THE ARGUMENTS FOR INSTRUCTION IN SEX HYGIENE

Ladies' Mirror, Volume 3, Issue 2, 1 August 1924, Page 20

THE ARGUMENTS FOR INSTRUCTION IN SEX HYGIENE

An Article that should he read by Every Parent

A Remarkable and Frank Statement by F. Martyn Renner, the Hon. Secretary of the White Cross League, which exists to help our Youth in the battle for Purity, in which the urgent necessity for instruction in the vital facts of sex is clearly demonstrated. Mr. Renner’s article is one that no parent who feels the responsibility that has been entrusted to her should miss reading. The Editor of “ The Ladies’Mirror ” invites comment from readers.

I HAD hoped to be able to devote this article almost entirely to what I consider should be the right type of instruction in Sex Hygiene; but, in view of the conflicting evidence given in various parts of New Zealand before the Mental Defectives and Sex Perverts Commission, I find myself constrained to clear the ground, so to speak, before carrying out my original idea. It is a remarkable fact that there are some people who still consider that Instruction in Sex Hygiene is quite unnecessary. They advance all sorts of arguments in support of their contention, but they quite forget that many things not considered necessary twenty or thirty years ago are absolutely essential nowadays. There is evolution in everything. Education, manhood, the world, everything progresses; and these critics, who judge what is necessary and what it not necessary in this year of grace, 1924, are the Eip Van Winkles of the year 1894 or 1884. The social conditions of the present day are vastly, different from those of thirty or forty years ago. We have to face new problems, political problems, and above all, sociological problems with which the study of sex hygiene is most intimately concerned. Life in the twentieth century is a much more complex business than was life in the nineteenth century: and it is our plain duty, Ave who are teachers or parents, or indeed, citizens, to fit our children for new conditions and a new environment, to strengthen them against social evils that existed only in a comparatively modified form when we were children. One of the outstanding features of modern life is the advance of woman. She has left her household domain and now competes with man in activities and vocations that were once deemed peculiarly his own. She has proved a worthy rival. With her advent into man’s sphere, much of the old restraint between the sexes has disappeared; and this freedom from restraint between the sexes has manifested itself in the attitude of boys and girls to each other in the present day. People with Mid-Victorian ideas of what is proper are holding up their hands in horror at the things young people do nowadays. Well, there is some justification no doubt for their attitude. Personally, I am not a prude, and I like to see a healthy, frank boy and girl comradeship. What I do say is this. If you are going to tolerate this condition of things, then you will have to take precautions to prevent the young people from shipwrecking their lives. The girl will have to be taught what she, in a life of comparative seclusion, might never have found it necessary to know. The boy will have to learn the meaning of chivalry in a deeper and finer sense. She, who was once hidden away and had to be awakened with a kiss, is no longer the sleeping princess of the fairy tale. In both of them, “Nature crescent does not grow alone In thews and hulk, hut, as the temple waxes, The inward service of the mind and soul Grows wide withal.” Are you going to give the young people some advice to help them in their altered relations to each other, or are you going to wait until your advice comes too late? Civilisation Entails Responsibility Every step we take along the road to a higher civilisation brings with it a fresh responsibility. This is true. Education, even the mere knowledge of reading and writing, has brought responsibility with it. The moving picture shows and theatres have their responsibility, too. The child of to-

day reads the daily paper, and is even encouraged to do so; it reads the posters and the placards on the bill-hoardings. In other words, the modern children, because of the spread of education, can obtain a closer acquaintance with what is sordid and suggestive. The gross details of a recent scandal in a small New Zealand town, the fullpage advertisement dealing with the latest type of dance in connection with a moving picture play, are read by old and young alike. If there is in New Zealand no public body that can compel the authorities to prohibit the publication of gross details and suggestive advertisements, then it is high time that we protected our children by educating them so that they may adopt the right attitude to what is called the sex question. From my own experience as a teacher, I know what harm can be done by allowing the young adolescent to glean his knowledge of sex from prurient or filthy-minded sources. Once again I ask the question, ‘ ‘ Will you let such a state of things continue, or will you give the young people just as much knowledge of themselves and their bodies as will protect them against the harmful influences that they have to face so early in life?” Are you going to be responsible for swelling the cry that rises day after day, Oh God, why wasn’t I told!”? Fadts that are Arguments So far, I have touched upon two reasons why I thirds that in these times instruction in sex hygiene is absolutely essential. There are others. To my mind, one of the most outstanding features in the life of our Dominion is the prevalence of venereal disease and the increase in illegitimate births. I have neither the desire to go into details, nor to give facts and figures to prove my case. I will, however, mention one fact. In a little country town not far from Wellington there are in hospital six expectant mothers under 14 years of age. It seems to me that this one fact alone goes to show that we should take almost any steps to end a condition of things that would be responsible for such an outrage. Sex instruction, reverently and tactfully given, could end it; because the basis of such instruction, as I conceive it to be, is: (1) To inculcate a chivalrous respect for women; (2) to preserve the young from contamination; (3) to foster a higher tone of public opinion. “Why should we not try it?” I once asked a medical man, a determined opponent of any such instruction. “Oh,” he replied, “if you give the boys plenty of sport and plenty to occupy their minds, they won’t think of such things.” By “such things” he meant an evil to many adolescents. I pointed out to him that in England, in Australia and in New Zealand, it had been found that most frequently the boys who were guilty of such a practice were those who were prominent in athletics and in scholarship. The “hush” policy has failed us; old methods can’t fit in with new conditions — “ Autrcs temps, mitres moeurs.” Where it has been Tried I want to deal briefly now with some of the objections levelled against instruction in Sex Hygiene. I have heard it said that it was not a success in America (U.S.A.). I know it was not. The States’ system is not what the New Zealand White Cross League.wants. We want both teachers and parents to co-operate. In America the teaching is left almost entirely to the former. We want one talk of forty minutes to be given every two or three years by the

parents and by a specially qualified teacher. In America they have a regular course of instruction, lasting usually six months and even a whole year. On the other hand, in Ontario, where a much more modified course of instruction is given by a specially appointed lecturer, the whole system has been a wonderful success. In South Australia, where the White Cross lecturer is given the right of entry into all schools, a most notable success has been recorded. South Australia has less juvenile depravity than other Australian States. Its figures are lower than New Zealand’s. It has been stated that instruction in Sex Hygiene has been known to do actual harm. 1 reply that in all my 24 years as a teacher and as one closely connected with the White Cross League’s work, I have not only not come across a single case where harm has been done, but I have been told personally of hundreds of cases where young lives have been saved from disaster. Take some of the great headmasters of the past, men like Firth Caughley, Littlejohn, etc., and read their opinions on the type of instruction given by the League’s lecturer! Ask the present Principal of the Waitaki Boys’ High School! I venture to say that their opinion will coincide with what I have said above. The third objection advanced, is that instruction in sex hygiene will undermine what is called the innocence of childhood, and that the child’s mind will be directed to subjects about which it would otherwise have no curiosity. I ask parents to go back to their young days and try to recollect how their own questions on the matter of reproduction of life were answered; and, furthermore, what foolishlydevised falsehoods they themselves have told to their own children when the need arose. You were only silenced, not convinced, and so were your children in their turn. Can any parents, with their own experience behind them, imagine it possible that a child will not, some way or other, find out the truth? Where from? From sly peeps into books, from dirty-minded older companions, from anyone except his proper teachers — his parents. Surely the process op reproduction and of "birth is not one that we should regard as unclean! Why not lift the subject to a high plane and make it a matter for earnest and reverent talk? It (reproduction) is the way provided by God for the continuance of the human race, and He has pronounced it good. This, the present system (no instruction) virtually denies; for, according to it, any knowledge of it will fill the child’s mind with “impure thoughts.” I have taken the above quotation from Dr. Arthur’s pamphlet, The Innocence of Children, as a full and sufficient answer to the objection advanced against sex instruction. Assurance of Success So far, I have stated the case for some form of instruction and have answered, as far as I can, certain objections made to me publicly and privately. My League is prepared to prove that after a few years of instruction in Sex Hygiene the type we advocate —there will be a rise in the birthrate, a decline in illegitimacy, a diminution in juvenile depravity and in venereal diseases. I need not stress the fact that a good deal depends on the type of instruction. Any teaching lacking in tact or delicacy, or given by an unqualified or unskilled person, may quite conceivably do much harm. But given the right type of instruction, given the co-operation of the parents.

WHERE FASHION SOME SUGGESTIONS

REIGNS SUPREME FROM PARIS

then my League would feel confident of the outcome. Any work which aims at fostering a high tone of public opinion, which preaches the dignity of parenthood and a chivalrous regard for womanhood, must succeed if given a chance. I now turn to some of the aspects of teaching the subject under discussion. There is no doubt that there are these agencies which are particularly interested in and devoted to the moral and spiritual welfare of the young— home, the church, and the school. In disposing of the first and second of these agencies, I quote Dr. J. Smyth, M.A., Ph.D., Principal of the Teachers’ Training College, Melbourne: “The modern city church has not a hold on half the city population, and in too many instances the modern city home is weak .or wanting in the recreational social and moral guidance of the young.” I come now to the agency of the 'home. Dr. Smyth, as you see, has given his opinion of modern city homos, and later on he states what 1 know to be a fact, “that 90 per cent, of the children receive no education on sex matters from their parents.” My own opinion is that most parents can’t, don’t, or won’t give such instruction; but I also speak for the White Cross League when I say that fully 50 per cent, of its work could be dropped if parents would do what is, after all, their plain duty to do. I must speak quite plainly when I say that you can never dispense with the teacher in giving sex hygiene instruction. The teacher shares with the parents the responsibility of moulding and fashioning the mind of the child. In fact, I go so far as to say that the modern trend of education is to throw that responsibility more and more on to the teacher. Here in New Zealand, the senior day schools, with their educational, vocational and recreational aims, can, exclusive of the time devoted to homework preparation, claim as much as eight or nine hours of a child’s time. We can safely say that, out of an average 16 working hours, 10 hours are more or less directly under school influence and the remaining 6 hours under the parents’ influence. You will see that I have excluded from my computation the large number of children who spend 39 weeks of the year entirely in school hostels, where they are completely under school control. You can put it this way, if you like; that the school, by compulsory attendance, by home lessons, and by other demands, has interfered with home training and home education. The school is asked to give, and does give, moral training; and this must include definite instruction in sex. If you approve of the principle that the State, through the school, should nurture and guide the development of its future citizens, that the teacher should impart ideas and inculcate habits suitable to the successive stages of development and should be trained to understand the complexity of the child’s physical, intellectual, and spiritual being, then you must have your sympathetic and tactful teacher to explain to the child how to avoid, not only errors in grammar and calculations, but mistakes and pitfalls in a matter which may mean disease and degradation to himself or herself and to others besides. Sex education is more a part of moral education than of physiology or hygiene— we call it by the latter name. If, then, the teacher shares with the parents the responsibility of moral training in general, then the teacher must- share with the parents the responsibility of moral training in particular —that is, in sex education. The question remains, “How shall ho do it?” Shall he do it by giving individual instruction or by class instruction, shall he treat it from the physiological or from the human point of view? Above all. must he be just the ordinary teacher? Before answering these questions, I should like to make it quite plain that though I have referred to the teacher as a man, you will understand that the term, “teacher,” is used to apply to both men and women. First of all are to be the questions, Shall sex education be given by the ordinary teachers or by special teachers?” To answer this question, I quote Dr. Smyth: “I can see no reason why all teachers who are trained should not also lie trained to give lessons in this subject. Not all those who enter the medical profession would be considered among the saintly, yet, when they enter into the responsibilities of their life work, they respond nobly and they betray no trust.

Are we to imagine it would be otherwise with the members of the teaching profession, or that if the responsibility of guiding children to think and act aright on one of the greatest of all moral questions was laid upon them, they would not respond to the spiritual ideal? At the beginning, and till the work was established on sure and rational lines, it might be well to entrust it to special teachers. These would be men and women of special aptitudes, of spiritual discernment, and of that fine sympathy that would enable them to feel with, and for, children’s needs.” Reasons for Class Instruction Some authorities consider that sex education should be given individually and not in classes. To me this is a small matter. As I have pointed out before, one lesson every two or three years is all that is required. Such a lesson to a whole class can be given without injury to the most sensitive. People like Dr. Arthur, K. 11. W. Bligh, and Dr. Smyth have taught large classes with success; and like myself, they have come to the conclusion that the opposition to class instruction is based “on fear, prejudice, individual belief, and not on experience. I have still to deal with the point of view from which sex education is to be given. We call the subject, instruction in sex hygiene. That is really a misnomer. The sox impulse, the greatest dividing force in human nature, develops as the mind and soul develops, and is “intimately connected with the highest intellectual, social, moral, and spiritual ideals. ’ ’ Obviously, then, a teacher must consider the sex impulse with other great impulses of ripening manhood or womanhood. If he doesn’t, then his teaching, if it does not end in disaster, may end in error and falsehood. The subject must be imparted from the physiological, the social, the moral and the religious point of view. The lessons should be such that the sacredness of the subject is felt by the children and that their very highest ideals are enlisted. If there is any other atmosphere than that, then the lesson is not only useless, but even pernicious. This brings me naturally to speak of one or two particular aspects of teaching the young — it is done by the parent or by the teacher. I have spoken of “the atmosphere” that should surround the instruction. I want now to issue a very serious warning against the positive wickedness of frightening children when, through ignorance, they are guilty of harmful practices. I am going to confine myself to the adolescent child and I am going to speak of the boy, and not the girl. The adolescent boy is a problem that all teachers would do well to study. He is often a problem to himself. . The subtle changes in mood, disposition and outlook on life are a puzzle not only to his parents, but to his teachers. This is the age ■when, if he is not prevented, he has his deep yearnings for the spiritual, his dreams of doing mighty deeds, of loving and being loved. ‘ 1 Sometimes, budding, unsettled manhood exhibits itself in eccentric and objcctional ways. A rapidly developing boy hardly knows what to do with himself: new emotions, impulses, come over him faster than he can master them ; he becomes restive under restraint, resents the efforts of parents and teachers to direct him, refuses to be disciplined, and on slight provocation runs away from school or from home” (Sperry). The adolescent boy is fully conscious of the spiritual and physiological changes that are taking place in his mind and in his body. His parents often arc not, neither are his teachers. I say ho is conscious of these changes; but does he understand their significance? He begins, as often as not, to worry over things that are all quite natural —matters that a sympathetic person could explain in a few words. Or again, he may drift, through sheer ignorance, or through actual instigation by others, into practices that fill him, in his calmer moments, with shame and loathing. Where is he to turn to in his dilemma? Failing his parents or his teachers, he turns to the quackthat loathsome production of a modern civilisation. Then, indeed, he is lost. I would give much if I could be instrumental in persuading parents to give their children a helping hand at this timenot to wait until the boy through fear and worry or perhaps

through evil companionship is “one who is fallen by the wayside.” A parent’s duty does not end merely with bringing children into the world and providing for their bodily comforts until they are ready “to fend for themselves.” “Man cannot live by bread alone. I say to the parents, ‘ ‘ Fit your sons to be good men and good husbands”; and to the teachers I say, “Help the parents.” Believe me, in these modern times, there is no more urgent call to parents and to teachers than this “cry of the children, ’ ’ “The child’s sob in the silence curses deeper Than the strong man in his wrath. Next to no instruction at all, comes wrong instruction. To say to a boy, guilty of a certain practice, ‘ ‘ This' will drive you into the lunatic asylum,” is the very way to drive him there. Besides, such a statement is by no means true. Some of our greatest ‘ ‘ alienists ’ ’ arc agreed that many doctors are confusing the effect and the cause when they adopt the policy of instruction by terrorism as a means of breaking a boy of bad habits. You may just as well try to justify the bad old way of teaching a belief in God by saying to the child, “If you good, you’ll go to Heaven; if you bad, you’ll go—elsewhere.” No, when I hear and read of the lurid details 'given as a warning against unchastity or immorality, I have nothing but contempt for such teaching. ‘ ‘ Self-reverence, self-knowledge, self-control, These three alone lead life to sovereign power. ’ ’ That is the keynote of all education. I heard the other day of a certain official in one of our largest asylums, who considered that this sort of thing was the best .form of instruction in sex hygiene: He pointed out a particularly bad type of patient to his son. “There, my lad,” he said, “that’s what you ’ll come to if you give way to that habit. Just imagine for a moment what would be the result of such a grim object lesson if the boy, unknown to his father, were already guilty of a certain practice! Or supposing that the boy were of a sensitive nature! Now you can perhaps understand why my League is so anxious that both parents and teachers should not only give the necessary instruction, but should be able to give it in the right way. Now, perhaps, you will sec why some people have said that sex instruction has done harm. The Duty of the Parent Nevertheless, our plain duty as parents and teachers lies before us— think of the child as “father of the man,” to give an answer to their obstinate questionings. “Of sense and outward things, Fallings from us, vanishings, Blank misgivings of a creature Moving about in worlds not realised, High instincts, before which the mortal nature Bid tremble like a. guilty thing surprised.” I ask my readers to give the League its help. I hope that the Editor will allow my League later on to contribute a series of articles, giving in detail the course of instruction lit for children in various stages of development. Meantime I can do no better than ask all who are interested in the question to read Dr. Sperry’s two books, “Confidential Talks with Young Women” and “Confidential Talks with Young Men.” In conclusion, let me anticipate objections that may be offered to the League’s proposals by the people most concerned. A quotation from Philip Gibb’s “Heirs Apparent,” Chapter XL!., will be sufficient answer: “We were superior people, highly educated, very refined, utterly sure of ourselves, contemptuous of the Old People and their fears about us and their cautions. We were the younger generation, out for a good time, with lots of rights and no duties, and all for liberty and adventure. Sheltered from vulgarity and passion and able to take risks which scared our prosperous parents! . . . . Pretty selfish. Conceited kids! Well, we’ve had our heads knocked together. We’ve been taken down a peg or two.” This is the opinion that Julian Perryman makes to his sister Janet when they have naid the penalty for their “good time” and realise the inevitable consequences that follow. The Old People ere not so far wrong.