INTRODUCTION BY HARRY ELMER BARNES It seems highly probable that the next great clash between science and obscurantism will come in the field of sex and sex behavior. This struggle will, perhaps, supersede the contemporary conflict between Fundamentalism and obscurantism on the one hand and Biblical scholarship and evolution on the other. There is also little doubt that the conflict will be much more fierce and devastating than any previous battle between conventionality and intelligence. As one writer suggests, Freud will have replaced Darwin as the chief demon in the Fundamentalist battalion of evil. It is probable that this comparison of Freud and Darwin is not without accuracy and propriety. Both have pointed to a very important body of scientific knowledge which was but little realized or accepted before their day. At the same time, both represented but the preliminary stage in the development of evolutionary biology and the psychology of sex, respectively. Both were inevitably guilty of serious errors of fact and judgment which are inevitably associated with the early or pioneering stages of any type of scientific investigation. There are a number of unique and very interesting facts about the conventional approach towards sex which are worthy of note in the introductory paragraphs of this brief analysis of the sociological attitude towards the fundamental facts and problems of sex. In the first place, while a proper knowledge of the facts of sex and an adequate degree of sex expression are among the most important matters bearing upon human happiness, it is even taboo to intelligent discussion. It is a field which is arbitrarily declared to be vile by definition. Even physicians are not lacking who designate all types of sexual matters as nasty, without deeming it necessary to explain this arbitrary characterization. The sexual is looked upon as preeminently the field which must not be approached in a scientific manner. It is, ironically enough, viewed as the area which God reserves for his own unique control and personal scrutiny. As Cardinal Hayes expresses it: "Little children come trooping down from heaven," and any attempt to intrude human wisdom into this field of divine monopoly is both a sin and a crime. A general air of mystery should prevail here, and such knowledge as we desire and need should and may be sought in revealed scriptures. Few theologians have paused to explain how it happens that this particular phase of human conduct and behavior is more apparently and deplorably botched than any other area of human endeavor, in spite of the unique and direct interference here of the hand of God. There is no more striking or illuminating contrast in the whole field of the strange incongruities of modern civilization than man's attitude with respect to science and technology on the one hand and sex behavior on the other. In the design and manufacture of a Packard sedan we insist upon the most exact scientific and technological precision, but when it comes to the determination of the behavior fit and proper to the occupant of the car we turn back to the folkways of a barbarous people supposedly codified by Moses. In other words, we revert to the culture of the ox-cart in order to discover guidance for our conduct in the age of motor cars. It is unquestionably a fact that sex conduct is the only place where it is actually true that we conventionally and unthinkingly accept the hypothesis that the less knowledge one possesses the more capable he or she is to discuss the subject and dogmatize upon it. One would not think of accepting ex-cathedra utterances on aërial navigation from a person who had never left the ground for a single flight; nor would one be likely to bestow much respect upon a discussion of the problems, difficulties and methods of swimming by one who had never been subjected to even one thorough ducking. And yet we continually indulge in exactly this kind of conduct and attitude with respect to the problems of sex. For example, Catholic priests are looked upon as peculiarly fitted to give comprehensive and invincible advice on every phase of sexual problems, whereas the scientifically-minded person must recognize their almost complete initial disqualification from speaking upon the subject unless they have admittedly violated their ecclesiastical vows. Similarly, we find hosts of maiden professors whose ostentatious purity is only exceeded by their dogmatically eager assurance in deciding the most technical and minute aspects of sexual problems. A professor of literature of notable virginity, who would be terrified at the thought of rendering an opinion on a trivial matter of textual criticism without having previously spent days over original manuscripts, will unhesitatingly assume to be able to dispense the most irrefragable information and advice concerning sexual behavior. Likewise, discussions of sexual matters represent a field in which we find the most unreasoning intolerance, exceeding even that accompanying theological controversies. General social and intellectual liberalism appears to be no guaranty whatever of tolerance and urbanity with respect to matters of sex. For example, in a case known to the writer, a woman trustee of a leading college, herself known to capitalists as a dangerous "Red" in the field of economics and labor prob |