Search

This article replies to a comment of Professor Earl Lomon Koos of University of Rochester in New York City on Professor Harman R. Lantz's analysis of problem areas in marriage education in the U.S. in 1953. Lantz was grateful to Koos for his comments. Still, Lantz believed that persons trained primarily in the science of human behavior fail in their total effectiveness when they become bogged down with household arts, life insurance programs and the technical details of sexual anatomy and physiology. The human behavior scientist can deal with the above areas on the level of value, role and attitudinal conflict. Further, the heretical hypothesis that an intellectual knowledge of sexual anatomy and physiology has very little to do with sexual adjustment or compatibility, the latter basically are social psychological phenomena. Finally, Lantz was sure that one can infer aspiration to middle class patterns from college attendance. Many of lower class students have emotional vested interests in earlier class patterns that are integral parts of their personalities. One must take increasing cognizance of the frame of reference from which students view family life. Differences between students and teachers in this regard are frequently in evidence.