. |
It
is odd that neither the Church nor modern public opinion condemns petting, provided it
stops short at a certain point. At what point sin begins is a matter as to which casuists
differ. One eminently orthodox Catholic divine laid it down that a confessor may fondle a
nun's breasts, provided he does it without evil intent. But I doubt whether modern
authorities would agree with him on this point. (U.E.p80) The phrase 'in the sight of God' puzzles me. One
would suppose that God sees everything, but apparently this is a mistake. He does not see
Reno, for you cannot be divorced in the sight of God. Register offices are a doubtful
point. I notice that respectable people, who would not call on anybody who lives in open
sin, are quite willing to call on people who have had only a civil marriage; so apparently
God does see register offices. (U.E.p79)
Tolstoy and Mahatma Gandhi, in their old
age, laid it down that all sexual intercourse is wicked, even in marriage and with a view
to offspring. The Manicheans thought likewise, relying upon men's native sinfulness to
supply them with a continually fresh crop of disciples. This doctrine, however, is
heretical, though it is equally heretical to maintain that marriage is as praiseworthy as
celibacy. Tolstoy thinks tobacco almost as bad as sex; in one of his novels, a man who is
contemplating murder smokes a cigarette first in order to generate the necessary homicidal
fury. Tobacco, however, is not prohibited in the Scriptures, though,as Samuel Butler
points out, St. Paul would no doubt have denounced it if he had known of it. (U.E.p79)
[According to St. Thomas] Divine Law
directs us to love God; also, in a lesser degree, our neighbor. It forbids fornication,
because the father should stay with the mother while the children are being reared. It
forbids birth control, as being against nature; it does not, however, on this account
forbid life-long celibacy. Matrimony should be indissoluble, because the father is needed
in the education of the children, both as more rational than the mother, and as having
more physical strength when punishment is required. Not all carnal intercourse is sinful,
since it is natural; but to think the married state as good as continence is to fall into
the heresy of Jovinian. There must be strict monogamy; polygyny is unfair to women, and
polyandry makes paternity uncertain. Incest is to be forbidden because it would complicate
family life. Against brother-sister incest there is a very curious argument: that if the
love of husband and wife were combined with that of brother and sister, mutual attraction
would be so strong as to cause unduly frequent intercourse. (H.W.P.p459)
St. Paul's views were emphasized and
exaggerated by the early Church; celibacy was considered holy and men retired into the
desert to wrestle with Satan while he filled their imaginations with lustful visions. (M.M.p48)
If the old morality is to be
re-established, certain things are essential; some of them are already done, but
experience shows that these alone are not effective. The first essential is that the
education of girls should be such as to make them stupid and superstitious and ignorant;
this requisite is already fulfilled in schools over which the churches have any control.
The next requisite is a very severe censorship upon all books giving information on sex
subjects; this condition also is coming to be fulfilled in England and in America, since
the censorship, without change in the law, is being tightened up by the increasing zeal of
the police. These conditions, however, since they exist already, are clearly insufficient.
The only thing that will suffice is to remove from young women all opportunity of being
alone with men: girls must be forbidden to earn their living by work outside the home;
they must never be allowed an outing unless accompanied by their mother or an aunt; the
regrettable practice of going to dances without a chaperon must be sternly stamped out. It
must be illegal for an unmarried woman under fifty to possess a motor-car, and perhaps it
would be wise to subject all unmarried women once a month to medical examination by police
doctors, and to send to a penitentiary all such as were found to be not virgins. The use
of contraceptives must, of course, be eradicated, and it must be illegal in conversation
with unmarried women to throw doubt upon the dogma of eternal damnation. These measures,
if carried out vigorously for a hundred years or more, may perhaps do something to stem
the rising tide of immorality. I think, however, that in order to avoid the risk of
certain abuses, it would be necessary that all policemen and all medical men should be
castrated. Perhaps it would be wise to carry this policy a step further, in view of the
inherent depravity of the male character. I am inclined to think that moralists would be
well advised to advocate that all men should be castrated, with the exception of ministers
of religion since reading Elmer Gantry, I have begun to feel that even this exception is
perhaps not quite wise. (M.M.p90/1)
Christianity, and more particularly St.
Paul, introduced an entirely novel view of marriage, that it existed not primarily for the
procreation of children, but to prevent the sin of fornication.... (I Cor. vii. 1-9.) St.
Paul makes no mention whatever of children; the biological purpose of marriage appears to
him wholly unimportant. This is quite natural, since he imagined that the Second Coming
was imminent and that the world would soon come to an end. At the Second Coming men were
to be divided into sheep and goats, and the only thing of real importance was to find
oneself among the sheep on that occasion. St. Paul holds that sexual intercourse, even in
marriage, is something of a handicap in the attempt to win salvation (I Cor. vii. 32-4).
Nevertheless it is possible for married people to be saved, but fornication is deadly sin,
and the unrepentant fornicator is sure to find himself among the goats. I remember once
being advised by a doctor to abandon the practice of smoking, and he said that I should
find it easier if, whenever the desire came upon me, I proceeded to suck an acid drop. It
is in this spirit that St. Paul recommends marriage. He does not suggest that it is quite
as pleasant as fornication, but he thinks it may enable the weaker brethren to withstand
temptation; he does not suggest for a moment that there may be any positive good in
marriage, or that affection between husband and wife may be a beautiful and desirable
thing, nor does he take the slightest interest in the family; fornication holds the center
of the stage in his thoughts, and the whole of his sexual ethics is arranged with
reference to it. It is just as if one where to maintain that the sole reason for baking
bread is to prevent people from stealing cake. (M.M.p44-47)
The Puritans, in their determination to
avoid the pleasures of sex, became somewhat more conscious than people had been before of
the pleasures of the table. As a seventeenth-century critic of Puritanism says:
"Would you enjoy gay nights and pleasant dinners? Then must you board with saints and
bed with sinners." It would seem, therefore, that the Puritans did not succeed in
subduing the purely corporeal part of our human nature, since what they took away from sex
they added to gluttony. Gluttony is regarded by the Catholic Church as one of the seven
deadly sins, and those who practice it are placed by Dante in one of the deeper circles of
hell, but it is a somewhat vague sin, since it is hard to say where a legitimate interest
in food ceases, and guilt begins to be incurred. Is it wicked to eat anything that is not
nourishing? If so, with every salted almond we risk damnation. (M.M.p290)
Men have from time immemorial been allowed
in practice, if not in theory, to indulge in illicit sexual relations. It has not been
expected of a man that he should be a virgin on entering marriage, and even after
marriage, infidelities are not viewed very gravely if they never come to the knowledge of
a man's wife and neighbors. The possibility of this system has depended upon prostitution.
This institution, however, is one which it is difficult for a modern to defend, and few
will suggest that women should acquire the same rights as men through the establishment of
a class of male prostitutes for the satisfaction of women who wish, like their husbands,
to seem virtuous without being so.... Every conventional moralist who takes the trouble to
think it out will see that he is committed in practice to what is called the double
standard, that is to say, the view that sexual virtue is more essential in a woman than in
a man. It is all very well to argue that his theoretical ethic demands continence of men
also. To this there is the obvious retort that the demand cannot be enforced on the men
since it is easy for them to sin secretly. The conventional moralist is thus committed
against his will not only to an inequality as between men and women, but also to the view
that it is better for a young man to have intercourse with prostitutes than with girls of
his own class, in spite of the fact that with the latter, though not with the former, his
relations are not mercenary and may be affectionate and altogether delightful. Moralists,
of course, do not think out the consequences of advocating a morality which they know will
not be obeyed; they think that so long as they do not advocate prostitution they are not
responsible for the fact that prostitution is the inevitable outcome of their teaching.
This, however, is only another illustration of the well-known fact that the professional
moralist in our day is a man of less than average intelligence. (M.M.p86-88)
The Catholic Church has not remained so
unbiological as St. Paul and the hermits of the baid. From St. Paul one gathers that
marriage is to be regarded solely as a more or less legitimate outlet for lust. One would
not gather from his words that he would have any objection to birth control: on the
contrary, one would be led to suppose that he would regard as dangerous the periods of
continence involved in pregnancy and childbirth. The Church has taken a different view.
Marriage in the orthodox Christian doctrine has two purposes: one. that recognized by St.
Paul, the other, the procreation of children. The consequence has been to make sexual
morality even more difficult than it was made by St. Paul. Not only is sexual intercourse
only legitimate within marriage, but even between husband and wife it becomes a sin unless
it is hoped that it will lead to pregnancy. The desire for legitimate offspring is, in
fact, according to the Catholic Church, the only motive which can justify sexual
intercourse. But this motive always justifies it, no matter what cruelty may accompany it.
If the wife hates sexual intercourse, if she is likely to die of another pregnancy, if the
child is likely to be diseased or insane, if there is not enough money to prevent the
utmost extreme of misery, that does not prevent the man from being justified in insisting
on his conjugal rights, provided only that he hopes to beget a child. (M.M.p52/3)
The view of the orthodox moralist (this
includes the police and the magistrates, but hardly any modern educators) on the question
of sex knowledge may, I fancy, be fairly stated as follows.... There is no doubt that
sexual misconduct is promoted by sexual thoughts, and that the best road to virtue is to
keep the young occupied in mind and body with matters wholly unconnected with sex. They
must, therefore, be told nothing whatever about sex; they must as far as possible be
prevented from talking about it with each other, and grownups must pretend that there is
no such topic. It is possible by these means to keep a girl in ignorance until the night
of her marriage, when it is to be expected that the facts will so shock her as to produce
exactly that attitude towards sex which every sound moralist considers desirable in women.
(M.M.p98/9)
Catholic teaching . . . has a two-fold
basis; it rests, on the one hand, upon the asceticism which we already find in St. Paul,
on the other, upon the view that it is good to bring into the world as many souls as
possible, since every soul is capable of salvation. For some reason which I do not
understand, the fact that souls are equally capable of damnation is not taken into
account, and yet it seems quite as relevant. Catholics, for example, use their political
influence to prevent Protestants from practicing birth control, and yet they must hold
that the great majority of Protestant children whom their political action causes to exist
will endure eternal torment in the next world. This makes their action seem somewhat
unkind, but doubtless these are mysteries which the profane cannot hope to understand. (M.M.p53/4)
Within the monogamic family there are many
varieties. Marriages may be decided by the parties themselves or by their parents. In some
countries the bride is purchased; in others, e.g. France, the bridegroom. Then there may
be all kinds of differences as regards divorce, from the Catholic extreme, which permits
no divorce, to the law of old China, which permitted a man to divorce his wife for being a
chatterbox. Constancy or quasi-constancy in sex relations arises among animals, as well as
among human beings, where, for the preservation of the species, the participation of the
male is necessary for the rearing of the young. Birds, for example, have to sit upon their
eggs continuously to keep them warm, and also have to spend a good many hours of the day
getting food. To do both is, among many species, impossible for one bird, and therefore
male co-operation is essential. The consequence is that most birds are models of virtue.
Among human beings the co-operation of the father is a great biological advantage to the
offspring, especially in unsettled times and among turbulent populations; but with the
growth of modern civilization the role of the father is being increasingly taken over by
the State, and there is reason to think that a father may cease before long to be
biologically advantageous, at any rate in the wage-earning class. If this should occur, we
must expect a complete breakdown of traditional morality, since there will no longer be
any reason why a mother should wish the paternity of her child to be indubitable. Plato
would have us go a step further, and put the State not only in place of the father but in
that of the mother also. I am not myself sufficiently an admirer of the State, or
sufficiently impressed with the delights of orphan asylums, to be enthusiastic in favor of
this scheme. (M.M.p13/4)
Malinowski found it quite impossible, in
spite of his best argumentative efforts, to persuade his friends on the islands that there
is such a thing as paternity. They regarded this as a silly story invented by the
missionaries. Christianity is a patriarchal religion, and cannot be made emotionally or
intellectually intelligible to people who do not recognize fatherhood. Instead of 'God the
Father' it would be necessary to speak of 'God the Maternal Uncle,' but this does not give
quite the right shade of meaning, since fatherhood implies both power and love, whereas in
Melanesia the maternal uncle has the power and the father has the love. The idea that men
are God's children is one which cannot be conveyed to the Trobriand Islanders, since they
do not think that anybody is the child of any male. Consequently, missionaries are
compelled to tackle first the facts of physiology before they can go on to preach their
religion. One gathers from Malinowksi that they have had no success in this initial task,
and have, therefore, been quite unable to proceed to the teaching of the Gospel. (M.M.p21/2)
Cruelty is in theory a perfectly adequate
ground for divorce, but it may be interpreted so as to become absurd. When the most
eminent of all film stars was divorced by his wife for cruelty, one of the counts in the
proof of cruelty was that he used to bring home friends who talked about Kant. I can
hardly suppose that it was the intention of the California legislators to enable any woman
to divorce her husband on the ground that he was sometimes guilty of intelligent
conversation in her presence. (M.M.p234)
The need for prostitution arises from the
fact that many men are either unmarried or away from their wives on journeys, that such
men are not content to remain continent, and that in a conventionally virtuous community
they do not find respectable women available. Society therefore sets apart a certain class
of women for the satisfaction of those masculine needs which it is ashamed to acknowledge
yet afraid to leave wholly unsatisfied. The prostitute has the advantage, not only that
she is available at a moment's notice, but that, having no life outside her profession,
she can remain hidden without difficulty, and the man who has been with her can return to
his wife, his family, and his church with unimpaired dignity. She, however, poor woman, in
spite of the undoubted service she performs, in spite of the fact that she safeguards the
virtues of wives and daughters and the apparent virtue of church-wardens, is universally
despised, thought to be an outcast, and not allowed to associate with ordinary people
except in the way of business. This blazing injustice began with the victory of the
Christian religion; and has been continued ever since. (M.M.)
Missionaries may argue that the superiority
of the Christian code is known by revelation. The philosopher however, must observe that
other religions make the same claim . . . the Manicheans thought it wicked to eat any
animal food except fish, but many sects have considered this exception an abomination. The
Dukhobors refused military service, but held it proper to dance naked all together round a
camp fire; being persecuted for the former tenet in Russia, they emigrated to Canada,
where they were persecuted for the latter. The Mormons had a divine revelation in favor of
polygamy, but under pressure from the United States Government they discovered that the
revelation was not binding. (H.S.E.P.p45/6)
The recognition of children as one of the
purposes of marriage is very partial in Catholic doctrine. It exhausts itself in drawing
the inference that intercourse not intended to lead to children is sin. It has never gone
so far as to permit the dissolution of a marriage on the ground of sterility. However
ardently a man may desire children, if it happens that his wife is barren, he has no
remedy in Christian ethics. The fact is that the positive purpose of marriage, namely
procreation, plays a very subordinate part, and its main purpose remains, as with St.
Paul, the prevention of sin. Fornication still holds the center of the stage, and marriage
is still regarded essentially as a somewhat less regrettable alternative. (M.M.p54)
It is permissible with certain precautions
to speak in print of coitus, but it is not permissible to employ the monosyllabic synonym
for this word. This has recently been decided in the case of Sleeveless Errand Sometimes
this prohibition of simple language has grave consequences; for example, Mrs. Sanger's
pamphlet on birth control, which is addressed to working women, was declared obscene on
the ground that working women could understand it. Dr. Marie Stopes's books, on the other
hand, are not illegal, because their language can only be understood by persons with a
certain amount of education. The consequence is that, while it is permissible to teach
birth control to the well-to do, it is criminate to teach it to wage-earners and their
wives. I commend this fact to the notice of the Eugenic Society, which is perpetually
bewailing the fact that wage-earners breed faster than middle-class people, while
carefully abstaining from any attempt to change the state of the law which is the cause of
this fact. (M.M.p12)
The commonest objection to birth control is
that it is against 'nature.' (For some reason we are not allowed to say that celibacy is
against nature; the only reason I can think of is that it is not new.) Malthus saw only
three ways of keeping down the population: moral restraint, vice, and misery. Moral
restraint, he admitted, was not likely to be practiced on a large scale. 'Vice,' i.e.,
birth control, he, as a clergyman, viewed with abhorrence. There remained misery. In his
comfortable parsonage, he contemplated the misery of the great majority of mankind with
equanimity, and pointed out the fallacies of the reformers who hoped to alleviate it. (U.E.p100)
Very few men or women who have had a
conventional upbringing have learnt to feel decently about sex and marriage. Their
education has taught them that deceitfulness and lying are considered virtues by parents
and teachers; that sexual relations, even within marriage, are more or less disgusting,
and that in propagating the species men are yielding to their animal nature while women
are submitting to a painful duty. This attitude has made marriage unsatisfying both to men
and to women, and the lack of instinctive satisfaction has turned to cruelty masquerading
as morality. (M.M.p98)
A boy should be taught that in no
circumstances is conversation on sexual subjects permissible, not even in marriage. This
increases the likelihood that when he marries he will give his wife a disgust of sex and
thus preserve her from the risk of adultery. Sex outside marriage is sin; sex within
marriage is not sin, since it is necessary to the propagation of the human species, but is
a disagreeable duty imposed on man as a punishment for the Fall, and to be undertaken in
the same spirit in which one submits to a surgical operation. Unfortunately, unless great
pains are taken, the sexual act tends to be associated with pleasure, but by sufficient
moral care this can be prevented, at any rate in the female. It is illegal in England to
state in print that a wife can and should derive sexual pleasure from intercourse. (I have
myself heard a pamphlet condemned as obscene in a court of law on this among other
grounds.) It is on the above outlook in regard to sex that the attitude of the law, the
Church, and the old-fashioned educators of the young is based. (M.M.p100)
Sex relations as a dignified, rational,
wholehearted activity in which the complete personality co-operates, do not often, I
think, occur in America outside marriage. To this extent the moralists have been
successful. They have not prevented fornication; on the contrary, if anything, their
opposition, by making it spicy, has made it more common. But they have succeeded in making
it almost as undesirable as they say it is, just as they have succeeded in making much of
the alcohol consumed as poisonous as they assert all alcohol to be. They have compelled
young people to take sex neat, divorced from daily companionship, from a common work, and
from all psychological intimacy. The more timid of the young do not go so far as complete
sexual relations, but content themselves with producing prolonged states of sexual
excitement without satisfaction, which are nervously debilitating, and calculated to make
the full enjoyment of sex at a later date difficult or impossible. (M.M.p159)
Most men and women, given suitable
conditions, will feel passionate love at some period of their lives. For the
inexperienced, however, it is very difficult to distinguish passionate love from mere sex
hunger; especially is this the case with well-brought-up girls, who have been taught that
they could not possibly like to kiss a man unless they loved him. If a girl is expected to
be a virgin when she marries, it will very often happen that she is trapped by a transient
and trivial sex attraction, which a woman with sexual experience could easily distinguish
from love. This has undoubtedly been a frequent cause of unhappy marriages. Even where
mutual love exists, it may be poisoned by the belief of one or both that it is sinful.
This belief may, of course, be well founded. Parnell, for example, undoubtedly sinned in
committing adultery, since he thereby postponed the fulfillment of the hopes of Ireland
for many years. (M.M.p123/4)
Peasant children early become accustomed to
what are called the facts of life, which they can observe not only among human beings but
among animals. They are thus saved from both ignorance and fastidiousness. The carefully
educated children of the well-to-do, on the contrary, are shielded from all practical
knowledge of sexual matters, and even the most modern parents, who teach children out of
books, do not give them that sense of practical familiarity which the peasant child early
acquires. The triumph of Christian teaching is when a man and woman marry without either
having had previous sexual experience. (M.M.p137/8) |
. |