Self Knowledge and Guide to Sex Instruction: Vital Facts of Life for All Ages

by Thomas W. Shannon

She replied, “After the death of father and brother, our bread winners and protectors, mother, sisters and I made our living by keeping student boarders from a church college. One of our boarders, a young law student, made love to me, won my affections and complete confidence. We were engaged to be married on the day of his graduation. Only a few months before this event he asked for privileges that belonged only to the married. I was perfectly shocked and dazed. I resented the request as an insult. He insisted that he meant no offense, that he considered that we loved and trusted each other as much as we possibly could after we were married. He insisted that we were as truly one as if we were married, that the mere legal phase was only a custom and had no moral significance and that it was very common for the engaged to enjoy this privilege. After many days of entreaty, promise of marriage oft repeated, and loving caresses, I made the profound mistake of my life.

“Some weeks before the commencement, I discovered that I was to be a mother. I pleaded with him for immediate marriage. He insisted that marriage would interfere seriously with his examination work and that he was to begin his legal profession in a distant state and that marriage could be safely delayed until commencement. On the gay day of his graduation he suggested that he had our future home in a distant state rented and furnished awaiting our arrival. He suggested that marriage there would be rather romantic. I accepted the idea. We arrived in the town, on a late night train, where he was to practice law. A hackman conveyed us to our new home. I found it as he had described it. We spent the night as husband and wife. The next morning he suggested that we had thoughtlessly made a very serious mistake, that to get married there would ruin me socially and him in his profession. He suggested a plan that appeared wise to me, viz.: after a few weeks to take a train to some distant state and there be married. Later he suggested that we had better wait until the baby was born. Not until the child was two years old did I ever doubt his purpose of marriage.

“One day a doubt took possession of me. I grew desperate in my determination. On his return home, I faced him and demanded immediate marriage, refusing to live with him longer unless he took immediate steps to correct the mistakes of the past. I pleaded for the rights of his child, for my rights. Once more he renewed his fidelity and promised to arrange immediately his business so we could make the trip in a week or ten days. Meanwhile he secretly dissolved partnership, disposed of almost all his property, took a midnight train, without a good-by kiss, and left for parts unknown.

“I sold off our furniture, wrote mother that husband and I had disagreed and had separated, that I would send her my little girl and would help support the family by teaching.”

The minister’s mistake.—Then she said to the minister, “I never meant to be a sinner, I am living a pure life. What must I do?” The minister advised her to confess to the church what she had done and said that he would plead with the church to forgive and stand by her. If this woman had followed the minister’s advice she would have lost her position as a teacher, she would have lost her social standing, she would not have been given a sympathetic and loving welcome into the church, she would have brought disgrace upon her home and placed society’s stigma of illegitimacy upon her child. The minister would not have demanded a similar confession from the man who was far more guilty than she. That conscientious minister would insist upon restitution’s being made for stolen property, as a condition of divine forgiveness, but a libertine may pluck the lily of purity from a maiden’s brow, and rob his child of sacred birth, allow mother and child to die in poverty, their grocer’s and doctor’s bills to go unpaid, the public to bury them in the potter’s field, while he revels in luxury and enjoys social distinction, and no restitution is required in his case, as a condition of divine favor, membership in the church, or a triumphant entrance into endless bliss.

Blinded by the double standard.—She could not meet the minister’s condition. He was conscientious and could not make what to him would have been a compromise with sin. Not fully appreciating that moral law is higher than civil law; that what is sometimes civilly wrong is morally right; that centuries of submission to the double standard of morals has so biased the public mind that even the best of society are incapable of always giving the wronged girl a square deal; she at last postponed her decision for the Christ. The meeting closed, later the school closed and then she left the city and her whereabouts became unknown to the minister.

Was she scarlet or was she white.—You will observe that this girl is not to be classed in character with the girls who purposely give themselves to a life of shame. This girl never meant to be bad. She over-loved and over-trusted the man to whom she was engaged. She had no father or brother to advise and protect her. She was not informed as to the seductive wiles of the libertine. Hers was a profound mistake.

Suppose that her chum across the street had made the same mistake and her lover had kept his promise of marriage, would her chum’s sin have been less than hers? Certainly not. Of the two women and their children, the first deserves more sympathy, mercy and love.

She and her child had a moral right to his name.—When the world’s purity movement shall have relegated the double standard of morals back to the dark ages of savagery where it originated, and shall have established in the hearts of men the Christ standard, the “single standard,” a “white life for two,” then civil law will be made to harmonize with the moral law and the wronged girl and her child will be given the legal right to the name of the man who ought to be to them a husband and father, with all the legal rights of support and a division of his property at his death.

Her deceiver was under absolute moral obligation to give them his legal name. Then she and her child had an absolute moral right to wear his name.