As late as the sixteenth century in England, when, it may be supposed, a vestige of the old pagan spirit still lingered among our people, there is indeed a tender allusion to the female body; and, strange to say, it occurs in our _Book of Common Prayer_. But the very oddness of the sentiment to our modern ears shows how completely foreign it is to the atmosphere created by our values, and we may be sure that it is seldom read, or, if read, seldom understood, at a modern marriage service. It is as follows: “For the husband is the head of the wife ... and he is the Saviour of the body.” We have lost all sympathy with this attitude. We no longer consider the physical side of our daughters’ and sisters’ lives. We may wish them to have a “good time”; or, if we are poor, we wish them to be self-supporting. But bodily considerations scarcely enter into the first wish, and into the second—never! Coupled, however, with our attitude of callous indifference to the young female’s body is also the increasing doubt which is spreading among all classes regarding the actual value of the normal and natural life for woman. Impaired physical efficiency has turned so many of the joys and beauties of the natural life to pain and horror that there is no longer that certainty which Manu felt about the desirability of motherhood for women. And, even when motherhood is not regarded as a greatly over-rated pleasure, the mates by means of whom motherhood can be experienced are, as a rule, such poor shadows of men that the whole of Manu’s attitude has begun to be discredited. The Feminist Movement, in fact, is actively engaged in discrediting it, and that is why the Feminist Movement itself may be regarded as a remote off-shoot of the body-despising values. Indeed, things have come to such a pass in this country that at present rich and poor alike are far more concerned about giving their daughters a calling than a mate; and, when once this has been done, it is felt that parents have discharged their responsibility. The most convincing demonstration of the prevalence of this attitude was the uproar that arose a year or two ago, when one or two imprudent journalists inadvertently referred to our 2,000,000 excess of women over men as “surplus women.” The daily press was immediately flooded by indignant letters from women of all classes, protesting that, as a large proportion of these 2,000,000 were self-supporting and ample room existed for the remainder in our industries and professions, it was absurd to speak of them as “surplus.” Articles soon followed, in which the same views were expressed, though possibly more magisterially. But there was no reference to the bodily destiny of these 2,000,000 females—not a hint that the word “surplus” might have some relevancy if they were looked at in relation to the available males, or that a civilization which condemns one-sixth of its adult females to celibacy must be very wrong!