When a man marries a girl he expects her to be chaste, that is, a virgin, without any sexual experiences. Of men, the same chastity is not expected as a general thing. As long as a man is healthy, free from venereal disease, his previous sexual experiences do not constitute a barrier to his marriage. This is what is known as the double or duplex standard of sex morality.
During the past few years a number of high-minded and well-meaning men and women have been trying to abolish this double standard and to introduce a single standard of morality. That is, they are demanding that the man going to the marriage bed should be just as chaste, just as virginal as his wife is. Whether or no the efforts of these good men and women will ever be crowned with success we will leave open. Whether or no it is even desirable that their efforts should be crowned with success we will also leave open. A complete discussion of these questions belongs to a more advanced book on sexual ethics.
Here I will merely say that, taking into consideration the fact that the sexual instinct in boys awakens fully at the age of fifteen or sixteen, and that marriage at the present time, particularly among the professional classes, is an impossibility before the age of twenty-eight, thirty, or thirty-five, it seems to be impossible and undesirable to expect that men should live a perfectly chaste life until they enter matrimony, no matter how late that event may take place.
Those who have made a study of the sex instinct in the male seem to think that chastity in normal, healthy men up to the age of thirty or thereabouts is an impossibility, and where it is accomplished it is accomplished at the expense of the physical, mental, and sexual health of the individual. But be it as it may, and leaving disputed questions out of discussion, the fact remains that the vast majority of men of the present day do indulge in sex relations before marriage. And people that are urging upon our young women to refuse to marry men who have not been perfectly chaste are doing our womanhood a very poor service.
As it is now, with all mandom to choose from, there are many, too many, old maids. With only ten per cent. to choose from (because it is admitted that at least 90 per cent. of all men have ante-matrimonial relations), what would our women do? They would practically all have to give up any hopes of being married and becoming mothers. And if these ten per cent., who have remained chaste to their married day, were at least a superior class of men in every instance, there would be some compensation in that. Unfortunately, this is far from being the case, because, as all advanced sexologists will tell you, there is generally something wrong with a man who remains absolutely chaste until the age of thirty, thirty-five or forty. It isn't moral principles in all cases; it is mostly cowardice, or sexual weakness.
And sad as it may be to state, these perfectly good, chaste men do not generally make satisfactory husbands, and their wives are not apt to be the happiest ones. I fully agree with Professor Freud in his statement "that sexual abstinence does not help to build up energetic, independent men of action, original thinkers, bold advocates of freedom and reform, but rather goody-goody weaklings." And still more to the purpose is the statement of Professor Michels, who says:
"The desire that one's daughter may marry a man who, like herself, and on an equal footing, will gain in marriage his first experience of the most sacred mysteries of the sexual life, is one which may lead to profound disillusionments. Even if to-day the demand for chaste young men is extremely restricted, the supply is yet more so, and the article is of such an inferior quality that in actual practice the attempt to satisfy this desire is likely to lead to results which will fail altogether to correspond to the hopes inspired by a contemplation of the abstract idea of purity. Many physically intact individuals of both sexes are far more contaminated than those who have had actual sexual experience.
Others again, superior in the abstract, and from the physically sexual aspect, are ethically inferior to the unchaste, so that the union with these latter would be more likely to prove happy than a union with those who are nominally pure." And further, "Careful fathers of marriageable daughters, who seek this virginity in their sons-in-law, will, if they find it, seldom find it a guarantee for the simultaneous possession of solid moral qualities."
All a girl has a right to demand is that her future husband be in good health, physically and sexually, and that he be free from venereal disease. His previous sexual life, provided he is a man of fine moral character in general, is no concern of hers. Even if the man was unfortunate enough to have contracted gonorrhea, that fact should constitute no bar to marriage, provided he is completely cured of it. The only exception is that of syphilis. The girl has a right to refuse absolutely to enter into union with any man who has been infected with syphilis unless she is willing, and does it with her eyes open, to live her life without any children. In syphilis we can never give an absolute guarantee of cure and we have no right to subject a woman to any danger of infection with syphilis, be the danger ever so slight, without her knowledge and consent.
During the past few years a number of high-minded and well-meaning men and women have been trying to abolish this double standard and to introduce a single standard of morality. That is, they are demanding that the man going to the marriage bed should be just as chaste, just as virginal as his wife is. Whether or no the efforts of these good men and women will ever be crowned with success we will leave open. Whether or no it is even desirable that their efforts should be crowned with success we will also leave open. A complete discussion of these questions belongs to a more advanced book on sexual ethics.
Here I will merely say that, taking into consideration the fact that the sexual instinct in boys awakens fully at the age of fifteen or sixteen, and that marriage at the present time, particularly among the professional classes, is an impossibility before the age of twenty-eight, thirty, or thirty-five, it seems to be impossible and undesirable to expect that men should live a perfectly chaste life until they enter matrimony, no matter how late that event may take place.
Those who have made a study of the sex instinct in the male seem to think that chastity in normal, healthy men up to the age of thirty or thereabouts is an impossibility, and where it is accomplished it is accomplished at the expense of the physical, mental, and sexual health of the individual. But be it as it may, and leaving disputed questions out of discussion, the fact remains that the vast majority of men of the present day do indulge in sex relations before marriage. And people that are urging upon our young women to refuse to marry men who have not been perfectly chaste are doing our womanhood a very poor service.
As it is now, with all mandom to choose from, there are many, too many, old maids. With only ten per cent. to choose from (because it is admitted that at least 90 per cent. of all men have ante-matrimonial relations), what would our women do? They would practically all have to give up any hopes of being married and becoming mothers. And if these ten per cent., who have remained chaste to their married day, were at least a superior class of men in every instance, there would be some compensation in that. Unfortunately, this is far from being the case, because, as all advanced sexologists will tell you, there is generally something wrong with a man who remains absolutely chaste until the age of thirty, thirty-five or forty. It isn't moral principles in all cases; it is mostly cowardice, or sexual weakness.
And sad as it may be to state, these perfectly good, chaste men do not generally make satisfactory husbands, and their wives are not apt to be the happiest ones. I fully agree with Professor Freud in his statement "that sexual abstinence does not help to build up energetic, independent men of action, original thinkers, bold advocates of freedom and reform, but rather goody-goody weaklings." And still more to the purpose is the statement of Professor Michels, who says:
"The desire that one's daughter may marry a man who, like herself, and on an equal footing, will gain in marriage his first experience of the most sacred mysteries of the sexual life, is one which may lead to profound disillusionments. Even if to-day the demand for chaste young men is extremely restricted, the supply is yet more so, and the article is of such an inferior quality that in actual practice the attempt to satisfy this desire is likely to lead to results which will fail altogether to correspond to the hopes inspired by a contemplation of the abstract idea of purity. Many physically intact individuals of both sexes are far more contaminated than those who have had actual sexual experience.
Others again, superior in the abstract, and from the physically sexual aspect, are ethically inferior to the unchaste, so that the union with these latter would be more likely to prove happy than a union with those who are nominally pure." And further, "Careful fathers of marriageable daughters, who seek this virginity in their sons-in-law, will, if they find it, seldom find it a guarantee for the simultaneous possession of solid moral qualities."
All a girl has a right to demand is that her future husband be in good health, physically and sexually, and that he be free from venereal disease. His previous sexual life, provided he is a man of fine moral character in general, is no concern of hers. Even if the man was unfortunate enough to have contracted gonorrhea, that fact should constitute no bar to marriage, provided he is completely cured of it. The only exception is that of syphilis. The girl has a right to refuse absolutely to enter into union with any man who has been infected with syphilis unless she is willing, and does it with her eyes open, to live her life without any children. In syphilis we can never give an absolute guarantee of cure and we have no right to subject a woman to any danger of infection with syphilis, be the danger ever so slight, without her knowledge and consent.
0 comments:
Post a Comment