It is unfortunately only too true that many of our opinions are influenced by our general feelings, and to a considerable extent by our physical condition. This is particularly true whenever we come to discuss questions of a sexual character. The man possessed of a very powerful sexuality will be biased in favor of a free sexual morality, may even feel nothing wrong in promiscuity, and will condone sexual freedom in others.
The man of naturally weak sexuality or of an age in which the sexual desire or power is almost or quite extinct, will
demand a very strict monogamic standard, and will be ruthless in denouncing any sexual
transgression in others, either ante matrimonial or extra marital. It can even be proven fairly
conclusively that the institutions of polygamy, monogamy and polyandry were, next to
economic conditions, influenced by the degree of sexual power in a given race or nation. The
sexually strong tribes were polygamous, the moderately strong were almost monogamous,
while in the sexually weak tribes polyandry was prevalent.
I recognize that it is extremely difficult to assume a perfectly objective attitude uncolored
by our feelings. I recognize that even all our prophecies as to the future are influenced by our
desires and opinions. What we want to take place, we believe will take place. The anarchist,
for instance, in picturing the future state of society is sure that it will be a state without any
government, without any laws, even without any rules or regulations; the state socialist is
certain that the government of the future will be of wider scope and more strongly
centralized.
The atheist is sure that in future there will be no such thing as religion in any form, while
the sincere Catholic is absolutely certain that Catholicism is going to spread further and
further and will eventually become the only religion in the world. All the infidels, the Jews,
the various Christian denominations, the Mahomedans, the Buddhists, etc., etc., will
eventually come to see the truth and will become loyal members of the Catholic Church. I
have met such a Catholic. Tell such a believer that the time may come when all dogmatic
religions, including Judaism and Christianity, will disappear from the face of the earth, and
he will think that you are insane.
The monogamist of the present has no doubts whatever that monogamy will be the state
of the future, perhaps even in a stricter and more absolute form. The free lover smiles at this,
for he knows that free union or even promiscuity will be the prevalent system. In short, our
prophecies about the future are merely the reflections of our ideals in the present. What we
believe in and what we want, that we are sure is going to be the prevailing system of the
future. While objectivity may perhaps be attained in discussions as to what should be the right
conduct of the present, I emphasize that it is practically impossible to be strictly objective in
our prophecies as to the more or less distant future. The human mind is not willing to admit
that the future may be entirely different from what one wants it to be, from what one hopes
it will be.
Recognizing these limitations of the human mind, we will try to do our best. If we cannot
attain absolute objectivity, we will try to be as objective as we can.
Of all questions, the sexual question is preeminently the question which must be
discussed with absolute freedom, frankness and honesty. If it cannot be so discussed, it should
be left alone altogether. Half hearted admissions, equivocal hints and veiled allusions are
useless and may prove worse than useless. For if misunderstood, they may lead, and often do
lead, to wrong conclusions.
It does require some courage, at the present time, to discuss the
manifestations of the human sexual instinct in the same calm, unconcerned manner in which
we discuss any biologic or social question, but it must be done. There is no way out of it. And
we must not be afraid to go wherever investigation may lead us. There must be no shrinking
back from our logical conclusions, be they what they may. Our sole criterion must be
human happiness. If we should find that absolute sexual license, that unrestricted, riotous
promiscuity would best contribute toward human happiness, then we should not be afraid to
say so; and unrestricted promiscuity should be our ideal.
If we think that free unions or temporary marriages or a modified monogamy will be most conducive to human happiness,
we should say so; and if we find that rigid monogamy in the absolute sense of the term,
without any extra-marital relations on the part of either sex, will best contribute to the
happiness of mankind, or the greatest happiness of the greatest number, then we should not
be afraid to say so. In short, we should not be afraid to advocate that system of sexual
relations, whatever it may be, which in our opinion would contribute most to human
happiness.