=To teach sex truths, two qualifications necessary.=--You would not think of having your child taught mathematics by one, who, himself, was never properly taught, or who knew only half-truths about mathematics. You might not demand of him a moral qualification, if he possessed the intellectual equipment. But, in the teaching of sex, a moral qualification is even more necessary than the intellectual. But few adults are prepared to tell the story of life to a child, and fewer still are prepared to give additional instruction as the child grows older. For one to do this work successfully two qualifications are absolutely necessary. (1) Parents and teachers must have a moral qualification. They must regard the organs of sex and their functions as pure and sacred. If they have the taint of lasciviousness in their thoughts of the creative function, it would be a dangerous experiment for them to attempt to teach their children about the origin of life, or to give other instruction to those more advanced in years. The misinformation and false education they received in childhood and the consequent mock modesty, are the greatest difficulties in the way of their performing this sacred duty to their children. For this reason the adult classes are as much in need of correct instruction in sex as are the children. (2) Parents and teachers must have a mental qualification. One-fifth of the names referring to the organs of sex, their functions and their abuse, that adults are forced to use when they try to express their thoughts about sex, could not be found in the dictionary, and, one-half of those that could be found in the dictionary would not refer in their meaning, even remotely, to the sexual system. They picked up these words in childhood from ignorant schoolmates and companions whose minds were tainted with debasing thoughts of sex. The use of these vulgar words, in the presence of a boy who has heard them before, suggests to his mind that which is lascivious. Those who would teach these things, to the young or old, should be able to command a chaste, clean, plain, language. =How a father failed.=--During one of my courses of lectures, a cultured lawyer invited me to his office for an interview. He reproduced, in language and gesture as best he could, a speech he had made to his twelve-year old boy warning him of the dangers of the secret sin. I saw the lawyer was deeply interested in his boy. He loved him and was deeply concerned about his future. The language he used was the same he had learned when a boy and the same his boy had evidently heard on the playground. I question whether the father’s advice did his son much good. Here was a case where good service was neutralized by suggestive language.