SEX AND THE SCHOOL
SIR,—It would be impossible to reply briefly to all the interesting points raised by Dr. Essex-Cater and Mr. Rigby in the Spectator of August 26th ; but I hope you will allow me space in which to answer them where they misrepresent me.
Dr. Essex-Cater writes: " A second fundamental rule, not observed by Mr. Garnons Williams, is that instruction must be given to the individual or, failing this, to small groups of compatible children." But much of my article Was devoted to maintaining that sex instruction must be given to individuals. Mr. Rigby realises this, but alleges that I based my conclusions on the fact that " some boys and girls find public dis- cussion of sex highly embarrassing." But that was only one of a number of arguments which I used against public sex instruction, the most cogent of which, in my opinion, is its inefficiency.
Both my critics say or imply that I suggested twelve as an arbitrary age for instruction. In point of fact, I suggested no age ; that of twelve was a mere hypothesis. I agree with both my critics that ideally sex education should be a continuous process. That is one of the strongest reasons why it should be carried out in the home, by the parents, a contention of mine which both critics ignored. It is, of course, much more difficult to make it continuous in a school. But I am convinced that even a single talk with an individual is more valuable, and far less dangerous, than a series of lectures to groups.
I cannot agree that the doctor is a fitter person to give instruction than the schoolmaster. In this matter, surely, detailed knowledge of sexology is of far less importance than experience of teaching.—Yours
Previous page
