[456] This brings me to a point to which I referred: family^a and sex^b. Most of these things are produced NOT DIRECTLY by ministers, churches^c, public opinion, but the SEEDS almost always go back to the family, because in the family situation the first forming attempts are made and are more successful than any other later attempt for education^d--we should never forget this. It is not because [of] the special form of family life, it is not the bourgeois ideal of family life, with the authoritarian father (in Europe^e) and the authoritarian mother (in America) [laughter], but it is a natural structure, namely the immense dependence of the child, in earliest months and years, on the parents or their representatives. Therefore the forming power of the family relation is tremendous. Now in the family^f relation there are also implied the sex^g relations, first between the

parents and then between the parents and the children, in the way in which depth psychology^h has described that, to a great extent, the suppressive power of the parents, if it is the mother, preventing the sons from going to other women, to easily become homosexuals, to become unable to love another woman, because the bondage which is partly based on the authority situation, partly based on the sex-relationship of the son to the mother, is so strong that many, many--I know SO many psycho- analysts in this country, and the unanimous experience of them, whatever their theoretical attitude besides it is that the ruin of so many good boys--potentially good and able to develop their good

potentialities--is the bondage to a dominating mother and the INABILITY to get away from it. Now this of course can be enlarged to the father and the daughter, where we have very similar situations. And all these situations demand a complete revision, in the light of these discoveries,