Thrasymachus : $b or, The future of morals — John Shaqi
Thrasymachus : $b or, The future of moralsJoad, C. E. M. (Cyril Edwin Mitchinson)
Philosophy
Thrasymachus : $b or, The future of morals
Joad, C. E. M. (Cyril Edwin Mitchinson)
Ethics
It is immediately obvious that any woman who was prepared to give for
love or for nothing what other women were only prepared to give for
maintenance was a blackleg of the most subversive type, and the whole
force of organized female opinion has, therefore, been devoted to
making her position impossible. The force of female opinion so directed
is known as morality, and the bitterness with which the free lover,
that is to say, the woman who loves outside the marriage tie or the
prostitute’s preserves, is denounced as immoral, is due to woman’s
unconscious recognition of the fact that she is cutting at the basis of
the economic livelihood of her sex.
It is of course true that the two women’s Unions are to some extent
competitive, and that the existence of the prostitute threatens the
security of the wife while it guarantees the chastity of the young
girl. For this reason there is and always will be hostility between
the Unions. The wife’s first commandment is the Deity’s “Thou shalt
have none other woman but me”, and she is accordingly accustomed to
regard the prostitute with horror, whereas she does not object to the
existence of other wives, since this does not, at least in theory,
threaten her own. For this reason, too, the method of earning a living
adopted by the wife is generally preferred to that adopted by the
prostitute, and is esteemed the more honourable by public opinion.
So true is this that in most women the belief in the honourableness
of wifehood has become second nature, the really nice woman feeling
instinctively that the only decent way for her to live is on the
earnings of some man. But while this feeling provokes hostility to
members of the other Union, it is a hostility which cannot compare
in bitterness with the scorn and hatred felt for the free lover. The
reason for this is obvious. The number of women a man can have for
money is limited by the extent of his income; the number of women he
can have for nothing is limited only by the extent of his ability to
find them. For this reason it is felt instinctively that the free lover
is a greater menace to society than the prostitute. The prostitute,
indeed, is and always has been recognized as a social necessity. She
guarantees the chastity of nice women by providing a necessary solace
for men up to the comparatively late age at which modern economic
conditions allow them to marry. Thus in Tsarist Russia the brothel was
a State-recognized institution. The new brothel was formally opened
by the police officer, and was hallowed by a religious ceremony in
the course of which the premises were blessed by a Russian Orthodox
priest.[5]
[5] _Report of Labour Delegation_, 1925.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account