paradox of sex for modern man, who viewed sex as being the seat of happiness or, alternately, the seat of guilt, unworthiness, and sinfulness. He traced the Judeo-Christian tradition and then superimposed upon that the Victorian legacy. He felt that the Victorian legacy was worse, if anything, for it took the hypocritical attitude that sex would go away if you didn't talk about it. He said that one thing was better in the year 1961, if no other: we can talk about sex and write about it more freely than ever before.

There were other good things, though, he felt: that Woman had been granted a more equal role in sex and that there seemed to be greater tolerances of deviate sexual practices. He felt that a number of events had built up to this greater freedom and tolerance: 1. That the Industrial Revolution had emancipated women economically; 2. That there had been recently a Renaissance of Humanism which preached the Dignity of both Man and Woman; 3. As a psychiatrist, he could hardly leave out Sigmund Freud's contribution.

However, he said, there appeared to be a great paradox. In the midst. of what seemed to be much progress there is a continuing increase of neuroses of all kinds: homosexuality, frigidity, impotence, delinquency and divorce. He doubted that there was much improvement in the collective unconscious or subconscious which, in his opinion, still related sex to fear and guilt and sinfulness. He offered an interesting insight or theory on this paradox. He thought that the increased freedom had served to frighten many people more on on a subject that deeply troubled them. He said that it was our fortune, or misfortune, to be living in an Age of Transition. He said that there was a great demand that

sex should compensate for many inadequacies in other areas of life. He felt that there was an irrational over-expectation as to what a sexual "affair" could or should accomplish for a person.

Dr. Ziferstein continued that there is an increasing confusion and insecurity in people over their sexual identity. He felt that this was mostly due to the blurring of superficial lines of identity which people used to count on: namely dress and economic role. It has also become an increasingly competitive society. It is thought that you have to be "top dog" or you're worthless. There is an emphasis on status and things that show.

Consequently people come to him disturbed as to whether their sexual organs, or breasts, or whatever, are the right size; are adequate. And in the sexual realm there is competition for dominance also. Who is on top? The reactionaries wail, "Things are bad; they're getting worse; give us the good old days." Dr. Z. disagrees. We can't go back, even if we want to; and the good old days weren't so good, they were terrible.

Dr. Z. felt that what we had to do was to help families counteract sexual confusion in the home. He disagreed with Margaret Mead that men did too many feminine things. in the home, or were around the home too much. He felt that they weren't around enough and would like to see men become more equal partners in the rearing of their children. He felt that there was a need for more men teachers at the elementary school level where the small child was surrounded by women. We need to help the family create an atmosphere that stresses the primacy of better personal relations. Some may feel that this will unfit the child for the competitive struggle. Dr. Z. doubts this, but if it does he feels

15