[To the Editor of THE SPECTATOR.] Sin,—In the article appearing
under the above title in your issue of August 31st, Mr. Graham Lipstone says : " The question is whether . . . old standards are being replaced by new and lower standards or discarded altogether." Is it not at least logically possible that they arc being displaced by new and higher standards ? Mr: Lipstone, however, assumes as desirable " the accepted standard "—i.e. a choice between celibacy and monogamy ; and makes the surprising statement that " no one has in fact suggested any arguments against it except the gratification -of appetite." This is to ignore a whole school of responsible writers who have advanced cogent arguments for the modification of " the accepted standard " and leased them on social considerations which are far removed from " the gratification of appetite."
This is not the place to expound those arguments.: I have recapitulated them in my-forthcoming book, Sex and Revolu tion. What is particularly significant is the possibility, at this- . time of the day, of a writer taking Mr. Lipstone's line. It is only in dealing with sexual matters that such an attitude would be permitted. Your journal, Sir, cannot be suspected of Communist tendencies, yet the writer of a political article in it would not be allowed to ascribe Communist opinion solely to moral turpitude, and to display an apparent, ignorance of the existence of intelligent Communist literature.
It is not in dispute that the sexual problems of our time should be resolved in accordance with socially responsible, and disciplined, righteousness. But the attainment of this end is not furthered by a blind adoration of " the accepted standard," or by advancing as axiomatic, propositions that have been seriously challenged by modernist criticism.—I am, Sir, &c.,
Previous page
