Everything that we have up to the present said of ethics and the social
sense in general applies also to sexual ethics in particular. The
only essential thing is to discuss the matter without prejudice, and
to put aside the ancient traditions of mystagogy, dogma, and custom.
This should be comparatively easy when we consider our present-day
conventions, hypocritical as they are to the point of nausea, and the
manner in which they support the right of the stronger and other rank
abuses under the false cloak of morality.
In itself the sexual desire is neither moral nor immoral. It is simply
an instinct adapted to the reproduction of the species. The common
confusion of sexuality with immorality is, I repeat, entirely erroneous.
A man without sexual feeling must of course be extraordinarily “moral”
in his sex relationships, and yet he can be the greatest scoundrel
imaginable. His sexual coldness and indifference have not the smallest
ethical value.
According to the definition given above, we may classify every sexual
desire as ethically positive if it is of benefit to individuals,
to society, and especially to the race (that is, to posterity); as
ethically negative if it does injury to any or all of these; and as
ethically indifferent if it neither does injury nor is of any service.
At the same time we must observe the ethical gradation: (1) _the race_,
(2) _society_, (3) _the more intimate surroundings or family_, and (4)
the _individual self_.
When we come to examine the concrete cases more closely we find that
the circumstances attendant upon the gratification of the sexual
desire, and the consequences of this gratification, lead to conflicts
with morality far more frequently than does the sexual act itself.
In the first place even the normal reproduction of human beings
may become immoral, in that it may do injury to the race or to
individuals. Malthus pointed out this fact. Habitable space upon the
earth is limited, while, on the other hand, the procreative capacity
of mankind is unlimited. If unlimited reproduction is permitted, it
is possible that the existing space may be insufficient to meet the
needs of the enormous multitudes of men which must result. The latter
may then fall victims to famine and distress, as in the case of the
Chinese, or the rabbits of Australia; and only disease, starvation, or
slaughter can bring about a return to the normal condition. It must
be obvious to every unbiassed person that this is not _moral_. And
as there are harmless methods of regulating the number of births and
to some extent the quality of the offspring, the just and proper use
of these methods must be described as ethically positive. Everything
is moral which makes for the happiness and well-being of society;
everything immoral which prejudices or endangers it.
There can, however, be too few people in the world; and there is
everywhere a great dearth of men and women wholly sound in mind and
body, light-hearted, unselfish, industrious, persevering, intelligent,
able and yet well-intentioned, peaceable, and honest.
On the other hand, we have a monstrous superabundance of feeble,
sickly, mentally perverted, criminally disposed, idle, treacherous,
vain, crafty, covetous, passionate, capricious, and untrustworthy
individuals, whose claims upon others are inexhaustible, while their
own services to society are either valueless or actually harmful.
While the first-mentioned class produce far more than they consume,
it is appalling to think of the vast store of human energy and human
life which goes to waste in sick-rooms, lunatic asylums, hospitals,
and prisons. And if we look more closely we find outside these
institutions, and under no restraint, a still vaster army of human
sharks, who prey physically and mentally upon society, and are a burden
upon the industrious community. The greater number of these useless
pests owe their faults to an hereditarily defective constitution of the
protoplasmic germs which brought them into being; and therefore a sound
system of racial ethics demands rational selection in breeding.
Equally destructive, however, are external conditions and habits of
life, such as the use of alcohol, resulting as they do in paralysis
of energy, confusion of the mind, and degeneration of the cells
(blastophthory).
* * * * *
The _libido sexualis_, or sexual desire in mankind is infinitely
stronger than is necessary for the reproduction of the race. Man has no
breeding season; he is always ready for sexual intercourse. Although
the number of women in the aggregate only slightly exceeds that of men,
the male has usually an instinctive inclination to polygamy. Luther
accurately estimated the normal requirements of a healthy man in the
prime of life at on the average two to three sexual connections in
each week; and yet this is far in excess of what is necessary for the
procreation of children in a monogamous marriage. It is, moreover, well
known that a man can even considerably exceed the above number without
injury to his health, and there are women whose needs in this respect
are actually greater than those of men.
It therefore follows that the widespread artificial excitement of the
sexual desire from motives of sensuality is harmful from the standpoint
both of ethics and of social hygiene.
We cannot, it is true, be held responsible for a natural instinct
inherited from our ancestors. But we must seek to subdue this instinct
as far as possible, not to excite and stimulate it by artificial means.
Already there is more than enough purposeless, and therefore ethically
indifferent, sexual intercourse.
And yet Tolstoy is wrong in wishing to forbid this. As long as it does
no actual harm we must tolerate it, the more so because the happiness
of the individual and the cheerfulness with which he labours are so
often dependent upon the normal satisfaction of his instincts.
Within the limits indicated above, the gratification of the sexual
instinct, whether in the case of man or woman, is in itself ethically
indifferent, provided it does not result in the procreation of
children. We have already dealt with the ethical value of procreation,
which depends upon the nature of the results expected. And we are
therefore bold enough to declare that every sexual connection which
does not injure either of the two persons who take part in it, or any
third person, and which, moreover, can do no injury to the child which
may be engendered by it, is in itself ethically indifferent, and cannot
therefore be immoral.
We have certainly imposed considerable modifications in this sentence,
for it is possible for a perfectly normal sexual connection to do
untold injury, especially to the woman and the child she bears; so
that an act which is in theory not immoral may become so in practice,
or may give rise to grave moral conflicts. This often happens at the
present time as the result of our prejudices, established customs, and
unjust laws.
From the standpoint of sexual ethics the ideal marriage is undoubtedly
a monogamous union, resting upon mutual and enduring affection and
loyalty, and consummated by the birth of several children; a union in
which the husband may be from six to twelve years older than the wife,
and both must be robust in mind and body.
This ideal state of things is not as rare as our modern pessimists
would have us believe, but neither is it especially common. Moreover,
if this marriage is to reach that perfection which it can and must
attain, it must be completely free, that is to say, both parties must
be absolutely equal before the law, and no external compulsion other
than that of common obligations towards the children must bind them to
one another. To this end a complete separation of property, and a just
and proper valuation of every service performed by the wife as well as
the husband are of the first importance.
From the aforesaid it must by no means be inferred that every person is
to yield without restraint to his sexual desires. Unfortunately this
fundamentally false conception of free marriage and free love is at
the present time widespread, and it cannot be too vigorously combated.
In the first place, two persons are concerned in the sexual act, and
any exercise of constraint by one upon the other is immoral and even
criminal. The same holds true of every seduction.
Moreover, the highest freedom of man lies in his mastery of self. The
only man who is truly free is the man who is able to control his lower
instincts. The compulsion which must be exercised in a mutually happy
sex relationship conformable to ethical principle must, however, be no
external legal compulsion, but an inward self-repression. Fidelity in
marriage must be a matter of mutual trust and yet a matter of honour.
The State and the laws cannot compel it, and have never been able to do
so; external constraint begets only hypocrisy, strife, and treachery.
On the other hand the State and the law must, as time goes on, become
more and more adapted to the protection of the helpless offspring of
sex unions.
Both parents, in proportion to their fitness and ability, must be
made responsible for the support of their children. It is in the
highest degree immoral to make a distinction between legitimate and
illegitimate children, and so to expose them and their mothers to
public disgrace because of the fulfilment of a natural function. Is
it not senseless, from the standpoint both of ethics and of law, to
declare the existence of a child, and therefore of a human being, to be
legal or illegal, or to speak of “natural children,” as if the others
were unnatural! In what bureaucratic brain can such an idea have first
arisen? It is only a remnant of a barbarous code of morals, based upon
the grossest prejudice. Antiquity, alas, justifies everything――even
crime!
* * * * *
Every woman who is healthy and strong should be proud of becoming a
mother. If sexual intercourse were frankly and naturally treated as one
of the most important acts in human life, the paternity of the child
would be easily ascertainable. A woman should not wait until the birth
of the child before speaking of it, but should promptly make a formal
declaration as to its parentage to the registrar of births as soon as
she becomes aware of her pregnancy. This would be easily practicable
if all girls received proper instruction regarding the most important
function of their lives. Instead of this, everything is now concealed
from them, and they are brought up in gross ignorance of their sexual
nature and duties.
If every pregnancy were at once legally recognised in this way, and if
the law would determine the responsibilities of both parents towards
their offspring, untrammelled by marriage laws and with the well-being
of society as its only aim, the most pressing need of our time, from
the standpoint of sexual ethics, would be satisfied. A complete
equality can only be attained by naming all children after the mother.
This is, moreover, the only rational and just system. It was formerly
the custom among many primitive peoples.
None of these reforms, however, need in any way debar the formation of
voluntary marriage contracts. Such contracts are, indeed, distinctly
advisable, for the voluntary resolve of two people to remain faithful
to one another, and to build up a permanent home for their children, is
at once the best, truest, and most natural foundation of marriage.
But no one can foresee the future, and therefore simple facilities for
divorce must be provided in case it becomes intolerable or inexpedient
for the two persons to live together any longer. A divorce must take
place if one or both of the parties wish for it. The State and the Law
must only have the right to demand the fulfilment by the parents of
all obligations towards their children. Marriage contracts for a fixed
period are therefore as such not immoral. Such agreements have even
been recommended by the Christian philosopher Charles Secrétan, in his
book _Le Droit de la Femme_.
Sterile marriages, or other sex relationships, must be free. The law
has no concern with them as long as they do not involve injury to
any one’s property, health, or personal will. They are in themselves
ethically indifferent.
On the other hand, all sexual intercourse which is bought or sold,
such as marriage for money, the keeping of paid mistresses, and the
whole system of prostitution, is immoral, because it is corrupting and
devoid of love, and amounts simply to plunder by the aid of money.
Prostitution is a hotbed of sexual vices and abnormal practices. By
its means the sexual instinct is perverted and led astray into every
imaginable bypath, while women are degraded in the basest of all
slaveries.
Most repulsive of all, from the point of view of ethics, is the trade
in prostitutes known as the “white slave traffic,” with its criminal
devices for the enticement, intimidation, and seduction of young girls.
The traffic in waitresses for cafés and beer-gardens is often little
better. It is sad enough to reflect that these loathsome outgrowths
of sexual immorality often still enjoy the protection of the State,
and that many medical men defend their continuance under the pretext
of hygiene. It is just in this very respect that we see that social
hygiene and ethics are one and the same thing. Only the idiotic
one-sidedness of your specialist could declare such a monstrosity as
State-established prostitution to be hygienic. A system which makes for
the mental and physical ruin of the race cannot be hygienic, and the
delusion that by its aid men are protected from venereal disease is in
direct conflict with the actual facts.
Moreover, sexual intercourse which is bought and sold has no relation
to love. As a mode of gratifying the sex instinct it stands even lower
in the moral scale than the habit of self-abuse. And any man who makes
use of prostitution becomes an accomplice in creating this miserable
class of outcasts whom we speak of as “unfortunates.” In short,
whoremongery and prostitution are a social cancer, and therefore in
the highest degree immoral. They furnish an instance of the manner in
which money corrupts our whole civilisation. This corrupting influence,
with its robbery of one man by another, makes itself felt in every
department of life, and is exercised by every form of private capital.
The climax of immorality in the cult of Mammon is reached, however,
by the capital employed in maintaining the two great evils of alcohol
and prostitution, both of which act as bloodsuckers upon the vitality
of the individual, the race, and all that is holiest in men. These
two forms of capital work hand in hand, fashioning the goddess of
love in the likeness of a lewd, sordid harlot, with the man as at
once her ravisher and her victim. They are also the worst enemies of
our descendants, whose procreation is often undertaken in a moment of
intoxication, and whose lives are exposed to the risk of alcoholic
degeneration or venereal disease!
These, therefore, are the chief foes of sexual morality: the struggle
for wealth (as exemplified in the domination of private capital) and
the use of alcohol. Let us combat both in the name of ethics. “_In hoc
signo vincemus!_”
* * * * *
The following will, I hope, make my meaning still clearer.
In sexual ethics many diseases and abnormalities play, of course,
a great part. First of all there are the venereal diseases, and
particularly syphilis and gonorrhœa, which often destroy family
happiness and endanger the offspring. It is too often forgotten that
chronic gonorrhœa can poison marriage, and that decay of the spinal
marrow (locomotor ataxia) and the so-called softening of the brain
(progressive or general paralysis) are nothing else than a very late
result of syphilis, appearing from ten to twenty years after infection.
In a brief statistical discussion of the question, based upon medical
information, I have shown that seventy-five per cent of venereal
infections are acquired while in a state of alcoholic excitement. In
the vast majority of these cases the infection is communicated by
means of prostitution, which, as the result of the incredibly numerous
and varied sex relationships of the women, serves simply as a vast
manufactory of venereal diseases.
It is true that married women are often infected by their husbands
or lovers, but this is only a result of the previous visits of the
latter to houses of ill-fame. Hygiene and morals both suffer serious
injury in this way. Any one who is infected, and nevertheless has
sexual connection with a person not infected in the same way, commits
a basely immoral act, if not a crime. This is done, however, _daily_,
when the infection is concealed. Nay, more, the medical men who
officially visit and examine prostitutes are well aware that they can
at most only temporarily remedy a few of the worst symptoms, and that
they are powerless to cure the disease itself. In spite of this such
women are set at liberty once more to carry on their disastrous trade!
And very few prostitutes ever completely escape venereal infection.
These are the fruits of paid “love,” maintained chiefly by the
drinking habits of the present day. It is plain that the chief task of
sexual ethics must be the cleansing of this Augean stable. There are,
however, a host of other social evils of a similar kind, such as the
seduction and exploitation of waitresses, women factory workers, and
so forth. These abuses belong to the same domain and present the same
opportunities of infection.
* * * * *
The various perversions of the sexual instinct constitute another
prolific source of disaster. Most of these are hereditary, and
therefore inborn. We will only briefly mention sadism (the combination
of acts of cruelty and violence with sexual gratification), masochism
(sexual gratification combined with the passive endurance of similar
cruelty and violence), inverted sexual feeling (homosexuality),
fetishism (sexual attraction for inanimate objects), exhibitionism,
sodomy, etc.
The unfortunate people who suffer from these perversions are treated
unjustly and, for the most part, far too harshly. Perverse instincts
which injure no one when carried into practice (fetishism, for
example), are ethically indifferent and harmless, in that their
possessors, generally speaking, do not multiply. It is, however,
immoral for such persons to marry. Any one who suffers from an
hereditary perversion of the sex instinct should avoid marriage and all
procreation of children.
But if the pervert can only gratify his instinct by injuring other
people, he must be regarded as a dangerous lunatic, and placed under
curative treatment. There must, however, be no question of legal
punishment. The foregoing treatment is above all necessary in the case
of sadists (who frequently commit murder) and in that of persons of
unsound mind who violate children. Homosexual persons (i.e. men or
women whose sexual inclination is for their own sex) are, on the other
hand, comparatively harmless as long as they direct their attentions to
adults, and provided there is no seduction or use of compulsion. The
same holds good in the case of other perversions such as inclination
for animals. Our laws are still entirely at fault in these matters, and
inflict punishment upon the basis of ancient theological dogmas.
The case of perversions acquired by suggestion, evil example, or
frequent repetition is somewhat different. These latter are much more
readily curable.
Perverted sexual habits often arise from a craving for variety, or as
makeshifts adopted when the opportunity for normal sex intercourse is
denied. Our efforts must be directed towards removing these causes by
raising the general standard of social morals.
Religious morality has been the cause of untold mischief in this matter
of sexual perversions by representing as great sins and crimes actions
which are in reality the result of a diseased mental state.
The habit of self-abuse is also extremely variable in its origin. It
arises usually as a makeshift, but often as the result of evil example.
It may also (although less frequently) be inherited, or originate from
nervous trouble, while in other cases it is prompted by mechanical
causes (phimosis, worms, or gymnastic exercises). There is no greater
blunder than that of exaggerating its importance by representing
it as a horrible and extremely dangerous vice. It must be cured by
_pacification_ and soothing, by strengthening of the will, and in some
cases by providing the means of normal sexual intercourse (_not_,
however, by means of prostitution). This is the only proper treatment
of self-abuse, which is not as dangerous as is commonly maintained. In
this, as in all other cases, our conception of sexual ethics will point
out the right path.
* * * * *
Abnormalities of the brain or mind, especially constitutional
(hereditary) mental inferiorities, such as weakness of will-power,
moral idiocy (inherent lack of conscience), epilepsy, hysteria,
hypochondria, kleptomania, etc., together with all acquired mental
troubles, are the cause of innumerable sexual disorders and perversions;
of vices, crimes, and misdeeds of every description; of rapine and
seduction; of unhappy marriages, or rather hells upon earth; and of the
birth of countless doomed and wretched children.
Here we may see once again that ethics and social hygiene are at one.
Until now the theologians and the lawyers have treated these mental
conditions by denouncing them as deadly sins and imprisoning the
unhappy victims. This is disastrous to morality, to the unfortunate
persons themselves, and to society at large. Expert mental treatment
with a view to a fundamental cure is the first necessity.
Here, again, alcohol and narcotics in general are the stone which
sets the whole avalanche in motion. The use of alcohol produces
mental inferiorities by its corrupting influence upon the cells
(blastophthory), and many people whose weakness of mind is traceable to
this cause cannot resist its use, and so become dangerous inebriates.
Once more, it is the source and fountain of the evil that must be
stopped.
But there are other hereditary diseases and degeneracies of every kind,
not only of the brain, but of the whole body, such as the disposition
to tuberculosis, rickets, short-sightedness, and diseases of the blood,
all of which are related to sexual life and morals, because they are
all more or less injurious to the individual and to society.
If persons suffering from such diseases have children at all they must
proceed with the greatest caution, and they should always be instructed
as to the hereditary nature of their maladies and the risk of their
transmission.
And now can we not hear the dictates of a truly human moral code, based
upon the facts that we have just considered?
_It is true that we cannot change the present hereditary nature of
man, but it is none the less our duty, now that Science has revealed
this nature to us, to prepare for our posterity a greater degree of
happiness and a higher standard of social life than we now possess.
To this end we must first strive with all our might to destroy the
all-corrupting supremacy of private capital and wealth, with its
exploitation of human life and energy; and we must further combat the
use of all narcotic poisons, especially that of alcohol._
_We must not rest until these two deadly monsters are overthrown._
_In the sphere of sexual life we must endeavour to replace by truth
and justice the present-day hypocrisy which parades under the false
banner of “morality.” We must also restore to woman the same natural
and equal rights possessed by man._
_Moreover, we must no longer be content to remain indifferent and idle
witnesses of the senseless and unthinking procreation of countless
wretched children, whose parents are diseased and vicious, and whose
lives are for the most part destined to be a curse both to themselves
and their fellow-men._
_We must therefore recommend to all persons who are sickly or infirm in
body or mind, and especially to all suffering from hereditary ailments,
the use of means for the prevention or regulation of conceptions,[D]
so that they may not, out of pure stupidity and ignorance, bring into
the world creatures doomed to misery and misfortune, and predisposed to
disease, insanity, and crime._
[D] We refer, of course, to such preventive methods as are completely
harmless to the persons making use of them. Methods for the prevention
of _conception_, in general fulfil this condition.
_We must endeavour in this way to bring about a vast and universal
sterilisation of all worthless, incapable or diseased people, without
attempting to prohibit in an ascetic and impracticable manner the
gratification of their normal sexual instinct and their desire for
affection._
_The qualification for parentage must not be the possession of a
certain amount of money or property, but solely the social worth and
intrinsic hereditary qualities of the two individuals._
_The multiplication of all who are healthy, capable, and ethically fit
must be encouraged as far as possible._
_An excessive frequency of childbirths in the case of one woman must be
prevented and regulated by the use of the means mentioned above._
_In this way we shall carry out a true racial selection and prepare the
way for a better and happier Humanity. And so at last we shall have
brought our true sexual ethics into living being and reality._
* * * * *
=_Just Ready._= [Illustration] Royal 8vo, 550 pp.
Cloth. Price =21s.= net.