An Outline of Sexual Morality Part 1

An Outline of s.e.xual Morality.

by Kenneth Ingram.

Introduction

Any honest inquiry into the Primal Instincts of humanity will necessarily lead to a clearer understanding of their nature, their functions, and their potentialities, and so will help to pave the way for the appearance of a healthier and happier race of men. The dictum "Learn to know yourself," inscribed on the Temple of Apollo at Delphi, has never been of more vital importance, both individually and nationally, than it is to-day, and the various schools of modern psychological thought, which are steadily opening up those hitherto scarcely explored regions whence flow the springs of human actions, are gradually clearing away the ignorance which has been the real cause of so much disease and distress. The following chapters are to be welcomed particularly as an effort at the constructional reform of our treatment of one of our deepest and most powerful instincts. Even those who do not necessarily give a.s.sent to all the details in the line of argument therein pursued must surely approve the insistence upon the vital necessity of there being love in all s.e.x relationships.

The word "s.e.xual," though indispensable perhaps in such a book as this, invariably induces some measure of opposition by reason of the a.s.sociations which it calls up, and so is often replaced by the cognate adjective "racial," which emphasizes the wider aims of Race Preservation rather than the narrower matter of the reproduction of individuals. It is not a matter of curing individual immorality, not even of explaining it only, it is the greater matter of laying a sound foundation for a practicable social morality that is the object of consideration here. It is important that any such opposition should be neither hypocritical nor hyper-critical, for great national issues are at stake. Without the healthy mind there can be no healthy body, at any rate from the point of view of the community, and thus such a scientific inquiry as is set forth in these pages is definitely leading towards the production of a healthier nation.

The necessity of there being established a balance between an unlimited self-expression and a rigid self-repression is clearly indicated also, and the importance of self-control is not ignored here as it has been elsewhere, unfortunately, both as regards the individual's physical health and the weal of the community at large; for self-control is a vital essential in the health of a man just as it is a vital necessity for the continuance of a nation. The following pages contain information and suggestions which should tend to the formation of a wiser and more hopeful outlook over the problems of s.e.xual morality, and should therefore receive the careful consideration of all who have the interests of humanity at heart.

F. W. W. GRIFFIN M.A., M.D., M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P.

_March 1922_

Chapter 1: Apologia

I have been impelled to attempt this definition of s.e.xual morality for at least three reasons. The first is that, at this moment particularly, science is emphasizing the large responsibility which s.e.x a.s.sumes in our lives. We may think that Freud has overestimated this influence; nevertheless, all psycho-a.n.a.lysis tends to show that the s.e.x-force cannot be wholly repressed and that even with the most pa.s.sionless individuals s.e.x is the unconscious motive in a large percentage of their activities.

It is well therefore that we should have as clear a conception as possible as to the moral rights of this enormous factor in our lives.

Secondly, a handbook of this kind is perhaps the most convenient medium for defining my personal att.i.tude towards this problem. My own views are, of course, unimportant, but it so happens that I have often been asked, in private conversations, to define them. Now to summarize them to the extent which a casual conversation must almost necessarily entail, is difficult; and often, I suspect, I may have given a wholly wrong impression. I am anxious to set that right.

But my chief reason is the chaos of public opinion on this question. One is continually having this fact forced on one. Largely this is the result of transition and reaction. In England, the country to which I shall almost entirely confine myself, we have been enormously affected by that presentation of religion which has been called Puritanism. We have been steeped in the theology of Milton. All forms of religion--Catholic as well as Protestant--have been comparatively infected. When we speak of the "religious att.i.tude" towards any question, we find ourselves irresistibly considering the Puritan att.i.tude.

It is not, I think, unfair to define the influence of Puritanism as a tendency to regard all amus.e.m.e.nt with disfavour. The original Puritans were notoriously dour in their manner and their dress. It has been said that they attacked the sport of bear-baiting, because it gave pleasure to the onlookers, and not because it was painful to the bears. Sunday, on which the outward observance of religion was necessarily concentrated, became a day of complete abstention from worldly recreation. Puritanism might supply spiritual compensation, but anything which gave pleasure to the senses was essentially evil. Thus art and beauty were banished from religious services and sacred buildings. Not only was the stage an entrance to h.e.l.l, but a consistent Puritan like Bunyan prayed G.o.d to forgive him the sin of having played a game of hockey.

Puritanism had reached its zenith, not of intensity but of universality, by the latter half of the last century. Those of us who are old enough to have been Victorians were brought up on comparative doses of the Puritan medicine. Especially among the middle-cla.s.ses the history of every English family from the eighties till the War is extraordinarily similar; it consists of a series of emanc.i.p.ations. Our grandparents were almost entirely Puritan in their manner of living, our parents had compromised and extricated themselves to some degree, and our children have become almost wholly free. How many of us realize that up to the seventies it was quite improper for a lady to ride on the top of an omnibus?

In no instance was the effect of Puritanism stronger than on s.e.x. For s.e.x is pre-eminently inspired by a desire for pleasure, whether it be spiritual, emotional, or carnal. On this score alone it would have been marked out as a deadly evil. But there was a further indictment in the Puritan creed. According to the Miltonian interpretation Paradise had been lost on account of the s.e.x impulse; "original sin" was nothing more or less than the sense of s.e.x--the loss of s.e.xual ignorance. Accordingly the whole s.e.x-nature was regarded as evil, and s.e.x generally became a taboo, a closed subject to which no reference could be made. Victorian Puritanism often, indeed, suggests the ostrich burying his head in the sand--the attempt to remedy evil by pretending that it does not exist.

The effect of Puritanism on the Victorian was precisely this conformity of outward behaviour. It a.s.sumed that all men and women were innocent, and that, except in marriage, s.e.x played no part in life. It pretended they were innocent, and it made them only respectable. Parents would often refrain, on the plea that innocence must not be disturbed, from teaching their children anything about s.e.x. So impure and evil a subject must not be referred to. Such unpleasant problems as venereal disease must be hidden out of sight, although prost.i.tution and venereal disease continue to flourish. The Victorian, in fact, carried out the Puritan doctrine that all s.e.x is evil, by outwardly pretending that, unless married, he possessed no s.e.xual instinct. Actually he was no more inclined to abstention than any other human generation has been.

Indeed, we do not find any evidence that Puritanism succeeds in carrying its anti-s.e.x theories into practice. In South Wales, for example, where Puritanism has established a particular stronghold, s.e.xual laxity is peculiarly marked.

The reaction from Puritanism, especially in regard to s.e.x, has been precipitated and exaggerated by the Great War. We have therefore in modern society two opposing policies. Among those who have thrown over all "religious" observance and have freed themselves entirely from Puritanism, there seems to be a complete absence of any moral s.e.x-standard. We can appreciate that impa.s.se if we consider the inability of the s.e.x-novel or play to suggest any form of conduct which is immoral. Those who still adhere to organized religion continue to look at s.e.x largely through Puritan spectacles. The "fallen woman" or the convicted clergyman is genuinely regarded as being guilty of the most d.a.m.ning of all offences.

The s.e.xual laxity of the neo-Georgian is used as a convincing argument that once the Puritan view is abandoned, complete anarchy is the only alternative. Religious teachers continue to preach what many of them would deny to be Puritan doctrine, but what I hope to prove belongs peculiarly to that aspect of Christianity. And meanwhile the "non-religious world"

p.r.o.nounces the opposite extreme.

It is because I believe both these att.i.tudes to contain error, that I am anxious to contribute the foundation for some principle in the current deadlock.

Chapter 2: Official Att.i.tudes towards s.e.x

It will now be convenient to define the chief collective or official att.i.tudes towards s.e.x. In a mere outline such as this handbook professes to be, we may divide these att.i.tudes into three, and label them the popular att.i.tude, the legal or State att.i.tude, and the religious att.i.tude.

With the popular att.i.tude we have already largely dealt. It is still in a transitory, confused state, merging at one end into the old Puritan extreme, and at the other to mere negativism, mere opposition to Puritan asceticism, and without even an attempt to reconstruct a moral standard.

This perhaps is an inevitable stage in any transition; but it is none the less unsatisfactory. Man cannot succeed without a standard; and moreover we know intuitively that all things are not morally permissible. If there is purity and beauty and divinity in life, there must be impurity and sin.

Will it be considered an exaggeration if I say that it is almost better to have a Puritan standard than none at all? The Roundhead at least was more than a match for the Cavalier because he had a positive inspiration.

But there is one common feature in this chaos of evolving popular opinion.

The vulgar mind tends to measure morality by what is usual. The sins which most men commit are regarded as hardly evil; the acts which may not be evil, are regarded as sins if they are peculiar. Thus an occasional lapse from continency on the part of a young man is popularly regarded as not very reprehensible, whereas the perpetrator of some weird act of b.e.s.t.i.a.lity would be hounded to prison. The flaw in this estimate is not only that the normal standard varies in race and age, but that there is no single human s.e.x nature; there are infinite varieties. To condemn variety _per se_ is, as we shall presently observe, a contradiction of the laws of nature.

The gradual emanc.i.p.ation of society from the taboo on s.e.x in conversation is an undoubted gain. We owe such men as Bernard Shaw a debt of grat.i.tude for the way in which they have forced s.e.x reference into the play, and therefore on public notice. But if this is to result in eliminating s.e.x modesty it is creating evils greater than those which it seeks to remove.

I will not here embark upon a consideration of such a theory as that which has been interestingly propounded by Mr. Westermarck, namely that there is a relationship between s.e.xual modesty and the feeling against incest.[1]

I will only insist that modesty is natural in all qualities which we regard as sacred.

If we are modest about s.e.x in our conversation to the extent of placing a taboo on s.e.x, and allowing s.e.xual problems to remain unsolved, or in letting our children confuse innocence with ignorance, we are on indefensible ground; indefensible, I think, because our modesty is based on the Puritan doctrine that s.e.x is at heart an unclean thing. I wish especially to defend modesty because s.e.x is so clean. We do not want to vulgarize by public reference our most spiritual experiences, our sense of love, our feeling of exaltation in the presence of what is beautiful and divine. We speak of these things only at more sacred moments, if at all.

We must be careful, too, lest in a reaction from taboo we allow science to rob s.e.x of its romantic and divine character. We have carefully to preserve the centre of gravitation between two extremes. We should look askance at a man who collected in a gla.s.s bottle, and a.n.a.lysed, his mother's tears.

In this connexion it may be well to call attention to the inconsistency of the male in making the s.e.x-act a subject for humour. Whatever our religious belief, we know that the s.e.x-act is the means of procreation, and is, for this reason alone, a sacred function. It seems inconsistent, therefore, that we should so persistently treat it as a mark for ridicule.

The second general att.i.tude is that of the State, or legislature. Here we find ourselves in the presence of a consistent motive. The State is concerned only with the preservation of the birth-rate; any s.e.x behaviour which defeats this object it regards as immoral and punishable. The State cannot interfere so far with individual privacy as to punish masturbation or artificial means of restraint; but it does go to the extent of punishing "unnatural" acts between husband and wife,[2] and in America, the State has even penalized the activities of the neo-Malthusian propaganda. All s.e.x abnormalities are rigidly punished, whereas the procreation of children outside wedlock is not a legal offence.[3]

This is a consistent att.i.tude, but it suggests one serious flaw. Whatever may have been the case in early days when an increase of population was essential, there can be little doubt that to-day that necessity has diminished. Indeed, without entering into the Malthusian controversy, it is almost impossible to deny that at the moment we are suffering largely from over-population. Consequently, whatever opportunist policy may dictate, we cannot poise our estimate of morality on so shifting a basis as the needs of population. Instinctively we cannot a.s.sociate morality in anything with the legal att.i.tude. There are many acts even outside the s.e.x sphere which most of us would consider immoral, but which are unpunished by law, and others which are illegal but are not immoral; it is immoral to lie, but unless we lie on oath there is no State offence; it is punishable to ride a bicycle without lights after dark, but we are conscious of no moral delinquency in so doing.

The third att.i.tude is that of religion. We have already discussed the Puritan att.i.tude and the manner in which it has permeated our unconscious religious thought. In the Anglican marriage-service there appears at first sight to be some endors.e.m.e.nt of the theory that the s.e.x-act is unclean and is only permitted in marriage as a concession to human weakness.[4] This doctrine owes its derivation to St. Paul, although it is important to notice that St. Paul specially emphasizes that he is not speaking ex-cathedra: "I say therefore to the unmarried and widows it is good for them to remain even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn."[5]

These words will probably be used as an argument against the statement that it is a specifically Puritan doctrine to regard the s.e.x-act as unclean. It will be urged that the early Christian Church, as shown by the writings of the Fathers, discouraged marriage and upheld celibacy as the ideal. I hope, in a moment, to differentiate between the Catholic and the Puritan doctrine. But more immediately we will consider what I have broadly defined as the Puritan att.i.tude.

The flaw in the argument that the s.e.x-act is by nature unclean and must be suppressed, even though in marriage it may be legitimized, is that it is the ordained means of procreation. Further than this, we have the inevitable fact to face that the s.e.x-instinct in normal persons is so strong that it can only with great difficulty be suppressed, and then results in an outflow of s.e.x activity in what we usually know as non-s.e.xual channels. Often this suppression will find its vent in mental dislocation and general nervous irritability. But without a.n.a.lysing these complex symptoms, it is sufficient to ask those who admit the control of G.o.d, why G.o.d created the s.e.x impulse in order that it should be obliterated.

Directly we move away from this strict doctrine to the modified popular expression of it, we find that the position is becoming more intelligible but less logical. It is consistent to regard all s.e.x as evil. But when the average Christian, while denouncing adultery as a sin, insists on copulation in marriage as its consummation, a difficulty arises which must not be ignored. Here, in adultery, is a sin which is so serious in the eyes of Christian men, that it can never be redeemed; the stigma of impurity remains for ever on the offender. Yet this same act, if only committed under the regulation of marriage becomes not merely something permissible, but the essential act of consummation, the divine method of procreation. One can understand how an act, good in itself, can become a sin because it is performed under impermissible circ.u.mstances. But it is difficult to conceive of an act changing its integral nature, so that at one moment it is a necessary virtue, and at another the basest vice. It is, for instance, legal for a soldier to kill an enemy in battle, while it is a crime for one civilian to kill another; but the act of killing is _per se_ an evil thing, even in the case of a soldier. It never becomes so exalted as is the s.e.x-act in marriage.

The Catholic doctrine, however, while at first sight it appears to be identical with the Puritan, is actually quite distinct.

For one thing there is a difference of att.i.tude towards sin. Puritanism seems to suggest that those who have been "converted" are actually perfect. It insists that they shall keep up this outward appearance, and consequently ensures that their sins must be committed secretly. They are then sufficiently perfect to ascend, after death, direct to Heaven.

Catholicism, however, is continually recognizing that man is normally a sinner; the confessional is a public recognition of this fact. Catholicism therefore approaches the question of s.e.x with the expectation that man will sin, that the probability of his fall is so great as to make it unnecessary and undesirable to hide all traces of his sin from public view. The Puritan att.i.tude towards s.e.x is really that of the prude. The Catholic Church is so ready to talk about s.e.x in a decent manner that she provides the confessional as a permanent inst.i.tution.

When we turn to the Catholic att.i.tude towards s.e.x we are faced indeed with two significant dogmas which make up a position fundamentally distinct from that of Puritanism. The first of these is the doctrine that marriage is a sacrament, and the second that the _esse_ of the marriage is the consent of the parties.

The significance of the first is that marriage is not merely a licence whereby an unclean act is permitted as a sop to human weakness. The s.e.x function, as the integral part of marriage, is acknowledged to be an actual objective of divine grace.

The significance of the second doctrine is that wherever two people eligible to give consent, give it, there is the essence of marriage. Few non-Catholics realize that though the Church normally requires the ecclesiastical and civil regulations to be observed, she does not profess to marry the two persons; she merely p.r.o.nounces a blessing on their marriage. She may make conditions before she will give her blessing or even her witness to the validity of the marriage; but she recognizes that a marriage may be just as valid on a desert island as in a cathedral.[6]

And hence she really regards adultery, not as does the Puritan, but as an act which should be sacramental but has been prost.i.tuted by the absence of the love-motive, or by becoming promiscuous rather than constant. s.e.xual union may even itself be of the nature of a marriage, and it is significant that the Church has always insisted on the right of parents subsequently to legitimize children born out of wedlock; it is the English law which has forbidden that privilege.