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

when he finds her in the society of a man. His subsidiary 

relationships with other women recur irresistibly, but he has no 

wish either to make them very permanent or to allow them to 

engross him unduly. Pepys represents a common type of civilized 

"monogamist" who is perfectly sincere and extremely convinced in 

his advocacy of monogamy, as he understands it, but at the same 

time believes and acts on the belief that monogamy by no means 

excludes the need for sexual variation. Lord Morley's statement 

(_Diderot_, vol. ii, p. 20) that "man is instinctively 

polygamous," can by no means be accepted, but if we interpret it 

as meaning that man is an instinctively monogamous animal with a 

concomitant desire for sexual variation, there is much evidence 

in its favor. 

 

Women must be as free as men to mould their own amatory life. 

Many consider, however, that such freedom on the part of women 

will be, and ought to be, exercised within narrower limits (see, 

e.g., Bloch, _Sexual Life of Our Time_, Ch. X). In part this 

limitation is considered due to the greater absorption of a woman 

in the task of breeding and rearing her child, and in part to a 

less range of psychic activities. A man, as G. Hirth puts it, 

expressing this view of the matter (_Wege zur Liebe_, p. 342), 

"has not only room in his intellectual horizon for very various 

interests, but his power of erotic expansion is much greater and 

more differentiated than that of women, although he may lack the 

intimacy and depth of a woman's devotion." 

 

It may be argued that, since variations in the sexual order will 

inevitably take place, whether or not they are recognized or 

authorized, no harm is likely to be done by using the weight of 

social and legal authority on the side of that form which is 

generally regarded as the best, and, so far as possible, covering 

the other forms with infamy. There are many obvious defects in 

such an attitude, apart from the supremely important fact that to 

cast infamy on sexual relationships is to exert a despicable 

cruelty on women, who are inevitably the chief sufferers. Not the 

least is the injustice and the hampering of vital energy which it 

inflicts on the better and more scrupulous people to the 

advantage of the worse and less scrupulous. This always happens 

when authority exerts its power in favor of a form. When, in the 

thirteenth century, Alexander III--one of the greatest and most 

effective potentates who ever ruled Christendom--was consulted by 

the Bishop of Exeter concerning subdeacons who persisted in 

marrying, the Pope directed him to inquire into the lives and 

characters of the offenders; if they were of regular habits and 

staid morality, they were to be forcibly separated and the wives 

driven out; if they were men of notoriously disorderly character, 

they were to be permitted to retain their wives, if they so 

desired (Lea, _History of Sacerdotal Celibacy_, third edition, 

vol. i, p. 396). It was an astute policy, and was carried out by 

the same Pope elsewhere, but it is easy to see that it was 

altogether opposed to morality in every sense of the term. It 

destroyed the happiness and the efficiency of the best men; it 

left the worst men absolutely free. To-day we are quite willing 

to recognize the evil result of this policy; it was dictated by a 

Pope and carried out seven hundred years ago. Yet in England we 

carry out exactly the same policy to-day by means of our 

separation orders, which are scattered broadcast among the 


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