THE HYGEINE OF MARRIAGE: LEARNING A NEW LANGUAGE-ETHNOLOGISTS VIEW

It may be absurd to think it obscene to uncover the mouthso the argument might runbut our moral code, which requires that the parts of the body connected with sex be concealed and words referring to them be inhibited, represents good common sense, since without these taboos our morals would disintegrate.
Ethnologists will not bear one out in this view. In the first place, it is true that much of what we call morality centers around these taboos, and therefore the elimination of the taboos would of course cause a large section of our morals to disintegrate or rather simply to vanish, as no longer necessary. But if the taboos are valueless, there will be no loss in the collapse of the supporting morality. In the second place, in so far as the "disintegration of morals" means a decrease in pre-marital chastity, the ethnologists are pretty well agreed, after making a survey of almost all the peoples of the earth, that there is no connection between the nakedness or frankness of speech and unchastity. Some of the peoples among whom dress is scant and who mention freely any parts or functions of the body have the most severe sexual code and are far more chaste than we. Only a little study of the customs and morals of other societies than our own will convince us that most of our inhibitions pertaining to sex are as irrational and useless as any of the examples of primitive taboos we have mentioned.
It would indeed be fortunate if we could conclude that all taboos are merely useless. Then there would be no harm done and no doubt much merriment produced by allowing all the tribes of men, including our own, to continue to set up their droll inhibitions on various portions of their anatomy, behavior and vocabulary. But the traditional taboos on sex are far from harmless. They have done and still are doing inestimable damage.