Even when this excuse of bad manners, ill temper, and brutishness (for
that is what it comes to) compels us to accept it from those adults
among whom political and theological discussion does as a matter of fact
lead to the drawing of knives and pistols, and sex discussion leads to
obscenity, it has no application to children except as an imperative
reason for training them to respect other people's opinions, and to
insist on respect for their own in these as in other important matters
which are equally dangerous: for example, money. And in any case
there are decisive reasons; superior, like the reasons for
suspending conventional reticences between doctor and patient, to all
considerations of mere decorum, for giving proper instruction in the
facts of sex. Those who object to it (not counting coarse people who
thoughtlessly seize every opportunity of affecting and parading a
fictitious delicacy) are, in effect, advocating ignorance as a safeguard
against precocity. If ignorance were practicable there would be
something to be said for it up to the age at which ignorance is a danger
instead of a safeguard. Even as it is, it seems undesirable that any
special emphasis should be given to the subject, whether by way of
delicacy and poetry or too impressive warning. But the plain fact is
that in refusing to allow the child to be taught by qualified unrelated
elders (the parents shrink from the lesson, even when they are otherwise
qualified, because their own relation to the child makes the subject
impossible between them) we are virtually arranging to have our children
taught by other children in guilty secrets and unclean jests. And that
settles the question for all sensible people.

The dogmatic objection, the sheer instinctive taboo which rules the
subject out altogether as indecent, has no age limit. It means that
at no matter what age a woman consents to a proposal of marriage, she
should do so in ignorance of the relation she is undertaking. When this