Prev | Current Page 212 | Next

Wollstonecraft, Mary, 1759-1797

"Vindication of the Rights of Woman"

")
The shameless behaviour of the prostitutes who infest the streets
of London, raising alternate emotions of pity and disgust, may
serve to illustrate this remark. They trample on virgin
bashfulness with a sort of bravado, and glorying in their shame,
become more audaciously lewd than men, however depraved, to whom
the sexual quality has not been gratuitously granted, ever appear
to be. But these poor ignorant wretches never had any modesty to
lose, when they consigned themselves to infamy; for modesty is a
virtue not a quality. No, they were only bashful, shame-faced
innocents; and losing their innocence, their shame-facedness was
rudely brushed off; a virtue would have left some vestiges in the
mind, had it been sacrificed to passion, to make us respect the
grand ruin.
Purity of mind, or that genuine delicacy, which is the only
virtuous support of chastity, is near a-kin to that refinement of
humanity, which never resides in any but cultivated minds. It is
something nobler than innocence; it is the delicacy of reflection,
and not the coyness of ignorance. The reserve of reason, which
like habitual cleanliness, is seldom seen in any great degree,
unless the soul is active, may easily be distinguished from rustic
shyness or wanton skittishness; and so far from being incompatible
with knowledge, it is its fairest fruit. What a gross idea of
modesty had the writer of the following remark! "The lady who
asked the question whether women may be instructed in the modern
system of botany, consistently with female delicacy?" was accused
of ridiculous prudery: nevertheless, if she had proposed the
question to me, I should certainly have answered--They cannot.


Pages:
200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224