Main  Contacts  
Table of contents
THE CONQUEST OF THE VENEREAL DISEASES-8.1
THE CONQUEST OF THE VENEREAL DISEASES-8.2
THE CONQUEST OF THE VENEREAL DISEASES-8.3
THE CONQUEST OF THE VENEREAL DISEASES-8.4
THE CONQUEST OF THE VENEREAL DISEASES-8.5
THE CONQUEST OF THE VENEREAL DISEASES-8.6
FOOTNOTES
SEXUAL MORALITY-9.1
SEXUAL MORALITY-9.2
SEXUAL MORALITY-9.3
SEXUAL MORALITY-9.4
SEXUAL MORALITY-9.5
SEXUAL MORALITY-9.6
SEXUAL MORALITY-9.7
SEXUAL MORALITY-9.8
SEXUAL MORALITY-9.9
MARRIAGE-10.1
MARRIAGE-10.2
MARRIAGE-10.3
MARRIAGE-10.4
MARRIAGE-10.5
MARRIAGE-10.6
MARRIAGE-10.7
MARRIAGE-10.8
MARRIAGE-10.9
MARRIAGE-10.10
MARRIAGE-10.11
MARRIAGE-10.12
FOOTNOTES
THE ART OF LOVE-11.1
THE ART OF LOVE-11.2
THE ART OF LOVE-11.3
THE ART OF LOVE-11.4
THE ART OF LOVE-11.5
THE ART OF LOVE-11.6
THE ART OF LOVE-11.7
THE ART OF LOVE-11.8
THE ART OF LOVE-11.9
THE ART OF LOVE-11.10
THE ART OF LOVE-11.11
FOOTNOTES
THE SCIENCE OF PROCREATION-12.1
THE SCIENCE OF PROCREATION-12.2
THE SCIENCE OF PROCREATION-12.3
THE SCIENCE OF PROCREATION-12.4
THE SCIENCE OF PROCREATION-12.5
THE SCIENCE OF PROCREATION-12.6
THE SCIENCE OF PROCREATION-12.7
THE SCIENCE OF PROCREATION-12.8
THE SCIENCE OF PROCREATION-12.9
FOOTNOTES
INDEX OF AUTHORS

therefore likely to disappear as that subjection disappears. In so far, 

however, as it is "almost physiological," and based on radical feminine 

characters, such as modesty, affectability, and sympathy, which have an 

organic basis in the feminine constitution and can therefore never 

altogether be changed, feminine dissimulation seems scarcely likely to 

disappear. The utmost that can be expected is that it should be held in 

check by the developed sense of moral responsibility, and, being reduced 

to its simply natural proportions, become recognizably intelligible. 

 

It is unnecessary to remark that there can be no question here as 

to any inherent moral superiority of one sex over the other. The 

answer to that question was well stated many years ago by one of 

the most subtle moralists of love. "Taken altogether," concluded 

Senancour (_De l'Amour_, vol. ii, p. 85), "we have no reason to 

assert the moral superiority of either sex. Both sexes, with 

their errors and their good intentions, very equally fulfil the 

ends of nature. We may well believe that in either of the two 

divisions of the human species the sum of evil and that of good 

are about equal. If, for instance, as regards love, we oppose the 

visibly licentious conduct of men to the apparent reserve of 

women, it would be a vain valuation, for the number of faults 

committed by women with men is necessarily the same as that of 

men with women. There exist among us fewer scrupulous men than 

perfectly honest women, but it is easy to see how the balance is 

restored. If this question of the moral preeminence of one sex 

over the other were not insoluble it would still remain very 

complicated with reference to the whole of the species, or even 

the whole of a nation, and any dispute here seems idle." 

 

This conclusion is in accordance with the general compensatory 

and complementary relationship of women to men (see, e.g., 

Havelock Ellis, _Man and Woman_, fourth edition, especially pp. 

448 et seq.). 

 

In a recent symposium on the question whether women are morally 

inferior to men, with special reference to aptitude for loyalty 

(_La Revue_, Jan. 1, 1909), to which various distinguished French 

men and women contributed their opinions, some declared that 

women are usually superior; others regarded it as a question of 

difference rather than of superiority or inferiority; all were 

agreed that when they enjoy the same independence as men, women 

are quite as loyal as men. 

 

It is undoubtedly true that--partly as a result of ancient traditions and 

education, partly of genuine feminine characteristics--many women are 

diffident as to their right to moral responsibility and unwilling to 

assume it. And an attempt is made to justify their attitude by asserting 

that woman's part in life is naturally that of self-sacrifice, or, to put 

the statement in a somewhat more technical form, that women are naturally 

masochistic; and that there is, as Krafft-Ebing argues, a natural "sexual 

subjection" of woman. It is by no means clear that this statement is 

absolutely true, and if it were true it would not serve to abolish the 

moral responsibility of women. 

 

Bloch (_Beitraege zur AEtiologie der Psychopathia Sexualis_, Part 

II, p. 178), in agreement with Eulenburg, energetically denies 

that there is any such natural "sexual subjection" of women, 

regarding it as artificially produced, the result of the socially 

inferior position of women, and arguing that such subjection is 

in much higher degree a physiological characteristic of men than 


Page 4 from 5:  Back   1   2   3  [4]  5   Forward