I am convinced that when religious people learn to refrain from cheap “religion” based on emotional preaching and sentimental or rowdy music, they will find that, though eroticism and religion are nearly allied and can easily be mistaken, it is not impossible to distinguish between them.  The effort to do so should be made by our spiritual leaders, and when made will result in a sturdier and more thoughtful religion.  While for those, whether men or women, who are honestly aware that for them certain things are impossible there will be an obvious alternative.  The man who cannot forget the woman in the priest or preacher will not attend her church; the woman, of whom the same is sometimes true, will avoid the ministrations of men.  There will then be less of that eroticism in religion which some of those who—­by a curious perversion of logic—­oppose the ministry of women actually quote as a reason for compelling women to go to men-priests because there is no one else for them to go to.

IX

FURTHER MISUNDERSTANDINGS:  THE NEED FOR SEX CHIVALRY

“Men venerated and even feared women—­particularly in their specifically sexual aspect—­even while they bullied them; and even in corrupt and superstitious times, when the ideal of womanhood was lost sight of, women tended to get back as witches the spiritual eminence they had failed to retain as saints, matrons and saviours of society.”

     Northcote:  Christianity and Sex Problems, p. 326.

Chivalry is the courtesy of strength to weakness.  Yet women who pride themselves on their superior moral strength in regard to sex rarely feel bound to show any chivalry towards the weak.  I do not myself believe that women are as a whole stronger than men, or that men are as a whole stronger than women; but I am sure that the sexes are relatively stronger in certain respects and at certain points, and that where one is stronger than the other, that one should feel the chivalrous obligation of strength whether man or woman.  Chivalry is not and ought not to be a masculine virtue solely.

For example, it is quite common to be told of (or by) some girl who is an artist in flirtation that she is “quite able to take care of herself.”  This appears to mean that whoever suffers, she will not; and whatever is given, she will not be the giver.  It is possible to go further and say that whatever she buys she will certainly not pay for.

What does she buy?  Well, it depends, of course, on what she wants and what is her social class.  But, roughly speaking, she wants both pleasure and homage—­not only theatres and cinemas, ice-creams or chocolates, but the incense that goes with such things—­the demonstration of her triumphant sexual charm, which evokes such offerings.