Woman. Her Sex and Love Life

Yes, there are two sides to the divorce question. But I would summarize it as follows: Where there is a real incompatibility of characters, where there is no love and no respect, then the sooner the couple is divorced the better, and not only for them but for the children also, if there are any. An atmosphere of hatred and mutual contempt is not a healthy atmosphere for the growing children. But where there is merely irritability, outbreaks of temper, or disagreements which if analyzed can be seen to be due to temporary and remediable causes, then "Go slow," "Don't hurry," should be your motto. There will always be time to get a divorce. While if a divorce has been obtained, even if you regret it, you will most likely stay divorced. Many divorced couples, I imagine, would remarry, if they were not ashamed. They fear it would make them ridiculous—and it would—in their friends' eyes.

Outsiders in Domestic Tangles

If you have a disagreement with your husband, try to straighten out the tangle yourself. Don't call in outside help. You will regret it. A stranger's paws are too coarse and too unsympathetic to meddle with the delicate adjustments which constitute marital life, and after you have gotten over your disagreement and are again living harmoniously you will be ashamed to look that third party in the face, and you will probably bear a grudge against him—or her.

Altogether outsiders are not fit to mix in the internal differences between husband and wife. It is absolutely impossible for a stranger to know just where the trouble is and who the guilty party is. Sometimes there is no guilty party. Both husband and wife may be right; they may both be lovely people and still together they may form an incompatible, explosive mixture. And then again the party that to outsiders may seem the angelic one may in reality be the devilish one. It is a well-known fact that people who to the outside world may seem the personification of honor and good nature may be very devils at home. I have long ago given up not only meddling in, but even judging, domestic disharmonies. For it is almost impossible for an outsider to judge justly. I knew a husband who was considered a paragon of virtue. And when a clash came between him and his wife everybody was inclined to blame the wife. But it came out later that the husband had certain ways about him which made the wife's life a very torture. And vice versa. I know of another case where the wife was considered the sweetest thing in the world. She had nice ways about her, but she disliked her husband and made his life a hell. With genuine chivalry he bore everything, believing that it was a man's duty to bear his cross. She was unfaithful to him, but she was so clever and cunning that neither he nor anybody else suspected it. The fact became painfully patent to him, when on one of the rare occasions that they came together she infected him with a venereal disease, which incapacitated him for a long time. Nobody knew why he insisted upon a separation, and everybody, with the exception of his physician and perhaps one or two others, was blaming him for an unfeeling brute.

I will therefore repeat that as a general thing domestic tangles should be untangled by the tanglers themselves. It is not safe to call in outsiders—relatives or friends; they are apt to make the tangle more tangled, and, what is more, they are quite likely to put the blame on the innocent party, and bestow upon the guilty party the Montyon prize for virtue and gentleness.

Chapter Fifty

WHAT IS LOVE?

Is Love Definable?—Raising a Corner of the Veil—Two Opinions of Love—The First Opinion: Sexual Intercourse and Love—The Second Opinion—The Grain of Truth in Each—The Truth Concerning Love—Foundation of Love—Sexual Attraction and Love—The Frigid Woman and Her Husband—Puzzling Cases of Love—The Paradox—Blindness of Love and the Penetrating Vision of Love—Limits of Homeliness—Physical Aversion and Genesis of Love—Mating in the Animal Kingdom—Mating in Low Races—Love in People of High Culture—Difference in Love of Savage and Man of Culture—Distinctions Between Loves—Varieties of Love and Varieties of Men—"Love" Without Sexual Desire—Refraining and Wanting—Cause of Love at First Sight—"Magnetic Forces" and Love at First Sight—The Pathological Side—Differentiation of Phases of Love—Infatuation—Difference Between "Infatuation" and "Being in Love"—Sexual Satisfaction and Infatuation—Sexual Satisfaction and Love—Infatuation Mistaken for Love—Love the Most Mysterious of Human Emotions—Great Love and Supreme Happiness.

I shall not attempt to give a definition, either brief or extensive, of Love. Many have tried and failed, and I shall not attempt the impossible. Nor shall I attempt to discuss Love in all its innumerable details.9 To do so would alone require a book many times more voluminous than the one you have before you. I shall, however, endeavor to raise a corner of the veil which surrounds this most mysterious, most baffling and most complex of all human emotions, so that you may get a glimpse into its intricate mechanism and perhaps understand what Love is in its essence at least.

Sexual and Platonic Love. There are two widely different, in fact diametrically opposite, opinions as to what constitutes Love. One opinion is that Love is sexual love, sexual attraction, sexual desire. To people holding this opinion love and sexual desire or "lust" are synonymous. And they laugh and sneer at any attempt to idealize love, to present it as something finer and subtler, let alone nobler, than mere sex attraction. The writer has heard one cynical woman—and more than one man—say: Love? There is no such a thing. Sexual intercourse is love, and that's all there is to it.

The other opinion is that Love, true love, ideal love, or, as it is sometimes called, sentimental love, or platonic love, has nothing to do with sexual desire, with sexual attraction. Indeed, people holding this opinion consider love and sexual attraction—or lust as they like to call the latter—as antithetical conceptions, as mutually antagonistic and exclusive.

Both opinions, as is often the case with extreme and one-sided opinions, are wrong. Both opinions have a reason for their existence, because there is a grain of truth in both of them. But a grain of truth is not the whole truth, and if an opinion contains ninety-nine parts of untruth to one part of truth, then the effect of the opinion is practically the same as if it were all false.

Here is the truth, or at least what I think is the truth, as it appears to me after many years of thinking and many years of observing.

Foundation of Love. The foundation, the basis of all love is sexual attraction. Without sexual attraction, in greater or lesser degree, there can be no love. Where the former is entirely lacking the latter can have no existence. This you may take as an axiom. Some may call it love, but on analyzing it you will find that it is no such thing. It may be friendship, it may be gratitude, it may be respect, it may be pity, it may be habit, it may even be a desire or a readiness to love or to be loved, but it is not love. Experience has proved it in thousands and thousands of sad cases. And the girl who marries a man who is physically repulsive to her, who possesses no physical sexual attraction for her, though she may experience for him all of the feelings mentioned above, namely, friendship, gratitude, respect and pity, is preparing for herself a joyless couch to sleep on. Unless, indeed, she happens to belong to the class of women whom we call frigid, that is, if she is herself devoid of any sexual desire and feels no need of any sexual relations. Such a woman may be fairly or even quite happy with a husband who repels her physically, but whom she likes or respects. And what I said about the wife applies with still greater force to the husband. A man who marries a woman who is physically antipathetic to him is a criminal fool.

I repeat, sexual, physical attraction is the basis, the foundation of love. It is true we see certain cases of love which puzzle us. We cannot understand what "he" has seen in "her" or what "she" has seen in "him." But let us remember this paradox, which paradoxical though it be, is true nevertheless: Love is blind, but Love also sees acutely and penetratingly; it sees things which we who are indifferent cannot see. The blindness of Love helps her not to see certain defects which are clearly seen to everybody else; but, on the other hand, her penetrating vision helps her to see good qualities which are invisible to others. And a homely person may possess certain compensating physical qualities—such as passionate ardor or strong sexual power—which, render him or her irresistible to a member of the opposite sex.

But homeliness, ugliness or deformity have their limits, and I challenge anybody to bring forth an authenticated case in which a man fell in love with a woman—or vice versa—who had an enormous tumor on one side of the face, which made her look like a monstrosity, or whose nose was sunk in as a result of lupus or syphilis, or whose cheek was eaten away by cancer. Love under such circumstances is an absolute impossibility, because there is physical aversion here, and physical aversion is fatal to the genesis of love. A man who loved a woman may continue to love her after she has become disfigured by disease, but he cannot fall in love with such a woman.

I will repeat, then, and I trust you will agree with me on this point: sexual attraction is the foundation of all love between the opposite sexes. Where sexual attraction is lacking you can give the feeling any other name you choose: it will not be love.

Other Requisites. But a foundation is not a whole structure. To insure the stability of a high intricate building we must give it a good solid foundation; but the foundation does not make the building. That still remains to be built. So sexual attraction is the foundation of all love, but it does not constitute love. Many more factors, many more wonderful stones are needed before the wonderful structure called love is brought into existence. This wonderful structure sometimes goes up in the twinkling of an eye, as if by the touch of a magic wand—who has not seen or heard of instances of "love at first sight!"—but the rapidity of the growth of the structure called Love does not militate against our assertion that many stones, much variegated material, and a strong cement are needed for its completion. Fairies sometimes work very quickly.

A little thought will show clearly that Love is not merely sexual love, not merely a desire to gratify the sexual instinct. If love were merely sexual desire, then one member of the opposite sex, or at least one attractive member, would be as good as any other. And indeed in animals and in the lower races, where love as we understand it does not exist, this is the case. To a male dog any female dog is as good as another, and vice versa. Cats are not particular in the choice of their mates, nor are cows, horses, etc. And the same is true of the primitive savage races, and even among the lower uneducated classes of so-called civilized races. To the Hottentot, to the Australian bushman or to the Russian peasant one woman is as good as another. If the male of a low race has some preference, it will be in favor of the woman who happens to have a little property.

In fact I make the assertion that real love, true love, is a new feeling, a comparatively modern feeling, absent in the lower races and reaching its highest development only in people of high civilization, culture and education.

The platitudinous objection might be raised that "human nature is human nature," that all our feelings are born with us, and as such are inherited, that they have been with us for millions of years and that we cannot possibly originate any entirely new feeling. True from a certain viewpoint. We cannot originate intellect either. The germ of intellect with all its potential possibilities was present in our most primitive tree-climbing ancestors. But as much difference as there is between the intellect of an Australian bushman and the intellect of a Spinoza, a Shakespeare, a Darwin, a Victor Hugo, a Goethe or a Gauss, so much difference is there between the love of a primitive savage and the love of the highly cultured modern man. The love or so-called love of the primitive or ignorant man (and woman) is a simple matter and is practically equivalent to a desire for sexual gratification. The love of the truly cultured and highly civilized man and woman, while still based on sexual attraction, is so complex and so dominating a feeling that it completely defies all analysis, all attempts at dissection, as it defies all attempts at synthesis, at artificial building up.

As previously stated, some writers attempt to make a clear distinction between sensual and sentimental love; many reams of paper have been used up in an endeavor to differentiate between one and the other; the first is called animal love or lust; the second pure love or ideal love; the first variety of love is said to be selfish, egotistic, the other—self-sacrificing, altruistic. These distinctions read very nicely, but they mean very little. There is no distinct line of demarkation between the two varieties of love, and one merges imperceptibly into the other. Most, if not all, of our apparently altruistic actions and feelings have an egotistic substratum; and the quality of the love depends upon the lover. In other words, there are not two separate, distinct varieties of love, but there are separate, distinct varieties of men. A fine and noble man will love finely and nobly; a coarse and brutal man will love coarsely and brutally. A man who is fine and noble may not love at all, but he cannot love coarsely and selfishly; and a coarse and brutal man can never love nobly and unselfishly. Which once more means: the difference is not inherent in the love, but in the lover.

But to say that a man may deeply love a woman and not have any sexual desire for her is nonsense. A man who loves a woman and does not want to possess her (to use the ugly ancient verb) does not love her—or he is completely impotent. Whatever the feeling may be for her—it is not love. He may abstain from having sex relations with her if the circumstances are such that sex relations may lead to her unhappiness and suffering, but to refrain from doing a thing, when reason and judgment lead us to refrain, does not mean not to want the thing.

Love at First Sight. Nothing is more firmly established than the fact that a person may fall passionately and incurably in love with a person of the opposite sex at the very first sight, in the twinkling of an eye, in the literal sense of the word. One glance may be sufficient. And such a love may exist to the end of life, and may, if reciprocated, lead to supreme happiness, or if unreciprocated to the deepest unhappiness.

What it is that causes love at first sight is unknown. Some have suggested that the beloved object sets in motion or fermentation certain internal secretions (hormones) in the lover which cannot become "satisfied" or "neutralized" except by that person; and the possession of the beloved object becomes a physical necessity. This explanation really means nothing. It is a hypothesis unsusceptible of proof. But whatever the cause of love at first sight, it is so mysterious a phenomenon that it gives the mystics and metaphysicians some justification for their talk about "electric currents" and "magnetic forces." These phrases also mean nothing, but are an attempt at explaining the suddenness and irresistibleness of the attack. So powerful is the attraction of love at first sight that people have been known to cross continents and oceans merely to get a glimpse of the beloved object; and people have been known to sacrifice everything—their career, their material possessions, their social standing, their honor, and even their wife and children, in order to gain their object. And a mother may give up her children whom she loves dearer than life, may risk ostracism and disgrace, only in order to be with the object of her love. This shows that love, then, becomes pathological, because any feeling which so completely masters an individual that he is willing to sacrifice everything he has in the world is pathological.

Infatuation and Being in Love. While, as said, the feeling of love does not readily lend itself to dissection, to analysis, still we can differentiate some phases of it. We can differentiate between "being in love," "infatuation," and "love." Being in love is, as just indicated, a pathological, morbid phenomenon. The person who is in love is not in a normal condition. He can see nothing, he cannot be argued with, as far as his love is concerned. She is the acme of perfection, physical, mental, and spiritual; nobody can be compared with her. And, of course, the man is anxiously eager to marry the object of his love—unless insuperable obstacles are in the way; for instance, if the man happens to be married.

Infatuation may be as strong as any "being in love" feeling. But with this difference. In infatuation the man may know that the object of infatuation is an unworthy one, he may despise her, he may hate her, he may pray for her death, he may do his utmost to overcome the infatuation. In short, infatuation is a feeling, chiefly physical, which the man can analyze, the unworthiness and absurdity of which he may acknowledge, but which he is unable to resist or overcome. He feels himself bewitched; he feels himself caught in a net, he is anxious to tear asunder the meshes of the net, but is not strong enough to do it.

And this is a pretty good way to differentiate between being in love and being infatuated. If in love the man does not want to be free from his chains; he does not want to cease to love or to be in love. When infatuated the man often uses his utmost will-power to break his shackles. Sexual satisfaction is often sufficient to shatter an infatuation; it is not sufficient to destroy love—it often strengthens and eternalizes it.

Neither being in love nor infatuation can last "forever"; they are acute maladies of high tension and relatively short duration. Infatuation may change into indifference or disgust; "being in love" may change into indifference, hatred, or into real love—a steady, durable love.

This will answer the often asked question: How do marriages turn out which are the result of a sudden, violent passion, or of love at first sight? No ironclad rules suitable for all cases can be given. Some turn out very unhappily, the couple gradually finding out that they are altogether unsuited to each other, that their temperaments are incompatible, that their views, ideas, likes and dislikes are different. In some cases what was supposed to be a great love is soon seen to have been merely an infatuation. And satiety and disgust follow. But in other cases, as mentioned, the sudden consuming passion turns into a warm, life-long love and the people live happily ever after.

Dr. Nyström relates the case of a prominent physician of France, of high social and scientific standing, who beheld a young girl accidentally in the street. He did not have the slightest idea who she was. He was irresistibly attracted to her. He followed her, boarded the same omnibus and went to the house which she entered, rang the bell, introduced himself, begging pardon for his intrusion, but was dismissed. He returned and explained to her his ardent passion and asked permission to visit her parents, well-to-do people in the country, and the climax was a mutual love and a happy marriage.

Many of us know of similar cases. But as a rule the slow developing love is more reliable than the suddenly bursting out flame.

Love is the most complex, the most mysterious, the most unanalyzable of human emotions. It is based upon the difference in sex—upon the attraction of one sex for another. It is fostered by physical beauty, by daintiness, by a normal sexuality, by a fine character, by high aspirations, by culture and education, by common interests, by kindness and consideration, by pity, by habit and by a thousand other subtle feelings, qualities and actions, which are difficult of classification or enumeration.

A great love, greatly reciprocated, is in itself capable of rendering a human being supremely happy. Nothing else is. Other things, such as wealth, power, fame, success, great discoveries, may give supreme satisfaction, great contentment, but supreme, buoyant happiness is the gift of a great love only. Such loves are rare, and the mortals that achieve it are the envy of the gods. But a great love, unreciprocated, especially when admixed to it is the feeling of jealousy, is the most frightful of tortures; it will crush a man like nothing else will, and the victims of this emotional catastrophe are pitied by the inmates of the lowest inferno.

Chapter Fifty-one

JEALOUSY AND HOW TO COMBAT IT

Jealousy the Most Painful of Human Emotions—Impairment of Health—Mental Havoc—Jealousy as a Primitive Emotion—Jealousy in the Advanced Thinker and in the Savage—Jealousy in the Child—Feelings and Environmental Factors—Essential Factors—Vanity—Anger—Pain—Envy—The Impotent Husband's Jealousy—Anti-social Qualities—The Jealous and the Unfaithful Husband—Means of Eradicating the Evil—Iwan Bloch on the Question—Prof. Robert Michels' Statement—Remark of Prof. Von Ehrenfels—Havelock Ellis on Variation in Sexual Relationships—Advanced Ideas—Woman as Man's Chattel—The Change and the Changer—Teaching the Children—Casting Epithets at Jealousy—Free Unions and Jealousy—Feelings, Actions and Public Opinion—The Adulterous Wife of the Present Day—Jealousy Defeating Its Own Object—Jealousy of Inanimate Objects.

He or she who has been so unfortunate as to experience the pangs—or fangs—of jealousy will readily admit that it is one of the most painful, if indeed not the most painful, of all human emotions. The suffering that it metes out to its victims is indescribable. No other single human emotion so affects the body, so upsets the mind, so deranges every function, as does jealousy. The torture that it causes makes the sufferer a truly pitiable object: the complete loss of sleep and complete loss of appetite may result in a serious impairment of the sufferer's health, while the rage it often gives rise to may lead to actual insanity, or at least to great mental disturbance. With good reason has popular fancy pictured this cursed emotion as a green-eyed monster.

Jealousy is a primitive emotion. It is present not only in the primitive races, but even in animals. And being a primitive emotion, we can hardly hope to succeed in eradicating it entirely. Not in the immediate future, at any rate. But we can modify it.

The statement frequently heard that "human nature is human nature" is only a platitudinous half-truth. The fundamental part of human nature—the desire for happiness and the avoidance of suffering—cannot be changed, nor would we want to change it if we could. It would mean the disappearance of the human race. But that many of our primitive emotions can be greatly modified by culture, by new standards, by new ideals of morality, about this there can be no question.

Just as love in modern man is an entirely different feeling from what it was in primitive man, so jealousy in the advanced thinker is a different feeling from what it was in the savage; and by education and true culture it can be modified still further. We hope that in time to come—I will not venture to say how soon that time will be here—this injurious, degrading, anti-social feeling may be entirely or almost entirely eradicated from the human breast.

The primitive desire—and this primitive desire of the race is still fully exhibited by children—is to take possession of everything nice or useful that somebody else has and which we have not. But our education and our cultural standards, including fear of punishment, have so repressed this desire, have put it so deeply in the background, that normal human beings hardly feel it at all.

It is only improperly brought up people, mental defectives and those unable to adjust themselves to their environment who still have this primitive feeling of taking or stealing. And so with many other feelings and emotions; and so with jealousy.