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

Postulate des Lebens," _Sexual-Probleme_, Oct., 1908; and letter 

to Ellen Key in her _Ueber Liebe und Ehe_, p. 466). Ehrenfels 

believes that the number of men inapt for satisfactory 

reproduction is much larger than that of women, and that 

therefore when these are left out of account, a polygynic 

marriage order becomes necessary. He calls this 

"reproduction-marriage" (Zeugungsehe), and considers that it will 

entirely replace the present marriage order, to which it is 

morally superior. It would be based on private contracts. 

Ehrenfels holds that women would offer no objection, as a woman, 

he believes, attaches less importance to a man as a wooer than as 

the father of her child. Ehrenfels's doctrine has been seriously 

attacked from many sides, and his proposals are not in the line 

of our progress. Any radical modification of the existing 

monogamic order is not to be expected, even if it were generally 

recognized, which cannot be said to be the case, that it is 

desirable. The question of sexual variations, it must be 

remembered, is not a question of introducing an entirely new form 

of marriage, but only of recognizing the rights of individuals, 

in exceptional cases, to adopt such aberrant forms, and of 

recognizing the corresponding duties of such individuals to 

accept the responsibilities of any aberrant marriage forms they 

may find it best to adopt. So far as the question of sexual 

variations is more than this, it is, as Hinton argued, a 

dynamical method of working towards the abolition of the perilous 

and dangerous promiscuity of prostitution. A rigid marriage order 

involves prostitution; a flexible marriage order largely--though 

not, it may be, entirely--renders prostitution unnecessary. The 

democratic morality of the present day, so far as the indications 

at present go, is opposed to the encouragement of a _quasi_-slave 

class, with diminished social rights, such as prostitutes always 

constitute in a more or less marked degree. It is fairly evident, 

also, that the rapidly growing influence of medical hygiene is on 

the same side. We may, therefore, reasonably expect in the future 

a slow though steady increase in the recognition, and even the 

extension, of those variations of the monogamic order which have, 

in reality, never ceased to exist. 

 

It is lamentable that at this period of the world's history, nearly two 

thousand years after the wise legislators of Rome had completed their 

work, it should still be necessary to conclude that we are to-day only 

beginning to place marriage on a reasonable and humane basis. I have 

repeatedly pointed out how largely the Canon law has been responsible for 

this arrest of development. One may say, indeed, that the whole attitude 

of the Church, after it had once acquired complete worldly dominance, 

must be held responsible. In the earlier centuries the attitude of 

Christianity was, on the whole, admirable. It held aloft great ideals but 

it refrained from enforcing those ideals at all costs; thus its ideals 

remained genuine and could not degenerate into mere hypocritical empty 

forms; much flexibility was allowed when it seemed to be for human good 

and made for the avoidance of evil and injustice. But when the Church 

attained temporal power, and when that power was concentrated in the hands 

of Popes who subordinated moral and religious interests to political 

interests, all the claims of reason and humanity were flung to the winds. 

The ideal was no more a fact than it was before, but it was now treated as 


Page 3 from 6:  Back   1   2  [3]  4   5   6   Forward