Vietnam or Thailand ? Vote for the TOP Country of the Week !
Updated: July 28, 2025
There are five types of teachers who should be regarded as disqualified for teaching personal sex-hygiene and sex-ethics. First, those men and women who are unable to speak of sex-hygiene as calmly and seriously as they do of any other phase of hygiene had better not undertake the instruction of young people.
Even entire omission of the study of the personal and social aspects of sex-hygiene and sex-ethics is far wiser than intrusting a class to a teacher with one or more of the negative qualifications that we have been considering in this lecture.
Summarizing, I have in this lecture aimed to warn the school administrator, and others who must select teachers of classes, against the kinds of teachers who ought not be chosen for presenting the special problems of sex-education, especially those of sex-hygiene and sex-ethics.
It has been said in an earlier lecture that several writers have declared that sex-ethics and sex-hygiene are essentially conflicting and should not be associated in teaching; that is to say, that hygienic facts should not be taught with the hope of improving morals. Most prominent of those who have declared that hygienic and moral teaching should be dissociated is Dr. Richard C. Cabot, of Boston.
The culminating stages of any complete scheme for formal sex-education of young people will be sex-hygiene considered in its strict sense as that special phase of sex-education which deals with problems of health, and sex-ethics which determines the responsibility of individuals for control of sexual instincts.
As to the relation between sex-hygiene and sex-ethics as phases of the larger sex-education, there has been much discussion. Several writers have contended that there is some conflict between sanitary and moral ends, but have failed to convince most readers that hygiene and ethics should not be associated in teaching.
The chief question for discussion in this lecture is that of selecting the teacher of those phases of sex-instruction that are directly related to human life, that is, personal sex-hygiene and sex-ethics.
Nor is the term applied to unfaithful wives, because in this type of defiance of traditional sex-ethics there is always the spirit of self-accusation; a tacit, if not open, admission of wrong-doing. It must be admitted that the term "free-love" is applied only to those who openly claim the right to bestow their affections and indulge in the sex-relationship, independent of the marriage ceremony.
This is not opposed to ethical teaching, for at the same time we can teach the other reasons for not telling lies. Likewise, sex-hygiene offers certain reasons for conduct and may be supplemented by sex-ethics. "The attempts to consecrate affection and to safeguard morality by teaching in public or private schools what is called 'sex-hygiene' will, I believe, prove a failure.
Among those who see the need of teaching sex-ethics as a part of the larger outlook of sex-education, there are two points of view: those who favor the teaching of sex-ethics with the hope of preventing the hygienic problems arising from immorality, and those who believe in sexual morality for its own sake or as an accepted code of conduct.
Word Of The Day
Others Looking