Sex--The Unknown Quantity Part 13

We can almost hear the storm of protest which the righteous reader may feel in duty bound to let loose at such a suggestion, if for no other reason than that protest is the accepted way of proving one's own virtuous tendencies.

In the early seventies, a woman named Virginia Woodhull brought down upon her defenseless head the un-Christian-like abuse of the Christian public by announcing a doctrine which seems to have been nothing more dreadful than that of an equal standard of morality for men and women.

The poor woman died broken-hearted, it is said; and yet nothing that we can unearth regarding her personal life and habits would seem to have warranted the cruel gibes that were hurled at her. The dear old lady lived a most continent, even ascetic life.

But the world has made rapid strides since that time, and we trust that the urgent need of something reasonable and feasible upon the s.e.x question will inspire the reader to an unprejudiced review of this chapter. We would that it were possible to supply a modic.u.m of understanding with each copy of this volume; but since it is not, we must take our chance with the average. Let us reason together:

Expediency is the mother of morality in social organizations, which have, of necessity, unstable, ever-changing standards. These standards represent, for some, ideals yet to be attained; while for others they become mere mileposts on the path of Evolution. The individual reaches, and then pa.s.ses, an accepted ideal; gradually when a sufficient number, const.i.tuting a majority, have reached this ideal, it ceases to be a standard for the social organization, and another ideal is subst.i.tuted.

The laws of the cave-man called for self-restraint exercised toward his own immediate clan, and this necessity for self-restraint was based upon nothing higher than the law of self-preservation; but gradually the sphere widened; from clan to nation. So do our ethical and moral standards enlarge. Traditional concepts are not necessarily wrong, but they are almost sure to be inadequate to evolving Mankind.

Formerly, s.e.xual morality consisted of the reservation of the person of a sister to the use of her brothers. Any infringement upon this moral code was punished by death to the woman and to her out-clannish lover.

And we have today an a.n.a.logous example, although we are glad to say, it is not the highest standard; still, if one's husband or wife violates the marriage vows, it is more condonable, if the co-respondent be of the wealthy cla.s.s; and in monarchies it is accounted an honor to have been selected as the king's favorite.

The inst.i.tution of prost.i.tution which exists everywhere today has its standards in the different countries; and the white races seem to think that their morality is superior to that of the Orientals because the social standing of prost.i.tutes in the Orient is not irretrievably lost; they are permitted, in the event of marriage, to resume social equality with other women. Among white people, prost.i.tutes have no other recourse than to sink lower and lower, until utter degradation is reached.

We believe that the Oriental view of the situation is a far higher standard of morality than is our Occidental att.i.tude.

If there can lawfully be such an organization as is now being proposed as desirable in large cities, namely, a "morals police," it certainly should be instigated by a more sane purpose than that which is at the root of our present police guardianship.

Attempts at suppression of prost.i.tution have hitherto been conducted on the principle that the women of that cla.s.s are objectionable to the sight of our mothers and sisters and wives, and the sinfulness of the hopelessly "fallen" ones has been the theme of press and pulpit. And all the time the women of the half-world have resented this att.i.tude as being unjust, and unfair, and hypocritical, and untenable. They have known that if the act of selling their bodies to men is a crime against the community, then more than half the feminine world is criminal. And they have contended that since the "respectable" women were neither contacted nor exploited by them, they cannot see wherein they offend society, provided the laws of sanitation and segregation are complied with.

In other words, they have said that it is none of Society's business whether they sell themselves to one man or to a number, since they must pay the penalty. And their att.i.tude is relatively right. It is none of Society's business whether a woman is a prost.i.tute or not, considered as an offense against Society. That is the wrong att.i.tude toward this condition of our social disorder.

No prost.i.tute offends you or me. She, poor creature, offends herself, and we offend her and ourselves by permitting social conditions that make for such degradation. We are conniving with her to barter her birthright of freedom and real love for food and shelter, and taint and tinsel, whenever we encourage marriage on any other ground than that of true love, and when we regard virtue as a matter of physical contact.

If we judge from the many plays which we see on the boards; if we are influenced by the press and the pulpit; we must acknowledge that the general idea of s.e.xual morality is an absurd one. The inference is that one special organ of a woman's physical body is the sole custodian of all virtue and all morality. The accepted idea seems to be that if a woman is married her body is then the property of her husband. Her emotions, her mind, her heart, her happiness, her preferences do not count for anything. The one act is made all-important. On the husband's side, if he provides for his wife and family, he is justified in exacting the sole right to the wife's body, and although his own heart and caresses may be given to another, he justifies himself, and the wife not infrequently feels satisfied, as long as he provides well for her. What is this but prost.i.tution? The principle is the same as in the case of the recognized prost.i.tute, although the conditions are easier for the woman, and less cheapening of her womanhood, but the difference is only in degree.

Now, a singular idea of fidelity, a direct ant.i.thesis to the one just mentioned, prevails among prost.i.tutes, when married either by law or by selection.

They may surrender their physical body to another, for money, and according to their idea they may yet remain true to the husband or lover, because the matter is a business transaction. The other man has only what he has purchased, namely, the physical body. But should the woman permit another man to arouse in her a s.e.xual response; should another invade her mind, absorb her thoughts, or engage her heart, the husband is outraged and the woman realizes her unfaithfulness.

All of which goes to show that up to the present time s.e.xual morality has in itself no absolute uniform standard by which it can be measured and satisfactorily and convincingly presented to all persons, as have other phases of morality, such as honesty, justice, mercy, generosity, friendship, fidelity to country, and self-sacrifice to the good of humanity.

And although all these moral qualities have their bearing upon s.e.xual morality, they do not establish a uniform ideal of s.e.xual morality.

Honesty is honesty whether in Paris, London, Calcutta, or Pekin, but as has been previously observed, s.e.xual morality is determined by local conditions.

Can there, then, be established a universal standard of s.e.xual morality? There can, but its universal acceptance is a remote probability, albeit it will arrive some day.

First of all, the s.e.x relation must be absolutely free from sale; coercion; or barter; whether within the respectable "sale" of matrimony or of recognized prost.i.tution. It must be free from any erroneous idea of marital duty; it must be exalted, reverenced, deified, in all its aspects, from the impregnation of a plant, to the s.e.xual embrace of human lovers.

An Utopian dream it appears, if we note but one side of the picture.

If we consider the lightness with which so many men look upon the physical form of women; and if we realize the att.i.tude of so many women toward men, in their conflict with life, using the age-old dowry from mother Eve, of s.e.x, as a weapon of defense and of offense; if we listen to the ribald songs that offend our ears and nauseate our souls, not only in music-halls and on the streets, but in supposedly cultured homes; and above all if we contemplate the uncleanness of mind displayed by those who are really in earnest in their endeavor to uplift the moral tone of the world.

These latter are, by far, the worst enemies to the Regeneration of s.e.x. A wise man once said, "Save me from my friends; I can protect myself against my enemies"--and so it is in this instance.

Most "Civic-Leaguers" and members of "Vice-Commissions" (why that name, anyway?) are infected with the bacteria of s.e.x-degradation.

They really require a lengthy process of mental disinfection, before attempting to handle so delicate a problem as this one of s.e.xual uplift.

A woman member of a Young People's Civic League of the second largest city in the United States recently declared in public print, of the beautiful and chaste painting "September Morn," that it was "lewd, filthy, and suggestive of unclean things." This type of woman is intrusted with the task of teaching youthful minds; polluting them with the blasphemous affirmation that the Creation of the Father-Mother G.o.d of the universe is "lewd and filthy!"

Let us get this truth implanted in our mentality, as it is inrooted in our souls, namely:

s.e.x is always the purest, the holiest, and the most sacred thing in the universe--because G.o.d is Him-Her-Self, bi-s.e.xual. The righteousness of it cannot be determined by so fickle a thing as man's customs; cannot be dependent upon mortal laws. This statement, indisputable as it is, will nevertheless start a chain of thought which may lead to confusion; and it is because of this tendency to confusion that the real issue is so frequently avoided. But let us see if we may not dispel the confusion by a system of logical deduction.

One thing is certain. The present condition of the s.e.x-problem is sadly chaotic. If we cannot hope to clarify it to the comprehension of the average, we may at least do so for some.

One of the first objections to the acceptance of the statement that the s.e.x relation is, per se, always right, will be found in the conclusion to which the average mind immediately jumps: "Ah, then it is right for men and women who are depraved and licentious to live as they do; it is right for husbands and wives to deceive each other, and while pretending to be faithful to their marriage vows, to secretly carry on flirtations and intrigues with other men and other women!"

Ask one hundred men or one hundred women this question: "Is the s.e.x-relation right or wrong?"

The men will declare that it is "right sometimes and wrong sometimes."

The women, almost as a unit, will do the same. Occasionally a woman will be found sufficiently illumined to give a sane answer.

Following up the thoughtless answer with the request to ill.u.s.trate, and the reply will be something like this: "Well, if people are married it is right, but if they are not married it is wrong;" and even as this silly answer is given, the person answering knows that it is puerile; but since the Public Mind prefers hypocrisy to Truth, few have the temerity, and fewer yet have the capability, to utter Truth.

It would be as sensible to say that it is right for the sun to shine sometimes and wrong for it to shine some other times. It is right for the sun to shine. This is all the answer that there is, and all that is needed.

Whether the sunshine bestows life and health, or decay and death, is entirely "up to us." The sun does its part. It is fulfilling the inexorable law of Nature, and is therefore right.

But of even greater importance in the universe is this law of s.e.x. The law is forever and always right. Our concept of it may be right or it may be diseased. As a matter of fact it is, in all too many cases, diseased. If it were not, there would be no disease in the world.

How is it possible to have a perfect flower--a healthy, normal and wholesome sprout from a diseased root?

The root of all life is s.e.x. We have thought disease into it, and the only remedy is to change our thought toward the function. This may be done by realizing that the s.e.x-relation is always pure, holy, sacred--the bi-une G.o.d of the universe. This statement is quite different from saying that people are always right or sacred in their s.e.x-relations.

To say that the s.e.x-relation is always right under the inst.i.tution of marriage and always wrong outside of it, is a lie. A lie cannot bring back health to either a person or a principle. Truth is the only thing that can make us whole--and the first office of Truth, as everyone knows, is to make us free. We cannot be whole until we are free, and the essential thought to be free from, is an attempt to keep alive the lie that the righteousness of s.e.x, per se, depends upon marriage.

Does the libertine believe in the sacredness of s.e.x? Never. Does the prost.i.tute claim for herself spotless purity? If she did, she would not sell herself for money.

Do men and women who are living in secret unfaithfulness hold exalted ideals of s.e.x?

If they did, they would not maintain a life of deceit.

These people live as they do, because they have divorced s.e.x from love. They agree absolutely with the blind "moralists" who regard s.e.x as a human plaything--something which may be called bad one day and good the next, according to whether it is viewed from afar or near.

Does anyone imagine that when Society shall have established the "one standard of morality" replacing the double standard which now persecutes the woman only, for infringement upon Society's one demand, that of concealment, that the answer to s.e.x-degradation will have been found?

A single standard is an improvement upon the old habit of stoning the woman only and letting the man go free. But why stone anybody?

History fails to record a single instance where Society has succeeded in improving either itself or its victims by the procedure. The best that can be said of the stoning habit is that it distracts attention from ourselves.

Persons who hold exalted ideas of the function of s.e.x, realizing that a force so eternal and universal must be disa.s.sociated from man-made regulations, are not in danger.

Such as these will not foster deceit nor profligacy, any more than they will cringe and crawl under the lash of Society's disapproval, should they encounter it. They know that if they would find the highest good, they must serve Truth first of all, no matter how high the price of such devotion.