Chapter 15

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.]

I comment as follows: (1) Dr. Maxwell refers only to the "extreme advocates." They did exist in abundance a few years ago, but are already rare in the group of well-known educators. (2) Most teachers are not prepared and never can be prepared to teach the human aspect of sex problems, especially the hygienic in the strict sense. (3) Conservative sex-instruction such as was advocated by the advisers of the American Federation for Sex-hygiene (see "Report" by Morrow and others, 1913) aims to guard against "premature interest in the sexual passion." (4) While I sympathize with Dr. Maxwell's view that teaching the elementary hygiene of sex is the parent's duty, I am forced to recognize the futility of advocating that all or even a respectable minority of parents should undertake their duty (see § 4). The truth is that most of them will not, and cannot if they will, try to do so. (5) Dr. Maxwell's idea that sex-hygiene should be taught only when an astute principal or parent "detects wrong-doing" is, to say the least, an educational theory that will astonish one who knows even the elementary facts regarding the secrecy of the sexual life of young people in general. Will he next be logically consistent and advocate that all moral education should be given only after children show signs of wrong-doing? (6) Sex-hygiene, as Dr. Maxwell understands it to be concerned directly and solely with human sexual problems, will never be taught in American schools controlled by people of good sense; but sex-instruction from the larger viewpoint is taught in some of the best of Dr. Maxwell's high schools. (7) All advocates of sex-instruction who have a national reputation for educational sanity agree that legislation is most undesirable. (8) It is obvious that like so many others who have become confused regarding the sex-education movement, Dr. Maxwell has been impressed chiefly by the pioneer work that emphasized only hygienic teaching regarding sex.

§ 48. _Lubricity in Education_

Ex-President Taft has expressed his views against the sex-education movement. The newspapers quote as follows from an address delivered in Philadelphia in 1914:

"There is another danger in our educational influences and environment. I refer to the spread of lubricity in literature, on the stage and indirectly in education, under the plea that vice may be avoided by teaching the awful consequences. By dwelling on its details and explaining its penalties, sexual subjects are obtruded into discussion between the sexes, lectures are delivered on them, textbooks are written, and former restraints of modesty are abandoned.

[Sidenote: Mr. Taft's alarm.]

"The pursuit of education in sex-hygiene is full of danger if carried on in general public schools. The sharp, pointed and summary advice of mothers to daughters, of fathers to sons, of a medical professor to students in a college upon such a subject is, of course, wise, but any benefit that may be derived from frightening students by dwelling upon the details of the dreadful punishment of vice is too often offset by awakening a curiosity and interest that might not be developed so early and is likely to set the thoughts of those whose benefit is at stake in a direction that will neither elevate their conversations with their fellows nor make more clean their mental habit.

"I deny that the so-called prudishness and the avoidance of nasty subjects in the last generation has ever blinded any substantial number of girls or boys to the wickedness of vice or made them easier victims of temptations."

[Sidenote: Evident misunderstanding.]

The above requires little comment, for its misunderstandings are obvious to one who has followed the sex-education movement. Clearly Mr. Taft has been impressed by the social-hygiene side of the problems and does not realize the existence of a larger outlook for sex-education. Like so many other writers who seem to know little concerning the sexual life of children, especially of boys, Mr. Taft fears "the awakening of curiosity and interest"! This, of course, depends upon the facts taught and the age of the learner, but it hardly applies to children in or near adolescence who are taught along the lines suggested by the committee of the American Federation for Sex-Hygiene (1913). The last paragraph quoted from Mr. Taft will be denied completely by all who are familiar with the problems of adolescent education. To say the least, it is unfortunate that a man prominent in law and statesmanship should have lent the weight of his name to such superficial conclusions that are so obviously based on exceedingly limited information regarding both the established facts of sex and the most approved methods of sex-instruction.

§ 49. _Conclusions from the Criticisms of Sex-education_

I have selected for discussion the criticisms of several of the most prominent people who have expressed opposition to the sex-education movement. I think that all the important lines of arguments against the movement are represented in the extracts that I have quoted. We have seen that all of the criticisms have decidedly vulnerable points. Most of them refer to the discarded sex-hygiene of ten years ago; but some of them prove that the authors are quite ignorant of the sex problems that must be faced by numerous young people.

[Sidenote: Criticisms important.]

With the hope of locating the weaknesses of sex-education, I have for years examined carefully every criticism published, and it seems to me thoroughly scientific to conclude that all the important criticisms have not harmed the essentials of the sex-education movement; but, on the contrary, have been helpful in forcing reconstruction. In fact, the present-day conception of the larger sex-education must be credited to the severe critics more than to the friends of the original narrow movement for reducing venereal disease by hygienic instruction.

XI

THE PAST AND THE FUTURE OF THE SEX-EDUCATION MOVEMENT

§ 50. _The American Movement_

[Sidenote: Dr. Morrow leader in America.]

In America the movement for sex-education began with the organization of the American Society of Sanitary and Moral Prophylaxis on February 9, 1905, under the leadership of Dr. Prince A. Morrow. It is true that before this time there were various local and sporadic attempts at instruction concerning sexual processes, but such teaching was chiefly personal and there was no concerted movement looking towards making sex-instruction an integral part of general education. In 1892, thirteen years before the organization of the Society of Sanitary and Moral Prophylaxis, a group of members of the National Education Association considered briefly the importance of instructing young people. However, this meeting was of ephemeral significance and had no genetic relation to the present-day movement. Other early interest in sex-instruction is indicated in Professor Earl Barnes's bibliography which was published in his "Studies in Education," Vol. I, p. 301, 1897.

The educational activities, especially the publications of the American Society of Sanitary and Moral Prophylaxis, soon attracted the serious attention of numerous physicians, ministers, and educators in various parts of the United States; and about twenty other societies for study and improvement of the sex problems were organized within a few years after the original society.

[Sidenote: Original aim for sanitary ends.]

The sex-education movement both in Europe and America had its origin as an attempt to check the spread of the venereal or social diseases. The idea that education should work for sexual morality for its own sake and not simply for protection against venereal diseases has only recently begun to appear in the literature of sex-education, and so far it seems to have made only a limited impression on many of those who have been active in the prophylactic campaign against social disease. In fact, the tardy recognition of the moral aim of sex-education makes it seem probable that very little interest would have been aroused in the movement if it had been organized on purely ethical grounds and without any reference to the sanitary problems of social diseases. To one who looks at sexual morality as a question of right conduct which brings its own rewards, it is a shock to find so many thinking people who accept calmly the traditional views of the relation of the sexes and seem to take no interest in the immorality of men except as it is likely to lead to venereal disease or to illegitimacy which demands forced marriage or monetary payments. The truth is that the civilized world at large is very far from a working code of sexual morals which will be practiced because of promised rewards rather than because of probable punishments. It is natural, then, that the sex-education movement should have started with a proclamation of physical punishments for immorality rather than an offer of ethical and psychical rewards for morality.

[Sidenote: Both sanitary and moral.]

However, the fact that sex-education, under the name of "sex-hygiene," was at first a sanitary propagandism need not interfere with the larger development of sex-education. It now seems probable that before many years pass we shall learn how to make a satisfactory combination of both the sanitary and moral sides of sex-education, and so it is best that the educational movement started on the foundation of the undisputed facts of sanitary science which have made a powerful impression on the people who do and who do not recognize a code of sexual morals.

[Sidenote: Medical interest.]

The deep interest of the medical profession is directly responsible for the close association between the beginning of the sex-education movement and the diseases of immorality. At the organization meeting of the American Society of Sanitary and Moral Prophylaxis, Dr. Prince Morrow in the opening paragraph of his address said: "We have met for the purpose of discussing the wisdom and the expediency of forming a society of sanitary and moral prophylaxis. The object is to organize a social defense against a class of diseases which are most injurious to the highest interests of human society." Thus, the American Society of Sanitary and Moral Prophylaxis started as an avowed enemy of the social diseases and so it has continued to the present. The very name of its official journal, _Social Diseases_,[19] indicated the central idea of the Society. Likewise, most of the local American societies for sex-hygiene have names including such phrases as "social hygiene," "prevention of social diseases," "sanitary prophylaxis"; and only one, the Massachusetts Society for Sex Education, has a name which does not directly suggest the medical problems of sex.

[Sidenote: In Europe.]

In Europe, the sex-instruction movement has been concerned chiefly with spreading information concerning the social diseases. In 1902 an international congress for consideration of the venereal diseases was held in Brussels, and this congress recommended that in all countries there should be organized sanitary, social, moral, and legal societies for the prophylaxis of these diseases. As a result of this recommendation, prophylactic societies were formed in France, Germany, Italy, Holland, the United States, and other countries. Of these, the German society for the prevention of venereal disease became the strongest, with over five thousand members and twenty branch societies.

[Sidenote: National societies.]

The fact that the American Society of Sanitary and Moral Prophylaxis was organized by a group of people in New York City tended from the beginning to make it a local society. While for several years it took the lead in sex-hygiene and enrolled members residing in many parts of the United States, it was never a national organization. In recent years the word "American" has been omitted from its name, and its work has been limited to New York City and vicinity.[20] Many independent state and city societies were organized within a few years after the original sex-hygiene society in New York. This multiplication of societies called attention to the need of a national organization, and in 1910 the various societies were affiliated in the American Federation for Sex-Hygiene. Dr. Morrow was the leading spirit in the Federation until his death. In 1913, the Federation and the American Vigilance Association (a society especially concerned with the social evil) were united in the American Social Hygiene Association. Its offices are at 105 West 40th Street, New York City.

§ 51. _Important Steps in the Sex-education Movement in America_

May 23, 1904. Dr. Prince Morrow's plea for the organization of a society of sanitary and moral prophylaxis, read before the Medical Society of the County of New York.

February 9, 1905. Organization meeting of the American Society of Sanitary and Moral Prophylaxis, in New York.

March, 1906. Pennsylvania Society for the Prevention of Social Diseases organized.

October, 1906. Chicago Society of Social Hygiene organized.

December, 1907. Portland (Ore.) Social Hygiene Society organized.

October, 1908. Spokane Society of Social and Moral Prophylaxis organized.

June, 1910. American Federation for Sex-Hygiene organized.

1911. Oregon Social Hygiene Society organized.

July 20, 1912. Resolution of the National Education Association favoring training of teachers with the view, ultimately, of sex-instruction in schools.

September 23-28, 1912. Meeting of subsection on sex-hygiene, Fifteenth International Congress on Hygiene and Demography. Washington, D.C.

February, 1912. Organization of American Vigilance Association.

October, 1913. Merging of the American Federation for Sex-Hygiene and the American Vigilance Association into the new American Social Hygiene Association.

1913. Organization of Pacific Coast Federation for Sex-Hygiene, changed to Pacific Coast Social Hygiene Association in June, 1914.

July, 1914. The National Education Association, at Minneapolis, adopted the following resolutions in line with the latest principles of the Society of Sanitary and Moral Prophylaxis and the American Social Hygiene Association: