| (Some of our readers, no
doubt, have found time to glance, and probably to smile, at the ideas recently
promulgated by some post-war population enthusiasts under the name of “Virgin
Motherhood.” Briefly put, the idea is that the male procreative element,
done up attractively in test-tubes, should be purchased at a chemist’s
shop by high-minded young ladies desirous of doing their duty to the State,
but unwilling to be pestered by having a man about the house or unable to
obtain a man owing to the presumed post-war scarcity of the genus.
We are not inclined to forecast any widespread popularity
for the new idea. There is, however, an aspect of the subject that makes
it well worth examining at greater length than it would appear to warrant.
It implies that sex is a thing to be ashamed of, that sex relationship
is unclean. Neither philosophic consideration nor medico-biologic facts
bear out this notion, which is possessed of untold power for mischief,
but it is nevertheless widely held and deeply-rooted. We, therefore, feel
that, apart from its merits in other directions, the following review
of a talented South Australian lady’s work, is not ill-timed. It
is from the pen of a Melbourne lady, who, for many years past, has been
closely associated with every advanced movement. One more introductory
word – the South Australian authoress’ remarks upon pre-natal
influence are, as some will no doubt notice, not altogether sound in view
of the ‘dicta of Biology, but undoubtedly contain much truth when
looked at from a psychological standpoint – “Vigilant”)
Some years ago Mrs. Agnes Nesbit Benham, a South
Australian lady brought out a little book of the above title, which has
perhaps not received the attention which it deserves, so reticent are
we generally in adopting or giving expression to any but conventional
opinions on sex questions of which Mrs Benham’s book treats in the
most delicate the most reverential, I might almost say the most sacred
way, the whole question of sex relationship, parenthood, love and marriage
are treated in this little volume.
In the introduction the author quotes Mr. Lockey’s
reference to the animal side of our nature as being essentially low and
degraded, and comments on it thus: - if the act of love be sinful, how
can the result be pure? And draws attention to another point of view,
namely – “that the Creator has made nothing common or unclean,
that there is no merit in being ignorant and that if we would obey the
laws governing our physical necessities we must study to find out what
they are.” In the opening chapter, “Love and Passion,”
the author’s first statement – and one that colours the whole
trend of her work, is that “Passion is a right and normal force,”
and explains that when she speaks of passion she means “the sexual
instinct united with love.” “Passion,” she says, “is
a force which is purely unmoral, neither good nor evil in itself.”
Again – “There could be no such thing as prostitution if passion
were always united with love.” Prostitution, as I understand the
author embraces not only the unwedded victims of man’s lust, but
also those wives and mothers whose position is nothing more nor less than
prostitution legalised by marriage, such as is depicted so vividly by
Tolstoi in his “Kreutzer Sonata,” and which is more common
in everyday life than many of us realise, or at least care to acknowledge.
How “we overrate the marriage ceremony when we think it can make
wrong right.” “One very prevalent false idea is that marriage
sanctifies love, whereas it is love alone that can sanctify marriage.
“All forces can be consecrated to the service of good and passion
forms no exception. Passion transformed, not expunged, is the secret of
ascension.”
“It is above all things desirable that we
should be healthy animals. The natural man first, then the spiritual”
says Mrs. Benham in her second chapter, “Marriage.” |
|
Here she shows that our
ideas on morality are no more than conventions and are largely influenced
by our birthplace and religion. In times of need for population, such as
war wastage, etc., the ban has been lifted from the unmarried mother and
the stigma from her child. If it can be lifted for utilitarian purposes,
why not in normal times? Why the dread of divorce? Is it not mainly fear
of Mrs Grundy? Or more often economic? With the economic independence of
mothers and children divorce in cases of conjugal infelicity would become
easy, and life be made happier for both parties and especially for the offspring;
not only because it would be removed from an inharmonious environment, but
also because, with the economic independence of women would come desired
motherhood only, and that “supreme love as the master of passion is
one, if not the only power which makes for progress and improvement in the
human species.” This supreme love gives just that force and power
to a new life which enables a child to feel with confidence that it has
been well born. Well born in the sense that the highest, purest and noblest
love were bequeathed to it at the time of its conception by both parents.
In fact, that it has had bestowed upon it all those treasures of trust and
love which must necessarily be lacking at the time of conception of the
“scientific baby,” which is being advocated by some people at
the present, and Mrs. Benham’s book – although written some
years ago – is perhaps one of the most forcible arguments against
any means of artificial procreation. Perhaps Mrs. Benham could be induced
to have a second edition of her work published, as the present is possibly
the most appropriate time for it to be again brought before a thinking public.
In “The Building of the House of Life,”
the last chapter of “Perfect Humanhood,” the author says that
“Thought is the body builder,” “the materials that thought
employs are always essentially good,” it is the order of the arrangement
of these materials that makes the result beautiful or the reverse. “It
is wonderful that we have given not even a stockbreeder’s attention
to the improvement of our own species, the human race. “That we
have not made it a point of honour that parents should well match themselves
for the sake of their ensuing offspring.” “The rarest of all
unions, the highest and most enduring marriage, takes place whenever two
unite that mutually thrill to all the vibrations that affect our varied
and ascending planes of being, that find their complement in each other
upon every level, that are married mentally, psychically, and spiritually,
as well as physically.” From unions such as these and from no others
can we expect improvement in the human race. Again, to hark back to artificial
methods of conception, hear what the author of “Perfect Humanhood”
says: “Spontaneity is the vital characteristic of passionate love,
and it cannot be evoked at will. It is the outrush of creative energy,
the “Fire” and “Wine” of life.” And again,
“The supreme birthday gift, lasting for life, health, strength,
energy, etc., greatly depend on the influences prevailing at the time
of conception. What influences prevail when this takes place artificially?
On the father’s side, at least, none. That “harp of a thousand
strings is on his side mute.” The note that should be sounded then
to which the child’s nature should forever vibrate is silent.
Mutual love should be the prevailing element
if the foundation of the house beautiful is to be laid at the time of
conception. Whether this love is to last the whole life of the parents
or not does not seem to the author under consideration, to be of great
importance. Nor does she consider that love in freedom would cause licentiousness.
“Love,” She says, “is the universal redeemer.”
“Give love a free hand.” “With love come all other virtues,
Unselfishness, Courage, Fidelity, Truth, and the children of love shall
rule the world.”
|
