes. My sole aim has been to show that certain of the objections commonly made to coeducation, on the grounds with which we are especially concerned in this book, do not bear examination.

Better reasons can be found for objecting to some other modes of association on the part of children of the two sexes. The most important of these are common dancing lessons and children's balls. These are not so recent a development as is often assumed. More than a century ago, Pockels,[137] the distinguished psychologist and educationalist, objected strongly to dancing parties for children, which commonly lasted, he tells us, from five o'clock in the afternoon till midnight, and sometimes even on into the small hours of the morning. Beyond question, the association of children in dances can by no means be regarded as more innocuous than coeducation, all the more in view of the fact that the children at such dances are often fairly old--towards the end of the second period of childhood, or in the early years of the period of youth. For my own part, the danger of children's balls appears to me to affect, not so much the sphere of sexual morality, as that of hygiene and general morality. As regards the danger to health, I have known parents who were always complaining of the way in which their children were overworked at school, and yet saw nothing wrong in these same children going to dancing lessons on two evenings every week.

In conclusion, I will report a case which proves that when children are inclined to sexual practices, they will find sufficient opportunity, even in the absence of coeducation. This was the case of a boy of eight and a girl of seven years, who stripped quite naked and got into bed together; from the fact that spots of blood were found on the bed-clothing, it appeared that very definite sexual malpractice had taken place. The girl's sexual history was followed up for three years after this. She showed herself much inclined to make sexual advances towards adults, pressing herself up against them in a way which innocent persons interpreted as manifesting the caressive inclinations of the child.

Having given this illustrative case, I must not omit to state that similar incidents may, of course, occur from time to time in connexion with the coeducation of children. But we must avoid the error of attributing to external chance-influences, such as coeducation, occurrences which are dependent upon the very nature of human beings; for such things happen whatever method of education be adopted. Naturally, the difference between the sexes must not be ignored; but in children the existence of sexual differentiation must not be incessantly and anxiously emphasised. Brothers and sisters, when they have reached a certain age, should certainly not be placed naked together in a bath. But this is to be avoided, not for fear lest thereby sexual excitement might result in the children, but because to do so would be in opposition to the customs of our time, and it is precisely by such contrasts with generally accepted customs, that the attention of children is aroused. Further, we may approve of the fact that in consequence of the movement for child-protection (_Kinderschutz_), the misuse of children in various ways--in the theatre, for example--has undergone a notable diminution. But in this matter also, the decisive factor is not exclusively the interest of sexual morality, but rather the rights of the children themselves. The same consideration applies, in part, to an earlier movement. In France, in the year 1848, the appearance of children on the stage was legally prohibited, one reason alleged for this enactment being the moral dangers resulting from the mixing of the sexes in such conditions, but reference was also made more

## particularly to the need for the better protection of the physical and

mental powers of the children.[138]

I come now to the description of certain other mental influences necessary for the child. A very important point is that we should use our utmost endeavours to divert the child from the sexual impulse. The more the awakening of this impulse threatens to force itself upon the child's attention, the more necessary is it to bring into play the measured activity of other faculties and interests. We think here as much of methods of æsthetic culture, reading, and the theatre, as of bodily sports and games. At the same time, it must be our aim to cultivate the general strength of the will, since this is needed alike for the control of the sexual impulse, and for the overcoming of other temptations and passions. The general moral education of the child, the formation of its character, and the encouragement of a pursuit of ideal aims, are all also of the greatest possible importance in relation to sexual education. Nothing is better adapted to ensure personal happiness and a high moral standard, than the inculcation of idealism, which must on no account be confused with aloofness from the everyday affairs of the world.

By many persons, an especial stress is laid upon the value of religious education, for the purpose of directing in proper paths the sexual life of the child, and of giving help in the mastery of its temptations. But notwithstanding the fact that I value most highly a _genuinely_ religious education, I feel that for the purposes just mentioned we cannot place much reliance upon _that which in our schools of to-day passes by the name of religious education_. I have been personally acquainted with too many persons brought up on "strictly religious" lines, adherents of the most diverse creeds, but chiefly Protestants, Catholics, and Jews, whose religious education has been of remarkably little use to them in this respect. Among children, I have known some who masturbated immoderately, and yet their progress in their religious studies was extraordinary. I have known of serious epidemics of masturbation, in some cases of mutual masturbation, in boarding-schools in which the day's work was always begun with prayers and hymns. Quite recently, another case has been reported to me, of a so-called exemplary school, where the educational methods had a strong religious trend, and yet seduction to mutual masturbation played a great part. In spite of these experiences, I do not dispute the fact that even in association with the modern methods of religious instruction--but not always in consequence of these--many have been withheld from masturbatory and other sexual acts. These cases fall into three groups. The first group consists of cases in which the sexual impulse is very weak, so that very little is requisite to prevent the occurrence of sexual practices. To the second group belong the cases of those who are kept in check by the fear of God's anger, which will be visited, they are taught in their lessons on religion, upon all unrighteous acts. The third group is comprised of those rare natures who are really profoundly inspired by religious ethical sentiments, and in whom even the ordinary unpractical methods of religious instruction have not been able to inhibit the development of genuinely religious feelings. These three groups may readily be recognised among adults as well as among children. But when I compare the number of the children and young persons making up these three groups with the number of those to whom religious instruction has been quite useless, I feel justified in a certain scepticism. I do not pretend to assert that those who have received religious instruction have become more immoral than the others; but I am certainly entitled to contest the assertion that religious instruction induces a loftier sexual morality. Indeed, a further limitation is needed here, and one to the discredit of religious instruction. A portion, even, of those persons comprising the exceptional cases just enumerated, have not thereby attained to spiritual peace. Tormented, and at times almost mastered, by the sexual impulse, they struggle unceasingly under the influence of terror lest they should commit a deadly sin by yielding to this impulse. The mental condition[139] of such persons--I speak chiefly of young men--is in some cases such that a doctor may well doubt if he be not justified in advising them to indulge in illegitimate sexual intercourse. I have myself never given such advice in these cases, nor do I intend to give it in similar cases in the future. I refrain from doing so on ethical grounds, which I have discussed in great detail in connexion with the sexual question in my work on Medical Ethics.[140] The physician has no right to advise his patient to the performance of an act which is regarded by the latter as a deadly sin. But all the more because I have felt unable to give such advice, do I feel it my duty to insist here upon the seamy side of the education by which this state of mind is induced.

My view that what is commonly called religious education does not as a rule help the subject to master the sexual impulse, has been forced upon me by the numerous confessions entrusted to me by persons who have received such an education. Very recently, I was shown a diary in which a young man, obviously very religious and pious, to whom God was the source of all hope, and who thanked God for His grace on every page, refers again and again to the fact that he has found himself unable to overcome the lower forms of sensuality. He writes: "In resisting this powerful sensual impulse, religion was of some help, but unfortunately not very much. When I was only twelve years of age, the impulse towards the lower forms of sensuality made its appearance, and speedily attained great intensity. Again and again I believed myself to be strong enough to withstand it, only to pass from a weak and inefficient resistance, to a profound fall." And later he writes: "But the lower sensuality persisted, however much and however often I resisted it. My imagination continually produced the horrible pictures. And though in desperate rage I clenched my teeth to drive them away, they always left traces in my soul, and from time to time I fell. How I have struggled, how I have fought! How often with tears have I sought God's protection and help, praising God with holy zeal and faith. In my room I knelt, praying for grace and strength. I write this, not for self-glorification, but to show you, dear reader, how terrible, how gigantic is the struggle for virtue."

Notwithstanding all that I have written, I do not for a moment dispute the fact that a religious education may effect admirable results, both in respect of sexual matters, and of others. _Indeed, I am firmly convinced of this._ But the religious education competent to do this does not consist merely of learning Bible texts by heart; nor is its chief aim the inculcation of precepts which are to-day impossible of fulfilment--as the child sees at every turn in the conduct of the members of its own environment. I refer to the religious education which has an internal reality, and arises spontaneously out of the demands of morality. I do not mean the sort of education which regards it as almost a disgrace that we come naked into the world; not the religious education which regards man as soiled by the fact that he is born from his mother's womb; nor that which considers every sexual act as essentially sinful, and asceticism as man's salvation. It is not religious education of such a kind that will have any good effect in the matter of sexual education; but that religious education only which is in complete accord with our ideas of morality, and which is based, not so much upon the historical and material contents of the Bible, as upon the internal and everlasting truths of religion.

The sexual dangers of the Bible have often been pointed out. But this work would be incomplete, if I omitted making a fresh reference to the matter. In the Bible, sexual processes are repeatedly mentioned. In the mind of the child a conflict inevitably arises when, on the one hand, he finds that everything of a sexual nature is diligently concealed from him, and, on the other, in the Holy Book which is put before him as the basis of his moral instruction, he finds that so much attention is paid to sexual things. It is not the actual accounts of sexual things in the Bible which constitute the danger, but the contrast between the plain speaking of the Bible in these matters, and the general affectation of secrecy outside its pages. An additional point of importance is the fact that in the Bible sexual topics are handled in a way which is by no means always delicate. I may recall the frequency with which the idea of the _whore_ is employed for purposes of comparison; and I may refer also to the occasional use of strongly erotic language, as, for example, in the Song of Solomon. A further danger lies in the fact that the Bible contains descriptions of customs which are no longer in harmony with modern ideas; it suffices to mention the accounts of polygamy in the Old Testament. Unless the distinction between what is historical and what is truly religious is carefully explained to the child, the latter's moral ideas will very readily become confused.

In this connexion, I must also refer to the Catholic confessional, about which of late years a good deal has been written. I may recall the disquisitions on the moral teaching of Liguori. The father confessors have to read books in which are discussed the questions of casuistry with which they have to deal, in order to learn what authoritative decisions have been given regarding the concrete cases on which they are asked to pass judgment. In these books, sexual misconduct plays a leading part. This is also true of the confessional manuals written to assist the penitents in the discovery of their sins, in which sexual errors also find a place. Opinions as to the wisdom of giving such manuals to penitents are certainly very divergent. When we read the authoritative decisions, for the use of confessors, pronounced by Catholic theologians upon sexual faults, we are sometimes astonished at the practical insight displayed in these decisions; the opinions expressed must, indeed, often appear dubious to the strict moralist, and yet they are occasionally marvellously well adapted to the practical requirements of the case. In many instances, however, even this cannot be admitted; and however right from the practical point of view the decisions may sometimes be, we must not overlook the dangers of the confessional. Cases have been personally known to me in which, at the confessional, penitents have been cross-questioned in such a way about sexual details that unfavourable consequences were, in my opinion, extremely likely to ensue. This statement applies with equal force to the case of children, who have to go to confession as soon as they arrive at the "age of reason."[141] No one will dispute the assertion that the father-confessors gather much experience in the exercise of their profession, and that most of them possess sufficient tact to avoid asking improper questions. But to assert this of all of them would be to rush to the other extreme; and for the same reason that in the latter part of this