The Sexual Life of the Child

by Albert Moll

It is a disputed question whether the sentiments of shame and disgust are inborn. In this controversy, two matters are confused, between which it is necessary to distinguish: the general disposition to experience such sentiments, and the special disposition to react with these sentiments to specific occurrences. The fact is incontestable, that the general disposition to these sentiments is inborn. Inborn, also, is the association of specific bodily processes with the corresponding mental states: blushing, with the sentiment of shame; retching and vomiting, with the sentiment of disgust; these associations are certainly not chance products of education. The only point in doubt is, to what extent the tendency is inborn to experience these sentiments as a result of certain specific stimuli. By some it is assumed, that when we experience disgust at the sight of certain animals—a worm, for instance—such concrete reactions depend upon inborn dispositions; whereupon the further problem emerges, how did our ancestors acquire the disposition they have transmitted to us, their descendants. Others believe that influences operating after birth have led to the association with the sight or idea of the worm of the tendency to feel disgust. Very early in life, the child has seen others exhibit disgust at a worm; doubtless he has often been told how disgusting this animal is; and thus gradually the sentiment of disgust has become associated with the sight or the idea of the worm.[129] With the sentiment of shame, similar conditions obtain. If a human being feels shame in connexion with certain matters, and therefore avoids them, this may depend upon influences operating in the individual life (imitation, education, suggestion, &c.), by which the feeling of shame has been associated with certain perceptions. On the other hand, it is possible that shame may be dependent upon a special inborn disposition. Certain processes in the animal world—for example, the fact that many animals deposit their excrement in hidden places, and the fact that bitches and other female animals sometimes behave in a way which is interpreted as the exhibition of shame—may be regarded as the result of an inborn disposition. But others refer to the slight degree in which little girls appear to feel shame, as an indication that this sentiment is acquired during the individual life. Undoubtedly, we sometimes find manifestations of shame in very early childhood. Sikorsky[130] reports that his son exhibited typical shame at the early age of three and a half years. The boy was washing himself, having for this purpose taken off his coat and bared the upper part of the body. When his father unexpectedly entered the room, the boy was ashamed and startled, and said pleadingly, as he endeavoured to cover himself by crossing his hands over the breast, "Please don't come in, for I haven't got my shirt on." Sikorsky rightly points out that this position of the arms is typical of the sentiment of shame. Still, such cases are comparatively rare; and in contrast with them we may often note that older children, even girls of eight or a little more, will in play raise their petticoats so high that it is necessary to turn away if we wish to avoid seeing the genital organs, and often a word of reproof is needed from the mother or nurse to indicate to the child that it is doing something improper. The fact that in little children the sense of shame is so little developed, but that subsequently this sentiment becomes clearly manifest, has been used as an argument against the theory that it is inborn; but this argument cannot be accepted without reserve, for an inborn quality may not manifest itself until a certain definite age is reached—as we see clearly in the case of the sexual impulse—and this apart from the consideration that the development of an inborn quality may be inhibited by influences acting during the individual life. Whatever view we take of this problem, there can be no doubt as to the possibility of exerting a marked influence upon both qualities, the sentiment of disgust and the sentiment of shame, by means of influences operating during the lifetime of the individual. Thus, by education and habituation, it is possible to learn to repress disgust towards certain animals or certain excreta, as is done by the physician, and by nurses, male and female. The sentiment of disgust also depends largely upon general customs. The civilised European makes a mock of the fact that other races, certain oriental races, for instance, eat foods which to us are disgusting. A European invited as a guest at certain foreign banquets, is thoroughly disgusted when he sees food put into the mouth with the fingers instead of with knife and fork. And yet there is no great difference in respect of our own practice, when we put a piece of chocolate, a grape, or the like, into our own mouths. If, in Europe, we saw someone eating a pigeon in the same way as that in which we are accustomed to eat a crayfish, many persons would experience disgust. And yet, objectively considered, there is no reason to be less disgusted at the eating of crayfishes than when some other kind of animal is eaten in the same manner. Such modification of the sentiment of disgust by habit and custom applies also to sexual matters. A girl who experiences disgust at the sight of semen or the act of its ejaculation, may, through habituation, cease to feel such disgust.

Similarly with the sentiment of shame, we find that in some persons it is aroused by matters to which others are more or less completely indifferent—and this is true no less of the sexual sense of shame than of shame in general. We note the way in which habit or other influences may diminish or even entirely suppress the sentiment of sexual shame, from the fact that prostitutes willingly undress in the presence of a strange man without any sense of shame (although it must be admitted that some remnants of shame may remain even in many prostitutes). Finally, the experience of the marriage-bed shows how rapidly the sentiment of shame in respect of certain situations may disappear or largely diminish. Although a refined woman may long, and in some cases permanently, manifest a certain reserve towards her husband, still, there is an enormous degree of difference between the intensity of the sentiment of shame which a young bride experiences when undressing on her bridal night and that which she experiences in the like situation after a year of married life.

Other circumstances show that these sentiments are influenced, not merely by individual habituation, but also by the nature of general customs. A lady of the nobility, president, perhaps, of a Ladies' Society for the Promotion of Public Morals, may regard the short skirts of a music-hall dancer as the acme of impropriety, and yet will not hesitate for a moment to go into society in the evening in a low dress, with her breasts plainly visible to anyone standing by her when she is seated. The same lady would probably be furious at the suggestion that she should show herself to men in the dress of a ballet-dancer, but with a high corsage. And yet, experience shows that in other circumstances the short skirt is quite acceptable, inasmuch as when bicycling first obtained a vogue among the upper classes, ladies of high standing were to be seen in the streets with short skirts and visible calves. In Germany, and in many other countries, it was for long regarded as improper for men and women to bathe in common. The Americans, however, saw no impropriety in mixed bathing, and of late years even the Germans find it possible for the sexes to mix in bathing without any offence to the sense of shame. Here we have nothing more than the revival of an old custom, for in former centuries mixed bathing was practised in Germany.[131]

From the examples just given, we see clearly the way in which the objects and situations with which are associated manifestations of shame and disgust, depend upon habituation and general custom. But just because this is so, both these sentiments are in the highest degree adapted to furnish protection against actions which are opposed to dominant custom, or are condemned by the prevailing moral code. By the sense of shame, the young girl is prevented from surrendering her person to any man who desires her. Shame interferes with the very preparations for the sexual act; for example, with the act of undressing in the presence of a man. The sentiment of disgust may also exert a protective influence, for disgust is aroused in women by the semen and its ejaculation, and by many other things connected with the sexual act.

All these considerations combine to show how important it is that proper care should be taken to promote in the child the proper development of the sentiments of shame and disgust, and also of the moral ideas. It need hardly be said, that the sentiments of shame and disgust are not the only psychical aids in the sexual education of children. There are others, such as the fear of disagreeable consequences, which deters human beings from many immoral actions, and often enough at the outset greatly furthers the development of moral ideas; also there is direct instruction, the influence of which will be considered later.

But in the moral education of children, and also in the disquisitions of adults upon morality, mistakes are made. In particular, no distinction is made whether anything is to be regarded as immoral per se, or whether it is only considered immoral in certain circumstances. This is shown very clearly in the formation of opinions, from the standpoint of sexual morality, regarding nakedness and the sexual life. Because, in particular situations, nakedness is immoral, the child is often taught to regard nakedness as being per se disgraceful. Similarly with the sexual life. Instead of aiming at its proper control, the idea instilled is that the mere mention of sexuality, and even its very existence, are things gravely immoral. The very same persons who teach the child to repeat the commandment, Honour thy father and thy mother, educate it also in such a way that it is forced to regard the act to which it owes its own existence as something which must have rendered its parents unclean. It has to be admitted that at times it is by no means easy, in these matters, to find the right way; its discovery demands, not interest merely, but also intelligence; it is, perhaps, an art. But often the right course is not so very difficult to find; and if we only exercise reasonable care in the repression of hypocrisy and of perverse moral ideas, we shall be able to educate the child in such a way that he will come to understand that exposure of his person is not a matter of pure indifference, and yet will not regard nakedness as something unclean. The little girl who draws her petticoats too high, will stop doing so when her mother forbids it. A child will not always ask the reason for such a prohibition; and if it does ask, all the mother need answer in this case, as in so many others in which the child is not yet competent to understand the reason, is that it will understand well enough when it is older. When the child is older, and when its understanding has enlarged, the mother need make no difficulty about explaining the true reason in a suitable manner.

In respect also of the sentiment of disgust, exaggerations must carefully be avoided. From a feeling of shame, and for fear of arousing disgust in others, many young girls refrain, when in the company of other persons, from retiring to satisfy the calls of nature. The physician knows that this may result not merely in discomfort, but in consequences by no means indifferent to health. In this respect also, a just mean must be the aim of education. The child has to be taught that, alike for æsthetic and for hygienic reasons, the evacuation of the excreta must be effected in a retired place. But it is necessary to avoid going to the extreme of producing in the child the impression that there is something disgusting in the faintest intimation of such a physical need, or of making it feel that there is something essentially shameful in the fulfilment of these natural functions. The same considerations apply also to the sentiment of disgust in relation to the sexual life. In this also overstatement must be avoided. The education of young girls aims to a large extent at inducing them to regard the sexual act, not merely as something of which they should be ashamed, but as something in itself disgusting. It is well known that quite a number of women are altogether unable to give themselves up to the sexual act in such a way as to derive from it real enjoyment and satisfaction. A part of the severe disillusionment following marriage, depends upon the lack of normal sexual sensibility in the wife; and it is by no means improbable that this state depends in some cases upon the education received in girlhood. If it is impressed on anyone from childhood upwards that a particular act is disgusting and shameful, ultimately inhibitions may arise, owing to which the natural impulse to the performance of that act, and its natural course and natural enjoyment, may be prevented. And although the widely prevalent lack of sexual sensibility in women has additional causes, nevertheless I regard it as probable that in some of the cases, at any rate, this insensibility directly results from educational influences. In this matter, too, we must guard against exaggeration. We must educate children, boys as well as girls, in the belief that to mishandle the genital organs is forbidden alike by divine and by human law. But we must not teach them to regard the sexual act as in itself disgusting; more especially in view of the fact that such an idea conflicts with the lofty ethical significance of the act to which we all owe our existence.

What has been said about nakedness, has bearings also upon the relationships of the education of children to the matter of the nude in art. No intelligent person will deny the importance to art of the representation of the nude. A clothed Venus is a thing with which the connoisseur would prefer to dispense. Although I am not myself an enthusiastic adherent of the movement started a few years back with a great flourish of trumpets for the introduction of art into the education of children—a movement which has already perceptibly slackened—I do not wish to deny the important bearings of art upon the education of the child. Children who are still comparatively young, have not as a rule much understanding of art. None the less, we must not withhold from the child possibilities of appreciating the beauties of the nude. Apart from this purely educational aim, we have to remember that it is impossible to preserve children completely from the sight of the nude in art. We might, of course, exclude them from our museums; but our own houses also often contain nude statuary, and books with illustrations of the nude figure; and nude statues are to be seen also in places of public resort. A demand for the removal of such nude figures is so stupid, that it hardly deserves serious discussion—outside of the columns of the comic papers. A classical education, too, gives so many opportunities for the sight or the mention of the nude—for instance, delineations of the gods of the ancient mythology that the demands of the "morality-fanatics" could be met only by cutting off the child from the most beautiful sources of culture. But now, let those who, in the lower classes of our schools, have seen in the text-books of mythology pictures of unclad gods and goddesses, seriously ask themselves whether in this connexion they ever experienced even the faintest uncleanness of thought! If in one among thousands of such children, the sight of such a picture is followed by an undesired result, we have further to remember that this fact does not give us the right to deprive thousands of other children of the spiritual nourishment requisite for their emotional and æsthetic development, and for their general culture. There is no need for any anxiety about this question of the nude in art; and we must avoid suggesting to children that there is anything peculiar about the nakedness of statuary. We are, indeed, justified in asking whether the replacement or concealment of the genital organs by a fig-leaf—a practice supposed to have been initiated by the influence of the Jesuits about the middle of the eighteenth century—is a sound one; or whether this is not the very way to lead to objectionable conversations between children. The child compares the work of art with its own body and with the bodies of others which it has seen, notes the difference at once, and is thereby incited to improper conversation.

Those who wish to prevent children seeing artistic representations of the nude are influenced by two very different motives, although by the morality-fanatics themselves these motives are not clearly distinguished. Sometimes we are told that the sight of the nude in art may awaken the child's sexual impulse, sometimes that morality forbids such representations of the nude. These two reasons must not be confused; for even if well-developed moral ideas may repress sexual acts, it does not follow that everything which is immoral is also sexually exciting. A great many pictures are immoral, and yet do not tend in the very least to induce sexual excitement—it suffices to mention illustrations of scatological scenes. Another source of error lies in the fact that things which appear sexual to the adult, may to the child be entirely devoid of sexual colouring. There is an amusing anecdote of a little girl who had been bathing with other children, and on her return home was asked whether boys had been bathing as well as girls; "I don't know," said the little one, "for they were all naked!" This story is based upon a profound insight into the nature of the child, for children in general do not regard nakedness as sexually important—though a few exceptions to this rule may be encountered. Just because the child is so often taught that nakedness is in itself immoral, we are apt also to teach it to experience sexual excitement at the sight of a nude statue; whereas if the child had simply been taught that nakedness at unsuitable times and places was wrong, no such reaction would ensue. I remember the time in which the strong agitation took place which led to the passing of the Lex Heinze;[132] and I was acquainted with a gentleman—he was a patient of mine—who was a member of the party by which the new law was so strongly demanded. When one day he came to see me, bringing with him his little boy, the latter noticed in my waiting-room a nude statue of a woman, but which the little boy took for a man. The child, who was obviously attempting to repeat something he had often heard said, asked his father naïvely: "Papa, if that were a woman, it would be improper, wouldn't it?" This remark is at once natural and characteristic; the child would never have felt the possibility that the statue was in any way improper, unless his education had led him to regard nakedness as disgraceful, or as immoral and improper. There is no doubt that our clothing is intimately connected with the development of the sentiment of shame and with the formation of our ideas of morality. But the more we learn so to form the mind of the child that it will not regard nakedness as being per se immoral, the sooner shall we be able, not only to instil into children truly moral ideas, but also to safeguard them against the risks of premature sexual excitement.

The considerations just stated apply mutatis mutandis to the question of what children should be allowed to read. Although we should give to children neither obscene or erotic books, still, we should not withhold from them every poem which deals with love. If such were our rule, we should have to forbid the most beautiful works in our literature, and also our folk-tales. Read, for example, Grimm's tales, and you will find many passages which our morality-fanatics would reject as improper; for instance, the story of the Sleeping Beauty in the Wood, and many others, telling of beauty, love, and kisses. The same remark applies to the folk-songs. There are persons, indeed, who would like to edit such songs and stories especially for the use of children. The case will be remembered in which the song, In einem kühlen Grunde, was so modified for the use of children that they were told, not of the "beloved maiden" who dwelt there, but of an "uncle" instead! Now, either the child that hears this song for the first time has as yet no understanding of the idea of love, and in that case there will be no danger in singing in its original form this song whose full beauty will not until later become manifest to the child; or else it has some understanding, and then the replacement of the girl by an uncle will certainly do nothing to safeguard the child's morality, but will merely corrupt its taste. The assumption that by hearing such a song, the awakening of sexuality can possibly be antedated, is almost ridiculous; and little or no proof has been offered that anything of the sort ever occurs. One who in such a song sees the least suspicion of immorality, and who thinks that the hearing of it entails danger to a child, not only betrays the corruption of his own taste, but lays himself open to the countercharge that his own moral endowments are somewhat defective. Similar conditions apply to the theatre, and to the other factors in the mental development of children, and of human beings in general. It is quite impossible to isolate children from every intimation of the erotic or the sexual. Let us remember the wide diffusion of the newspapers of our day. We cannot prevent children from reading newspapers; a statement that applies not to large towns merely, but to small towns and to the country districts as well. I speak here, not only of newspapers which are known to be sensational, but of others as well. The more serious periodicals are to-day often inclined to devote a good deal of space to many sexual occurrences; they even err in transforming many non-sexual matters into sexual ones, giving them a superfluous erotic background. They miss no chance of converting an ordinary murder into a lust-murder; of describing a common assault as the outcome of sadism; and of writing of any woman of whom mention has to be made in connexion with some public occurrence, as a young lady of surpassing beauty. But apart from all this, the newspapers are to-day so full of sexual matters (the question of sexual enlightenment, the prevention of the venereal diseases, the suppression of prostitution, the protection of motherhood, &c.), that with the best will in the world it is impossible to keep children from reading about such things. Nor can this be regarded as unfortunate, so long as these questions are treated in a moderate manner.