University of Virginia Library

9. THE INFLUENCE OF MONOSEXUAL DOMINANCE ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEXUAL MODESTY

UNDER monosexual dominance the rôle of sexual modesty is always assigned to the subordinate sex. When man rules, the convention is that woman should be modest. Down to the present day, therefore, in Men's States, modesty is extolled as a womanly virtue. But in Women's States, conversely, it is valued as a specifically masculine quality. An observation made by Herodotus[1] shows that this was so already in classical times. He writes: "Among the Lydians, as among almost all barbarians, even a man is terribly ashamed of being seen naked." The inference is that in the writer's Grecian homeland men were not thus shamefaced, whereas it was taken as a matter of course that women should be modest. Were it otherwise, Herodotus would not have used the word "even." Moreover, the indignation the other Greeks displayed because the Spartan women practised gymnastic exercises in a state of nudity, shows that Grecian women in general were ashamed of nudity. It follows that in Hellas in the days of Herodotus the prevailing moral notions concerning nudity and modesty were based upon the canons for men and for women respectively with which we are familiar in the practical experience of our own Men's State.

A Lydian man, then, was greatly ashamed to be seen

[1] I, 10.

naked. But as regards the Lydians we have already noted a number of data to show that they were in the phase of feminine dominance. That is why modesty was a masculine virtue among the Lydians as among the other barbarians—for not a few of those whom the Greeks in Herodotus' days designated barbarians lived under the dominance of women.

In Sparta, young people of both sexes practised gymnastics together in the nude state. Probably in earlier days this had been the custom for women only, but as men grew freer it had been sanctioned for youths as well. We see the counterpart in contemporary Sweden, where the sexes bathe together unclothed. In this instance the assimilation comes from the other side, men having long been dominant and women having of late won a freer position. In the Athens of the classical age the young men used to exercise together in the nude state, and since the Athenians were outraged because the Spartan women did the same thing, we can only suppose that this ran counter to the Men's-State prejudices of the Athenians. Euripides, writing of the Spartan women in this connexion, says: "The daughters of Sparta are not to be found at home; they consort with the young men. Having laid aside their clothing, having bared their hips, the maidens wrestle with the youths. To me, indeed, such conduct seems shameful."

All the prejudice of monosexual dominance is crudely displayed by the closing phrase. To Euripides there seemed nothing shameful in the fact that the Spartan youths exercised together in a state of nudity, for did not the Athenian youths do the same thing? But he was outraged at the idea of women participating under the same conditions, for the Athenians had

no such custom and it was offensive to Men's-State susceptibilities. Similar Men's-State prejudices are exhibited by missionaries to-day. Westermarck tells us that they are particularly keen, when they have to do with naked savages, in pressing garments upon the women.

The notion that women are more modest than men is so ingrained in Men's-State investigators as to blind them to obvious facts. It was found, for example, in the case of many savages that the men were more decorously clad than the women. From this various observers (Waitz and others) have inferred that the clothing worn by these tribes cannot have been donned from a sentiment of shame, since in that case the women would have been more adequately clothed than the men. A very moderate degree of objectivity of outlook would have made so remarkable an inference impossible. One would think that the most superficial observation would have shown that the peculiar sexual organisation of men makes it far more necessary for them than for women to conceal the genital organs. It is not altogether agreeable to a man that every one should promptly become aware of the fact that he is in a condition of sexual excitement.

The one-sided manner in which the demand for modesty is concentrated on the subordinate sex is to be explained by the essential nature of monosexual dominance. There are three main peculiarities of this dominance of which a one-sided development of modesty is a logical consequence. First of all we have to consider duplex sexual morality, in virtue of which the sexual activities of members of the subordinate sex are restricted, and chastity is imposed on them as a duty. One-sided modesty is the outcome of this

one-sided obligation of chastity. Modesty is cultivated in every possible way, so that it may serve as the guardian of chastity and sexual continence. Inasmuch as the dominant sex has no interest in the chastity of its own members, it is indifferent to modesty as far as they are concerned.

Furthermore, as we have seen, the members of the dominant sex are always the wooers, and the members of the subordinate sex are always the wooed. This is peculiarly favourable to the preponderant development of modesty in the subordinate sex, for modesty in the wooed acts as an incitement to the wooer. The division of labour characteristic of monosexual dominance likewise contributes to strengthen the development of modesty in the subordinate sex and to weaken its development in the dominant sex. The members of the latter, in their extra-domestic activities, are removed from association with the other sex. In these circumstances, there is no stimulus to modesty, but the reverse. When the members of one sex are alone together, there is apt to arise a free and easy attitude in respect of sexual matters, and this is antagonistic to the growth of modesty. At home, on the other hand, the members of the subordinate sex are seldom exempt from the presence of members of the other sex. The elders of the dominant sex who are past work, the young who are not yet fit for work, the invalids who are temporarily unfit, are all homekeepers, and this prevents the isolation of the subordinate sex. Moreover, the nature of extra-domestic occupations involves a high degree of aggregation of members of the dominant sex, whereas the nature of domestic avocations is not such as to involve the aggregation of the subordinate sex. But it is the aggre-

gation of individuals of one sex to the exclusion of the other which entails the risk of a decline in modesty.

It is probable, however, that the decisive factor tending to restrict the development of modesty to members of the subordinate sex is the one-sided way in which sexual concerns are always contemplated under monosexual dominance. Monosexual dominance entails that the outlooks of the dominant sex are alone valid. Each sex sees in its own members, for the most part, the sexually neutral side of character, whereas in the other sex it pays special attention to the sexually tinged aspects of character. The authors propose to discuss the subject exhaustively in a later volume, and their reference to it here is merely parenthetical. Above all, modesty is a sexual sentiment. It is therefore predominantly displayed towards members of the other sex. Consequently, when members of the dominant sex compare the two sexes, they will always perceive that the subordinate sex bears the palm for modesty.

It is, however, a remarkable fact that the characteristics of erotic art during the days when the dominance of one sex is at its climax are by no means in accord with the view that the subordinate sex is the more modest. Such, at any rate, is the first impression produced by the examination of these works of art. They incline to indicate plainly and unrestrainedly the sex of members of the subordinate sex, but to indicate the sexual characters of members of the dominant sex with very light touches. As far as ancient Egypt is concerned, the oldest erotic depiction is found in the Turin papyrus. There can be no doubt that this dates from the period when the dominance

of women was absolute. It is typical that in these drawings the men are represented with erect penises, whereas the sexual characters of the women are ignored. As a counterpart to these sexual extremes in pictures from the Women's State, we find the other sexual extremes represented in pictures, from the Men's State. In these, men are hardly ever represented with erect penises, and indeed the male genital organs are usually covered. There can be no doubt that the use of the proverbial fig-leaf to cover the genital region in nude male figures is appropriate to a period when the dominance of men was pushed to an extreme. Under such conditions we find, not merely a fondness for depicting women entirely nude, but often for representing them at the climax of erotic ecstasy. As regards the former, think of the pictures of Susanna and the Elders, where Susanna is nude, whilst the elders are fully clothed—this is a favourite motif of Men-State art. As regards the latter, think of representations of Danaë with the Shower of Gold and of Leda with the Swan. In both of these the woman is shown at the critical moment, whereas there is no depiction of the man in a like situation. Unquestionably drawings of men with erect penises are in the Men's State regarded as the climax of obscenity, whereas in Women's States (ancient Egypt and ancient Greece) they are common themes of erotic art.

These trends of erotic art have two lessons. They teach us first of all that the dominant sex is really more shamefaced than it is inclined in theory to admit. Secondly, they show that the members of the subordinate sex are always predominantly regarded as sexual beings. Were it true that men in the Men's State are as immodest as they are commonly supposed

to be, they would not consider pictorial representations of their own sexual peculiarities so extraordinarily immoral. They would feel quite indifferent when contemplating pictures of men in all possible sexual situations. But this is not the case. Men find such pictures disagreeable, and therefore they are seldom drawn. When representations of the kind derived from other ages or other climes exist, they are kept under lock and key.

In any picture gallery we may note how strong this sense of shame is in civilised humanity. When two persons of different sexes are visiting such a gallery, the sense of shame is aroused in either by sexual representations of his or her respective sex. For instance, should the two come across a picture representing a woman in a dubious situation, it is the female observer who will feel ashamed; and conversely. Since, however, our picture galleries contain works that are almost exclusively products of Men's States, and since therefore erotic representations of women are enormously more frequent than erotic representations of men, there is much more to arouse shamefacedness in a female visitor than in a male. Such erotic representations of males as are to be found in our galleries are for the most part the work of homosexually inclined artists, and are rare. It follows that if we were to keep a record of the manifestations of shame in a mixed company of men and women visiting an art gallery, we should certainly find a considerable excess among the women. This preponderance, however, would not be the outcome of a stronger inborn tendency to modesty, but would depend upon the Men's-State trend of the works of art on view. On the other hand, when members of the same sex accompany one

another in the study of works of art, the psychical reaction is very different. The sense of shame usually remains latent. Instead, an erotic stimulus is commonly at work, emanating, of course, from artistic representations of members of the other sex. But these problems cannot be further considered at this stage.

When the transition from one form of sexual dominance to the other occurs, everything that may offend the modesty of the members of the sex that is newly rising to power is thrust out of sight. The result is that the more marked the dominance of one sex, the less do its members in their daily experience encounter anything likely to put them to shame.

Inasmuch as everything offensive to modesty is hidden, modesty is never offended; and since modesty is never offended, the supposition is apt to arise that modesty is non-existent. This is supposed to be the case with men to-day. Herein we find the main reason why the dominant sex never inspires so much love as the subordinate sex. The fact that men seem shameless is repulsive to many women, although neither men nor women have hitherto understood the reason for this apparent lack of modesty in men. The real reason is that in the case of men in our civilisation the stimuli to modesty have been removed. As woman attains to power, she will tend to put out of sight things that offend her, and to bring to the front things which disturb man. Therewith man's fondness for woman will dwindle, but woman's fondness for man will grow.

Such data as the foregoing are not obtainable at all epochs, but they are conspicuous in a period of transition like our own. At other epochs, other data

may be procurable, data which now elude us owing to the mental characteristics of our own era.

Under monosexual dominance the subordinate sex is always the main topic of erotic art, for the works of art are almost exclusively produced by members of the dominant sex. In normal cases, it is only the other sex that arouses erotic interest. We are indifferent to the sexual characters of members of our own sex; the traits in them that arouse our interest are neutral from the sexual point of view. Consequently an artist, when depicting members of the other sex, tends to concentrate attention on erotic traits, whereas when we depict members of our own sex we tend rather to consider sexually neutral traits. The dominant sex controls artistic production, and with us to-day men are dominant. The result is that in our artistic representations of human behaviour, the doings of women receive predominant attention. Furthermore, when woman's behaviour is being portrayed, much stress is apt to be laid upon the sensual and the erotic, whereas these aspects are almost always ignored as far as men's behaviour is concerned. In the arts, men, whether clothed or nude, are mainly, depicted as neuter beings. Male artists are chiefly interested in the sexually neutral traits of their male models, for these neutral traits seem to the artist the most significant and the most characteristic. The sexual characters of the members of his own sex are not so much indifferent to him as positively antipathetic, so that he inclines to veil the insignia of manhood with a fig leaf. In the Women's State the conditions are reversed. Here artistic production is mainly controlled by woman. She regards man predominantly as a sexual being, and this outlook natu-

rally finds expression in her works of art. We can hardly doubt, for instance, that the drawings in the Turin papyrus wherein men are represented with erect penises were made by women. The assumption seems all the more warranted inasmuch as in these drawings the sexual characters of women are ignored. People are either uninterested by sexual manifestations in members of their own sex, or else they find such manifestations distasteful.

The foregoing considerations provide a sufficient explanation of the origin of the phallus cult and the Venus cult respectively. It has hitherto been assumed that the phallus cult is man-made, and the Venus cult, woman-made. Such an opinion is likewise maintained by connoisseurs like Krauss and Reiskel.[2] They write that the phallus cult is found among virile, warlike peoples, and the Venus cult among effeminate peoples. It can be demonstrated that the truth lies the other way about. The phallus cult is typical of the female sex, and therefore gets the upper hand where feminine dominance prevails. The Venus cult is typical of the male sex, and attains its climax in the Men's State. Thus the phallus cult was most widely diffused in ancient Egypt, which is indeed regarded as its original home. "Monuments of this cult are most numerous in Egypt. From this centre they spread into Asia Minor, Greece, and Italy. Egyptian history throws more light on the phallus than the history of any other oriental nation" (Krauss and Reiskel).

During the greater part of its history before the birth of Christ, Egypt was a Women's State. Moreover, the reports of Herodotus and Plutarch concerning the phallus cult in Egypt show that this cult was

[2] Die Zeugung in Glaube, Sitten und Bräuchen der Völker.

in the hands of women. Plutarch[3] refers its origin to Isis—a goddess. Herodotus tells us that in the villages women organised processions in honour of the phallus, carrying about really remarkable images. Moreover, in Upper Egypt, in the tomb of a lady of rank, there has been found an embalmed phallus of huge proportions, presumably derived from the sacred bull.

In the case of other peoples we have plain proof that the phallus cult was an affair of women. In Syria gigantic phalluses have been found with the inscription: "Bacchus erected these phalluses in honour of his stepmother Juno." The phallus cult was vigorously defended by the women, not by the men. In Krauss and Reiskel we read: "Notwithstanding the onslaughts of Christianity, the phallus cult was long maintained by the Greeks. The Greek women continued to wear phallic pendants of various forms as amulets." In Egypt the phallus cult persisted for four centuries after Christ.

We are often told that women acted as chief priests of the phallic deities. Assa, the son of David, deprived his mother Machia of her power, and destroyed the images and shrines of the phallic deity whose chief priest she was. Herein we perceive an incident in the struggle between the sexes for dominance. The fight of the male leaders of the children of Israel against the worship of Baal belongs to the same chapter. Baal was pre-eminently the god of the Women's State, for he was presumably a phallic deity, at any rate at the epoch when the men of Israel, striving for masculine predominance, were waging war against Baal.

The Venus cult is the typical cult of masculine domi-

[3] Isis and Osiris.

nance. It is related that among the Indians, the Greeks, and the Romans, the female pudendum was worshipped under the symbol of the goddess Venus or the goddess Astarte—or in Rome as Libera. Juvenal, writing anent the prostitution practised in the temple of the goddess of love, says that Venus was often represented by Ganymede. The observation shows that the cult of Venus was man-made and man-sustained, just as the cult of the phallic deities was the work of woman.

Of course in the cult or worship of the sexual symbol of one sex, members of the other sex often become involved, with the obvious aim of bringing the cult into closer contact with realities. Among many peoples, these cults are made the occasions for sexual intercourse. In such cases, differences arise from the natural differences between the sexes. Owing to these sexual differences, the male sexual divinity could to a certain extent become a substitute for the mortal reality he symbolised,[4] whereas in the case of the female divinity this substitute rôle was denied. As a general rule, therefore, the temples of the phallic deities were served only by women, whereas the attendants in the temples of Venus were of both sexes. Since Venus was not able in person to gratify the sexual desires of her male worshippers, it was natural that her place should be taken by mortal women. It is known that in Babylon young people of both sexes worshipped in the temple of the goddess of love. Still, this circumstance may have been a manifestation of the equal rights of the sexes. We know (see above,

[4] We think, in the connection, inter alia, of the fascinum which was used by the Jewish women.

p. 96) that such a phase was manifest in Babylon about 600 B.C.

According to Krauss and Reiskel there is evidence of the existence of the phallus cult among almost all peoples. It follows from what has been said above that among all peoples women must have at one time held sway.

As far as our own civilisation is concerned, the phallus cult and the Venus cult have both been banned. All the same, masculine dominance is still manifest in the Venus cult displayed in the numerous works of art that glorify Venus. But under the dominance of men, when fully established, there is no place for images of the phallic deities. It is in conformity with masculine dominance that love should to-day be mainly symbolised by a goddess. In our man-ruled world, Venus is the supreme symbol of love, and the star of Dionysos has paled. Who knows Bacchus or Dionysos as the god of love? Bacchus has for us become the god of intoxication—not the intoxication of love, but of wine. Cupid, indeed, is a male deity, but he is only a child.