“I have so far told you,” continued Mr. Midith, “of our sex relations as they now actually exist on Mars. I have so far offered no comments on either our practice of individual freedom sexually, or on your marriage system. But to leave it without further investigation and comparison would be a very incomplete account. Let us closely and impartially investigate whether it is your or our system of sex relation which is most nearly in accord with the known laws of life, health and happiness. Let us see what defects and demerits we can find in either of them.
“It is a well-known fact that the exercise of the sexual function is an expenditure of vital energy; and, therefore, the person who has the sexual function so adjusted that he exercises it only for the special purpose of reproduction, is the most complete person sexually; while he who exercises it most excessively, or who is most passionately prompted to exercise it most excessively, either in a married state, as you have it here, or under individual freedom, is the most incomplete or licentious person sexually.
“You, no doubt, all agree that the higher inferior animals live a comparatively chaste life; while man, here on earth, lives a comparatively unchaste life. Why is this? There must be a cause for it, if you believe in universal causation, and as long as the cause exists the effect will naturally follow. To find and remove the cause, then, must be your whole aim in this field of purification and advancement. The Marsites have long ago removed the causes of unchastity and are therefore living a comparatively pure life. Let us see now whether we can find the causes producing the purity in the inferior animals and the impurity in your human beings, as they now live on earth.”
“Show us first, then, why it is that the inferior animal lives a pure life sexually,” said Viola. “I mean, give us your reason for it, Mr. Midith.”
“Very well,” continued Mr. Midith. “I have already said that the exercise of the sexual function is an expenditure of vital energy; that proposition you, no doubt, all admit. We have seen elsewhere, too, that as we descend in the scale of animal life, from man downward, they become more and more prolific.
“In the lower orders of life, millions must die in order to give room and opportunity for a few to live. The struggle for existence in the orders below man is so fierce that, with their present prolificness, only a few of the fittest can survive. Those individuals, who are most perfect at birth, and who direct their vital energy most economically in harmony with the so-called laws of life, survive; while the weakly born and the licentious ones must perish in the fierce struggle for existence. Hence, the phenomena of evolution forces the inferior animal to live a chaste life, or perish from the effect of expending unnecessary energy.”
“But why do not the phenomena of evolution, as you call them, also force man to live a virtuous life?” asked Rev. Dudley.
“That seems very plain to me,” replied Mr. Midith. “But, in the first place, let us keep in mind that in a state of perfect sexual freedom the human being, like the inferior animal, does live a comparatively chaste life, as I know the Marsites do. As evolution gradually develops the higher intellectual faculties of man, a keener sense of appreciating a faultless body and a highly cultivated mind is continually produced, so that he feels more and more reluctant to waste his animal forces in licentious acts which impair the physical and mental capacities after which he is seeking, and without which no one can be really happy.
“Now let us see why the human being, as he now exists on earth, does not live a pure, chaste life. Why he is so intemperate in many directions. Let us see if we can discover some of the causes that produce this evil and misery. I am well aware that your people, as a rule, do not like to be reminded of their faults. But, nevertheless, I believe we should always tell the whole truth, regardless of immediate likes and dislikes.
“The inferior animal lives by virtue of comparatively few and simple functions, while man lives by many and complex ones. The animal, then, is harder pressed for room and opportunity, and lives by virtue of fewer functions than man. If the brute animal violates one of its few functions, it must perish in the hard struggle for existence; while man, on the other hand, is enabled to live by his many complex functions in a milder struggle, even if he does violate to a certain degree the sexual function.
“Your present earthly human being, then, is on the one hand so complex that the partial violation of one of his many complex functions does not cause him to perish directly like the inferior animal, while on the other hand, his higher faculties of keenly appreciating the highest physical perfection and mental eminence are, as yet, not sufficiently developed to turn his steps only on the path of virtue and purity. You do not esteem life and health as highly as we do. But as intellectual development continues, you will gradually feel that every act that conduces to the fullness of life, individually and socially, produces happiness as a whole, and is therefore right; while every act that detracts from the fullness of life, individually and socially, produces unhappiness as a whole, and is therefore wrong.”
“You have shown to my satisfaction, Mr. Midith, why an inferior animal, according to the nature of things, is compelled to live a pure, chaste life; and that man can, if he so desires, live a comparatively unchaste one,” said Mr. Uwins. “I can plainly see the causes that produce the chastity in the inferior animals, but I cannot see the causes that produce the excessive sexual function in our human being. Why does our human being not derive more pleasure from leading a pure, chaste life, which is in accord with life and health, than he does from leading a licentious life?”
“Let us see, then, if we can point out the causes which make the earthly human being unchaste. We have seen that the inferior animal leads a chaste life, and I have also told you that the Marsites do the same. According to these facts, then, unchastity, the same as chattel slavery, is possible only during a particular stage of intellectual progress. Below this particular stage, the fierce struggle for room and opportunity permits only the most virtuous to survive; while above that particular stage, the pleasure derived from enjoying the most complete life possible becomes so agreeable that a violation of a physiological law is too painful.
“Now, in order to find the causes of unchastity, let us enumerate some of the differences existing between our and your system of sex relation.
“1. You marry for life; we do not. 2. Your church and state interfere with your sexual affairs; we leave it in the hands of the individual the same as in the case of the inferior animal. 3. Our women are not financially dependent on the man; yours, as a rule, are. 4. Our women have the privilege of soliciting the love of any man whose sexual co-operation they desire; yours have not. 5. In a state of sexual freedom, the woman regulates her own sexual affairs to suit herself; in a state of marriage, or, in other words, interference of church and state, the man or husband largely runs the sexual affairs to suit himself the same as he runs the financial and political affairs. 6. We invariably room alone, both men and women; under your marriage system your husband and wife invariably room and lodge together. 7. You make your women dependent creatures by not financially compensating maternal labor the same as mining, farming, etc.; we make her independent because we pay her the same compensation for maternal work as we do for any other labor. 8. You shift the burden of parental cares almost exclusively off unto the mother; while we act on the supposition that we have all received parental care during our infancy, and that we in turn should do the same for some one else, whether we are parents or not; to neglect this would make us shirks, for we would not be paying for what we received during our infancy. 9. We teach the laws of sexuality to our children of all ages; you try to hide all knowledge of it. Hence, we make intelligence the safeguard of sexual purity, while you make ignorance the safeguard of it.”
“As I have said before, Mr. Midith,” said Rev. Dudley, “your system of sex relations may do very well on Mars, but I think we ought to keep what we have as long as we have a good one, and that we undoubtedly have. I firmly believe that our sexual relations are better now than they have ever been before, or than they are in any other country in the world—here, or on any other planet or moon.”
“It may be true, Rev. Dudley, that your sexual, and even your social and industrial relations, are better now than they ever were before, but that may not be a sign that they need no further improvement. Best, as I have told you once before, has nearly always been a deceptive, unreliable criterion. Nothing is good enough unless it is faultless. You must remember that every age always had the best of everything, perhaps better than any preceding age. There was a certain people two thousand years ago that had the best system of sex relation, and the contemporaries of that age doubtless used the same argument against those who desired to improve it then as you are now using against me. You are undoubtedly proud of the progressive achievements of your ancestors, but you seem to fear the improvements of your contemporaries and of your posterity. But you need not fear progress of any kind. As I have told you some time ago, all wrong arises from ignorance. Hence, there can be but one line of advancement, and that line is by the way of acquiring more and more intelligence, which, on the one hand, tends to adjust and perfect voluntary co-operation on the highest possible scale, while, on the other hand, it tends to give more and more freedom to the individual. Any proposed improvement which does not bear these marks is not in the line of progress. If our sex relation is more nearly in harmony with these principles, it is better than yours; if yours is more so, yours is the better. We must continually strive to improve what we have. The microscope, the spectroscope, the engine, and human intelligence are more nearly perfect now than they ever were before, as far as you know; but we should all strive to improve them as much now as any of our ancestors did, to whom we owe the previous improvements. Only a faultless thing is good enough. Improvement should cease only when perfection makes further improvement impossible.
“It is like this, then, Rev. Dudley: As long as we can point out wrongs in any system, no matter whether the system is the best or the worst, it is not what it ought to be; and no honest, progressive person who has the welfare and happiness of his fellow-man at heart can remain silent or indifferent as long as this wrong or evil remains in sight.
“The way to test a system is to analyze it; to look at all its parts and relations; to endeavor to find all the faults we can; to compare it impartially with any system that may be offered in place of it. We should never try to cover up the defects by a few merits which it may contain. A truthful system contains not a single demerit. If it does it is faulty, and the faults should be eliminated.”
“Those words which you have spoken are all very true,” observed Rev. Dudley. “I fully agree with you that all wrongs should be righted, but I can see no wrongs in our marriage system; but, on the contrary, I believe that it is divinely instituted, that it is the most sacred boon that has ever brought joy and gladness to the human heart. I believe that conjugal affection has conduced more toward human happiness and contentment than any other one thing. I believe that the greatest earthly bliss is found in the union of man and wife, and that for life, too.”
“I think, Rev. Dudley, that you are perfectly honest and sincere in what you say. But you must not forget that honesty and sincerity are not necessarily signs of truth and justice, for which alone we should be seeking. I believe that Thomas de Torquemada, Inquisitor-General of Spain, was perfectly honest and sincere in killing the cream of European thought. The masters of chattel slaves, the soldier who fights for the preservation of a monarchy, the mother that drowns her babe in the Ganges, the widow that practices suttee, the social parasite that lives on profit, interest, rent and taxes, the savage that steals his wife, and the minister that frightens his congregation with an imaginary hell fire, are very likely all honest and sincere in doing those things that we, with a little more knowledge, would condemn. The question is not whether we are honest and sincere, but whether we are right and just. Is our view correct or is it erroneous? Have we thoroughly and impartially examined every side of our position, or have we, too, been educated and raised in an atmosphere of superstition, prejudice and jealousy, like the soldier, mother, widow, etc.?
“You say, Rev. Dudley, that you can find no faults and defects in your marriage system. That is nothing strange. You, no doubt, have been educated that way, and very likely you have blindly accepted the dogmas of your ancestors and masses of your contemporaries. Let us, then, fairly and impartially examine and compare your marriage system with our sex relation. I am fully aware that it is a tender topic for you to handle in your present age and thought; but in doing so we should endeavor to lay aside as much as we can of our superstition, prejudice and jealousy. We should boldly and untimidly seek to find the truth wherever it may lead. Truth is always worth following, and without we find the truth on the sex relations we can not hope to live clean lives.”
“I should be very much pleased, Mr. Midith,” said Rev. Dudley, “to have you examine and compare our system of marriage with your individual sex relation. You are, no doubt, better capable of fairly judging our institutions than we are, because, as you said, you have not been biased by education and training.”
“Very well,” said Mr. Midith.
“In the first place, have you ever thought from what source you received that great ‘boon’—your institution of marriage—which you say is ‘divinely instituted?’ Let us examine from whence you received it. According to the doctrine of evolution, the only theory of the genesis of man, which is supported by science, man slowly, through the lapse of countless ages, evolved from lower organisms by the agency of the survival of the fittest, etc. This implies, then, that all our ancestors were at one time savages.
“We all know that the savage in the lowest stages of barbarism, even as he now exists, steals and forcibly takes his wife or wives from other tribes, etc. He also often forces captives to become his wives. Somewhat later in the stage of social development, the man generally buys his wives without their consultation. At a still later period the old folks, instead of the young folks who are to be married, make the bargain. And still later on, the period in which you are now living, young boys and girls give each other away for life; at an age, too, you must remember, when they are young, inexperienced and blinded by first love, as you term it. No amount of after-knowledge on the sexual relations is of any value to the contracting parties as far as the contract is concerned, for, according to your doctrine, the parties are indissolubly bound together for life as man and wife. According to your marriage system, they are supposed to live together for life, whether they love each other or not. Whether they afterward quarrel or love some one else better cannot be taken into account. Nothing less than the cruelest abuse enables them to secure a divorce, and even then the divorced parties are looked upon with scorn and contempt.
“You would, no doubt, think it cruel, Rev. Dudley, if some one should steal you, like a savage steals his wife, and compel you to live with a woman with whom you did not want to live or whom you did not love. But there is very little difference, when we examine the matter closely, whether a woman is stolen and compelled, from the start, to live with a man, or whether she voluntarily marries him, thinking that she loves him, but afterward finds that she does not love him, that she was mistaken like all mankind are at times likely to be.
“You compel a husband and wife by law, superstition and public opinion, to live together, whether they really love each other, or whether they simply stay together to gratify their passions. Your church and state interfere with the marriage as well as with the dissolution of it. You can clearly see, then, that your system of marriage is based upon force, which, it is true, has gradually diminished from the lowest stages of barbarism, when the husband stole his wife, to the present time, when the contracting parties give each other away for life under a contract which they are not at liberty to make or dissolve without the interference of church and state.
“With us no men and women are together who do not really love each other. Those who do not love each other sexually are no sexual companions; and those who once did love each other, but have ceased loving, forsake each other’s company to the extent that it becomes agreeable to them. They are much freer, at any time, to seek other company than you are to make your first choice, which must continue for life. Why should two persons be compelled to live together when they do not desire to? When they fight, quarrel, and dislike each other? Why should not parting be as free and honorable as coming together? Why should a man and wife eke out a miserable existence, simply because they for once selected the wrong person to live with?”
“But every one, in making this choice for life, should be very cautious. They should know each other well before they entered into this life-contract. Too many marriages are entered into carelessly. The parties do not understand each other well enough,” said Rev. Dudley.
“We fully agree to what you have said,” observed Mr. Midith. “You say that great caution should be exercised by the contracting parties. But can we always be so cautious as never to make a mistake? I think that in all our undertakings we are liable to make mistakes; and would you recommend that one mistake should condemn us to a life of misery forever after? You say that the contracting parties should know each other well before they entered into a marriage contract. We agree perfectly with you there. We believe that it requires more than a whole lifetime for a man and a woman to know each other well enough to enter into a contract which is to be binding for life; therefore, you see, we exercise the greatest caution, because we study each other during our whole lifetime, and then claim that our knowledge of one another is too limited to give ourselves away even for a single day. The evil of the earthites lies in the fact that your ill-adjusted social and economic institutions require binding promises; and a promise, according to your common acceptation of the term, is a binding declaration made by one person to another to do, or not to do, a certain act at some future time. According to this definition, there can be no place for a binding promise in a harmonious, progressive world. Promises and harmonious progress are incompatible, unless all the parties are, at all times, as free to break them as they were to make them; and this admission eliminates the binding element, and, therefore, destroys the popular meaning of a promise.
“The evil consequences of binding promises can be easily seen when we bear in mind that, in a progressive world, we know more to-morrow than we know to-day. Also, that harmony implies absence of external coercion; for, all external coercion being social discord, a promise that appears just and feels agreeable when measured with to-day’s knowledge, may appear unjust and become disagreeable when measured with the standard of to-morrow’s knowledge; and in so far as the fulfillment of a promise becomes disagreeable or impossible, no matter what the promise may be, it is an element of discord, and discord is the opposite of harmony. Hence, before you can hope to enjoy uninterrupted harmony, your institutions must be so molded that there is no place in them for a binding promise. In regard to the sexual relations, nothing but mutual inclination should be made the bonds of union. If you have closely followed my narrative, you will have discovered long before this time, that, on Mars, we have no binding promises. In our just systems, we can not apply them any place, and we know of them only as relics of past crudity.”
“But do you not think, Mr. Midith, that licentiousness would run riot here on earth, with your system of sex relation, even if it proves to be ever so good and pure on Mars?” asked Rev. Dudley.
“I do not claim that our system of sex relation would operate perfectly here on earth, or perhaps on any other world,” observed Mr. Midith. “What I claim is not that it would produce perfect results, but that it would produce, with highly intelligent people, much better results than your system of matrimony. That the human family can and would live a cleaner and happier life under our system of sex relation, guarded by intelligence and on individual freedom, than under your system of marriage, largely guarded by ignorance, force, superstition and jealousy.
“The masses of the contemporaries of an institution rarely ever see the wrongs, cruelties and evils which that institution contains; they are blinded by their so-called loyalty and patriotism. We might give a few illustrations:
“The master once believed that no wrong could be done to a slave; that the slave had no rights which the master was bound to respect. The inquisitor believed that no wrong could be done to a heretic. The warrior thought the same of his captive. The witch-finder thought that no amount of torture he inflicted on the supposed witch was wrong or cruel. Just so do the vast majority—yes, nearly all of your men and women—believe that there can be no sexual abuse within your bonds of matrimony. But you are as wrong in that as your ancestors were to the chattel slave, heretic, captive, and supposed witch. Is it not a fact that nearly every family home under your marriage system is a more or less legalized house of sexual impurity (house of prostitution as you term it) upheld by church and state? Is it not true that the sexual function, under your system of matrimony, is, as a whole, exercised vastly in excess—perhaps from ten to a hundred times? Very likely this truth seems painful to you at this age of your earth, but it is a truth, nevertheless, which you are bound to face some time, if you do not desire to keep forever the pallor of disease on the sunken cheeks, pale lips, and feeble frame of nearly all your mothers, especially you American mothers. We must bear in mind that a chaste life, whether in marriage or out of it, is one in which the sexual functions of the male and of the female are mutually exercised only in accordance with the most vigorous health and highest well-being of the parties as they are then constituted. Sexual activity, then, whether married or not, is licentious and dissolute, just in proportion as it is excessive.
“Those acts which detract from the fullness of life are wrong, because they cannot, as a whole, be productive of the greatest happiness, and therefore an excessive exercise of any function implies a waste, which, as a whole, is productive of pain and is therefore wrong. The church or state can no more change or suspend the laws of life, waste, and reproduction, by a marriage ceremony, than the acquired abnormal passions of an individual can change or suspend them.
“An organism, whether man or beast, is sexually perfect only whenever its sexual instinct is so organized and developed that the agreeable exercise of this function does not detract from the fullness of life and happiness, on the one hand, and is sufficiently active for the normal propagation of the species on the other. The sexual organization of the Marsites is, of course, not entirely perfect, but yours is about as vicious and faulty as it can well be.
“When the sexual function, like that of your human family, has once become greatly in excess from the evil effects of a vicious, social and sexual relation, no system, however perfect, can at once remove this excess. It was gradually acquired by a vicious arrangement, and must also be gradually eliminated by the institution of a more perfect arrangement.
“As we placed motherhood more and more under the exclusive control of the woman, our sexual association became continually purer and more normal. All who are familiar with the anatomy, physiology, and hygiene of the organs of procreation know that the female organs of procreation have periods of alternate activity and rest (menses, gestation, lactation, age, desirability of motherhood, etc.), and the woman is the only party who is conscious of these periods; and for these and other reasons which I have already stated, sexual abuse, if it once exists, can be diminished and finally disappear, only by making the female completely free and independent from the male as we find them among the inferior animals and among the Marsites.
“To be sexually perfect, then, does not only mean that the sexual function should be normally exercised, but that even the sexual desire should not prompt an excessive use; for a person who must labor to curb a desire is not so complete as one who has the desire so adjusted that it operates only in conformity with the fullest life, and therefore, as a whole, to the greatest happiness.”