Abstract
Colin Wilson’s ideological message went unheeded. His warning that sex is not, and should not be made, an end in itself, that it is not to be reduced to a merely physiological function, was blithely ignored. The times were out of joint, and the English avant-garde were not inclined to listen to Wilson’s anachronistic blend of Shavianism and Existentialism, his pseudo-religious quest for salvation. Yet his discussion of the sexual problem had much that was sound to offer the younger generation of intellectuals. A libertarian, a tireless searcher after the truth, he helped to puncture the myth that a fixed biogenetic difference divided the abnormal from the normal human being. His most notable contribution to the stormy debate that took place during the sixties was his insistence that sexuality, if it were to be truly understood, had to be viewed in the context of life as a whole. The striving of human beings to reach higher forms of consciousness, their need for an existential purpose that extends beyond the narrow confines of the self, their longing for transcendence—these were as essential aspects of man as the cravings of the sexual instinct.
...the most common problem now is not social taboos on sexual activity or guilt feelings about sex in itself, but the fact that sex for so many people is an empty, mechanical and vacuous experience.» 1
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Rollo May, Man’s Search for Himself. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1963, pp. 15–16.
Harold Pinter, The Homecoming. New York: Grove Press, 1966, p. 41.
Ibid., p. 42.
Ibid., p. 50.
Ibid., p. 51.
Ibid., p. 58.
Ibid., p. 68.
Ibid., p. 72.
Hugh Nelson, in “The Homecoming: Kith and Kin,” maintains that Ruth is a prostitute at heart and therefore falls in readily with the plan to set her up in “business” and also agrees to satisfy the sexual needs of the men at home. All this is difficult to believe. Why is she perfectly willing to leave her three children? She does so apparently without a qualm. Nelson jusitfies her action on the ground that her relationship to Teddy is essentially sterile. He contends it is really Ruth’s “homecoming” that the play presents. «She comes home to herself, to all of her possibilities as a woman.» (John Russell Brown (ed.), Modern British Dramatists. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1968, p. 149.) Martin Esslin argues that the intrusion of sex and prostitution in the play is justified, and he cites internal evidence to support his point of view. Pinter leaves out the background and does not elucidate the pattern of motivation that governs the action, but he offers clues that help to clear up the mystery. Max in the past may have done business in the field of prostitution, and Lenny carries on the “family tradition by taking up the profession of a Soho pimp.” (Martin Esslin, The Peopled Wound: The Work of Harold Pinter. Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, 1970, p. 158.) Sam in his youth may “have been a driver for prostitutes run by Max and MacGregor.” (Ibid.) Indeed, there are hints that the wife of Max may have been one of the prostitutes. «In a family that had been living from prostitutes for decades, Max’s and Lenny’s final proposition to Ruth would therefore be the most natural thing in the world; no wonder that it is made quite casually, and received quite casually by Teddy.…” (Ibid., p. 159.) As for Ruth’s ready acceptance of the offer, there is nothing strange about that. “It is made quite clear by Ruth that when Teddy met and married her she was a nude photographic model—and this is widely known as a euphemism for a prostitute.” (Ibid.)
Oh! Calcutta! New York: Grove Press, 1969, p. 20.
Ibid., p. 31.
Some critics have come to the defense of the maligned art of pornography. Peter Michelson, in The Aesthetics of Pornography, advances the thesis that pornography promotes the cause of naturalistic morality. It drives home the realization, so painful to human pride, that man is an animal. See the chapter on “Pornography as Moral Rhetoric.” in Peter Michelson, The Aesthetics of Pornography. New York: Herder and Herder, 1971, pp. 88-107. See also Kenneth Tynan’s essay, “Dirty Books Can Stay,” in Perspectives on Pornography. Edited by Douglas A. Hughes. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1970, pp. 109-121. The American critic, Charles Marowitz, who lives in London, where he is director of the Open Space Theater, writes: “In the theater, of course, permissiveness has always been a misnomer. The breakthrough in recent years has been in salaciousness, not permissiveness. I welcome it nevertheless because it has widened the theater’s vocabulary without necessarily increasing its syntax. ‘Oh! Calcutta!’ which, as someone rightly said, gives obscenity a bad name, is a harmless adolescent sex fantasy custom-made for the graffiti-set with nothing like the pungent invention you get from really clever graffiti.” (Charles Marowitz, “ ‘Who,’ Asked the Judge, ‘Is Mick Jaegger?’” The New York Times, September 2, 1971.) More recent reports, however, indicate that the theater is being brought under some measure of control. A private study, not authorized by any Government agency, appeared on September 20, 1972 urging Britain to pass more stringent laws against pornography. The Earl of Longford decided to investigate this matter and selected a group of men to help him conduct this inquiry. He has been called “Lord Porn” but does not mind in the least being identified as the leader of this movement to put an end to the spread of pornography. (The New York Times, September 21, 1972.) Published as a paperback over five hundred pages long, this report, called Pornography, sold well when it appeared.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1973 Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, Netherlands
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Glicksberg, C.I. (1973). The Subversion of Sexual Morality. In: The Sexual Revolution in Modern English Literature. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9548-5_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9548-5_12
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-011-8712-1
Online ISBN: 978-94-011-9548-5
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive