And it is also the reason why, in
spite of ethical convictions and logical conclusions, we should have
different standards for the loyalty of the husband and the loyalty of
the wife; in man sexuality is a distinct element, an element, it is
true, which we do not value, but which nevertheless exists and has, as
we have seen, a historical root. When a man gives way to his instincts,
his individuality is not only not destroyed, but it is hardly affected.
It is very different in the case of the woman; with her, emancipated
sexuality is synonymous with inward annihilation, for it has not the
support of the past and cannot exist independently. A man's spiritual
annihilation from the emotional sphere is unthinkable because his
organisation is naturally heterogeneous. The mere sexualist represents a
past stage of male eroticism which has been largely overcome, but he is
rarely so completely under the spell of sexuality that he cannot highly
develop other parts of his entity. The _double morality_ has, therefore,
an objective reason (though perhaps not a higher justification), and
would only be unjustifiable if man had achieved a complete erotic unity.
Pages:
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426