{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_34309/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_34309","id":"gutenberg_34309","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/34309","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Gender & Sexuality Studies","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Sexual ethics"],"text":"Produced by The Online Distributed Proofreading Team at\nhttp://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images\ngenerously made available by The Internet Archive/American\nLibraries.)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nAn Outline of Sexual Morality\n\n\n\n\n  An Outline of\n  Sexual Morality\n\n  Kenneth Ingram\n\n  _The Introduction_ by F. W. W. Griffin,\n  M.A., M.D., M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P.\n\n  Jonathan Cape\n  Eleven Gower Street, London\n\n\n\n  _First published 1922\n  All Rights reserved_\n\n\n\n\nAuthor's Note\n\n\nI am anxious to take this opportunity of thanking those friends who have\nhelped me by valuable suggestion and criticism in correcting the proofs of\nthis small book. In particular I desire to mention Canon Lacey and Dr.\nGriffin, and to apologize for the amount of time which I must have stolen\nfrom them.\n\nKENNETH INGRAM\n\n_March 1922_\n\n\n\n\nIntroduction\n\n\nAny honest inquiry into the Primal Instincts of humanity will necessarily\nlead to a clearer understanding of their nature, their functions, and\ntheir potentialities, and so will help to pave the way for the appearance\nof a healthier and happier race of men. The dictum \"Learn to know\nyourself,\" inscribed on the Temple of Apollo at Delphi, has never been of\nmore vital importance, both individually and nationally, than it is\nto-day, and the various schools of modern psychological thought, which are\nsteadily opening up those hitherto scarcely explored regions whence flow\nthe springs of human actions, are gradually clearing away the ignorance\nwhich has been the real cause of so much disease and distress. The\nfollowing chapters are to be welcomed particularly as an effort at the\nconstructional reform of our treatment of one of our deepest and most\npowerful instincts. Even those who do not necessarily give assent to all\nthe details in the line of argument therein pursued must surely approve\nthe insistence upon the vital necessity of there being love in all sex\nrelationships.\n\nThe word \"sexual,\" though indispensable perhaps in such a book as this,\ninvariably induces some measure of opposition by reason of the\nassociations which it calls up, and so is often replaced by the cognate\nadjective \"racial,\" which emphasizes the wider aims of Race Preservation\nrather than the narrower matter of the reproduction of individuals. It is\nnot a matter of curing individual immorality, not even of explaining it\nonly, it is the greater matter of laying a sound foundation for a\npracticable social morality that is the object of consideration here. It\nis important that any such opposition should be neither hypocritical nor\nhyper-critical, for great national issues are at stake. Without the\nhealthy mind there can be no healthy body, at any rate from the point of\nview of the community, and thus such a scientific inquiry as is set forth\nin these pages is definitely leading towards the production of a healthier\nnation.\n\nThe necessity of there being established a balance between an unlimited\nself-expression and a rigid self-repression is clearly indicated also, and\nthe importance of self-control is not ignored here as it has been\nelsewhere, unfortunately, both as regards the individual's physical health\nand the weal of the community at large; for self-control is a vital\nessential in the health of a man just as it is a vital necessity for the\ncontinuance of a nation. The following pages contain information and\nsuggestions which should tend to the formation of a wiser and more hopeful\noutlook over the problems of sexual morality, and should therefore receive\nthe careful consideration of all who have the interests of humanity at\nheart.\n\nF. W. W. GRIFFIN M.A., M.D., M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P.\n\n_March 1922_\n\n\n\n\nContents\n\n\nCHAPTER                                   PAGE\n\n   1. APOLOGIA                               7\n\n   2. OFFICIAL ATTITUDES TOWARDS SEX        13\n\n   3. THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF PURITY      23\n\n   4. CELIBACY                              31\n\n   5. NON-CELIBACY                          36\n\n   6. DIVORCE                               45\n\n   7. EUGENICS AND PROSTITUTION             52\n\n   8. THE HOMOSEXUAL TEMPERAMENT            60\n\n   9. THE SEXLESS CLASS                     76\n\n  10. SUPER-ABNORMALITIES                   78\n\n  11. SEX EDUCATION                         87\n\n\n\n\nAn Outline of Sexual Morality\n\n\n\n\nChapter 1: Apologia\n\n\nI have been impelled to attempt this definition of sexual morality for at\nleast three reasons. The first is that, at this moment particularly,\nscience is emphasizing the large responsibility which sex assumes in our\nlives. We may think that Freud has overestimated this influence;\nnevertheless, all psycho-analysis tends to show that the sex-force cannot\nbe wholly repressed and that even with the most passionless individuals\nsex is the unconscious motive in a large percentage of their activities.\nIt is well therefore that we should have as clear a conception as possible\nas to the moral rights of this enormous factor in our lives.\n\nSecondly, a handbook of this kind is perhaps the most convenient medium\nfor defining my personal attitude towards this problem. My own views are,\nof course, unimportant, but it so happens that I have often been asked, in\nprivate conversations, to define them. Now to summarize them to the\nextent which a casual conversation must almost necessarily entail, is\ndifficult; and often, I suspect, I may have given a wholly wrong\nimpression. I am anxious to set that right.\n\nBut my chief reason is the chaos of public opinion on this question. One\nis continually having this fact forced on one. Largely this is the result\nof transition and reaction. In England, the country to which I shall\nalmost entirely confine myself, we have been enormously affected by that\npresentation of religion which has been called Puritanism. We have been\nsteeped in the theology of Milton. All forms of religion--Catholic as well\nas Protestant--have been comparatively infected. When we speak of the\n\"religious attitude\" towards any question, we find ourselves irresistibly\nconsidering the Puritan attitude.\n\nIt is not, I think, unfair to define the influence of Puritanism as a\ntendency to regard all amusement with disfavour. The original Puritans\nwere notoriously dour in their manner and their dress. It has been said\nthat they attacked the sport of bear-baiting, because it gave pleasure to\nthe onlookers, and not because it was painful to the bears. Sunday, on\nwhich the outward observance of religion was necessarily concentrated,\nbecame a day of complete abstention from worldly recreation. Puritanism\nmight supply spiritual compensation, but anything which gave pleasure to\nthe senses was essentially evil. Thus art and beauty were banished from\nreligious services and sacred buildings. Not only was the stage an\nentrance to hell, but a consistent Puritan like Bunyan prayed God to\nforgive him the sin of having played a game of hockey.\n\nPuritanism had reached its zenith, not of intensity but of universality,\nby the latter half of the last century. Those of us who are old enough to\nhave been Victorians were brought up on comparative doses of the Puritan\nmedicine. Especially among the middle-classes the history of every English\nfamily from the eighties till the War is extraordinarily similar; it\nconsists of a series of emancipations. Our grandparents were almost\nentirely Puritan in their manner of living, our parents had compromised\nand extricated themselves to some degree, and our children have become\nalmost wholly free. How many of us realize that up to the seventies it was\nquite improper for a lady to ride on the top of an omnibus?\n\nIn no instance was the effect of Puritanism stronger than on sex. For sex\nis pre-eminently inspired by a desire for pleasure, whether it be\nspiritual, emotional, or carnal. On this score alone it would have been\nmarked out as a deadly evil. But there was a further indictment in the\nPuritan creed. According to the Miltonian interpretation Paradise had been\nlost on account of the sex impulse; \"original sin\" was nothing more or\nless than the sense of sex--the loss of sexual ignorance. Accordingly the\nwhole sex-nature was regarded as evil, and sex generally became a taboo, a\nclosed subject to which no reference could be made. Victorian Puritanism\noften, indeed, suggests the ostrich burying his head in the sand--the\nattempt to remedy evil by pretending that it does not exist.\n\nThe effect of Puritanism on the Victorian was precisely this conformity of\noutward behaviour. It assumed that all men and women were innocent, and\nthat, except in marriage, sex played no part in life. It pretended they\nwere innocent, and it made them only respectable. Parents would often\nrefrain, on the plea that innocence must not be disturbed, from teaching\ntheir children anything about sex. So impure and evil a subject must not\nbe referred to. Such unpleasant problems as venereal disease must be\nhidden out of sight, although prostitution and venereal disease continue\nto flourish. The Victorian, in fact, carried out the Puritan doctrine that\nall sex is evil, by outwardly pretending that, unless married, he\npossessed no sexual instinct. Actually he was no more inclined to\nabstention than any other human generation has been.\n\nIndeed, we do not find any evidence that Puritanism succeeds in carrying\nits anti-sex theories into practice. In South Wales, for example, where\nPuritanism has established a particular stronghold, sexual laxity is\npeculiarly marked.\n\nThe reaction from Puritanism, especially in regard to sex, has been\nprecipitated and exaggerated by the Great War. We have therefore in modern\nsociety two opposing policies. Among those who have thrown over all\n\"religious\" observance and have freed themselves entirely from Puritanism,\nthere seems to be a complete absence of any moral sex-standard. We can\nappreciate that impasse if we consider the inability of the sex-novel or\nplay to suggest any form of conduct which is immoral. Those who still\nadhere to organized religion continue to look at sex largely through\nPuritan spectacles. The \"fallen woman\" or the convicted clergyman is\ngenuinely regarded as being guilty of the most damning of all offences.\nThe sexual laxity of the neo-Georgian is used as a convincing argument\nthat once the Puritan view is abandoned, complete anarchy is the only\nalternative. Religious teachers continue to preach what many of them would\ndeny to be Puritan doctrine, but what I hope to prove belongs peculiarly\nto that aspect of Christianity. And meanwhile the \"non-religious world\"\npronounces the opposite extreme.\n\nIt is because I believe both these attitudes to contain error, that I am\nanxious to contribute the foundation for some principle in the current\ndeadlock.\n\n\n\n\nChapter 2: Official Attitudes towards Sex\n\n\nIt will now be convenient to define the chief collective or official\nattitudes towards sex. In a mere outline such as this handbook professes\nto be, we may divide these attitudes into three, and label them the\npopular attitude, the legal or State attitude, and the religious attitude.\n\nWith the popular attitude we have already largely dealt. It is still in a\ntransitory, confused state, merging at one end into the old Puritan\nextreme, and at the other to mere negativism, mere opposition to Puritan\nasceticism, and without even an attempt to reconstruct a moral standard.\nThis perhaps is an inevitable stage in any transition; but it is none the\nless unsatisfactory. Man cannot succeed without a standard; and moreover\nwe know intuitively that all things are not morally permissible. If there\nis purity and beauty and divinity in life, there must be impurity and sin.\nWill it be considered an exaggeration if I say that it is almost better to\nhave a Puritan standard than none at all? The Roundhead at least was more\nthan a match for the Cavalier because he had a positive inspiration.\n\nBut there is one common feature in this chaos of evolving popular opinion.\nThe vulgar mind tends to measure morality by what is usual. The sins which\nmost men commit are regarded as hardly evil; the acts which may not be\nevil, are regarded as sins if they are peculiar. Thus an occasional lapse\nfrom continency on the part of a young man is popularly regarded as not\nvery reprehensible, whereas the perpetrator of some weird act of\nbestiality would be hounded to prison. The flaw in this estimate is not\nonly that the normal standard varies in race and age, but that there is no\nsingle human sex nature; there are infinite varieties. To condemn variety\n_per se_ is, as we shall presently observe, a contradiction of the laws of\nnature.\n\nThe gradual emancipation of society from the taboo on sex in conversation\nis an undoubted gain. We owe such men as Bernard Shaw a debt of gratitude\nfor the way in which they have forced sex reference into the play, and\ntherefore on public notice. But if this is to result in eliminating sex\nmodesty it is creating evils greater than those which it seeks to remove.\nI will not here embark upon a consideration of such a theory as that which\nhas been interestingly propounded by Mr. Westermarck, namely that there is\na relationship between sexual modesty and the feeling against incest.[1]\nI will only insist that modesty is natural in all qualities which we\nregard as sacred.\n\nIf we are modest about sex in our conversation to the extent of placing a\ntaboo on sex, and allowing sexual problems to remain unsolved, or in\nletting our children confuse innocence with ignorance, we are on\nindefensible ground; indefensible, I think, because our modesty is based\non the Puritan doctrine that sex is at heart an unclean thing. I wish\nespecially to defend modesty because sex is so clean. We do not want to\nvulgarize by public reference our most spiritual experiences, our sense of\nlove, our feeling of exaltation in the presence of what is beautiful and\ndivine. We speak of these things only at more sacred moments, if at all.\nWe must be careful, too, lest in a reaction from taboo we allow science to\nrob sex of its romantic and divine character. We have carefully to\npreserve the centre of gravitation between two extremes. We should look\naskance at a man who collected in a glass bottle, and analysed, his\nmother's tears.\n\nIn this connexion it may be well to call attention to the inconsistency of\nthe male in making the sex-act a subject for humour. Whatever our\nreligious belief, we know that the sex-act is the means of procreation,\nand is, for this reason alone, a sacred function. It seems inconsistent,\ntherefore, that we should so persistently treat it as a mark for ridicule.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe second general attitude is that of the State, or legislature. Here we\nfind ourselves in the presence of a consistent motive. The State is\nconcerned only with the preservation of the birth-rate; any sex behaviour\nwhich defeats this object it regards as immoral and punishable. The State\ncannot interfere so far with individual privacy as to punish masturbation\nor artificial means of restraint; but it does go to the extent of\npunishing \"unnatural\" acts between husband and wife,[2] and in America,\nthe State has even penalized the activities of the neo-Malthusian\npropaganda. All sex abnormalities are rigidly punished, whereas the\nprocreation of children outside wedlock is not a legal offence.[3]\n\nThis is a consistent attitude, but it suggests one serious flaw. Whatever\nmay have been the case in early days when an increase of population was\nessential, there can be little doubt that to-day that necessity has\ndiminished. Indeed, without entering into the Malthusian controversy, it\nis almost impossible to deny that at the moment we are suffering largely\nfrom over-population. Consequently, whatever opportunist policy may\ndictate, we cannot poise our estimate of morality on so shifting a basis\nas the needs of population. Instinctively we cannot associate morality in\nanything with the legal attitude. There are many acts even outside the sex\nsphere which most of us would consider immoral, but which are unpunished\nby law, and others which are illegal but are not immoral; it is immoral to\nlie, but unless we lie on oath there is no State offence; it is punishable\nto ride a bicycle without lights after dark, but we are conscious of no\nmoral delinquency in so doing.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe third attitude is that of religion. We have already discussed the\nPuritan attitude and the manner in which it has permeated our unconscious\nreligious thought. In the Anglican marriage-service there appears at first\nsight to be some endorsement of the theory that the sex-act is unclean and\nis only permitted in marriage as a concession to human weakness.[4] This\ndoctrine owes its derivation to St. Paul, although it is important to\nnotice that St. Paul specially emphasizes that he is not speaking\nex-cathedra: \"I say therefore to the unmarried and widows it is good for\nthem to remain even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry; for\nit is better to marry than to burn.\"[5]\n\nThese words will probably be used as an argument against the statement\nthat it is a specifically Puritan doctrine to regard the sex-act as\nunclean. It will be urged that the early Christian Church, as shown by the\nwritings of the Fathers, discouraged marriage and upheld celibacy as the\nideal. I hope, in a moment, to differentiate between the Catholic and the\nPuritan doctrine. But more immediately we will consider what I have\nbroadly defined as the Puritan attitude.\n\nThe flaw in the argument that the sex-act is by nature unclean and must be\nsuppressed, even though in marriage it may be legitimized, is that it is\nthe ordained means of procreation. Further than this, we have the\ninevitable fact to face that the sex-instinct in normal persons is so\nstrong that it can only with great difficulty be suppressed, and then\nresults in an outflow of sex activity in what we usually know as\nnon-sexual channels. Often this suppression will find its vent in mental\ndislocation and general nervous irritability. But without analysing these\ncomplex symptoms, it is sufficient to ask those who admit the control of\nGod, why God created the sex impulse in order that it should be\nobliterated.\n\nDirectly we move away from this strict doctrine to the modified popular\nexpression of it, we find that the position is becoming more intelligible\nbut less logical. It is consistent to regard all sex as evil. But when the\naverage Christian, while denouncing adultery as a sin, insists on\ncopulation in marriage as its consummation, a difficulty arises which must\nnot be ignored. Here, in adultery, is a sin which is so serious in the\neyes of Christian men, that it can never be redeemed; the stigma of\nimpurity remains for ever on the offender. Yet this same act, if only\ncommitted under the regulation of marriage becomes not merely something\npermissible, but the essential act of consummation, the divine method of\nprocreation. One can understand how an act, good in itself, can become a\nsin because it is performed under impermissible circumstances. But it is\ndifficult to conceive of an act changing its integral nature, so that at\none moment it is a necessary virtue, and at another the basest vice. It\nis, for instance, legal for a soldier to kill an enemy in battle, while it\nis a crime for one civilian to kill another; but the act of killing is\n_per se_ an evil thing, even in the case of a soldier. It never becomes so\nexalted as is the sex-act in marriage.\n\nThe Catholic doctrine, however, while at first sight it appears to be\nidentical with the Puritan, is actually quite distinct.\n\nFor one thing there is a difference of attitude towards sin. Puritanism\nseems to suggest that those who have been \"converted\" are actually\nperfect. It insists that they shall keep up this outward appearance, and\nconsequently ensures that their sins must be committed secretly. They are\nthen sufficiently perfect to ascend, after death, direct to Heaven.\nCatholicism, however, is continually recognizing that man is normally a\nsinner; the confessional is a public recognition of this fact. Catholicism\ntherefore approaches the question of sex with the expectation that man\nwill sin, that the probability of his fall is so great as to make it\nunnecessary and undesirable to hide all traces of his sin from public\nview. The Puritan attitude towards sex is really that of the prude. The\nCatholic Church is so ready to talk about sex in a decent manner that she\nprovides the confessional as a permanent institution.\n\nWhen we turn to the Catholic attitude towards sex we are faced indeed with\ntwo significant dogmas which make up a position fundamentally distinct\nfrom that of Puritanism. The first of these is the doctrine that marriage\nis a sacrament, and the second that the _esse_ of the marriage is the\nconsent of the parties.\n\nThe significance of the first is that marriage is not merely a licence\nwhereby an unclean act is permitted as a sop to human weakness. The sex\nfunction, as the integral part of marriage, is acknowledged to be an\nactual objective of divine grace.\n\nThe significance of the second doctrine is that wherever two people\neligible to give consent, give it, there is the essence of marriage. Few\nnon-Catholics realize that though the Church normally requires the\necclesiastical and civil regulations to be observed, she does not profess\nto marry the two persons; she merely pronounces a blessing on their\nmarriage. She may make conditions before she will give her blessing or\neven her witness to the validity of the marriage; but she recognizes that\na marriage may be just as valid on a desert island as in a cathedral.[6]\nAnd hence she really regards adultery, not as does the Puritan, but as an\nact which should be sacramental but has been prostituted by the absence of\nthe love-motive, or by becoming promiscuous rather than constant. Sexual\nunion may even itself be of the nature of a marriage, and it is\nsignificant that the Church has always insisted on the right of parents\nsubsequently to legitimize children born out of wedlock; it is the English\nlaw which has forbidden that privilege.\n\nThis is the official Catholic doctrine, however much it has been\nassimilated to the Puritan conception by the personnel of the Church.\n\nYet the Church has consistently upheld the celibate life as the higher\nvocation. She has represented a celibate priesthood as a greater ideal\nthan a married priesthood. She has exalted Our Lady as a Virgin. She has\ninsisted on the Virgin Birth. But she has done this, not because sex is\nevil, but because celibacy is better. And, as we shall see, religious\ncelibacy is entirely distinct from a condition in which the sex impulse is\nmerely repressed.\n\n\n\n\nChapter 3: The General Principles of Purity\n\n\nIn attempting to define these principles I have no desire to enter into a\ncontroversy of relatives and absolutes. It is sufficient to meet those who\ndeny that there can be any abstract standard of purity by pointing out\nthat we know the direction in which to look for what is good and pure.\nJust as we know that certain acts are less worthy than others, so we are\naware of the general direction of the nobler activities.\n\nThe first principle to be observed is that relatively _purity is\ncomparative_. This is a commonplace of all personal estimates. However\nmuch we may adhere to the conception of a moral standard, which is\nabstract and unvarying, we realize that there are also personal standards\nwhich vary very much. We do not, for instance, consider a cat to be guilty\nof murder when she kills a bird; we do not execute her as we execute men\nwho have taken human life. We do not even condemn lions or tigers as\nhomicidal criminals, though we may kill them in self-defence, thus showing\nthat it is not the distinction between taking animal and human life\nwhich constitutes the crime; it is the difference between the killers. Nor\nis it true that we draw a distinction merely between animal and human\nresponsibility, for even in the human kingdom we apply a comparative moral\nstandard; we do not consider a savage who steals or kills as being guilty\nto the extent which a civilized European would be who performed a similar\nact. We are in fact constantly applying a comparative standard to the\ncomparative intelligences of individuals, and quite rightly, for all\nintelligence and moral sense is graded from brute-beast to savage-man and\nupwards.\n\nWe must be careful not to avoid this standard of comparative values in\napproaching sex morality. So long as we admit that at least there are acts\nand principles which, taken in the abstract, approach purity more nearly\nthan others, we must not judge all individuals by the same standard. We\nmust not consider a very ordinary, unintelligent, animal-blooded young man\nas being excessively sinful for having a vivid sex experience; perhaps he\nis living right up to the level of his imperfect standard. We must not\nexpect people to be more moral than they can be, though it is the duty of\nChurch and religion to educate them to see that there are better\nstandards.\n\nThe second principle is simple, but of the deepest importance.\n\nIt consists of the proposition that variety and not uniformity is the\nfundamental rule of nature, or, as Christians would hold, the intention of\nGod.\n\nI cannot recall any distinctive attribute to which this rule does not\napply. There are an infinite species of creatures, and infinite tastes and\ntendencies. Even if we narrow down our field of investigation to one\nnation or even a single family, we find that each individual is\napproaching life by different byways, with different prejudices and\ndifferent temperaments and different conceptions. But throughout history\nthe majority of the normal type has been inclined to flout this divine\nprinciple. The Puritans, for example, were a particular type who did not\nlike the gayer life of the world, and preferred a stern evangelical\natmosphere. Consequently they regarded those amusements for which they\nhappened to possess no partiality, as evil, and whenever they had the\nopportunity they suppressed them; they eliminated Christmas and the\nmince-pie. Equally we can see that if the normal mechanical Teutonic type\nhad said that it was unnatural for men to be artistic and had suppressed\nthe arts, it would have been a disaster for the world. There is not one\nvocation, but there are many vocations; all types are the design of\nintention, and are there, not to be suppressed, but to carry out their\nparticular mission.\n\nThis again, is equally true of sex, and we must apply the same conclusions\ntowards the many types which we shall presently meet, abnormal as well as\nnormal. The Protestant, for example, really acknowledges a uniform\nsex-nature only. You will continually hear a Protestant declaring that it\nis unnatural for a man to be a celibate: this is, of course, pure\nnonsense. It might be unnatural for a normal sex-nature to remain\ncelibate, just as it would be unnatural for a natural celibate to marry.\nThe Catholic Church has been far wiser. She can offer the Religious Life\nto the celibate and the Sacrament of Marriage to the non-celibate. There\nare few types of individual more unintelligent than that which, while it\ncannot so interfere with personal liberty as to compel marriage, persists\nin uttering the convention that \"every man ought to do his duty to the\nState.\" The truism is true; what is wrong is the failure to conceive that\nthere is no uniform duty for every man.\n\nBut the third principle is more complex in character, or, rather, in the\nconsiderations which it involves.\n\nIt consists, really, of a re-affirmation as to the Catholic condemnation\nof the heresy of Manichaeism.\n\nThe Puritan and the type he has evolved do radically regard the physical\nas evil. Protestantism, until it became adulterated by the Catholic\nmovement, eliminated as far as possible, the physical medium in religious\nworship. Not only doctrinally, but liturgically, in the abandonment of\nritual and artistic atmosphere, it attempted to limit religion as far as\npossible to the spiritual level, and it regarded sacramentalism as evil\nbecause sacramentalism involves an outward physical sign. In the same way\nthe average Englishman, who has been inculcated, far more than he\nrealizes, with Calvinist dogma, regards sex as immoral only when it is\nphysical. A man may indulge in sexual emotion and thought, but so long as\nhe suppresses any physical act he is not guilty; if this can be regarded\nas an exaggeration it is certainly true that popular Protestant theology\nregards a man as more immoral if he commits the physical sex-act than if\nhe thinks of it. It is strange to note how far this theory has departed\nfrom the teaching of Christ, Who declared that \"he that lusteth against a\nwoman hath committed adultery against her in his heart.\"\n\nIt is obvious the moment we examine this conception that it is utterly\nindefensible. If the sex-act is evil[7] because it is physical, then it\nis equally evil to eat or drink. And if an attempt is made to avoid this\ndifficulty by saying that it is evil to debase love by expressing it in a\nphysical act, or that it is better to love spiritually and non-physically,\nthen it is equally evil to debase artistic inspiration by expressing it\nwith paints on a physical canvas, or better to allow melodies to float in\none's mind than to reduce them to the level of a physical composition.\n\nWithout entering into a highly involved philosophy and therefore at the\nrisk of apparent dogmatism, I wish now to emphasize that there are certain\nascending levels, with which man is concerned. We may confine ourselves to\nthe physical, the emotional, the mental, and the spiritual levels. The\nphysical level is the lowest, in so far as man functions there in common\nwith the animal. He is more active emotionally than the animal. But what\ndistinguishes him chiefly from the animal, and makes him master over all\nbrute-creation, is his activity on the mental level. Physically he is less\npowerful than the elephant; but because he can function mentally and the\nelephant can do so hardly at all, he can employ the elephant as a beast of\nlabour. Here then we have a distinct gradation, a gradation which\ncontinues to apply within the human kingdom and makes us able to\ndistinguish a civilised man from a savage.\n\nWe should therefore apply this principle to sex. Sex activity is more pure\nor impure according to the level on which it chiefly functions. A man who\ntraffics with prostitutes is not immoral because he is functioning\nphysically, but because he is functioning almost entirely on the physical\nlevel. Purity is really sex emphasis on the highest levels. Ideally the\nphysically sex-act should therefore be a mere expression of spiritual,\nmental, emotional love; it should just happen. The moment one begins to\nlay the emphasis on the lower levels, the more one becomes correspondingly\nless pure. Lust, in fact, is the desire only for physical sex\nexperience--the wrong proportion and balance. A man's stage of moral\ndevelopment is to be discovered by the particular level on which he is\nmost active.\n\nWe must not avoid the consequence of this principle. We must be prepared\nto admit as relatively moral, behaviour which popular philosophy might\nregard as immoral. We must also be prepared to regard as immoral many\nmarriages in which the physical is the chief incentive. The lowest stage\nof impurity would seem to be reached in cases, whether between man and\nharlot, or husband and wife, where the physical function is so emphasized\nthat artificial physical aids are invoked in order to excite the physical\npassions and make them the cause instead of the result of sex emotion and\nthought.\n\n\n\n\nChapter 4: Celibacy\n\n\nIf once the third principle named in the preceding chapter is fully\nappreciated, we have already laid the foundation of our moral standard. We\nshall have seen that physical expression is the sacramental form of the\ninvisible and super-physical motive, and that immorality is the shifting\nof emphasis from higher to lower levels. We shall be in possession of a\ntest by which we may in almost all sex problems determine a comparative\nvirtue or evil of any practice or conduct.\n\nNow this involves the equally fundamental theory that sex is not entirely\na physical activity. In the popular conception sex is always confused with\nphysical sex expression. But this conception, I submit, is entirely\ninaccurate. Even though Freud may be justifiably criticised for straining\nthe word \"sex\" to include many forces which do not directly tend to incite\nphysical sex activity, he has successfully shown that sex is the motive\nbehind emotions and conduct which would not popularly be termed sexual at\nall. A musician may, for example, be drawing on his sex-energy in\ncomposing or performing musical works; a humanitarian may be sexual in his\ndiffused love of fellow-men and women. We cannot possibly draw a line and\nsay that here sex begins and there it ends. We can only admit that it\ncarries far beyond those particular physical manifestations which we\npopularly associate with sex.\n\nIf we accept the principle of ascending levels of physical, emotional,\nmental, and spiritual functions, we should expect to find that sex makes\nits appearance in more than one form. We know, that is to say, that there\nare, not one, but many emotions and thoughts which are directly sexual,\nand that there would seem to be every reason why sex, which manifests\nvariety in its physical expression, should be equally various in the realm\nof the mind. Further than this, we are able to advance the principle that\nwhen the emphasis is laid further away from the physical level, the\nfunctioning power on that level weakens. Man, as we have already agreed,\nis a more developed animal than the elephant, because he is active in\nthought. But he pays the price for this by the inferiority of his physical\nstrength. Similarly, the less mentally equipped are frequently more\nphysically powerful. Like all other rules, there are of course exceptions.\nBut there does seem to be a principle, and a principle that we should\nlogically expect, that the more man functions on what we have described\nas super-physical levels, the less powerful his strength on the physical\nlevel becomes.\n\nAgain, we have seen that, morally, the physical level is the lowest. The\nhighest human developments are those which the animal cannot reach. The\nordinary physical instincts are not evil, they are simply less evolved.\nSome of them, like the sense of maternity, are good. But we cannot doubt\nthat man's superiority over the animal lies precisely in his ability to do\nwhat the animal cannot do, and that, therefore, the realm of mind is\n\"higher\" than the realm of action.\n\nWhen the Catholic Church therefore presents religious celibacy[8] as being\nthe higher vocation she is enunciating this very principle. She is not\nsuggesting that non-celibacy is an evil state. We do not pretend that the\nprofession of crossing-sweeper is evil because the profession of prime\nminister is a higher ambition; indeed, it would be probably disastrous to\npersuade a man who had a natural ability to be a crossing-sweeper to\nqualify as a prime minister. Relatively, a man performs his moral duty in\nfulfilling his vocation, for whatever grade it may be designed. The true\nreligious celibate is the extreme exception; no one should attempt such\nperfection who has not the actual call. The means by which we realize our\ntrue vocation is too individual a question to enter upon here.\n\nThe whole fault of the puritanic conception of sex is to assume that\ncomplete repression should be attempted by all men, and that marriage is\nsolely a concession to failure.[9]\n\nAlmost the exact reverse is the truth. The celibate is a rare product. And\nmoreover he is not one in whom sex is repressed; he is essentially a human\nbeing in whom the sex-force is sublimated into non-physical channels. This\nmay take the form of extreme religious devotion, in wide humanitarianism,\nin a love of children or animals, in artistic creation or scientific\nresearch. It becomes true celibacy only when the individual instinct is so\nfar diverted towards these energies that desire for physical sex functions\nbecomes eliminated. Nor is it true that such a man is barren; he is\nprocreating, as really as the father, a mental or spiritual progeny.\n\nWe cannot emphasize this distinction too strongly. For the vast majority\nof men the celibate life is not intended, and to some extent, though, as\nwe shall see, not entirely, other rules apply. What indeed we have so\ncarefully to distinguish is the transference of sex from the repression of\nsex. To transfer the sex-force is a healthy and natural energy, whereas to\nrepress sex is an evil which must always tend to produce unfortunate\nresults.\n\n\n\n\nChapter 5: Non-Celibacy\n\n\nWe have now arrived at a point where we can emphasize a further\ndistinction. We must, in fact, differentiate between those emotions and\nthoughts which are sexual in the sense that they naturally incite physical\nsex functions, and those which manifest themselves in non-sexual\nactivities. It may be true that the energy which is exercised in the\nlatter way is itself sexual; that does not matter for our immediate\npurpose. It is sufficient that the force is at work in a non-sexual\nchannel.\n\nHere then we have two entirely different processes. The first is the\nshifting of the emphasis of the sex-force from body to mind, so that the\nsex-force ceases to be concentrated in physical sex-acts and begins to be\nconcerned rather with love emotion and sex-thought; the second is the\ntransmutation of the sex-force to non-sexual channels. Both of these\nprocesses are necessary in the life of the non-celibate.\n\nThe latter process is what happens naturally in the case of the true\nreligious celibate. His development and temperament are such that his\nsex-nature finds a complete expression, as we have already seen, in such\ndirections as a general love of humanity, an intense spiritual devotion,\nthe worship of art or nature. There is no repression, but a full exercise\nof the sex activities in a \"non-sexual\" direction.\n\nThe vast majority of men, however, are not so developed, and are not\nintended to carry out such a life. Yet, for them, too, this process must\nbe to some extent adopted. It is largely a matter of common-sense. The\nanimal exercises no restraint; whenever the sex-impulse arises, it is\nsatisfied--so far, of course, as the opportunity is provided. But as we\ntrace the conduct of the more developed species from savage to civilized\nman we are conscious of a new element of will-power. The influences which\ncause this power to come into operation may vary. Religious obligations,\nconsiderations of business, social, or intellectual responsibilities, help\nto intervene. An intelligent man simply cannot afford to give vent to sex\nproclivities every time they arise; he has other interests which must of\nnecessity at many times of the day have the first claim. Imagine a man who\nsacrificed a business engagement for some sex gratification! Often in the\nrecent war a man, however strong his sexual emotions, would be forced to\ncast away all ideas of sex in order to dodge a shell; his mind for\ncontinuous periods would be so driven with anxieties and the stress of\nresponsibility that sex would sink into insignificance. This is an extreme\ninstance, but to a lesser degree it is what is happening to everyone who\nleads a normal life. The more developed the man, the wider his\nintellectual interests; and it is precisely in this capacity to exercise\nhis will-power that he proves his superiority over the animal.\n\nThis process of transmutation is the remedy which must be applied in cases\nwhere men find themselves the victims of sexual emotion out of all true\nproportion, whether in married or unmarried life. Mere repression is\nuseless; it is actually harmful. But the mind must be switched off to dig\na thought-passage in other directions, in non-sexual interests. Where\nthere is undue sex obsession there is disease. And this mental\ntransference is the chief cure. Really, this transmutation is a diffusing\nof the sex-force into a wide general area. The man is no longer\nconcentrating all his sex-energy in love for one particular person; he is\nbeginning sexually to love all humanity. He is finding sexual expression\nin the \"non-sexual\" forms of art or nature. He is still in love--but in\nlove with love, rather than with one separate personal fragment of the\nwhole.\n\nBut with the ordinary man, there must remain a balance of sexual\ninclination which cannot entirely be transmuted. Here we encounter the\nfirst process, and our problem, particularly in non-married life, becomes\nacute. Is it possible, and is it healthy, to deny the sex-instincts all\nsatisfaction? Different answers are given by religious advisers and by men\nof the world, while even in the ranks of the medical profession there is\nno consensus of opinion.\n\nI suggest that there is only one general principle which can be our guide.\n\nThe natural tendency of all sexual thought and emotion is to find its\noutlet in physical expression of some kind. If a man indulges in sexual\nthought, it is almost impossible for him to avoid a physical result. He\nmay have recourse to prostitution or he may commit solitary practices. The\ntendency of Puritan morality is, as we have seen, to regard the physical\nact as the sin and to avoid the conclusion that the thought is evil;\nconsequently the patient is urged at all cost to refrain from action. Let\nit be stated, quite frankly, that this attitude is scientifically and\nmorally indefensible. It is the thought rather than the act on which the\nresponsibility should be weighed. I have no hesitation whatever in\nasserting that it is worse, medically and morally, for the individual to\nindulge in sexual thought and repress the consequent action, than to\ncommit it. The mere absence of physical conduct is harmful and deplorable\nif the mind is a seething mass of sexual energy which is being denied all\noutlet.\n\nThe first duty in such cases is, as we have seen, to apply the process of\ntransmuting this sexual thought to non-sexual interests, so far as this\ncan be done. The extent to which this is possible must vary in each\nindividual nature. The comparative balance then remains. And here we must\nbring into play the moral principle to which I have already\nreferred--namely that the morality of sex is determined by the extent to\nwhich love is the motive. Sex inspired by love is moral; sex inspired by\nany other motive is not. The part which the physical sex-force should\nalone play is the sacramental expression of pure love; so employed it is a\nperfect and divine activity. When the love-motive is absent, or is not the\ndominant incentive, the sex-force becomes comparatively immoral and\nabused.\n\nThis is a general principle which can be rigidly employed. And I do not\nwant to escape from the consequences of this doctrine. It appears to me\nthe one natural, fundamental principle upon which a moral standard can be\nbased. Therefore I am ready to accept the conclusion that there are many\nmarriages which are highly immoral because the sex-act is not an\nexpression of love, but either a mere mechanical duty or the result of a\nphysical and emotional excitement, as distinct from love. On the other\nhand there are many sex adventures, inspired by love, which do not occur\nwithin the matrimonial state. This principle alone must guide us in any\nmoral estimate we draw.\n\nLet us apply this doctrine by taking the simple case of a man and woman\nwho are accused of having committed adultery. We inquire first, whether\nmutual love was the true motive, whether in fact the act of adultery was\nan unpremeditated incident which occurred as naturally as the kiss which a\nchild gives to its mother. We draw a clear moral line between the sort of\nassignation which has for its one object the gratification of physical\nsensations, or the even lower motive, so far as the prostitute is\nconcerned, of substituting for love the earning of a few shillings. But\nsuppose we are satisfied that the physical act was not the object but the\nresult, and that there was love. We go on to ask how deep was the love,\nand if a deep love is alleged, we ask why the parties are not married. For\nit is doubtful whether normal love can be wholly spasmodic. It seems\ncontrary to the very nature of love that a man should love one woman for\nan hour and then throw her over for someone else. The essence of love\ntends to completeness and permanence.\n\nBut we will imagine that even these conditions are satisfied, and that\nfinancial difficulties or parental objections alone prevent the formal\nmarriage. We have also discovered that the two people have loved each\nother for some time, and that there is not therefore simply a sudden\nfascination, but a love based on knowledge and matured by experience. We\nare then left with a technical and not a moral offence. In effect a\nmarriage has taken place; there has been the consent which is the essence\nof the union. It is only when the Catholic conception of the sacrament of\nmatrimony is abandoned that we find ourselves regarding the ceremony in\nChurch or registry-office as the union, and that therefore a moral offence\nis committed in the sex-act where no such ceremony has taken place. It is\ntrue that the parties would be in honour bound to receive the blessing of\nthe Church. The union is irregular; but it is a true union.\n\nIncidentally, I suggest that this theory may be the basis of the\nscriptural exception in St. Matthew's gospel made as regards divorce where\nthere has been \"fornication,\" or a pre-marital sex-act--namely that by\nthis act a natural marriage has been consummated, and that the subsequent\nmarriage is therefore invalid.\n\nOne might almost draw up a schedule of the tests which should be applied\nwhenever we may happen to be forced to adjudicate as to the morality of\nany sex-behaviour. For already there have emerged certain definite\ntest-principles. There is the consideration of the standard of the\nrelative degree of intelligence to which the particular individual has\ndeveloped, and of the fact that there are many types of sex-temperament.\nOn the other hand we see that the direction of absolute morality to which\nour faces should be set, is the raising of the sex-force to super-physical\nlevels, so that the physical side becomes a mere incident, or is even\neliminated altogether. Then we apply the rule that there must be an\nexercise of restraint and will-power, so that sex obsession is entirely\navoided. The extent to which the mind can be diverted from sexual channels\nmust depend on the stage of development which the individual has reached.\nLastly, we apply the test of how far love, so deep and pure that it is\npermanent rather than spasmodic, a monopoly rather than promiscuous, is\nthe motive.\n\nModern society has gone, I contend, as much astray in drifting to the\nextreme of considering all things permissible, as has Puritanism in\nregarding the sex-act outside marriage as in all circumstances a deadly\nevil. And I can only marvel that this latter attitude is taken up so\noften in the name of the Christian religion, when its Founder, while\ndeclaring that at the last day it would be \"more tolerable for Sodom and\nGomorrah than for the Scribes and Pharisees,\" also said to the woman taken\nin adultery, \"Neither do I condemn thee; go thy way, from henceforth sin\nno more.\"\n\n\n\n\nChapter 6: Divorce\n\n\nIn leaving the moorland of general principles for the fields of particular\nproblems it will be convenient to group sex natures under three heads: (1)\nthe normal or hetero-sexual, (2) the invert or homo-sexual, and (3) the\nneuter or sexless. It is necessary only to add that it will not be\npossible to deal in more than the merest outline with any of these\nimportant questions.\n\nThe most prominent of the problems concerned with the normal group is that\nof divorce. The problem arises because on the one hand there is a sense\nthat marriage ought to be a permanent state, while on the other, there are\nmany human exigences which go to break up particular marriages.\nSeparation, without permission to re-marry, is of course an admitted\nremedy. But the question then arises whether parties so separated will\ncontinue to live as celibates; and as it appears certain that the vast\nmajority will not, we have to ask whether it is better to legalise the\nfresh unions which are formed, or to permit adultery.\n\nEvery modern State has wrestled with this problem, and for the most part\nineffectually. Where there is no divorce, as in England before 1857,[10]\nor among the poorer classes who cannot afford divorce, irregular unions\nand prostitution undoubtedly flourish. Where a compromise is introduced,\nthe permanence of marriage, and therefore of the home, becomes\ncorrespondingly impaired, while there are left a number of unhappy cases\nfor which divorce is not allowed.[11] The English civil law is\nparticularly unhappy in its compromise. It is based on the Protestant\ninterpretation of the passage in St. Matthew already mentioned, namely\nthat divorce is permissible where adultery has occurred, and it goes on to\nmake it easier for the husband to sue for divorce when the wife has\ncommitted adultery than for the wife to do so in the reverse\ncircumstances. Hence it places a premium on adultery, and exaggerates its\nimportance as regards other sins. It deliberately incites an unhappy wife\nto commit adultery in order to obtain relief--she can usually evade the\nvigilance of the King's Proctor--and it singles out adultery as a worse\nsin than, let us say, cruelty or habitual drunkenness, for which divorce\nis not at present obtainable. In fact it is difficult to find any logical\nor moral defence for the English law as it stands.\n\nLet us first see how far the popular critics of the Catholic doctrine of\nindissoluble marriage are wrong. They regard marriage as simply a\ncontract, from which it follows that divorce should be obtained by mutual\nconsent, or even on the application of one of the parties. But this\nignores, among other things, one vital natural law. Marriage begets\nparenthood, and between the parents of the same child there is a definite\nand permanent relationship. No Act of Parliament can make men and women\ncease to be the parents of their own children. Nor, even in childless\nmarriages, is the sense of permanence an artificial convention which can\nbe abolished by the decree of a court. The deeper the love, the more\npermanent must its nature tend to be. Love is not a contract; it is a\nspiritual bond.\n\nIt is impossible, I contend, to think of a normally healthy marriage\nwithout realizing that both the man and woman naturally enter into it with\nthe assumption that it will be a permanent relationship. The possibility\nof a family, the break-up of the maiden life--even the furnishing of a\nhome, is evidence of a strong probability in the minds of the parties that\nthe step which is being taken is something more than a temporary contract.\nIndeed, the marriage is only temporary if unhappiness arises. Men and\nwomen marry because they want to enter into as permanent a relationship as\npossible; they enter into it because, as they say, they wish to \"settle\ndown.\" The natural desire of man is that marriage should be permanent.\n\nA reversion to free love would be more than the undoing of the evolution\nfrom animal to man. It would completely change the basis of human society.\nAnd in proportion as any divorce law encourages the conception of a\ntemporary contract this dangerous instability of home-life is threatened.\nAmericans sometimes describe their own laws as approaching the \"ideal.\"\n\"The question will soon be,\" wrote a journalist describing the American\n\"smart set,\" \"who is to be your husband next year?\"--or, \"Has your last\nseason's wife re-married yet?\" This is of course an exaggeration; but it\nis a warning as to logical developments.\n\nIn fact, divorce tends to create itself. Divorce is only applied for where\nthe marriage is unhappy. A fair proportion of unhappy marriages arise\nbecause they have been hastily entered into; with due inquiry many of\nthem could have been prevented. But the easier divorce is to obtain, the\nmore incentive will be given to enter into these hasty marriages--the type\nof union which so often gives rise to divorce.\n\nOn the other hand, whatever their cause, there are marriages in which all\ntrace of love has disappeared, and it may fairly be argued that the union\nis dead. Thus a husband may, in later years, become incurably insane or\nhabitually drunk. There are many unions in which the one party has married\nin blind infatuation only to discover that the partner is so contemptible\na creature as to destroy all vestige of love. Such unions remain marriages\nin formality only; their pretended existence is a sacrilege, particularly\nif there are no children and the husband and wife are not therefore\nco-related as parents.\n\nFor all such cases the Catholic Church permits divorce (_a mensa et\nthoro_)--or separation, as it is known in civil law, without permission to\nre-marry. The issue, therefore, becomes simply a question as to whether it\nis right to expect the parties so separated to remain celibate.\n\nIn an outline such as this, I suppose that one can only attempt a summary\nreply to these questions. If, for a moment, we are to exclude the\ncomplications of a subsequent love-affair there appears to me to be no\nreason whatever why any man or woman should not remain celibate during the\nlifetime of the divorced partner. The _journalese_ theory that it is\nunnatural and unhealthy for people so to remain is simply untrue, so long\nas the celibacy takes the form of sublimation or transmutation and not\nrepression. The complication of an intense love-romance however, is a\nserious proposition. Ought two people in love to remain sexually apart\nsimply because one of them is still married to, let us say, an incurable\nlunatic? In principle there seems to be every reason why they should; no\nactual physical or mental harm is done to them, provided they have a\nsufficiently developed will-power to transfer their sex-desire into other\nchannels of activity. The sacrifice will be immense, but it is no more\nthan any man has to make who refrains from marrying his beloved because he\nis too poor or is suffering from some disease which may affect his\nchildren. In this case the sacrifice is offered for the supremely\nimportant principle that only God, by the act of death, can undo the\nvinculum of the original marriage.\n\nBut I am equally sure that most people under these or less intense\ncircumstances will not remain celibate.\n\nTherefore, to descend from theory to practice, I see no alternative but to\ndraw a rigid line between civil and religious marriages. The State must\nmake its own arrangements and go its own way. But there should always be a\nhigher type of marriage where the Catholic Church has been invoked for her\nblessing. And for those who choose to ask for this sacrament, the union\nshould be irrevocable, save by death. The parties will receive that\nsacrament knowing what a heavy responsibility they are assuming. And it is\nonly right that the Church should be far more particular in refusing to\nprostitute her sacramental grace on unions which ought not to be\nconsummated. She ought, I conceive, rigidly to inquire into the\ndesirability of the union, and not to give her blessing unless she is\nsatisfied that both parties are giving their consent with as full a\nknowledge of the facts as is humanly possible. Equally she should refuse\nher ministrations where she is unconvinced that love is the motive of the\nmarriage. I see no reason why some form of sponsorship should not be\ndemanded.\n\nAnd I think it may be argued that a consent without a knowledge of the\nfacts is not a valid consent, and that such a union is null. I should\nwelcome a careful extension of the decree of nullity, for that reason.\n\n\n\n\nChapter 7: Eugenics and Prostitution\n\n\nThe doctrine that love is the only motive for sex--that physical\nexpression is pure only so far as it is the sacramental accidence of\nlove--leads to important conclusions. There is, for instance, a class of\nmoralist who teach that the sex-act in marriage must only be for the\npurpose of procreation. It would follow from this that it is immoral for\nsex intimacies to occur between a man and his wife once she has passed a\ncertain age. In the ideal marriage, so this school of thought affirms,\ncopulation is strictly regulated and occurs only when the moment is\nfavourable for generation.\n\nTo this theory I cannot subscribe. It runs counter to the doctrine in\nwhich I believe. It Changes the sex-act from an incident or a result to a\nmeans or a cause. It is really immoral because it lays emphasis on the\nphysical. This cold-blooded calculation of the times when sex is to be\nthus physically expressed is the exact opposite of the principle by which\nlove directs and the act merely occurs, with no purpose but to express\nlove physically.\n\nThis leads us to a consideration as to how far those practices between man\nand woman are moral in which procreation cannot result. It is interesting\nto note that the English law holds that \"unnatural\" acts between husband\nand wife are criminal. Although it is true that prosecution cannot occur\nunless there is an absence of consent, for otherwise there would be no\nevidence--these acts are apparently regarded as _per se_ criminal in\nnature. And this indeed is a logical position, when we remember the\nstandpoint which the State adopts towards all sex questions.\n\nTo this class of conduct artificial preventatives are closely allied. A\nchaos of opinion rages over this subject, from the neo-malthusian who\nadvocates the practice as a necessity, to the purist who talks of\n\"child-murder.\" It seems clear that this latter designation is an\nunwarrantable exaggeration; to prevent the possibility of life coming into\nexistence cannot by any strain of imagination be confused with destroying\nwhat is actually alive. On the other hand, the moral test which we are\napplying to all these problems hardly acquits the practice. It is\ndifficult to think of preventatives without being conscious that\npremeditation of the physical act is being emphasized, and the ideal of a\nnatural incident almost banished. To prepare for a thing is to insist on\nits importance. The minds of the two parties must almost necessarily be\nfocussed--though not absolutely necessarily--on the physical sex-act.\n\nThere is no doubt however that, apart from ideals, preventatives are a\nmeans of averting more serious evils. This is not the place to enter into\na detailed consideration of eugenics. We can only face the blatant fact\nthat thousands of degenerate parents continue each year to breed\ndegenerate children. The moral aspect with which alone I am dealing, is\nthat this is a crime against the community; however irresponsible or\nignorant the perpetrators, they are helping to burden the State with an\naltogether undesirable progeny. Now, whether they are allowed to marry or\nnot, there is not the least likelihood that they will desist from sexual\nintercourse. Therefore, it seems to me an obviously lesser evil to remove\nall excuse for procreation by placing within reach the artificial means of\nprevention.\n\nIn this, just as in the divorce problem, we have to determine whether it\nis better to insist on an ideal, which we know the majority will not keep,\nor to legislate down to the majority. There is no doubt in my own mind\nthat to legislate on an ideal is not only impracticable but dangerous. I\nmay believe, for instance, that it would be a higher ideal to live on\nvegetables and fruit rather than to slaughter animals and drink their\nblood. But even so, I should vehemently oppose a law which attempted to\nimpose vegetarianism.\n\nI believe, too, that every moral influence should be brought to bear\nagainst marriages where the physical or mental degeneracy[12] of the\nparents renders the use of preventatives desirable. I wish to emphasize\nthat the ideal towards which we should set our faces is that of fewer but\nhealthier marriages. Both Church and State should, I feel, take pains to\nassure themselves that these undesirable elements are absent in all unions\nwhich they are respectively called upon to solemnize. And I emphasize this\nbecause I believe that we are suffering far too much from the popular\nfallacy and the smug Puritanic doctrine that the cure for all sexual\nproclivities is for men and women to marry, and that once they marry all\nthings are sexually permissible. It is not only irritating, but it is a\nfallacy, for men who are comfortably married to declare that there is\n\"really no sex-problem.\" There is probably as much immorality within the\nmarried state as outside it; and far from it being the duty of every man\nto marry, there are many men whose duty it is not to do so.\n\nClosely allied with eugenics is the problem of venereal disease, and out\nof this again, arises the problem of prostitution. How far is prostitution\ntolerable, so that a medical system of registration should be introduced\ninto England? We have seen why prostitution is immoral; it is concerned\nwith the physical side of sex, and with little else. But no thoughtful man\ncould reasonably advocate the suppression of prostitution by law. The\nresult of such a measure, at the present state of national development,\nwould be deplorable, even if it were practicable. People do not become\nmoral because they are frightened to do what they still want to do. It is\nalways a confession of the weakness of religion or moral influences where\nyou have to fall back on the police-force of the State for support. In\nmoral questions, State prosecution seems only to be justifiable where the\nliberty of individuals, or the welfare of the community, is endangered.\n\nProstitution[13] as an evil can only be treated by the slow process of\nmoral education. Of that I shall speak later. But it is worth while\nremembering in this connexion, that the feminist movement must have a\nbeneficial effect, to some extent, on prostitution. Largely, it is an\neconomic problem. If a woman were able to earn a decent wage, it is\ninconceivable that she should wish to submit herself to every voluptuous\npatron who happens to come along. Education and economic independence must\ntend largely to breed dissatisfaction with such a slavish occupation. It\nwill not do so entirely, for a certain percentage of women are prostitutes\nbecause they hunger for promiscuous sex intercourse.\n\nThat some serious attempt must be made, not merely to alleviate, but to\nprevent venereal disease, is evident to all who are aware how widespread\nit has become. And it may therefore be pointed out that it would not be\nimpossible to prosecute the prostitute, suffering from these diseases,\nwithout introducing the vexed question of registration and official\nrecognition of prostitution. All unmarried men and women below a certain\nage could be compelled to submit to periodical medical examination, and if\nany person was found to have solicited, after having been certified as\ninfected, prosecution would lie. Probably a storm of protest would be\naroused against an alleged interference with individual privacy. But the\ndanger of syphilis may necessitate such a law, and after all, no one is\nbeing asked to do more than that to which every soldier and sailor has to\nsubmit.\n\nWe have seen that love, and therefore marriage, naturally contains the\nsense of permanence. There is also a sense of distaste towards incest, and\nof the apparently natural evils arising therefrom. No-one will deny that\nthe State and the Catholic Church are scientifically justified in\ninsisting upon some table of prohibited degrees. How far this distaste is\nessentially natural I do not know. I imagine that a sister who had been\nseparated from her brother since birth, and who did not know that he was\nher brother, might fall in love with him. But the scientific dangers of\nsuch marriages would remain.[14]\n\nThe Church of England some years ago found herself immersed in a storm of\ncontroversy over the Deceased Wife's Sister Act. To most men her attitude\nseemed pedantic and unworthy of serious attention. The English Church is\nunfortunate: her apparently narrow ecclesiasticism was really the result\nof a liberal policy at the time of the Reformation. During the Middle\nAges the Church had extended her prohibited degrees to such an extent that\nit must have been difficult to know whom one could marry without a\ndispensation.[15] Only a person more than four degrees removed from the\nother party was an eligible partner without dispensation, the degrees so\nbeing reckoned as to include even second cousins. The English Church swept\naway these anomalies and concentrated on an irreducible minimum of\nprohibition up to three degrees (reckoned in direct ascending and\ndescending generation from the common ancestor)--thus sacrificing all\nregulation against marriage between first cousins, who are four degrees\nremoved.\n\nThe real opposition to the ecclesiastical attitude was, however, that any\naffinity, as distinguished from consanguinity, should be a bar to\nmarriage. The unhappy deceased wife's sister was merely a convenient\nrepresentative. But this is a controversy which is not sufficiently\nimminent to engage us in these pages.\n\n\n\n\nChapter 8: The Homosexual Temperament\n\n\nWe must now pass from the normal or hetero-sexual to the second-class of\nsex-temperament. This is the homosexual--that in which the individual's\nsex attraction is directed towards the same sex. And here it will be\nnecessary to utter a note of warning. The sex instinct lies so deep in\nhuman nature that many men are incapable of regarding sex characteristics\nsave through their own temperamental colour. Normal men are frequently\nfound, for instance, of such underdeveloped mental faculties that they\nstart out with an immense sex prejudice against the homosexual. Without\nbeing able to consider the question impartially they abhor this variety as\nan unspeakable evil. It is essential that we should place such critics\noutside the area of practical investigation. The homosexual tendency may\nbe as evil as they imagine it to be, but we must only arrive at that\nconclusion as a result of impartial and incontestable reason. And any man\nwho cannot undertake that inquiry is as valueless for our purpose as are\nhis prejudicial opinions; he must simply go back to the nursery.\n\nLet us therefore, as far as is individually possible, attempt to treat\nthis question with an open mind. And accordingly we shall find it most\nconvenient first to consider the various attitudes which have been taken\nup with regard to this difficult problem.\n\nThe legal or State attitude we have already to some extent anticipated.\nThe State looks with suspicious eyes on any influence which tends to\nsterilize the birth-rate. Accordingly, in England, homosexuality is\nbranded as a crime for which a heavy sentence can be pronounced. It is\ntrue that legally this sentence, under the Criminal Amendment Act, can\nonly be inflicted for the physical sex-act itself; but this includes any\nassault or any behaviour which may be construed as an attempt to lead up\nto the commission of the act. And, accordingly, any man is legally under\nsuspicion if he is thought to be homosexual, even though no perpetration\nof the physical offence can be alleged against him. The hideous system of\nblackmail is thus encouraged by the law. Once a man is understood to be\nsubject to these proclivities, it is assumed that sooner or later he will\ncommit the offence, and he is watched, if not by the over-busy police, by\nthose idle persons who trade upon the legal attitude toward this problem.\nAny conversation or literature on the subject is suppressed, so far as is\npossible, by the State, because the physical expression being a crime, all\nthat may become an incentive to the crime is itself criminal.\n\nWe have already mentioned the basic fallacy of the legal attitude. It does\nnot follow that because a line of conduct may decrease the birth-rate, it\nis therefore wrong. Celibacy, as we have seen, may be an actual virtue.\nBut in this particular instance there is a still more serious error. The\nEnglish law, by branding homosexuality as a crime, assumes that it is a\ndeliberate perversion; for it would be obviously ridiculous to punish a\nman for doing what he could not help doing. Even the law is not so\nillogical as to sentence a madman to penal servitude because he insists on\nbeing mad. No, the State regards the homosexual as one who has of his own\nchoice assumed this form of sex temperament, in the same way as a man\ndecides to rob or forge a signature. The legal attitude _must_ rest on\nthis supposition, for otherwise its policy would be flagrantly unjust. And\naccordingly we find the law classifying this family of behaviour as\n\"unnatural.\"\n\nNow, if there is one fact which is clear from an investigation of the\nproblem, it is that this supposition is as false as it is possible for\nany supposition to be. Let it be granted that a certain number of\nhomosexual offences are committed by persons who are sexually normal in\ntemperament. There remains the whole body of homosexuals, of those, that\nis to say, in whom the homogenic attraction is as integral a part of their\nnature as the appreciation of music or the love of colour. Abundant proof\nof this contention is to hand. There have been thousands of individuals in\nevery age, including the present, who have never heard of\nhomosexuality,[16] have never met other homosexuals, or come into contact\nwith anything approaching homosexual practice; and yet they have been\nhomosexual all their lives. I have known persons who believed that no one\nelse in the world shared their aspirations, and also have suffered\ntortures because of their supposed isolated abnormality.\n\nThe State attitude simply ignores this factor, and accordingly reveals\nitself as unscientific.\n\nIt is true that perhaps by such an agency as psycho-analysis reasons could\nbe found in many of these cases why the individual had developed on\ninverted sex lines; home repressions, the system of early education, the\nage of the parents, these or other influences, may have produced a complex\nwhich has switched the sex-nature on to a particular path. But these\nreasons do not necessarily show the result to be artificial; it is our\nvery nature indeed which these influences construct. It is impossible to\ntrace an exact line between the inherent nature and the effect which\noutside influences have had upon it. We must, and we do in fact, regard\nthe permanent and fundamental traits, however derived, as \"natural.\"\n\nMoreover psycho-analysis definitely indicates that there is a homosexual\nperiod through which all individuals inevitably pass.\n\nThe State theory that the temperament is \"unnatural\" cannot therefore be\nsupported on any grounds, except in the cases where it is deliberately\nassumed by normal persons. In most cases it is natural to the individual's\nnature, and not \"unnatural,\" but \"abnormal.\"\n\nOnce this simple scientific truth is grasped the legal attitude is seen to\ncrumble in all directions. The case for criminal prosecution rests\nlogically on the assumption that unless homosexual practices are rigidly\nsuppressed they will spread. And since their increase would seriously\ndiminish the birth-rate the State is necessarily anxious to avert this\ndanger. But it is an odd perversion which imagines that sober respectable\ncitizens are only restrained from indulging in homosexual vice by the\nthreat of penal servitude! Once the scientific truth is grasped and\nhomosexuality is seen to be, except in a small number of cases, the\nnatural temperament of a small minority, it will be realized that normal\npersons are not likely to wish to commit unnatural acts, whether there is\nor there is not a penal law; nor can any Act of Parliament prevent\nhomosexuals from being homosexual.\n\nAnd in practice this theoretical conclusion is found to hold true. For in\nthe countries, such as France, where the Code Napoleon does not cover\nthese prosecutions, homosexuality is far less rife than in England, or in\nGermany, where until the Revolution the penal law was rigidly enforced.\n\nIt is well that we should face these facts unreservedly, however strong\nmay be our personal antipathy to the practices.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe second attitude may be described generally as that of society. Public\nopinion must necessarily be too vague to admit of succinct definition. But\ngenerally its attitude towards this question may be defined as that of an\nordinary man towards a freak; he has no sympathy with freaks and indeed\ndislikes them--but they are so very rare that he can afford to ignore\nthem.\n\nThe problem of the homosexual cannot however be avoided in this way, for\nthe simple reason that the invert forms so comparatively large and\npermanent a part of the community. It is difficult to attempt an accurate\nestimate, partly because many homosexuals are so afraid of incurring the\nodium of public opinion that they successfully disguise their true nature\nand are unsuspected even by their most intimate friends. But there is a\nmore fundamental difficulty. It appears to be undeniable that a large\nnumber of normal people possess to some extent a strain of the homosexual\ntemperament. We have, in fact, as in almost all classifications, not a\nnaturally dividing gulf but a gradually ascending scale. Some individuals\nmay have only 5 per cent. inverted and 95 per cent. hetero-sexual\ntendencies, while others are only 10 per cent. normal. There are a large\nand increasing number of persons who are almost equally balanced on either\nside. These bisexuals often marry happily and at the same time enjoy\nhomogenic experiences.\n\nWhen we remember that, according to psycho-analysis, everyone about the\nage of puberty passes through a homosexual stage, it is probably not an\nexaggeration to state that few people fail to preserve a stratum of this\nnature, however small the percentage and however deeply such tendencies\nmay be buried in the unconsciousness.\n\nIf however we decide to draw an arbitrary distinction and to define\npersons with less than 30 per cent. inverted nature as normal, persons\nfrom 30 to 60 per cent. as bisexual, and the remainder as homosexual, we\nare left with a considerable number of the last variety. Havelock Ellis\nhas reckoned the percentage of homosexuals among the professional middle\nclasses in England as 5 per cent. and among women as 10 per cent.[17] In\nany case the popular view that the proportion is so small as to be\nnegligible is quite impossible, and is due to the fact that most men are\nso unobservant of psychological evidence that their opinion is of little\nserious value.\n\nHowever undesirable, then, this species of temperament may be, it cannot\nbe described as unnatural in the sense of artificial or unusual. The third\nor current scientific attitude does seem at first to avoid these\nsuperstitions and to rest on a reasonable basis. This attitude may be\ndescribed as that of regarding homosexuality as a disease, which should\nneither be punished nor ignored, but treated. The theory that we all pass\nthrough a homosexual period at a comparatively early stage, lends support\nto this conclusion. The hero-age of boys and girls, it is urged, is almost\nalways directed towards the child's own sex. Therefore it can fairly be\nargued that where the sex development has been restricted to these lines\nit denotes some strange dislocation which has prevented natural growth.\nThe fact that in some cases this cause can actually be traced--such as a\ndisappointment in an early love affair with the opposite sex, or to\nartificial circumstances which have made for celibacy--confirm many\nstudents of sex-science in this opinion.\n\nBut as if nature deliberately intends to thwart all easily attained\nexplanations, she sets out certain facts, in practice, which entirely\ninvalidate the theory. It is true that many homosexuals, both men and\nwomen, portray in general mental efficiency that peculiar want of\nproportion in some direction which is the inevitable symptom of mental\nabnormality; the male may be obviously effeminate, or, male or female,\neccentric or hysterical. But this is distinctly the exception. So far as\nmy personal experience goes, the majority of homosexuals are\nindistinguishable from normal men, except by some psychic or intuitional\nsense, in physical or mental appearance; and I observe that this\nexperience is shared by all those scientists who have written on the\nsubject. The undeniable facts are that among this minority of the race a\nmajority of men have, in all ages and races, held a pre-eminent and\nhonourable position in society, revealing the brilliance of sanity rather\nthan the abnormality of genius. The homosexual has succeeded not only as\nmight have been expected in the arts. It is true that, in general, he\npossesses certain feminine attributes, such as a gentler and more\nemotional positivity than the normal. But he has excelled in such\nmasculine paths as soldiering, statesmanship, and engineering. It is\nalmost irritating, where one wishes to find support for the scientific\nexplanation, to turn to history and discover that the homosexual section\nof the Greeks were magnificent warriors as well as philosophers; that not\nonly Shakespeare, who wrote many of his sonnets to a boy, or Michael\nAngelo, but Alexander the Great, Charles XII of Sweden, Frederick II of\nPrussia, and William III of England, had their homosexual tendencies.\nIndeed, were it permissible to do so, it would be possible to instance\nsome of our most famous generals and politicians of modern times as\npossessing this unmistakable temperament.\n\nIt is well then freely to admit that the scientific theory simply does\nnot square with the full facts of the case.\n\nThe fourth attitude is that of religion. The Church's official position is\nmainly indistinguishable from that of the State, although the atmosphere\nof the Church has tended largely to be congenial to this development. It\nis evident that Christianity was influenced in its early days by the\nappalling condition of vice in Roman society, and it is not to be wondered\nat that a severe legacy of prejudice has been inherited in the light of\nthis indescribable experience. But this brings us conveniently to a point\nwhere we must admit a fallacy underlying almost all considerations of the\nhomogenic sex nature. And unless we are able to dispose of the fallacy in\nour minds, further investigation is useless.\n\nThe fallacy consists of the assumption that homosexuality means only the\nperpetration of the physical sex-act. In reality this is as untrue as to\nsuppose that the normal man is necessarily a patron of prostitutes. Such a\nconfusion of thought is obviously ludicrous. But not less inaccurate is\nthis prevailing idea regarding the homosexual. Not only is the particular\nsex-act, popularly associated with this subject, an extremely rare\noccurence, even as among the physical sex-expressions of this temperament,\nbut probably a vast majority of homosexuals are deliberately celibate.\nHomosexuality is a romantic cult rather than a physical vice. Nine-tenths\nof its energy is directed purely in the realm of ideals. The old\nmisconception of sex as a rather disreputable physical function again dogs\nour steps. But sex is almost entirely emotional; sex-love, and especially\nhomosexual love, is not lust. Its desire is romantic and idealistic, and\nwhen physical incidents occur, they are usually the unintentional outlets\nof the purely emotional passion.\n\nThe literature of homosexuality is almost entirely romantic, and small\nthough it is forced to be, in quality and ideal its average must rank as\nextraordinarily noble.\n\nIt is noticeable, indeed, that in a large proportion of the unpleasant\ncases which are tried in police-courts, the offenders are admittedly\nnormal men who have deliberately perpetrated homosexual acts for various\ncauses, such as a neurotic desire for novelty, or the desire to avoid\ndisease. There are also the considerable class of perverted normals whose\ndeviation from their natural path as the result of some such influence as\nheterosexual disappointment or repression, has been so emphasized as to\nrender their perversion distinct from natural developments, and who\nrefuse, or are unable, to deny themselves physical gratification.\n\nIf we dissociate the true homosexual from this class, and concentrate our\nattention only on the \"celibate\" species of such attachments, it is\nevident that we are in the presence, not merely of something which is not\ncriminal, but of an ideal which is sacred in character. Pure love,\nespecially so intense a love as the homogenic attachment, is not profane\nbut divine. And though the Church may be unable to recognize it by her\nsacramental benediction, because, unlike marriage, it cannot effect\nphysical procreation, she possesses such Biblical precedents as the story\nof David and Jonathan--an episode which is obviously homosexual in the\nsense that it describes not a platonic companionship but a romantic\npassion.\n\nIn the social sphere also, the place of this aspect of homosexuality is\nobvious. The homosexual must, and does in fact, exist in the most honoured\noffices of the community. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to declare that\nfew men can be successful in educational or philanthropic work unless they\nhave some homogenic temperament in their nature. Without this they may\ncompel discipline but they are powerless to attract sympathetic\nco-operation. The testimony in favour of this assertion is overwhelming.\n\nBut when we admit that sex tends to find a physical expression, and we\ncome therefore face to face with the physical problem, the difficulty I\nadmit to be considerable. And I can only re-emphasize that this feature\nis numerically and potentially the least important, but that there can be\nno religious countenance for any physical sex-act outside the sacrament of\nmatrimony.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nRape, and seduction without consent, are obviously evils calling for legal\nprosecution, as being an infringement of personal liberty. And in this\nconnexion it must be remembered that homosexual practices tend to\nseduction, inasmuch as the attraction is frequently towards those who have\nnot attained intellectual manhood. For the rest, I am inclined only to\nre-affirm the general principle which I have already attempted to\ndefine--namely, that sex becomes a sin where the main objective becomes\nthe physical gratification. Once the proportion is weighed on the side of\nphysical expression, love is prostituted. The purity of true love is known\nby the fact that its face is turned not to mere physical functions, but\nbeyond the emotional and even mental, to the spiritual ideal. Indeed, a\nlover, whatever his temperament happens to be, loves even if his beloved\nis removed from all physical reach. That is the test.\n\nI do not look for salvation to the arms of mere criminal legislation. This\nseems to me to be almost powerless as a moral force, and indeed, to\nencourage the hideous apparatus of blackmail.[18] Gradual and\nunsensational as it may be, I believe that morals can only be improved by\neducational and religious influences.\n\nAnd so far as theoretical solutions are concerned I believe that Mr.\nEdward Carpenter[19] comes nearest to the truth. Nature is deliberate in\ncreating not uniformity but variety, and I doubt if the world would\ncontinue if there were only normal men in it. The homosexual has his\nplace, within restrictions, as has the celibate or the sexless type. The\nreal truth, I feel to be, is that few men are wholly masculine or women\nfeminine, and that somewhere, in comparative degrees, homosexuality is in\nus all. It may become so excessive as to be a disease, or so feeble as to\ncreate that unaesthetic, bourgeoise type, which is an unpleasant symptom\nof super-normality.\n\nWe enter the realm of pure conjecture if we attempt to inquire the purpose\nfor which this type has been deliberately created. And I can only record\nmy own entirely unproveable, but definite opinion, that the human race, in\nthe far ages ahead, will return, by a spiral process, to the bisexual\nspecies from which I believe it has come. If this is so, the homosexual is\napparently a prototype, a preliminary attempt of nature to combine both\nsex-natures in one individual. And with all his present imperfections, I\nbelieve that there are evidences which go strongly to support this\nconjecture.\n\n\n\n\nChapter 9: The Sexless Class\n\n\nThere is little that need be written on this subject, not because it is\ndevoid of interest, but because it raises no vital sex problem.\n\nThe number of sexless people is small, though apparently increasing. It\nmay be questioned whether there are any really sexless people--individuals,\ni.e. whose sex-nature is non-existent. Probably in most of these cases\nsex, for some reason or other, is there, dormant but positive. But it is\nconvenient so to classify those in whom, for some reason, the sex-force\nhas never yet been stirred.\n\nIt must be remembered that this class is quite distinct from the religious\ncelibate. The celibate has all the sexual ardour for his religious or\nhumanitarian devotion. The sexless man or woman is cold, intellectually\naloof, and generally critical.\n\nThere are only two considerations calling for remarks on this interesting\npsychological problem. The first is that we must not allow the great body\nof normal opinion to label such people as unnatural, and as having no part\nto play in the community. They have, on the contrary, an important role.\nTheir intellectual ability is in itself a great asset, particularly in\nabstract and critical directions. And in all sex questions they should,\nand frequently have, an impartial outlook, for the very reason that they\ncan view sex from a detached standpoint.\n\nBut, conversely--and this is the second consideration--they possess the\nimmoral tendency of regarding sex with abhorrence, especially when they\nconfuse sex with mere physical expression. In extreme cases the sexless\nindividual has been known even to faint or exhibit symptoms of nausea at\nthe chance touch of a woman. This is obviously to magnify the physical\nside out of all clean proportion. And probably such cases show themselves\nto be the result of artificial repression and consequent complex. It may\nbe argued from this that all deviations from the normal are the results of\nrepression. But, as we have seen, the difference between natural and\nunnatural is comparative, and most of our nature is built up, in the first\ninstance, by early exterior influences.\n\n\n\n\nChapter 10: Super-Abnormalities\n\n\nUnder this head I have included a number of characteristics, which have no\nconnective bearing upon one another. It seemed the most convenient\nclassification.\n\nPerhaps it will be best to take as the first example a sex tendency which\ncan hardly be described as super-abnormal, for among single men, and\nespecially among boys, it is extremely common.\n\nAuto-eroticism in the form of self-abuse is not an easy problem to tackle.\nThe usual policy adopted towards boys is most immoral. Well-meaning but\nhopelessly vicious purists, write terrifying pamphlets or deliver lectures\nin which they declare that this practice will inevitably lead to lunacy,\nparalysis or even death. The result is that the boy is scared into an\nineffectual attempt at repression, which, so far as it is successful, sets\nthe sex-impulse at work into morose channels and makes him a liar or a\nthief. Or he may be impelled to inquire for himself. He finds that, so\nlong as self-abuse occurs infrequently, it does not bring about these dire\nevils, and accordingly he assumes that all moral doctrine is hypocrisy\nand often falls into the opposite extreme of constant self-abuse, with the\nresult that actual physical and mental deterioration sets in.\n\nWhat is really the truth?\n\nThe first consideration is that frequent and unregulated abuse does cause\nphysical harm. The margin of frequency which will escape this harm varies\nwith the individual. But, with growing boys, the practice is perhaps more\ndangerous than after physical maturity. The whole reserve of the physical\nconstitution appears to be needed while the body is developing.\n\nThe difficulty of this problem is its complications. There are several\nentirely conflicting influences which must be weighed one against the\nother.\n\nWe have seen the physical danger, and, since morality must not be founded\non a lie, we must freely admit that the physical danger may be eliminated\nby limiting the frequency of the practice. It may then be physically\nharmless. There remain, however, at least two causes which make for a\nmisuse of the sex-force, that is--for immorality. The first is that it is\nusually the result of mental weakness, sheer inability to overcome the\ninclination. The mind, the will, _must_ be supreme in its own house. Until\nthat is done little else matters. And it comes, therefore, to this, so far\nas this particular consideration is concerned, that it is better for a\nman deliberately to regulate himself by programme to certain times, than\nto keep up an ineffectual struggle, or to obey whenever the inclination\narises.\n\nFor, in both these cases, remorse follows. And this is as great an evil as\nthe failure of will; indeed, it _is_ failure of will. Remorse is not\npenitence. It is useless thereby to regret what has been done. A man must\nsimply own to himself that he has failed, make a resolution to be stronger\nnext time, and then sweep the recollection from his mind, switching off on\nto other mental channels.\n\nThe second influence which makes for impurity is that by this practice the\nsex-force becomes literally selfish. Now, sex is fundamentally a movement\ntowards union through love, whether it be physical or super-physical. This\npractice is merely a vicious circle, in which the love element, save in\nthe perverted form of narcissism, is absent. Accordingly, there must,\nalmost always, be evil mental results from this abuse. And, once again, we\nsee that the real evil is not in the physical act but in the realm of\nthought, whether the act occurs or not.\n\nOn the other hand, we must not become such abstract moralists as to deny\nthat in many individuals the sex-force is so strong as to press almost\nirresistibly towards physical expression. Even dreams, which are the\nnormal outlet, may not be sufficient. A man who for some reason, cannot\nmarry, will therefore argue that his only alternative is recourse to\nprostitution, and that self-abuse, so long as it is regulated, is morally\npreferable. One remedy is, as we have already seen, the transfer of the\nsex-force to higher channels, so that all the glow and energy of sex is\nenergized in devotion to a group of persons, or to a religious or\nhumanitarian ideal in concrete labour. For sex is primarily creative, and\nif it is not creating physical children it may have, and should have, a\nspiritual progeny--as in art and literature.\n\nThe truth is that each individual case must be treated according to its\nparticular state of development. General rules in this instance are\nparticularly dangerous. We can only repeat that the repression is worse\nthan commission, that a seething mass of sexual thought is worse when it\nhas no physical outlet; that the ideal, when there may be no legitimate\noutlet--and, indeed, to some extent, in all cases--is to find an emotional\noutlet, to dig thought and emotional channels along which the sex-force\nmay flow, but the physical expression of which is, in the ordinary sense\nof the term, non-sexual.[20]\n\nAnd this is quite possible.\n\n\nII\n\nAttraction towards young children is frequently, perhaps almost entirely,\nsexual. A symptom of this temperament is that romantic attachments are\nformed towards either sex, because, before puberty, the child is bisexual\nor sexless. This must essentially be a cult; it is a clean and noble cult,\nbut the penalty of its high standard is that here all physical sex\nexpression must be denied except in the lesser form of embrace.\n\nHere, indeed, the prosecution of the law against sex-acts is justified.\nFor, not only is the child incapable of giving valid consent, but the\ncommission of the sex-act is physically and morally injurious. It is\nphysically injurious beyond all doubt at a young age, and it is morally\ninjurious, because it introduces sex to an age of development when the\nconsciousness of sex should not have appeared above the horizon. The\ninevitable result is that if sex-acts take place the child eventually ages\nrapidly, as can be seen among the child-mothers of India. Maturity is\ninduced far before its time.\n\nThe sex consciousness, as distinct from the unconsciousness, can be\nawakened in the earliest years of childhood. The young boy or girl often\nshows an extraordinarily intuitive perception that there is a sexual\ndesign behind even the apparently harmless overtures. And this is why this\ncult is particularly dangerous. The lover, in fact, must not only entirely\neliminate the morally criminal sex inclinations, but he must take care not\nto become so sentimental and romantic as really to suggest sex to the\nchild's unconsciousness. It is difficult to draw the line as to what is a\nlawful and what is an unlawful expression of this sex-temperament. One can\nonly say that the remedy is not to concentrate love on one child, but on\nchildren generally. The child must not be treated as an adult; there must\nbe no manifestations of jealousy, or insistence on a return of love\nexpression. The embrace of children must be natural but not too ardent. In\nfact, the lover must diffuse his love and romp with children as a class\nrather than allow himself to appear emotional over one individual.\n\nMany unthinking people will at once regard this temperament as impure when\nthey have been convinced that scientifically it is sexual. But this is\nonly because they cannot understand that sex is a clean thing and that the\nphysical side of it is an occasional and by no means an inevitable\nincident. The cult of child-love is in fact one of the purest and noblest\nof sex-expressions. But it is a difficult path, and he who treads it must\nbeware of many pitfalls.\n\nAgain, I quite deny that it is due to thwarted paternal instinct. I\nbelieve it to be as natural a variety as any other of the\nsex-temperaments. We have suffered too long from the superstition that sex\nis a uniformity of type.\n\n\nIII\n\nThen there is that strange form of sex-expression known as bestiality.\n\nTo most of us the connexion between man and beast in sex is so revolting\nthat there is a great danger of our prejudice running away with us.\n\nI believe that prejudice against what seems to me so debased a vice, is\njustifiable. But I am equally sure that to punish such offences by\ncriminal law has no shred of justification, except when the act is done in\npublic so as to be openly indecent. No physical or moral harm can be done\nto the animal. And were it not tragic, the idea of sentencing the\noffenders to penal servitude would be itself a travesty.\n\nThe practice, which is not so uncommon as many people imagine, is not so\nmuch immoral as unnatural. I mean that this can hardly ever be a variety\nof sex-temperament. Although the love of women for pet dogs is probably a\nform of perverted sex-outlet, it seems impossible to discover here any\nactual love going out towards animals rather than to humans. Therefore,\nthe act is almost always due to a desire for mere physical expression,\nwhen this happens to have been chosen as the most convenient.\n\nThe true remedy, therefore, can only be to take the individual and educate\nhim. He must be shown that it is immoral for man to devolve back to the\nanimal level. He is superior to the beast. He must be reminded that sex\nmust be a result of love, and that sex-love between man and animal would\nonly be possible if it were moral for man to cease to reason, to go down\non all fours, and to eat and drink and live like an animal. Even the most\nprimitive man would not wish to do that. And if he feels any sense of\nabhorrence at such a proposal, then he must learn to extend his abhorrence\nto any attempt at a similar equality in sex.\n\n\nIV\n\nThe strange and almost endless forms of sex-association need not be\nconsidered, since they have no moral problem of their own. The man whose\nsex-force is stirred into energy by the sight of some inanimate physical\nobject is obviously the victim of a sex-repression. And such diseases must\nbe treated as any other repressions should be. These general\nconsiderations must suffice here for all forms of sex perversions, such as\nsadism and its converse. And it is not difficult to distinguish between\nthe unnaturalness of such practices and the natural character of the main\nsex-types which we have already mentioned.\n\n\n\n\nChapter XI: Sex Education\n\n\nIt is becoming evident to all students of the sex-problem that the remedy\nfor many of the difficulties arising therefrom is a wholesome and\nefficient sex-education.\n\nIn many cases the parents are not the persons most fitted to give this\neducation. They may not possess the art of imparting knowledge, and often\nthere is a certain reticence between parent and child, which when present\ncreates a bar to the proper handling of this question. The child goes to\nschool to learn, and the school must take its share of this\nresponsibility. Where this is not done the effect is deplorable. In the\npreparatory school sex has hardly appeared. But in any school where there\nare older boys or girls, and where sex-education is not given, knowledge\nis rapidly obtained. Officially sex is ignored until, on rare occasions,\nit is detected. Severe punishment is then meted out, and perhaps the\noffender is even expelled, although the school is really penalizing the\nresults of its own system.\n\nIt is unnecessary to labour the apology that the absence of sex-education\nensures innocence. In no school is this the case. If it were, with growing\nboys and girls, it would be unnatural. Sex-instinct is bound to grow as\nthe physical body grows, and to ignore this fact is to create the\nconception that sex-instinct is immoral. We then obtain the usual attitude\nadopted in public schools--that sex is to be indulged behind closed doors\nand sex literature sniggered at in dark corners. The boy grows up with a\ntotally unclean view of sex. He becomes either an intolerable prude, or\nelse he approaches sex-experience with an entirely twisted conception of\nsex-morality. One is continually meeting instances of this perverted\nimagination. Not only boys, but men, will regard an outspoken book on sex,\nperhaps written with the purest of motives, as \"hot stuff,\" something to\nbe greedily devoured when the eye of respectable authority is conveniently\nremoved. Recently, a man was told that a certain clergyman was a member of\na group of students studying sex-psychology. He expressed the opinion,\nwith a knowing leer, that \"some parsons are not such fools after all.\"\n\nThese crude examples of the result of driving sex into a dark corner\nexactly represent what one is up against in school, and in the world, when\none begins to deal with sex openly and cleanly as a natural and\nnon-repressible instinct. Really these people are a type of prude, much\nas they would resent this classification, for they persist in regarding\nsex as something which is rather naughty. They even imagine that to take\naway from it the cloak of unnaturalness with which they have surrounded it\nis to rob it of all its attraction. This is ridiculously untrue. Sex is\nattractive because it is romantic, and, so long as one does not go to the\nopposite extreme of regarding it merely through the musty glasses of\nscientific classification, it becomes no less attractive when it is open\nand natural, and ceases to be the cause of giggling asides.\n\nBefore any moral sense in the sex-problem can be established there must be\na fundamental cleaning of this cess-pool, this strange medley of official\nsilence, unnatural repression, and unclean secretiveness. The main road to\na moral sense is sex-education. And it is necessary, therefore, to\nconclude this outline of principles by suggesting some conditions which\nshould govern such instruction.\n\nIt is obvious that sex-education must be advanced on the process of a\nsliding scale. Before puberty sex should not appear on the horizon of the\nchild's consciousness. The precocious child must of course be specially\ndealt with, but usually the first lessons in sex should commence with the\nperiod of mental puberty. Before that time the small child jokes only\nabout the normal excretory functions, and this can be adjusted by\nemphasizing the unmanly and unnecessary character of such forms of humour.\nA child has usually an exaggerated impression of the value of the adult\nstandard, an impression which it must be confessed is too often subject to\nsubsequent disillusionment. While it remains, however, it can be used, and\nit can be pointed out that \"grown-ups\" do not consider the excretory\nsystem has any more claim to ridicule than the process of digestion or\nsleep. Vulgarity and coarseness are not symptoms even of immoral\nsexuality.\n\nThe problem commences, then, with puberty. And here a warning should be\nuttered against that school of reformers which tends to the view that sex\ncan be regarded as naturally and as publicly as natural history or\nchemistry. This attitude ignores the fact that there is such a quality as\nsexual appetite. And consequently, sex education should be rather a matter\nfor individuals than for public instruction. We have remarked that the\nparent may not infrequently be an unfortunate educator. But where these\nobjections do not arise, the home is an admirable atmosphere for sensible\nteaching. The Catholic Church possesses the invaluable medium of the\nConfessional, and where the Confessor can give sound sex instruction no\nbetter opportunity can be imagined. There remains the school, but even\nhere better work will be done in the study than the classroom.\n\nThe immediate problem in the early post-puberty age is the tendency\ntowards solitary practices. It must be recognized that this is usual with\nall children, and that there is no evidence to show that, save in extreme\nexceptions, physical harm results. All attempt at _alarmist prudism_ must\nbe abandoned. Sane instruction will tend rather to emphasize that sex\nabuse is due to a weakness of will-power, and that man is most manly, i.e.\nmost removed from the animal, in the exercise of will-power. All education\nshould contain that subject which is at present consistently ignored,\nnamely, the art of thought-control. The child will be interested to follow\ncertain simple rules of mental exercise, and where this is followed the\nliability to indulge in sex-acts diminishes. It is this element which must\nbe emphasized, the fact, that is, that solitary practices are usually the\nresult of an inability to exercise the will and control the mind.\n\nAt a slightly later period, the public-school age, there emerges the\ntendency, in addition to onanism, for promiscuous practices, usually of a\nhomogenic nature. A further stage of sex-education must now be opened out,\nnamely the principle that physical sex expression must be the expression\nonly of love. The problem now becomes necessarily more acute, but there is\nthis element which tends to lessen the difficulties of the instructor's\ntask. The individual is always interested about himself; he is naturally\negotistical. The youth will gladly listen to what can be told him of his\nown nature. He must be shown the immense superiority of mind both over the\nemotional and physical natures. This may involve a slight dethronement of\nthe public school appreciation of sport. So long as it is slight such a\ndethronement will be a reform in itself. The boy in his middle teens must\nbe taught that man is greater in his mental than in his physical activity;\nhe must be reminded that he is inferior to many animals on the physical\nlevel. The application of this doctrine to sex is that sex-expression for\nthe purpose of physical curiosity or excitement is a denial of the\nmonopoly of love, which belongs to the emotional and mental capacities.\n\nThe young man and the girl, who has left school, will be ready to receive\nthe whole standard of sex-morality as has been outlined in this manual.\nThe chief trouble now becomes over-sentimentality, the tendency to develop\nemotionally at the expense of the mind. And it becomes, therefore,\nessential to remind the pupil that where there are continual passing and\npromiscuous sexual or love affairs, the mind is being shut out from its\nnatural functions. To be attracted sexually towards any pretty girl, to\ndevelop sexual relations with different women from week to week, is simply\na form of mental unbalance. The emotions are in the saddle. For directly\nthe mind begins to operate there is introduced the element of permanency\nand constancy. The deepest and most real pleasures only begin in the realm\nof mentality. The man who hears music only to beat time or remember a\ncatchy tune is shut out of the immense joy of the intellectual love of\nmusic. So the young man who lives in a fever of hot-house sexuality, of\nabsorbing intrigues in the dance-room, or the morbid atmosphere of the\nstreet corner, is shut out of all the exquisite joys of love. He does not\nknow this, any more than the irreligious man knows what he loses through\nan absence of the spiritual sense. But he must be told.\n\nThe basic principle of sex values is that sex is immoral so far as the\nphysical side outweighs in proportion the emotional and mental--so far\nindeed, as the act becomes the motive and not the incident. Sex may be\ndedicated only to love; divorced from love, it is an abuse. There can be\nno exceptions to this rule, and we can only clarify our ideas as to what\nis and what is not love. Perhaps this maxim, which we learn by gradual\nexperience, will help us. Sex passion quickly burns itself out. The\npleasures derived from passion will be of a purely temporary nature,\nwithout the satisfaction which alone comes from permanence. All physical\nthings are less permanent than the mental. There is no joy, no divine\nnature in sex, save where from the ashes of passion rises the phoenix of\nthe \"sexual\" but the super-passionate attachment. And this permanent\npossession can only come, whether in marriage or outside, where the mind,\nhealthily developed and exercised, is taking its true place in the\nexpression of pure love.\n\n\n_Printed in Great Britain by Hazell, Watson & Viney, Ld., London and\nAylesbury._\n\n\n\n\nFootnotes:\n\n[1] _The Origin of Sexual Modesty_, by Edward Westermarck.\n\n[2] _Vide_ R. V. Jellyman (1838) 8 C and P, 604.\n\n[3] Until recently incest was not a civil offence.\n\n[4] The second object of marriage is declared to be \"a remedy against\nsin...; that such persons as have not the gift of continency marry and\nkeep themselves undefiled members of Christ's body.\"\n\n[5] 1 Cor. vii. 8, 9. \"Burn\" means sex-obsession as mentioned on page 38.\n\n[6] \"Where the decree Tametsi of the Council of Trent has not been\nproclaimed, marriage is constituted by mere consent freely exchanged\nbetween persons who are by natural and canonical law competent and able to\nintermarry.\"--Geary's _Marriage and Family Relations_. (Now altered by _Ne\ntemere_-decree, but the principle remains.)\n\n[7] We have already commented on the strange inconsistency of regarding\nthe sex-act as evil _per se_ outside marriage, and as a virtue in\nmarriage.\n\n[8] I am using \"celibacy\" to imply complete physical chastity.\n\n[9] With the curious inconsistency, already referred to, that in marriage\nnon-celibacy is a virtue.\n\n[10] Except by Act of Parliament.\n\n[11] The Majority Report of the Divorce Commission is a good instance of\nthe unnecessary hardship which results from half-hearted proposals of this\nkind. Divorce is to be allowed, for example, after desertion for three\nyears; why not for two? Or again, the wife of an incurable drunkard is to\nbe free to obtain divorce, while the unhappy wife of a man who suffers\nfrom violent fits of intermittent drunkenness is to be denied this relief.\n\n[12] I refrain from adding \"economic\" reasons, for I believe that the\nState should remove, as far as possible, all such obstacles against\nhealthy parents begetting children.\n\n[13] Procuration for the purpose of prostitution is of course an entirely\ndifferent matter.\n\n[14] No actual physical harm need result from an incestuous union. The\nonly effect which seems to be caused is that the characteristics to be\nhereditarily transmitted are doubled. Thus with only a small grain of\ninsanity in a family the chances of aggravated insanity appearing in the\noffspring of a brother and sister would be considerable.\n\n[15] Spiritual affinity was a bar, so that not only could not godparents\nmarry each other, but there could be no valid unions between a godparent\nand the child's father or mother. (Geary's _Marriage and Family\nRelations_.)\n\n[16] Some apology must be made for the use of this hybrid term. The\nunwarrantable confusion of Greek and Latin terminology must, however, be\nlaid at the door of popular use.\n\n[17] _Psychology of Sex_; Vol. _Sexual Inversion_. Dr. Hirschfeld in his\n_Statistischen Vatersuchunge ueber den Prozentensetz der Homosexuellen_,\nconsiders that out of 100,000 inhabitants, 94,600 on the average are\nsexually normal, 1,500 exclusively homosexual, and 3,900 bisexual.\n\n[18] The existence of this danger was admitted in a debate in the House of\nLords on August 15, 1921, on The Criminal Law Amendment Bill. The Earl of\nMalmesbury, speaking on a proposal to apply criminal prosecution to\nhomosexual offences among women, declared that \"the opportunity for\nblackmail will be vastly and enormously increased.\" Other speakers\nconcurred in this view, and it was partly on this ground that the proposal\nwas thrown out.\n\nIt is hardly necessary to point out that if blackmail would be encouraged\nby such legislation, it must equally be encouraged by the present law\nregarding similar offences between males.\n\n[19] _The Intermediate Sex._\n\n[20] I cannot enter here into that further theory which may be described\nas \"expression through a phantasy.\"","title":"An Outline of Sexual Morality","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":18471}