be said to “sacrifice” his hunger.  Even within the sphere of traditional morality a woman who sacrifices her “honor” for the sake of her love to a man has, by her “sacrifice,” gained something that she values more.  “What a triumph it is to a woman,” a woman has said, “to give pleasure to a man she loves!” And in a morality on a sound biological basis no “sacrifice” is here called for.  It may rather be said that the biological laws of courtship fundamentally demand self-sacrifice of the male rather than of the female.  Thus the lioness, according to Gerard the lion-hunter, gives herself to the most vigorous of her lion wooers; she encourages them to fight among themselves for superiority, lying on her belly to gaze at the combat and lashing her tail with delight.  Every female is wooed by many males, but she only accepts one; it is not the female who is called upon for erotic self-sacrifice, but the male.  That is indeed part of the divine compensation of Nature, for since the heavier part of the burden of sex rests on the female, it is fitting that she should be less called upon for renunciation.

It thus seems probable that the increase of moral responsibility may tend to make a woman’s conduct more intelligible to others;[310] it will in any case certainly tend to make it less the concern of others.  This is emphatically the case as regards the relations of sex.  In the past men have been invited to excel in many forms of virtue; only one virtue has been open to women.  That is no longer possible.  To place upon a woman the main responsibility for her own sexual conduct is to deprive that conduct of its conspicuously public character as a virtue or a vice.  Sexual union, for a woman as much as for a man, is a physiological fact; it may also be a spiritual fact; but it is not a social act.  It is, on the contrary, an act which, beyond all other acts, demands retirement and mystery for its accomplishment.  That indeed is a general human, almost zooelogical, fact.  Moreover, this demand of mystery is more especially made by woman in virtue of her greater modesty which, we have found reason to believe, has a biological basis.  It is not until a child is born or conceived that the community has any right to interest itself in the sexual acts of its members.  The sexual act is of no more concern to the community than any other private physiological act.  It is an impertinence, if not an outrage, to seek to inquire into it.  But the birth of a child is a social act.  Not what goes into the womb but what comes out of it concerns society.  The community is invited to receive a new citizen.  It is entitled to demand that that citizen shall be worthy of a place in its midst and that he shall be properly introduced by a responsible father and a responsible mother.  The whole of sexual morality, as Ellen Key has said, revolves round the child.