[Sidenote: Many women do not need reasons.]
Many women who have lived protected lives have declared themselves
unable to understand why a young woman should need reasons for
pre-marital continence; and these women are probably right so far as
the great majority of the daughters of families in good social
conditions are concerned. As pointed out in earlier lectures, there is
abundant evidence that the average adolescent girl who is protected
against external sexual stimuli and influenced constantly by the
prevailing ideals which demand chastity of women, is not likely to need
any arguments why she should avoid pre-marital incontinence. Moreover,
there seems to be little danger that the average girl with good social
environment will ever question her ideals of chastity unless under the
stress of overwhelming affection; in other words, there is little
possibility that such women will be interested in the strictly
mechanical, non-affectionate, and unsentimental sexual relations which
must inevitably characterize the common prostitution of men.
[Sidenote: Unprotected girls.]
Note that I am referring to the average young woman in good social
environment, and for the moment omitting the vast class of so-called
"unprotected" girls. Moreover, I am speaking of the "average," and I am
not forgetting that medical journals and books record many exceptions.
Nevertheless, we must not be misled by medical literature, for
naturally the physician sees the women whose lack of health leads them
to seek professional advice, and it is well known that in sexual lines
women commonly become decidedly unhealthy before they consult
physicians. As testimony concerning the average normal women, I have
the greatest confidence in the statements of thoughtful women with
sound scientific attitude; and such are my authority for the view that
maintaining pre-marital continence is not one of the serious problems
for the average young woman with good domestic and social environment.
Now, while I admit in advance that the problem of pre-marital
continence is not of great significance in the personal lives of the
great majority of the type of women who are likely to hear or read this
lecture, I do believe that this is the type of women who ought to think
over the problem as it concerns the atypical girl of good social groups
and the "unprotected" girl of more unfortunate groups. I cannot see,
therefore, why it is not best and safest that all girls should learn
from parents or reliable books or teachers the main reasons for
pre-marital chastity.
[Sidenote: The girl who needs help.]
The atypical girls of good social groups who need guidance regarding
pre-marital continence are of two types: either one with intensive
sexuality which is often modifiable by medical or surgical treatment;
or one of probably normal instincts but with radical sexual philosophy.
The first type needs not only emphatic instruction regarding
continence, but more often medical help, either for general health or
for correction of localized sexual disturbance. The second type must be
treated exactly as suggested for young men, because they are the women
whose anarchistic repudiation of laws and convention in general has led
to their acceptance of a _single_ standard of morality for men and
women, but one of freedom from monogamic ideals. This type of women,
long well known in the student groups of Paris and in Russian
universities, is becoming more and more evident in America, especially
among some well-educated young women who have dropped their ideals of
chastity because they have found attractiveness in more or less
superficial studies of radical socialism. Many of these radical women
frankly say that they would like to marry the "right man," but failing
to find that rare species, they claim their right to sexual freedom in
more or less capricious liaisons. Others of these women are so highly
individualized that marriage is beneath their contempt, either because
it will "interfere with a career" or because the legal aspects and
ecclesiastical ceremonies still suggest the old-time subjection of the
wife to the husband. Women who are in a position to know from personal
knowledge of radical people declare that there are still relatively few
educated women who deliberately cut loose from monogamic standards; and
that they are most commonly found among certain intimate and
unconventional groups of students and professional workers, especially
those who are united in "Bohemian life" by artistic or literary
interests. But while such sexually anarchistic women are not common in
America, there is reason for fearing that, unless some unexpected check
comes to this undercurrent towards sexual freedom, it may be found ten
or twenty years hence that a surprisingly large number, but _never a
majority_, of unmarried young women have fallen into the sexual
promiscuity that is so common among unmarried men of the same ages.
[Sidenote: Radical sex literature.]
Chief of the influences that lead a certain number of well-educated
young women towards sexual freedom is radical printed matter. We are
now getting in America a wide distribution of bold literature of the
"free love" type, some of it with a scientific superficiality that
will convince many beginners in the study of sexual problems. Much of
this literature is translation or adaptation of books and articles by
European authors; and I have previously remarked that abroad the ideals
of sexual morality--and judging from the Great War, of morality in
other lines--is frankly quite different from that upheld here. But some
of this radical literature is American in origin. In addition to
certain books and pamphlets, which might be advertised by giving names,
I think of two New York medical journals, with a popular circulation,
edited by a successful but much criticized physician, which rarely
publish an issue without frank approval and even arguments for
extra-marital relations other than prostitution, particularly for those
who for one reason or another, unwelcome or voluntary, are leading
celibate lives. The influence of such writings on young women who are
inclined towards radicalism in all things is probably enormous, and it
is unfortunate that vigorous opposition literature is not published and
widely circulated.
[Sidenote: Same instruction as for men.]
In conclusion, it is clear that the problem of pre-marital continence
is not limited to young men, for the "unprotected" girl from a
low-grade home and environment, and the uninformed girl from the best
of homes, and the radical girl from the most educated circles may,
innocently or deliberately, select the pathway to unchastity. For these
kinds of young women the educational problem is the same as for young
men. They should have essentially the same instruction. And, in the
case of both sexes, it is only by contrasting the good and evil that
education can point out the worth-whileness of chastity.
[Sidenote: Indirect responsibility.]
There is a special aspect of the problem of pre-marital chastity of men
that young women should understand, and that is their indirect
responsibility for the unchastity of many men. In discussing dancing
(Sec. 35) and extreme dress (Sec. 36), it has been indicated that women
as a sex have a tremendous responsibility for the temptations of men. The
same is true in the case of flirting or more extreme familiarities with
men. However sure a young woman may feel of her own power of
self-control, she should not consider lightly her possible part in a
chain of events which may lead men to unchastity with other women. Many
a man driven into the white heat of passion by thoughtless or
deliberate acts of a pure girl has gone direct to seek relief of
tension in the underworld. Of course, the girl in this case is not
directly responsible for the downfall of the man; but I wonder if there
is not moral, if not legal, responsibility for one who knowingly leads
or helps another to the brink of a precipice from which he voluntarily
falls.
I am perfectly well aware that many good people will be horrified by
the very suggestion that young women should be taught their
responsibility for their men associates. Some will declare that the
advocates of sex-education propose to destroy the innocence and romance
in young women's lives. Others of the horrified ones will remain
complacent because they believe that unchastity is caused by "innate
depravity" of men. I am sorry to disagree with such people who are
sincere, but the established facts point clearly to the conclusion that
it is the duty of the mothers and teachers of girls to make them
understand their relations to men and their responsibility for helping
young men avoid sexual temptations. This is necessary when innocence
stands in the way of the maximum safety and happiness of young people.