sex and marriage

Chapter 12 Taboo of sexual knowledge (2)
So far we have discussed the pernicious influence of traditional practices outside the sexual sphere, and now we turn to an aspect of the problem that has a more explicit relationship to sex.One of the purposes of moralists is undoubtedly to prevent us from being troubled by sexual problems.This kind of trouble is very common now.Recently, a former principal at Eton pointed out that the conversations among students were hardly dull or obscene, even though the students he met had grown up in traditional settings.In fact.If we make the question of sex mysterious, the instinctive curiosity of young people about this question will be greatly increased.If adults treat sexual issues like other issues, answer all the questions children ask, and give them the knowledge they expect or can accept, then these children will not develop obscene concepts, because the generation of such concepts is entirely Based on their belief that certain issues cannot be raised without scruple.Sexual curiosity, like every other curiosity, disappears quickly once satisfied.Therefore, counseling young people as much as possible and telling them everything about sexual problems is the best way to prevent them from being troubled by sexual problems.

The reason why I think so.It is based on my personal experience, not based on deductive methods.What I have observed among the children of my school is sufficient to show that the indecent behavior of the children is the result of the prudence of the adults.My own two kids (boy 7, girl 5) have never thought of sex or poop as anything special and have thus far been maximally insulated from those orthodox ideas, what they've gotten is exactly It is the opposite scientific thought.They show a natural and healthy interest in the question of where children come from, but they have not so keen an interest in engines and railways.They never showed an inquiring curiosity about such questions, whether adults were present or not.

We found that other children in this school, if they were 2 or 3 years old, or even 4 years old, they were in the same situation as my children.Yet children of 6 or 7 who have been educated orthodoxly consider anything to do with sex organs to be illicit.They were even surprised that in this school such things could be talked about as freely as anything else.After a while, they slowly began to feel a sense of relief in the conversation, but still considered such topics to be inappropriate.But when they found that the adults did nothing to prevent them from having such conversations, they gradually grew weary of such topics, and became as carefree as children who had never received a formal education.Now, when the new school kids want to talk to them about the "inappropriate" things, they always show impatience.From this it follows that if we let fresh air blow on the subject, it will be sanitized.The poisonous microorganisms that breed in the taboo will disappear.There is no other way, I believe, of giving children such a healthy and natural attitude towards subjects which are generally regarded as improper.

It seems to me that there is a part of the population who has not fully realized the other side of the problem, although they wish to remove from the sexual question the filth covered up by Christian moralists.Sexual problems are naturally inseparable from the process of excretion, so that as long as we regard the process of excretion as an aversion, then psychologically people will naturally associate part of this aversion with sexual problems.Therefore, when getting along with children, we should not be too tired of excretion.Naturally, precautions are necessary for reasons of hygiene, but as long as the child can understand them, we should explain to them that these precautions are only for the sake of hygiene, and not because the physical function itself is bad.

What I want to discuss in this chapter is what attitude we should adopt to sexual knowledge rather than what sexual behavior should be.I have said before that we should teach young people about sex, and I hope and believe that this will be endorsed by all enlightened educators.What I want to talk about now is a relatively controversial issue. I am afraid that my views on this issue will hardly resonate with readers.That's the question about so-called obscene works.

The laws of the United Kingdom and the United States provide that, in certain circumstances, any work considered obscene may be banned by the authorities, and its authors and publishers shall be punished.In England, this law is known as the Sir Campbell Resolution of 1857.The resolution declares:
If it is reported, and the evidence is solid, that any obscene literature is kept in any house or other place, its purpose is to sell; provided it can be proved that one or more copies of the literature in this place have been sold; nature and description, whose publication would have adverse effects and should be prosecuted, then, after obtaining special permission, these books and periodicals should be sealed up.After the arraignment of the owners of these books, if it is proved that the sealed books are indeed of the above-mentioned nature, and the purpose of preservation is as stated, then an order can be given to destroy these books.

It can be seen from this.The term "obscenity" mentioned in the resolution does not have a clear legal definition.In fact, if those magistrates consider a publication to be obscene, then it must be, and he does not need to hear any testimony from experts.For in certain cases, testimony will tell us that publications deemed obscene are in some way beneficial.That is to say, anyone who writes a novel, a treatise in sociology, or a bill to reform the law, if his work touches on sexual issues, will presumably be in trouble as long as some ignorant conservative thinks it is inappropriate. escape bad luck.The consequences of such laws are extremely harmful.It is well known that the first volume of Havelock Ellis' Studies in the Psychology of Sexuality was criticized because of this law.Thankfully, the US is a bit more enlightened than the UK on this matter.No one, I think, would argue that Havelock Ellis's aims were immoral, that such a dignified and scholarly tome was not written for lowlifes seeking mere sensuality.Of course, in discussing these issues I have to mention things that ordinary magistrates would never talk about in front of their wives and daughters.But banning such works means that no decent student can understand the facts in this regard.I think that one of the most objectionable issues in the work of Havelock Ellis, according to conventional wisdom, is his collection of historical facts.For these facts show that the existing methods are by no means capable of breeding sound morals and intellects.These materials would have made us rationally reflect on the existing methods of sex education, but the law holds that we cannot keep such materials, and judgments on this issue should still be based on ignorance.

The Lonely Well has faced charges in Britain (but not America).The indictment highlights censorship of the fact that depictions of homosexuality in fiction are also illegal.In other European countries, students can gain a lot of knowledge about homosexuality because the laws there are more liberal.But in the UK, this kind of knowledge dissemination is prohibited, whether it is in the form of academic research or fantasy novels.Homosexuality between men (although not between women) is illegal in the UK, and it is impossible to make any arguments to change this law, as any would be accused of being obscene and thus illegal of.It is, of course, well known to all who have seriously studied the subject that such laws are the product of savage and ignorant religious superstitions, and that no irrational arguments can be advanced in their favour.We should also take the same attitude towards incest.A few years ago, a new law was passed that made incest a crime.But under Sir Campbell's Resolution we cannot discuss the subject, for or against the law, unless the arguments are so abstract and prudent as to be unpersuasive.

Another ridiculous result of the "Sir Campbell's Resolution" is that many things that cannot be mentioned in a language that ordinary people can understand can only be discussed in lengthy technical terms that can only be understood by highly educated people. While certain precautions are taken, references to "sexual intercourse" in print are permitted, but plain synonyms are not.This was settled in the recent case of "The Vain Errand".However, this ban on plain and simple language can sometimes have serious consequences.For example, a pamphlet on birth control written by Mrs. Sanger for working women was dismissed as obscene simply because working women could understand it.In contrast, Dr. Mary Stopes' book is legitimate because only those who are reasonably educated can understand the words in it.As a result, it was legal to advertise birth control to wealthy, upper-class people, but illegal to advertise it to wage earners and their wives.I hope this situation will be brought to the attention of the Eugenics Society.The society just keeps bemoaning the fact that the wage earners reproduce more rapidly than the middle classes, but it makes no attempt to change the laws that make it so.

There are many who believe that such laws against obscene publications, while regrettable, are necessary.I do not believe we can have a law against obscene publications that would not have similar dire consequences.Based on this fact, I personally believe that there should be no legal constraints on this issue.I have two arguments for this: on the one hand, no law can prohibit evil without prohibiting good; on the other hand, if sex education is done properly, even genuinely obscene publications can do little harm .

The first argument is entirely plausible if we know the history of Sir Campbell's Resolution in England.Anyone who understands the debate over Sir Campbell's Resolution will find that the original intent of the Resolution was simply to ban pornography, and that it was generally believed that they would not use it against other forms of literature.This belief, however, arises from their insufficient appreciation of the dexterity of the police and the folly of the magistrates.The whole issue of censorship is brilliantly discussed in a book by Morris Ernst and William Siegel.They discuss the UK and US experiences, but also succinctly discuss experiences elsewhere.These experiences show that, especially with regard to the censorship of plays in England, frivolous plays that are intended to be sexually provocative pass easily because the censors do not want to be seen as prudish; For example, Mrs. Warren's Career took years to pass the censorship.As for a play as poetic and good as "Sanxie," though there is not a single erotic line in it, it took a hundred years for the play to conquer the loathing of Lord Chamberlain's great mind.In the US, despite the lack of censorship, the theater experience is much the same as in the UK.A glimpse of it can be seen in the results of Horace Livellite's bold action on The Captive.Therefore, after studying a lot of historical evidence, we have come to the conclusion that some people who are purely obscene and pornographic can always escape the punishment of the law, while serious art and successful science are often punished to varying degrees. Review.

Also, another argument against censorship is that candid pornography that is frank and unashamed is, at the same time, far less harmful than pornography that is made interesting by obscurity and mystery.Almost every decent rich person has seen obscene photographs against the law as a teenager and prides himself on owning them because they are so hard to come by.Such things are thought by those of the conventional mind to be extremely injurious to others, though hardly any of them would admit that they are injurious to themselves.

There is no doubt that such things can arouse temporary sexual desires, but in any sexually functioning male, such urges cannot be avoided anyway.The frequency of a man's sexual impulses depends on his physical condition, and the opportunities for eliciting such impulses depend on the social customs in which he depends.To a Victorian man, a woman's ankles were a strong stimulus; to a modern man, nothing below her thighs arouses her sexual arousal.It's just a matter of style of clothing.If nudity becomes a custom, nudity does not excite us sexually, so that women have to resort to clothing to make themselves sexually attractive, as certain savage peoples do.

The same point applies to literature and pictures.What was irritating in the Victorian age seems irritating to more frankly modern people.The more honest gentlemen restrict their sexual desire within the proper range, the more likely this sexual desire will be impulsive.Nine-tenths of the popularity of pornography is due to moralists instilling in the young a sense of obscenity about sex: one-tenth the reason is biological.This is unavoidable regardless of national laws.For these reasons, I do not think there is any need for laws to restrict pornographic publications, even though I still worry that very few people share my view.

The taboo about nudity prevents us from holding a high profile on sexual issues.Many people have admitted this when it comes to educating children.As long as it is a very normal situation, it is good for children to see each other or their parents naked.For a short period, around the age of three, the child is interested in the physical differences between his parents and compares himself with the differences between his sisters.But this stage will soon pass, and from then on he will be as uninterested in nudity as in clothing.If parental scruples allow their children to see them naked, there is bound to be a sense of mystery in these children, and once this mystery is acquired, they become full of evil spirits.Therefore, removing the sense of mystery has become the only way to avoid evil thoughts.

In terms of health, we also have many important reasons in favor of nudity in appropriate settings, such as being outdoors when the sun is shining.Sunlight has wonderful effects on skin health.Anyone who has seen children running and playing naked in the open air must have the feeling that not only are they more sensible, but they move more freely and their posture is more graceful than when they are clothed.The same is true for adults.Suitable places for nudity are places with bright sunlight and clear water.If our customs allowed us to do so, nudity would soon cease to be an incentive to our sexual desires, and our manners would be more civilized: our bodies would be healthier from direct contact with air and sunlight; It will also be more based on the degree of health, because the standard of beauty is not only the appearance, but also the body and body posture.Therefore, we should vigorously promote this custom of the Greeks.

(End of this chapter)