In human affairs there is no effect without its adequate cause. Codified law, custom and ethics, the three determiners and regulators of human conduct, have all their reasons. If there is a double standard of sex-morality there must be a reason for it. What is this reason? Is this reason still extant? Is there still any justification for the existence of the double moral standard? Have not any other reasons arisen for a change of this double standard?

In modern times law and ethics do not know of any double standard of sex-morality. In no civilized country do the laws punish any voluntary sexual misconduct but adultery, and in the latter the prohibition is for men and women alike. Ethics, on the other hand, allows sexual relations in marriage only, and then mostly for the purpose of propagation. Even such a radical as Zola says: “Si l’enfant n’est pas au bout, l’amour n’est qu’une saleté inutile.” But as far as custom is concerned there is no question of the existence of a double standard of sex-morality. Even the most violent, rabid free-lover will resent any allegations of a dissolute character in his mother, while he will listen with perfect equanimity to narrations of the fast life of his father. Whence comes this difference, which seems to be ingrained in the heart of every man and woman? What is the cause of this phenomenon?

The answer that men with the power in their hands have sexually enslaved womankind, shows not only ignorance of history and biology (no species could survive for any length of time without the harmonious coöperation of the two sexes. Where the female of the species is actually kept subject to the male, where she is treated with cruelty by him, or where the male neglects to protect and take loving care of the female, the species has no survival power and dies), but also poor logic. If the double standard of morality were not due to racial evolution, if it could have been changed without hurting the race, sensual men would have changed it long ago, because it is against these men’s interest to have all women live in strict chastity. An unchaste man needs an unchaste female partner. If all women—prostitutes included, sic!—were chaste, where on earth could he get his partner? Hence the assertion, frequently found, especially in feministic literature, that men-made laws sexually enslaved women, is entirely illogical.

In fact, among the culture-nations laws against unchastity never existed. Even the Bible has only laws against adultery. The adulteress and her paramour were both stoned (Deuteron. xxii, 24), but the sexual relations of the unmarried woman with any man were entirely ignored by the law. Even rape was no criminal offense—the father of the girl had only a civil action against the rapist (Deuteron. xxii, 28). Such laws would just suit sensual men. It is in their interest that all women except their own wives should lead dissolute lives. But it is in the interest of the married woman, where adultery is prohibited, that all other women should be strictly chaste, so that her husband would be compelled to be faithful to her. Hence it is custom (and in matters of custom woman rules supreme) that dictates chastity. The punishment of a woman’s false step is social ostracism, decreed by women themselves, not by men-made laws. The men-made laws, on the contrary, strike men harder than women. The punishment of the woman’s misconduct in marriage is loss of husband and children, while the man loses wife and children and has to pay her alimony, during her natural life, in the bargain. Yet the fallacy is repeated again and again about men wishing to enslave their mothers, sisters, wives and daughters.

But why does custom punish woman’s misconduct and why not man’s? Why does the Biblical law discriminate between men and women in regard to adultery? A married woman’s adultery is punished with death, while the law is silent about the married man’s adultery with a single woman. Why this discrimination that is as old as history? Was there a justification for the double standard, and should not the twentieth century change the double into a single standard? If changed, should men become as chaste as women or should womankind be pulled down into the gutter of sensuality to meet the demands of men?

The majority of mankind—women included—believes in the justification of the double standard of sex-morality for the two sexes. Men are thought to have greater erotic needs than women.

Recently there arose a new spirit in the domain of sex-morality which demands a single standard for both sexes. The societies for moral prophylaxis demand that men should become as chaste as women. In this way the social evil and its satellites, the venereal diseases, would disappear. On the other hand, the radicals have raised a unanimous revolt against self-control in the domain of chastity for either sex. These new moralists preach the right of men and women to the fulfillment of every instinct, every impulse, every dream in all its fullness. This is proclaimed as the new standard of sex-morality. But in truth this subjugation of the individual to the instincts is a complete denial of morality. For morality is the arrest of the instincts by the intellect.

In this part of our treatise the author will try to find the reason for the double standard of sexual morality for the two sexes. Why since the dawn of history the married woman was kept to a rigorous chastity. How the chastity of the single woman has developed as a corollary of the law of adultery, and he will thoroughly discuss the reasons why the double standard of morality is at present utterly without justification.

[DH] The parallel points in both creeds dealing with social justice are among others the following:

“Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.”—Moses iii, 19, 18.“Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.”—Matth. xxii, 39.
“hatred stirreth up strifes, but love covers all sins.”—Prov. x. 12.“Charity suffers long and is kind.”—I Corinth. xiii, 4
“I dwell with him that is of contrite and humble spirit.”—Isaia 57, 15.“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”—Matth. v, 3.
“He has sent me to comfort all that mourn.”—Isaia 61, 2.“Blessed are they that mourn; for they shall be comforted.”—Matth. v, 4.
“He that followeth after mercy findeth life.”—Prov. 21, 21. “Blessed are the merciful.”—Matth. v, 7.
“They that sow in tears shall reap in joy, he that goeth forth and weepeth, shall come again rejoicing.”—Psalm 126, 5.“Blessed are ye that hunger “Blessed are ye that hunger now, for ye shall be filled; blessed are ye that weep now, for ye shall laugh.”—Luke vi, 21.
“A man’s pride shall bring him low, but honor shall uphold the humble in spirit.”—Prov. 29, 23.“Whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased, and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.”—Matth. 23, 12.
“He shall save the humble person.”—Job xxii, 29.“God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.”—James iv, 6.
“Ho, everyone that thirsteth come ye to the waters and he that hath no money come ye buy and eat.”—Isaiah 55, 1.“Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden, I will give you rest.”—Matth. xi, 28.
“Thou shalt not harden thine heart, nor shut thine hand from the poor brother, but thou shalt open thine hand wide unto him.”—Moses v, 15, 7.“Give to every man that asketh of thee.”—Luke vi, 30.
“Judge righteously between every man: ye shall not respect persons in judgment.”—Moses v, 1, 16.“Judge not according to the appearance but judge righteous judgment.”—John vii, 24.