University of Virginia Library

3. DIFFERENCES IN SEXUAL ETHICS UNDER MASCULINE AND FEMININE DOMINANCE, AS BASED UPON PHYSIOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE SEXES

A DUPLEX moral code in sexual matters is an inevitable accompaniment of monosexual dominance. Mutatis mutandis, it asserts its influence equally under masculine dominance and under feminine. Invariably the ruling sex has sexual privileges and freedoms which are denied to the subordinate sex. But whereas the general trend towards the establishment of a duplex code of sexual ethics is identical in the Men's State and the Women's State, some of the results of the working of this duplex code differ in the respective cases. The contrast makes its appearance precisely where physiological differentiation is operative, so that the results cannot be identical in the two sexes despite their close psychological likeness.

One of these divergencies has already been mentioned. It concerns the position of the illegitimate child. Under masculine predominance we invariably find that illegitimate children have an inferior status, and are sometimes regarded with the utmost contempt. This contempt extends also to the mother, and indeed seems primarily to be visited upon the mother. Contempt for the mother of an illegitimate child is, in the Men's State, a natural outcome of duplex sexual morality. For in the Men's State chastity and conjugal

fidelity are imposed upon women as parts of their womanly duty. In the Men's State, unmarried motherhood is an unmistakable indication that a woman has transgressed the code of sexual ethics, and her violation of the canons is severely punished. In the Women's State, conversely, woman enjoys sexual freedom, whereas man's liberty is restricted in these matters. But when an illegitimate child is born, whilst there is irrefragable physiological evidence of its maternity, its paternity is a moot question. Consequently, contempt cannot be visited upon the father, since his identity cannot be established. On the other hand, as far as the mother of an illegitimate child is concerned, in the Women's State she cannot be exposed to contumely, inasmuch as she has merely availed herself of the sexual freedoms which are the privilege of the dominant sex. Moreover, since the unmarried mother does not forfeit public esteem, no social discredit will attach to her illegitimate offspring.

In all Women's States, therefore, we find that the position of the illegitimate child is just as good as that of the legitimate child. There is plain evidence of this in the case of ancient Egypt. As regards Sparta we have testimony that unmarried motherhood was positively an honour to a woman. Timæa, wife of King Agis, bore a son to Alcibiades; "far from being ashamed of the fact, she was proud." Again, Chelidonis lived in open adultery with "the handsome youth Alcotatus." She was envied the possession of such a lover, and the Spartans wished her many children by such a man.[1]

We see clearly that the difference in the position of the illegitimate child and the unmarried mother in the

[1] Schulte-Vaerting, op. cit., pp. 192 et seq.

Men's State and the Women's State, respectively does not depend on any difference in the development of parental feelings in men and in women, but is merely the expression of physiological differences in sexual organisation. There can be no doubt who a child's mother is, but fatherhood is uncertain. The consequence is that unmarried parenthood can only be a one-sided stigma; it may be blameworthy in the unmarried mother, but not in the unmarried father. There can be no doubt that the only reason why the Women's State does not vent an equally one-sided disapprobation upon unmarried fatherhood, is that information as to parenthood is here limited by physiological possibilities.

Like considerations apply to the destruction of the germinating life. The degree to which, in the Men's State, the practice of abortion is regarded as a serious crime, depends upon how absolute male predominance is. To all appearance the origin of such moral judgments is to be found in the strict sexual code which, as an outcome of duplex sexual morality, is one-sidedly imposed upon members of the female sex. Abortion destroys the evidence of a breach of the code. Herein lies the gravamen of the offence as far as the dominant males are concerned, and that is why, in the Men's State, the practice is so severely punished. (At all times, doubtless, there have been men and women who considered there were ideal grounds for objecting to the practice of abortion.) But where women rule, "morality" is a masculine virtue. Here, however, breaches of the code which is so strictly imposed upon males are made manifest, not in the person of the offender, man, but in the person of his sexual partner, woman. In the Women's State,

woman is free; she can follow her own bent. Should she be disinclined for motherhood, there is no law to hinder recourse to abortion. Where women rule, abortion will always be legitimate, for its legitimacy is an essential part of a woman's physiological freedom. It follows that the difference in outlook as between unmarried motherhood in the Men's State and unmarried fatherhood in the Women's State depends upon the fact that there is no physiological parallelism between man and woman, for man does not bring forth young.

In the case of one Women's State we are expressly informed that abortion was quite permissible there. I refer to the Kamchadales. Meiners[2] reports the fact with profound disapproval. His attitude is easily explicable, for he belonged to an age when masculine predominance was almost absolute.

To-day, when masculine dominion is on the wane and when the influence of women is increasing, we naturally find that there is a vigorous campaign on behalf of an equality of rights for the illegitimate child, and on behalf of the right to procure abortion. The free woman wishes her freedom to extend to the use of her own body. Some men are willing to concede to women this right of bodily self-determination; others would fain refuse it. In like manner, the craving for freedom is stronger in some women than in others. Consequently, the movement progresses at varying rates among different peoples. It is slow here, more rapid there. But one thing seems certain. The right to procure abortion is an outcome of the increasing influence of women; we shall therefore not have to wait until women are dominant before this right is

[2] Vermischte philosophische Schriften, vol. i, p. 174.

conceded—equality of the sexes will suffice. Everywhere, as the position of women improves, the penal laws against abortion grow milder, and in some cases penalties are completely abolished (as recently happened in the canton of Basle).

The men and the women who object to the annulling of the laws against abortion, and who fear that the repeal of these laws will have disastrous consequences, overlook the consideration that there is much less reason to expect any abuse of the right of physiological self-determination in the case of free women than in the case of women who have grown up under the tyranny of masculine predominance.

We now come to a third difference between the sexual ethics of the Men's State and those of the Women's State, a difference that is likewise based upon a physiological difference in sexual organisation. Here, too, the duplex morality of monosexual dominance is the starting-point of the difference.

Duplex morality, with freedom in sex relations for members of the dominant sex and restrictions for members of the subordinate sex, necessarily leads to prostitution. In accordance with the working of the law of reversal, the prostitution of women develops in the Men's State, and the prostitution of men in the Women's State. The facts are extremely characteristic. Not merely do we find that the tendency to this reversal is manifest, but we discover that the reversal is pushed to the limits of physiological possibility.

The Men's State is invariably cursed with the institution of female prostitution. So powerless is it to deal with the evil, that prostitution has not infre-

quently been declared to be an ineradicable evil. The assertion is true only in so far as it applies to the Men's State. But in the Women's State the prostitution of women is unknown, even among peoples at a high level of civilisation.

Both in the case of the ancient Egyptians and in that of the Spartans, the absence of female prostitution has been noted in contrast to what obtained in contemporary Men's States. In Egypt there were no female prostitutes. As regards Sparta, Plato says there were no prostitutes there because women could make a living at the trade. Among the Arabs, too, female prostitution was unknown during the days of women's dominance.

But the absence of female prostitution is not an exclusive peculiarity of the dominance of women, for we note the same absence where the sexes have equal rights. As examples may be mentioned the ancient Teutons and the modern State of Wyoming. Prostitution was unknown to the former, and there is no prostitution in the latter. The Norse peoples, among whom the movement for the equal rights of women has made considerable progress, have likewise great successes to record in this respect. The matter of equal rights, and their effects, will have to be further considered in the sequel.

The absence of female prostitution in the Women's State shows that in this field no less than in others the law of reversal in monosexual dominance is operative. The reversal of duplex sexual morality in the Women's State makes it impossible for female prostitution to exist. Aristophanes[3] was not slow to point out that women in general would gladly do away with

[3] Lysistrata.

hetairæ so that they could reserve for themselves the caresses of young men in their prime. The dominance of women and female prostitution are opposites; they are mutually exclusive. The absence of female prostitution where women rule is therefore a self-evident phenomenon, a necessary outcome of the working of the law of reversal. The phenomenon testifies, not to a difference between men and women, but to the psychological similarity of the sexes.

But in accordance with the law of reversal, and in view of the aforesaid psychological resemblance between the sexes, we should expect to find male prostitution in the Women's State as the counterpart to female prostitution in the Men's State. Duplex sexual morality, leading to the prostitution of women where men rule, ought, mutatis mutandis, to lead to the prostitution of men where women rule. As a matter of fact there are plain indications of the occurrence of male prostitution under the dominance of women. For example, Strabo[4] reports that the women of Lydia, who were dominant in that country, chose lovers at their own free will, and spent lavishly in order to please the men of their choice. They were likewise "so indulgent" that they gave their lovers hospitable entertainment. The wording of the report shows that it emanated from a male writer who had not really fathomed the nature of the prostitution he described, precisely because it was male prostitution under the dominance of women. Nevertheless the characteristics of prostitution are unmistakable. The woman seeks out her lover, and pays him for his amatory services, either in money or by way of entertainment. But the study of such a work as Iwan

[4] XIII, 815.

Bloch's great history of prostitution[5] shows us that male prostitution has never attained the vogue of female prostitution. The development of the former has, in fact, been almost infinitesimal in comparison with that of the latter. We find traces of its existence wherever there is good reason to look for it, but it always seems to remain in an incipient phase of development.

Herein, then, we detect a real difference between the Men's State, and the Women's State. But we should make a great mistake were we to refer this difference to a psychological distinction between men and women—to suppose that either sex possesses a larger infusion of inborn moral faculty, or that either sex possesses in this respect some peculiar mental aptitude denied to the other. The difference depends entirely upon physiological causes. The only reason why male prostitution in the Women's State never develops to the same extent as female prostitution in the Men's State is that men are physiologically incapable of becoming the counterparts of women in this particular matter. Man's sexual nature is such as to make him physiologically incompetent to fulfil the requirements of male prostitution. His capacity for sexual intercourse is insignificant in comparison with that of woman, of whom indeed Fraenkel[6] goes so far as to say that her capacity in this respect is, physiologically speaking, boundless. Within a single day or night, one prostitute can satisfy the sexual requirements of quite a number of men. She can entertain as many visitors as choose to offer themselves, without any impairment of her sexual powers, and with-

[5] Iwan Bloch, Die Prostitution.

[6] Normale und pathologische Sexualphysiologie des Weibes.

out being any the worse for it constitutionally. A man, on the other hand, is unable even during the years of maximum potency to have intercourse with a woman regularly as often as once a day. Should a male prostitute endeavour to practise his trade with a vigour which would in truth be trifling in comparison with that which is habitual in the case of female prostitutes, he would soon suffer from a sexual and general constitutional collapse.[7]

We see, then, that the difference between the prevalence of female prostitution in the Men's State and that of male prostitution in the Women's State has a purely physiological cause in the difference between men and women in the matter of capacity for sexual intercourse. The respective frequency of prostitution in the Men's State and the Women's State exhibits variations which precisely correspond with the variations between the capacity for sexual intercourse in the two sexes. The absence of prostitution in the Women's State, and where the sexes have equal rights, betokens a higher degree of sexual health in such communities as compared with the Men's State. To this matter we shall return.

[7] Cf. Vaerting, Ueber die sexualphysiologischen Grundlagen der doppelten Moral und der Prostitution, "Zeitschrift zur Bekenntnis der Ges chlechtsrankheiten," 1917.