Main  Contacts  
Table of contents
PREFACE
THE MOTHER AND HER CHILD-1.1
THE MOTHER AND HER CHILD-1.2
THE MOTHER AND HER CHILD-1.3
THE MOTHER AND HER CHILD-1.4
THE MOTHER AND HER CHILD-1.5
SEXUAL EDUCATION-2.1
SEXUAL EDUCATION-2.2
SEXUAL EDUCATION-2.3
SEXUAL EDUCATION-2.4
SEXUAL EDUCATION-2.5
SEXUAL EDUCATION-2.6
SEXUAL EDUCATION-2.7
SEXUAL EDUCATION-2.8
SEXUAL EDUCATION-2.9
SEXUAL EDUCATION-2.10
SEXUAL EDUCATION-2.11
SEXUAL EDUCATION AND NAKEDNESS-3.1
SEXUAL EDUCATION AND NAKEDNESS-3.2
SEXUAL EDUCATION AND NAKEDNESS-3.3
SEXUAL EDUCATION AND NAKEDNESS-3.4
THE VALUATION OF SEXUAL LOVE-4.1
THE VALUATION OF SEXUAL LOVE-4.2
THE VALUATION OF SEXUAL LOVE-4.3
THE VALUATION OF SEXUAL LOVE-4.4
THE FUNCTION OF CHASTITY-5.1
THE FUNCTION OF CHASTITY-5.2
THE FUNCTION OF CHASTITY-5.3
THE FUNCTION OF CHASTITY-5.4
THE FUNCTION OF CHASTITY-5.5
THE FUNCTION OF CHASTITY-5.6
THE PROBLEM OF SEXUAL ABSTINENCE-6.1
THE PROBLEM OF SEXUAL ABSTINENCE-6.2
THE PROBLEM OF SEXUAL ABSTINENCE-6.3
THE PROBLEM OF SEXUAL ABSTINENCE-6.4
THE PROBLEM OF SEXUAL ABSTINENCE-6.5
THE PROBLEM OF SEXUAL ABSTINENCE-6.6
PROSTITUTION-7.1
PROSTITUTION-7.2
PROSTITUTION-7.3
PROSTITUTION-7.4
PROSTITUTION-7.5
PROSTITUTION-7.6
PROSTITUTION-7.7
PROSTITUTION-7.8
PROSTITUTION-7.9
PROSTITUTION-7.10
PROSTITUTION-7.11
PROSTITUTION-7.12
PROSTITUTION-7.13
PROSTITUTION-7.14
PROSTITUTION-7.15
FOOTNOTES-1
FOOTNOTES-2

proceeds from the root of sex to flower in visions of beauty and ecstasy. 

The Divine Comedy of Dante is herein the immortal type of the poet's 

evolution. The youth becomes acquainted with the imaginative 

representations of love before he becomes acquainted with the reality of 

love, so that, as Leo Berg puts it, "the way to love among civilized 

peoples passes through imagination." All literature is thus, to the 

adolescent soul, a part of sexual education.[39] It depends, to some 

extent, though fortunately not entirely, on the judgment of those in 

authority over the young soul whether the literature to which the youth or 

girl is admitted is or is not of the large and humanizing order. 

 

All great literature touches nakedly and sanely on the central 

facts of sex. It is always consoling to remember this in an age 

of petty pruderies. And it is a satisfaction to know that it 

would not be possible to emasculate the literature of the great 

ages, however desirable it might seem to the men of more 

degenerate ages, or to close the avenues to that literature 

against the young. All our religious and literary traditions 

serve to fortify the position of the Bible and of Shakespeare. 

"So many men and women," writes a correspondent, a literary man, 

"gain sexual ideas in childhood from reading the Old Testament, 

that the Bible may be called an erotic text-book. Most persons of 

either sex with whom I have conversed on the subject, say that 

the Books of Moses, and the stories of Amnon and Tamar, Lot and 

his daughters, Potiphar's wife and Joseph, etc., caused 

speculation and curiosity, and gave them information of the 

sexual relationship. A boy and girl of fifteen, both friends of 

the writer, and now over thirty years of age, used to find out 

erotic passages in the Bible on Sunday mornings, while in a 

Dissenting chapel, and pass their Bibles to one another, with 

their fingers on the portions that interested them." In the same 

way many a young woman has borrowed Shakespeare in order to read 

the glowing erotic poetry of _Venus and Adonis_, which her 

friends have told her about. 

 

The Bible, it may be remarked, is not in every respect, a model 

introduction for the young mind to the questions of sex. But even 

its frank acceptance, as of divine origin, of sexual rules so 

unlike those that are nominally our own, such as polygamy and 

concubinage, helps to enlarge the vision of the youthful mind by 

showing that the rules surrounding the child are not those 

everywhere and always valid, while the nakedness and realism of 

the Bible cannot but be a wholesome and tonic corrective to 

conventional pruderies. 

 

We must, indeed, always protest against the absurd confusion 

whereby nakedness of speech is regarded as equivalent to 

immorality, and not the less because it is often adopted even in 

what are regarded as intellectual quarters. When in the House of 

Lords, in the last century, the question of the exclusion of 

Byron's statue from Westminster Abbey was under discussion, Lord 

Brougham "denied that Shakespeare was more moral than Byron. He 

could, on the contrary, point out in a single page of Shakespeare 

more grossness than was to be found in all Lord Byron's works." 

The conclusion Brougham thus reached, that Byron is an 

incomparably more moral writer than Shakespeare, ought to have 

been a sufficient _reductio ad absurdum_ of his argument, but it 

does not appear that anyone pointed out the vulgar confusion into 


Page 4 from 5:  Back   1   2   3  [4]  5   Forward