April 6, 1872
[Page 11]
THE ETHICS OF SEXUAL EQUALITY.
A LECTURE BY TENNIE C. CLAFLIN,
At the Academy of Music, Friday Evening March 29, 1872.
If society were to become aware of the existence of an insidious plague in incipient form, making ready to sweep over the world and distill its subtle poison into the atmosphere, from which the people generally would unconsciously imbibe it, and which, though not alarmingly fatal in its immediate consequences, would, nevertheless, gradually and surely sap humanity’s great fountain of health, would it not be consistent to suppose that every possible effort would be put forth to analyze its causes, its modes of operation and its effects, and to stop it early in its career? But should the doctors of divinity, of law and of medicine, and the professors of respectability, together with all the reverend and honorable mistresses of the land, cry out against it and denounce the investigation, would it be right for those who should be engaged in it to stop short in their efforts because of such opposition, and should they quietly step aside and permit it to pass unnoticed in its destructive course ? And should some bold spirit more
daring than the rest, caring more for the welfare of the multitude than for its approval, irresistibly rush to the front and proclaim the impending evil, would she not be justified in so doing, even in the very faces of the opposition ? Yes! Everybody except the opposers would consider it the highest possible duty that an individual could perform the highest possible duty for the few who should understand the threatening monster— persistently to continue her efforts against any and all opposition, until she should compel the people to listen and learn the real character of the impending danger. Now, just such a condition as this actually exists in our very midst to-day ; and yet scarcely anybody seems to be aware of its existence, while the few who do really suspect it, are deterred from entering upon its investigation, by the terrible persecutions and denunciations which are heaped upon, and
hurled at, the individuals who are bold enough to stand out and defy the self-assumed conservators of the moral health of society, who, dagger in hand, are ever ready to strike as well as to defame.
And it is the more terrible that this disease to which I refer is arbitrarily, and without a single good reason, assigned to the realm of
morality, and held to be a lack of morals, to be cured by preaching, rather than a lack of physical health, to be cured by a complete understanding of the laws which govern physical life.
But those who so blindly attempt to controvert the laws of nature, do not stop to consider that a genuine morality cannot have root in, and existence upon, a diseased physique. A truly moral condition must spring from a condition of genuine physical health. We hold this to be inevitable, since morals are the outgrowth of physical structure. As well might we expect perfect fruit from a decaying tree as to expect pure morality from a diseased physical structure. It is possible that a low moral condition may accompany a high degree of physical health; but the converse does not follow, although there may be seeming exceptions to the rule.
One of the very first and most important of all considerations for humanity, then, is physical health. With that as a foundation, all
other things are possible; without that as a foundation, all other things are improbable. But how obstinately do all classes of teachers ignore this self-evident truth. Not one of them devotes even a thought to the subject. True, our physicians with their vile stuffs profess to, and in some instances think they do, cure disease. But I can assure them they have never yet cured any disease. They may have modified its symptoms, even have caused the effects to cease, but the causes are always left untouched; since next to nothing is known of causes.
With physics it is the same as it is in all other departments. People are intent in dealing with present effects, never seeming to care if the cause continue. Indeed it sometimes appears as if they do not want the removal of causes; since if they were to be removed then their effects would cease, and numberless professors, like Othello, would find their occupation gone. In other words, we are generally content when we find a branch bearing bad fruit to cut it from the body of the tree, leaving it to produce similar branches, rather than to dig it up by the root, and absolutely destroy the capacity to produce.
Human life is not different in absolute existence from the other forms of life. The same general laws govern its manifestations, though in a higher stage of development. And when we seek to discover the laws which govern it we must proceed by the same rules of analysis and deduction as when we discover laws in other forms of life. But up to this time the practice has been entirely different, and now, when it is proposed to subject human life to a common form of investigation, a terrific tumult is raised, and almost the whole world raises its hands and its voices in holy horror at the proposed sacrilege. Natural laws are recognized in everything else; but the very highest department of life is forcibly divorced from all control of natural law, and left to the
mercy of the arbitrary impositions of a standard called moral, but which is really the result.of the very conditions it is framed to heal.
If there are unfortunate conditions existing, which none deny, it is not because people have failed to live up to the public standard of morals ; but because they have failed to live after the requirements of the natural laws; have failed to follow conditions in the direction of higher attainment. Whenever these laws are ignored, in the attempt to conform to the other sort, then the legitimate results follow; and they are always against the highest good of the subject.
The primal error that is made by society, and it is one that almost everybody makes, is in attempting to compel all sorts of people to conform to the same rules of life—a thing which is not only impossible in itself, but which everybody knows is impossible. It is an absolute law, everywhere in the universe that every condition has its own controlling laws; and it is impossible to compel the law of one sort of condition to apply to conditions of an entirely different character. It would be considered the height of absurdity to say, because some individuals are dyspeptic, hence every individual should subsist on Graham flour. But that would be no more absurd than are nearly all the rules laid down for the government of society in its most fundamental relations.
Finding certain effects existing in its body, society attempts to compel underlying principles to conform to them. Now that is all wrong, and nothing but misfortune can possibly flow from it. The only true mode is to discover the principles and laws which underlie all things, and then to formulate rules of government in conformity to them, in utter disregard of whatever may have been or whatever is.
I have said there is a terrible disease being engendered in society, which all “the powers that be” are exerting their utmost efforts to conceal, and to prevent inquiry being made about it. Those who presume, even to hint, that our sexual rules and regulations are not perfect, and their results are not sound, are at once branded as revolutionists, who desire to demoralize society by their immoral teachings, or who desire to excuse their own lives by advocating rules of conduct conforming to them….
The first thing that we encounter when we examine the present social system, and which is its chief corner-stone is marriage, or the union of the sexes. At the outset the question arises as to what marriage is. Is it a natural condition or an artificial production? Is it governed by natural or by artificial laws? Does it exist in the common order of the universe, or did mankind invent it in order that they might have its use….
That is to say, if marriage is a natural condition, which would exist whether there were any artificial laws or not, then, since it exists and there are laws, the laws which govern it should be such as to harmonize with those which govern in its natural condition. But if marriage is an artificial production, invented to serve specific purposes, as the watch is invented to mark time, then the laws by which it should be governed should be those which will best produce the purposes for which it was invented.
Now, is marriage an invention or is it a natural condition existing in the common order of things? It is scarcely necessary that I should say it is not in any sense of the word an invention made by man…. Man found the principle of marriage existing in men and women before there were any rules of society….
But first let us analyze the results that are attained. The first grand attempt is to induce two persons, opposite in sex, to think so much of each other that they feel willing in order to accomplish a present wish, to promise to love each other till death do them part. At the very introduction to the happy state, they are compelled to give a solemn pledge that they will perform something which there can be no human means of determining in advance, whether they can or cannot redeem. The only value a promise or a contract has, is the ability which is involved to fulfill it….
I believe that a large proportion of married people will agree with me that, as compared to what they anticipated, marriage is a stupendous failure—a gigantic fraud. But they don’t realize this until the blow is struck—until the deed is done—from which, twist it as they may, there is no escape. Some rebel…. The common result is the utter waste of all that is really grand and noble in life, sacrificed to satisfy a custom which the self-styled conservators of morality impose upon society. And the reason this sacrifice is made is because the moral courage to do differently is lacking. It is ostracism to do differently. The important crisis passed, the first incident of importance by which they are overtaken is, that the wife unexpectedly finds herself in a strange condition [pregnant], and wonders what the symptoms mean. Satisfied at length that something is wrong, the services of a Madam Restell [abortionist], if the parties have the means to obtain entrée to her august presence, are secured, and the situation is usually successfully relieved, in a scientific manner. But lacking the open sesame to this aristocratic relief, second, third and fourth rate resorts, according to cost, are put in demand. And when the information, means and courage to do either of these are lacking, then washes, teas, tonics and various sorts of appliances known to the initiated, are resorted to, either of which, if successful, inevitably induces a long list of complaints and weaknesses, the prevalence of which to-day is a standing reproach upon, and a permanent indictment against American women….
The next circumstance that usually turns up, when all resorts fail, is wives find themselves with babies on their hands. How they came by them they are usually only a little less ignorant of than of the care to which they are entitled….
Now, my second indictment against marriage is that it compels women to become mothers against their wish and will, and to maintain sexual relations with men for whom their love is not sufficiently deep to always make them happy at the prospect of reproducing themselves in children. I assert it as my earnest and well-established conviction that no woman should ever hold sexual relations with any man from the possibly consequences of which she might desire to escape.
But this raises a relative question as to what shall take the place of present marriage customs, since, so long as women depend upon the fact of their sex for support, marriage of some sort seems indispensable….
Scarcely any woman deems it dishonorable to assert that she married for a home, or that if it were not for support she would not remain with her husband; but the same woman will denounce a poor unfortunate, who cannot obtain a husband, because she sustains sexual relations, for the same purposes, with a man to whom she is not legally married.
It is, without doubt, the most unfortunate condition to which women are subject, that, as a general rule, they are compelled to rely upon their sex to gain favor with men…. The only stock a woman has in which to deal is her person. She must sell that to a man for life, or to men indiscriminately, in order to obtain the means of living.
But a great change must come. The total order of society must be reversed. It must be reconstructed so as to make women equally independent with men. Women must be educated as men are—to self support; and the idea that they are only born and grown to become the sexual slaves of some man, or a number of men, must be forever banished from the thoughts of women and from the thoughts of men that they can be so.
If women, when they arrive at their majority, are like men capable of self-maintenance, marriage or sexual relations would only be entered upon from motives other than making them a means of support. They will not surrender their freedom except for love, which should be the motive of all sexual relations.
Webmaster’s Note: These are actual extracts from the Woodhull & Claflin’s Weekly. Sentences or paragraphs that have been removed are indicated with the ellipsis (….)
When this web site began in September 1999, there were no digitized copies of Woodhull & Claflin’s Weekly available online. Now you can find an almost complete run on the IAPSOP web site which has no affiliation with Victoria Woodhull & Company: