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

allowed to intrude. Morality may be outraged with impunity provided that 

law and religion have been invoked. The essential principle of 

prostitution is thus legalized and sanctified among us. That is why it is 

so difficult to arouse any serious indignation, or to maintain any 

reasoned objections, against our prostitution considered by itself. The 

most plausible ground is that of those[257] who, bringing marriage down to 

the level of prostitution, maintain that the prostitute is a "blackleg" 

who is accepting less than the "market rate of wages," i.e., marriage, for 

the sexual services she renders. But even this low ground is quite unsafe. 

The prostitute is really paid extremely well considering how little she 

gives in return; the wife is really paid extremely badly considering how 

much she often gives, and how much she necessarily gives up. For the sake 

of the advantage of economic dependence on her husband, she must give up, 

as Ellen Key observes, those rights over her children, her property, her 

work, and her own person which she enjoys as an unmarried woman, even, it 

may be added, as a prostitute. The prostitute never signs away the right 

over her own person, as the wife is compelled to do; the prostitute, 

unlike the wife, retains her freedom and her personal rights, although 

these may not often be of much worth. It is the wife rather than the 

prostitute who is the "blackleg." 

 

It is by no means only during recent years that our marriage 

system has been arraigned before the bar of morals. Forty years 

ago James Hinton exhausted the vocabulary of denunciation in 

describing the immorality and selfish licentiousness which our 

marriage system covers with the cloak of legality and sanctity. 

"There is an unsoundness in our marriage relations," Hinton 

wrote. "Not only practically are they dreadful, but they do not 

answer to feelings and convictions far too widespread to be 

wisely ignored. Take the case of women of marked eminence 

consenting to be a married man's mistress; of pure and simple 

girls saying they cannot see why they should have a marriage by 

law; of a lady saying that if she were in love she would not have 

any legal tie; of its being necessary--or thought so by good and 

wise men--to keep one sex in bitter and often fatal ignorance. 

These things (and how many more) show some deep unsoundness in 

the marriage relations. This must be probed and searched to the 

bottom." 

 

At an earlier date, in 1847, Gross-Hoffinger, in his _Die 

Schicksale der Frauen und die Prostitution_--a remarkable book 

which Bloch, with little exaggeration, describes as possessing an 

epoch-marking significance--vigorously showed that the problem of 

prostitution is in reality the problem of marriage, and that we 

can only reform away prostitution by reforming marriage, regarded 

as a compulsory institution resting on an antiquated economic 

basis. Gross-Hoffinger was a pioneering precursor of Ellen Key. 

 

 

More than a century and a half earlier a man of very different 

type scathingly analyzed the morality of his time, with a brutal 

frankness, indeed, that seemed to his contemporaries a 

revoltingly cynical attitude towards their sacred institutions, 

and they felt that nothing was left to them save to burn his 

books. Describing modern marriage in his _Fable of the Bees_ 

(1714, p. 64), and what that marriage might legally cover, 

Mandeville wrote: "The fine gentleman I spoke of need not 

practice any greater self-denial than the savage, and the latter 

acted more according to the laws of nature and sincerity than the 


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