[To the Editor of THE SPECTATOR.] SIR,—I, too, am for
frankness, but it must be a frankness which warns against, not a frankness which condones and
encourages, laxity in morals.
The fact that you think it necessary and advisable to state at the foot of my letter :
" The Spectator's policy in sexual matters is to uphold the principles of continence and monogamy, but it does not consider that this is best achieved by suppressing discussion of perhaps the most vital question of life. Frankness and a free interchange of differing views form the best basis for a sound judgement and a healthy outlook. We have had no letters similar to Mr. Thomson's. Editor, The Spectator."
is first, a sufficient condemnation of your own policy, and secondly shows that you are determined to damn the con-
sequences and wreck The Spectator.
From letters received by me I am proud to know that you have now received " letters similar to Mr. Thomson's."
May I say that an Englishman's home is still a castle and not a brothel?
Real homes are worth all the struggle and pain for self-control, and all the waiting for the right man,. or the right woman.
If only it were more generally realized how eager the young of both sexes were to obtain clean knowledge of how
to live straight, a vast number of the young of both sexes would have their heads higher and their eyes brighter with endeavour.
It is this poison gas of sex, sex, sex which is bringing a blight upon our4Peloved land, and suppressing all that is true, all that is lovely, all that is worth while, and you, Sir, say, "damn 38 Malpas Road, Wallasey.
[We have received many other letters on this question, but the ground has now been fully traversed, and unless some new point of importance is raised the correspondence must be closed. To those readers who have expressed the view that sexual ethics are not a matter for open discussion in The Spectator we can only reply that a paper that professes to'deal
with the realities of life could have no justification for burking discussion of so insistent a reality as this. The essence of discussion is that opinions with which we disagree should be
given as fair a hearing as those with which we agree. The Spectator's own position is perfectly clear. It stands for con- tinence and monogamy, and has complete faith in the strength of the case that can be made for that standard. That was why the three articles headed " Morals of Today " were arranged.—En. The Spectator.1
Previous page
