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