 |
The suppression
of economic knowledge, disastrous as it is, is quite intelligible, its corrupt motive
being as clear as the motive of a burglar for concealing his jemmy from a policeman. But
the other great suppression in our schools, the suppression of the subject of sex, is a
case of taboo. In mankind, the lower the type, and the less cultivated the mind, the less
courage there is to face important subjects objectively. The ablest and most highly
cultivated people continually discuss religion, politics, and sex: it is hardly an
exaggeration to say that they discuss nothing else with fully-awakened interest. Commoner
and less cultivated people, even when they form societies for discussion, make a rule that
politics and religion are not to be mentioned, and take it for granted that no decent
person would attempt to discuss sex. The three subjects are feared because they rouse the
crude passions which call for furious gratification in murder and rapine at worst, and, at
best, lead to quarrels and undesirable states of consciousness.
Even when this excuse of bad manners, ill temper, and brutishness
(for that is what it comes to) compels us to accept it from those adults among whom
political and theological discussion does as a matter of fact lead to the drawing of
knives and pistols, and sex discussion leads to obscenity, it has no application to
children except as an imperative reason for training them to respect other people's
opinions, and to insist on respect for their own in these as in other important matters
which are equally dangerous: for example, money. And in any case there are decisive
reasons; superior, like the reasons for suspending conventional reticences between doctor
and patient, to all considerations of mere decorum, for giving proper instruction in the
facts of sex. Those who object to it (not counting coarse people who thoughtlessly seize
every opportunity of affecting and parading a fictitious delicacy) are, in effect,
advocating ignorance as a safeguard against precocity. If ignorance were practicable there
would be something to be said for it up to the age at which ignorance is a danger instead
of a safeguard. Even as it is, it seems undesirable that any special emphasis should be
given to the subject, whether by way of delicacy and poetry or too impressive warning. But
the plain fact is that in refusing to allow the child to be taught by qualified unrelated
elders (the parents shrink from the lesson, even when they are otherwise qualified,
because their own relation to the child makes the subject impossible between them) we are
virtually arranging to have our children taught by other children in guilty secrets and
unclean jests. And that settles the question for all sensible people.
The dogmatic objection, the sheer instinctive taboo which rules
the subject out altogether as indecent, has no age limit. It means that at no matter what
age a woman consents to a proposal of marriage, she should do so in ignorance of the
relation she is undertaking. When this actually happens (and apparently it does happen
oftener than would seem possible) a horrible fraud is being practiced on both the man and
the woman. He is led to believe that she knows what she is promising, and that he is in no
danger of finding himself bound to a woman to whom he is eugenically antipathetic. She
contemplates nothing but such affectionate relations as may exist between her and her
nearest kinsmen, and has no knowledge of the condition which, if not foreseen, must come
as an amazing revelation and a dangerous shock, ending possibly in the discovery that the
marriage has been an irreparable mistake. Nothing can justify such a risk. There may be
people incapable of understanding that the right to know all there is to know about
oneself is a natural human right that sweeps away all the pretences of others to tamper
with one's consciousness in order to produce what they choose to consider a good
character. But they must here bow to the plain mischievousness of entrapping people into
contracts on which the happiness of their whole lives depends without letting them know
what they are undertaking. |
 |