[To the Editor of TILE SPECTATOR.]
Sne,-LThe attitude of your more " progressive and broad- minded " correspondents seems to be based on an admiration of flexibility of morals as well as of mind. Mrs. Montagu- Pollock regards monogamy as characteristic of an ideal society. The usual arguments then follow. Man is by nature polygamous, therefore man cannot be expected to exercise chastity before or after marriage. The fundamental errors are three. (1) Man is not by nature polygamous ; probably your correspondent means promiscuous—a very different matter. (2) Civilized man is—obviously—capable of exercising self-control ; if he is not, he is not civilized.
(3) A condition of society so " flexibly broad-minded " as to countenance with approval promiscuous cohabitation between young men and women obviously abolishes marriage. Why should a man who can freely enjoy the delights without the duties of feminine companionship undertake legal respon- sibility for a woman's debts ? Why should a man lend his name to a woman if he has no sort of reason to assume that the offspring who may appear to use that name will be of his begetting ?
Your correspondents make a great deal too much fuss about " repression." Actually an athlete in trainiug is expected to lead a very chaste life, and, in actual fact, hard work necessitates a certain amount of self-control and repression. A young man who " by economic pressure is prevented from marrying " has a motive for working hard enough to overcome that pressure if he wishes, and that ambition is by no means a bad thing.—I am, Sir, &c., Victoria and Albert Hotel, Torquay. W. K. SCUDABIORE.
Previous page
