Salicylic acidone dramBoric acidone ounceDried alumtwo ouncesTalcumfour ounces
A little of the powder should be shaken into the stockings every morning, and the stockings should be changed very frequently, once or twice a day. This powder is also efficient against perspiration and bad odor from the armpits.
I am not giving any treatment for bad odor from the mouth, for this condition may be due to a great variety of causes. The cause may reside in the nose; it may reside in the mouth, decaying teeth, throat, tonsils. It may be due to a bad stomach, to some disease of the lungs, etc. Sometimes it is dueto overeating. What would be of value in one condition might be useless in another. The right thing, therefore, is to go to a competent physician, have him find the cause of your trouble and outline the proper treatment.
Leucorrhea. Some men find themselvesentirely unableto have sexual relations with a woman whom they know is suffering with leucorrhea. The mere knowledge of the fact takes away theirabilityto perform the act. It renders them impotent. It disgusts them, and disgust is fatal to sexual power. Only to-day I saw in my office a woman who anxiously begged for advice and treatment. She had been married five years. She has always had leucorrhea, from her fifteenth year as far as she remembers. Otherwise she did not suffer. For the first three years or so her married life has been a happy one. Then in an unfortunate moment she told her husband about her profuse leucorrhea, and instantly she noticed a change in him. He could not fully hide the expression on his face. And since then he ceased to have intercourse with her. He made a few attempts, but they turned out unsatisfactory to both, and she noticed that he was forcing himself, doing it against his will. She took some patent medicines and went to one doctor, but without any results. Now, unless she could be cured,she feared her husband would demand a separation or a divorce. If you have leucorrhea treat it. And remember you need not initiate your husband in all your unesthetic ailments.
Loyalty. Loyalty on the part of the wife is almost as important as fidelity. And it is in the highest degree disloyal for a wife to talk to her female or male friends about her husband's peculiarities, foibles or weaknesses. The husband's—as well, of course, as the wife's—peculiarities should be what we call a professional secret. Just as a physician is forbidden to talk to outsiders about his patient's troubles, so should a wife not talk about her husband, nor a husband about his wife. I know of a case in which a newly married husband was temporarily impotent (and it was the wife's fault, too). She spoke about it in the deepest confidence to a close girl friend of hers. The friend told it in deep confidence to another friend. And so it went around until it reached the husband's ears. From that moment he made no further attempt to have relations with his wife; a coolness resulted, which led to a separation, which still persists. The wife begged forgiveness, but he was unable to grant it—he felt so deeply hurt.
Flirting. Do not flirt. Men are apt to misunderstand you, and you are apt to get the reputation ofa loose woman without in any way having deserved it. I do not say that you should always wear a forbidding expression, and should scowl at people who dare to smile at you or otherwise pay homage to your feminine charms. But there is a difference between a friendly expression and flirting. However, when your husband begins to neglect you, then a mild flirtation may be justifiable. It willalwaysdo your husband good to know that there are other males in the world beside him, and that some of these males find interest in the female whom he considers his permanent and exclusive property.
Slovenly Husbands.Don't let your husband become a slob. That is just what I mean. It is no use mincing words. Some husbands have never acquired the habit—or if they have acquired it they quickly lost it—of regarding their wives as ladies. "She is not a lady, she is only my wife," is a well-known joke, but some men take it not as a jest. Some men think that before their wives they can be as slovenly and unclean as they please. Give your husband to understand that cleanliness and freshness is not a "sex-limited" attribute, and just as a husband wants his wife to be clean and dainty and well-groomed, so a wife may enjoy the same qualities in her husband. Some women are very fastidious, and while they may say nothing to theirhusbands for fear of irritating them, they may think a good deal.
Carrying Life Insurance.Every husband should carry some life insurance—as much as he conveniently can. This should be the husband's most pleasant duty, particularly so when the wife has no profession of her own and there are small children to bring up. The lack of consideration, the thoughtlessness—I would call it dishonesty—on the part of many husbands who claim to love their wives is simply heart-breaking. Who of us does not know of cases of refined wives with children left absolutely penniless and forced into wage slavery or even into menial service by the negligence of their husbands? Such things happened even to wives whose husbands were making from three to ten thousand a year. Thoughtlessness, carelessness, procrastination—and then it was too late. There is not a man who makes as little as twenty dollars a week who cannot carry some insurance. I was once poor, very poor. And the terrifying thought, What would happen to my wife and two children if I should be taken off suddenly? gave me many a troubled and sleepless night. And when I took out a thousand dollars insurance I felt some relief. But I felt it was inadequate. I therefore made a supreme effort and soon took an additional ten thousand dollars.And I assure you that the annual premium of two hundred and eighty-six dollars was a terrible burden on me. There were times when I felt as if I had to give it up. But I deprived myself of many necessities (there was no question of luxuries) and I paid my premiums regularly. But in compensation I had restful nights. It was soothing to know that if I should be taken away in my earliest youth my equally young wife and two little babies would not be left penniless. I verily believe that an adequate life insurance prolongs a person's life, because it removes the worry about the future of the wife and children.
I repeat, every husband should carry some life insurance. And the habit of the bridegroom presenting the bride with a substantial life insurance policy is a very good one. It is not only a financial protection to the wife; it is also more or less a guarantee of the husband's fair health.
Making a Will.Another point. Every husband should make a will. This is a delicate point about which most wives would hesitate to speak to their husbands, but the husband should attend to the matter himself. A will doesn't shorten anybody's life, but is very convenient in case of a sudden taking off. This is, of course, particularly important if there is some property. If the husband dies withouta will, there is endless trouble and red tape for the wife. An executor has to be appointed, she has to give bonds, etc., etc. If the husband leaves a will making his wife sole executrix, without a bond, all trouble is avoided. I assume, of course, that the husband has perfect confidence in his wife's wisdom and integrity. If he has not and there are children, it is just as well to designate some outside executor or executors. But whichever may be the case, it is a good and sensible thing always to have a will properly made out and witnessed.
A Rational Divorce System—Storms and Squalls—Two Sides of the Divorce Question—Outside Help and Marital Tangles—A Husband who was a Paragon of Virtue—The Case of the Sweet Wife—The Proper Untangling of Domestic Tangles.
A Rational Divorce System—Storms and Squalls—Two Sides of the Divorce Question—Outside Help and Marital Tangles—A Husband who was a Paragon of Virtue—The Case of the Sweet Wife—The Proper Untangling of Domestic Tangles.
Of course, I am in favor of a rational divorce system. The difficulties, the obstacles, the expense, with which divorce is now surrounded in most civilized countries is simply disgraceful. Make marriage harder and divorce easier, has always been my motto. When life together becomes unbearable then it is better for both husband and wife to cut the tie and to get divorced. Divorce is preferable to separation, because both spouses may be able to lead a new and happier life. Where there are no children to be taken care of a simple declaration of husband and wife repeated perhaps after a lapse of three or six months should be quite sufficient for the granting of a divorce. Where there are children the state should make sure that they will be properly taken care of before a divorce is granted. Where only one party demands a divorce the case should becarefully studied by a commission which should include in its personnel physicians and psychologists; and adultery should most certainly not be the only cause for divorce.
Yes, I am for a sensible, rational and easy system of divorce. But I would always recommend care and caution. "Go slow" should be the guiding motto of husband and wife in such cases. There are periods in a married couple's life when further living together seems unthinkable; and still a month or two or a year passes and the husband and wife live happily together and cannot believe that there was ever any friction between them. The couples are very few, indeed, who never went through any squalls or storms, whose lives were not darkened by disagreements, quarrels and apparently irreconcilable antagonisms. But after the storm the sun shone brightly again, and the quarrels were followed by harmony and peace. After that love was intensified. Were divorce a simple matter, a mere matter of declaration, many couples who live now in harmony would have been divorced—to their great regret perhaps.
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 coupleis 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.
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 theinternal 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 noranybody 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.
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.
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 havebefore 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 opinionshave 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.Thefoundation, thebasisof 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 adesireor areadinessto 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 possessesnophysical 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 tothe 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 thebasis, 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 compensatingphysicalqualities—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 theirlimits, 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 thegenesisof 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 doesnotconstitute love. Many more factors, many more wonderful stones are needed before the wonderful structure called love is brought into existence. Thiswonderful 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, truelove, 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 possiblyoriginateany 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 stillbasedon 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 notlove 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 somejustification 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 sacrificeeverything—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. Sheis 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 notsufficient 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. Hefollowed 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. Suchloves 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.
[9]To avoid confusion, I will state here that I am discussing love between the opposite sexes, and not maternal love, homosexual love, love for one's country, etc.
[9]To avoid confusion, I will state here that I am discussing love between the opposite sexes, and not maternal love, homosexual love, love for one's country, etc.
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.
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 indeednotthe 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 thesufferer'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.
If we, at the very first notice of a manifestation of jealousy by a child, should frown upon it, if we should explain to the child or adolescent that jealousy is a mean, degrading feeling, that it is a feeling to be ashamed of, a feeling to hide and not to show off or even be proud of—as some are now—then jealousy would manifest itself in a much smaller number of individuals, and those unfortunate enough to be attacked by it would try to repress it, to hide it, to overcome it, so that it would eventually become paler and less acute and its consequences would be less significant, less disastrous for boththe victim and for the persons concerned. Feelings, let us bear in mind, are not spontaneous things uninfluenced by any environmental factors. Feelings are like plants; under one environment you may foster their growth and make them develop luxuriantly; under another environment you may dwarf their growth and strangle them.
In order to enable us to inhibit the growth of the demon of jealousy, we must learn what its essence is and what factors are favorable to its development.
The essential factor in jealousy isfear. Fear of losing the beloved object, fear of losing the person who provides you with sexual satisfaction, or the mere economic fear of losing a material provider. The latter kind of fear is, of course, more often manifested—even though unconsciously—in women. Women who have no love for their husbands are nevertheless often fiercely jealous, because consciously or unconsciously they are afraid that their husbands may desert them for other women, and that they may thus find themselves in a precarious economic condition.
Another factor in jealousy is woundedvanity. We do not like to feel that somebody is consideredsuperior to us. This feeling of wounded vanity is present in other varieties of envy or rivalry. A person who loses in a race or gets a lower mark in his examination than his rival may be filled with a feeling of envy and hatred almost equal in intensity to, though never as painful as, sexual jealousy.
Another factor in jealousy isangerover loss of what we consider our property. In our present social order the man considers his wife his absolute property, and so does the wife consider her husband. And there is anger that a stranger should dare to rob us or make use of our property, just as there would be anger if a thief came and robbed us of a valuable material possession. This anger or rage part of jealousy is not a sign of love. It is very far from being so. Because it manifests itself also in men and women who have not a particle of love for their spouses; it manifests itself in spouses who have nothing but hatred and loathing for their partners.
Another important factor ispain, pain that the person we love has ceased to love us. When we love a person and our love is not reciprocated, we feel pain which may rise to the degree of agony, even when there is no rival in the field. But when a person who loved us has ceased to love us—or weimagine so—and has transferred the love to another person that pain is so much the greater.
I will digress here for a moment to state that the fear that a person has ceased to love us because he loves somebody else is often groundless. It is based upon the erroneous and vicious idea that a man cannot possibly love two women at the same time, or that a woman cannot love two men at the same time. Psychologists, particularly those who have made a special study of sexual psychology, know that this idea is false. They know that love may be directed at the same time towards two or three individuals. They know that a second love not only does not necessarily destroy or diminish a first love, but may deepen and strengthen the latter.
Another element is pureenvy. Just mean envy that somebody should have what we haven't, or what we have but are in danger of losing. Just as we envy others an automobile, a fine house, a high social position, etc., when we have not got them or have been deprived of them.
A point that I would like to mention is, that if husbands who have become impotent—having lost either the desire or the power, but particularly the latter—become jealous, their jealousy knows no bounds. No strongly potent man ever reaches the same intensity in jealousy as is reached by asexually weak or impotent man. The knowledge that another man has displaced him and that he himself could not replace that other maneven if he were permitted tofills him with impotent rage; and, as is well known, impotent rage is always more intense than rage that is potent. Women are free from this kind of rage, because women are never impotent in this sense. (They may be frigid, but they are never devoid of thepotentia coeundi, except in extremely rare cases ofatresia vaginaeor the absence of the external genitals.)
There are a number of other components which go to make up this "queen of torments" or "king of torturers" jealousy, but those I have enumerated are the essential ones.
What are they? Fear, vanity, anger, envy and pain. None of them admirable qualities, none of them, with the exception of the first and the last, even deserving our compassion. All of them anti-social and anti-individual qualities. Should not everything be done to eradicate such a rank weed, which draws its sustenance from roots each one of which is dipped in poison?
We are told that in our primitive state jealousy was a social instinct; that by killing and keeping away rivals it helped to found and cement the family and to keep it pure. I do not care to enter hereinto a discussion of this point. But whatever useful rôle jealousy may have played in the remote ages (I doubt that it has), it is now an utterly useless, utterly vicious, utterly anti-social and anti-individual emotion. It is opposed to social life and it destroys individual happiness. And everything possible should be done to smother it, to strangle it, to eliminate it entirely from human life.
Yes, I find no compensation whatever for jealousy; I find no place for it in our modern life and I am in complete agreement with Forel, who calls jealousy "a heritage of animals and barbarians." "That is what I would say," he says, "to all those who, in the name of offended honor, would grant it rights and even place it on a pedestal. It is ten times better for a woman to marry an unfaithful than a jealous husband.... Jealousy transforms marriage into a hell.... Even in its more moderate and normal form, jealousy is a torment, for distrust and suspicion poison love. We often hear of justified jealousy. I maintain thatjealousy is never justifiable; it is always a stupid, atavistic inheritance, or else a pathological symptom."
But can anything be done to eradicate this agonizing, tormenting emotion? I believe it can, and the ways and means to the eradication of this evil will be found on analyzing its components. We maynot be able to destroy all the components; if we destroy the greater part of them much will have been accomplished.
The underlying factors of jealousy are: the primitive instinct, also present in many animals, our ethical and religious ideas and our economic system. The primitive instinct we can repress and modify; we can hardly hope to eradicate it entirely. But our ideas and economic system we can change. It is easier to change ideas than it is a system, and it is with our ideas we should commence.
The first idea we must endeavor to destroy is that it is impossible for a human being to love more than one other human being at the same time. We must show that the love of the modern educated and esthetic man and woman is an exceedingly complex feeling, and that a man may deeply and sincerely love one woman for certain qualities and just as deeply and sincerely love another woman for certain other qualities. Of course, love cannot be measured by the yard or bushel, nor can it be weighed on the most delicate chemical balance. And it may be impossible to determine whether he loves both women exactly alike or he loves one woman more than the other. But that one love does not exclude another, that it may even intensify the other love,that is certain, and is the opinion of every advanced sexologist.
Max Nordau, a man of high and austere ideals, a man whom nobody will accuse of a tendency to licentiousness, says in his Conventional Lies: "It may sound very shocking, yet I must say it: we can even loveseveralindividuals at the same time, with nearly equal tenderness, and we do not necessarily lie when we assure each one of our passion. No matter how deeply we may be in love with a certain individual, wedo not ceaseto be susceptible to the influence of the entire sex."
And Iwan Bloch, than whom no greater investigator in the field of sexology ever lived, asks the question: "Is it possible for any one to besimultaneouslyin love with several individuals?" And he immediately says: "I answer this question with an unconditional 'yes.'" And he says further: "It is precisely the extraordinary manifold spiritual differentiation of modern civilized humanity that gives rise to the possibility of such a simultaneous love for two individuals. Our spiritual nature exhibits the most varied coloring. It is difficult always to find the corresponding complements in one single individual."
Prof. Robert Michels says: "It is Nature's will that the normal male should feel a continuous andpowerful sexual attraction towards a considerable number of women.... In the male the stimuli capable of arousing sexual excitement (this term is not to be understood here in the grossly physical sense) are so extraordinarily manifold, so widely differentiated that it is quite impossible for one single woman to possess them all."
Prof. von Ehrenfels wittily remarks that if it were a moral precept that a man should never have intercoursemore them once in his lifewith any particular woman, this would correspond far better with the nature of the normal male and would cost him far less will-power than is needed by him in order to live up to the conventional demands of monogamy.
And Havelock Ellis cautiously says: "A certain degree of variation is involved in the sexual relationships, as in all other relationships, and unless we are to continue to perpetuatemany evils and injustices, that fact has to be faced and recognized."
I have devoted considerable space to this topic, and I have, contrary to my custom, quoted "authorities," because I consider this point of the utmost importance; it is the first step in combating the demon of jealousy. If our wives, fiancées and sweethearts could be convinced of the truth that a man's interest in or even affection towards anothermember of the female sex does not mean the death of love, or even diminished love, half of the battle would be won. Half of the misery, half of the quarrels, half of the self-torture, half of the disrupted homes, in short, half of the tyrannical reign of the demon of jealousy, would be gone.
We must teach our women and men this truth, teach it from puberty on. We must show them that not every woman can necessarily fill out a man's entire life, that not every woman can necessarily occupy every nook and corner of a man's mind and heart, and that there is nothing humiliating to the woman in such an idea (andvice versa). She should be taught to find nothing shameful, painful or degrading in such a thought. I know that these ideas are somewhat in advance of the times, but if nobody ever brought forward any advanced ideas because they were advanced there would never be any advance.
Then we must teach our men that when they marry a woman she does not become their chattel, their piece of property, which nobody may touch, nobody may look at or smile at. A woman may be a very good, faithful wife and still enjoy the companionship of other men, the pressure of another man's hand or—horribile dictu—even an occasional kiss.
Then we must teach our menandwomen thatthere is essentially nothing shameful or humiliating in being displaced by a rival. The change may be a disgrace for the changer and not for the changed one. It does not at all mean that the change has been made because the rival is superior; it is a well-known fact that the rival oftenisinferior. The change is often made, not because the changer has gone upward, but because he has gone downward, has deteriorated. And the changer often knows it himself.
Inculcating those ideas would do away with the feeling of wounded vanity which is such an important component in the feeling of jealousy.
Further, we must teach our children from the earliest age that jealousy is "not nice," that it is a mean feeling, that it is a sign of weakness, that it is degrading to the person who entertains it, particularly to the person who exhibits it. Ideas inculcated from childhood have a powerful influence, and the various ideas exposed abovewouldhave an undoubted influence in minimizing the mephitic, destructive effects of the feeling of jealousy. People properly brought up will always succeed in controlling or suppressing certain non-vital instincts or emotions on which society puts its stamp of disapproval, which it considers "not nice" or disgraceful.
I am, therefore, an optimist in relation to the eventual uprooting of the greater number of components of the anti-social feeling of jealousy. And when woman reaches economic independence, then another component of the instinct of jealousy—the terror at losing a provider and being left in poverty—will disappear.
Jealousy Not Toward Rivals.Jealousy need not express itself toward a sexual rival only. A person may be jealous of people who can never be sexual rivals; the jealousy need not even be of people; it may be of inanimate objects, of a person's work, profession or hobby. Thus a wife may be intensely jealous of her husband's mother, towards whom he is very affectionate or simply kind and considerate. She may be jealous of her own children if she notices or imagines that the father loves them intensely, or if he spends a good deal of time with them. She may be jealous of his male friends, and many a husband had to give up, not only his female acquaintances, but his life-long male friends—in order to preserve peace in the family. A wife may be fiercely jealous of her husband's success and reputation, and cases are not unknown where the wife put every possible obstacle in her husband's way, in order to make him fail in his work, to make him turn out mediocre work, all from fear that hissuccess would gain him admirers, which might perhaps take him away from her. Wives have been known to do everything in their power toexhaustand weaken their husbands, to make them physically unattractive, only to keep them. And so powerful is this primitive, childish, savage feeling, this desire for exclusive monopoly, that there isnothinga jealous wife, sweetheart or mistress may not do in order to retain the man, in order to regain him, or, having lost him irretrievably, in order to revenge herself. And what is said about the woman is applicable with equal force to man. It is a huge mistake to assume that jealousy is woman's prerogative, her particular characteristic, or even that it is stronger in her than in man. A man can be as savagely jealous as any woman and suffer the same tortures of hell.
Jealousy Defeats Its Object.One of the worst features about jealousy is that it defeats its own object. We have been told, as stated before, that jealousy was once upon a time a racial instinct, that by frightening away rivals it helped to found the family and to keep it chaste and pure. Quite the contrary is true now. More than one man has, by accusing his innocent wife of infidelity and by torturing her with baseless suspicions, driven her into the arms of a lover. We are all more or lesssusceptible to suggestion, and by continually suspecting a wife of a love affair or illicit relation a man may implant the seed of suggestion so strongly that it may grow luxuriantly and the wife may be unable to resist the suggested temptation. And very often the very lover is suggested by the husband. "Yes, don't attempt to deny it. It is useless. I know you have relations with X. I know you are his mistress." He kept on repeating it so often to his absolutely blameless, innocent young wife and he made her so wretched by his rudeness and brutality that one day she did go over to X's rooms and did become his mistress. And after that she could stand her husband's outbursts with equanimity. "If I have the name I might as well have the game," is a good bit of psychologic wisdom. And a husband should be very careful about even suspecting a wife unjustly, and thus make the first step towards rendering his baseless suspicions a reality, his unjust accusations justified. And, of course, what is true of the husband is also true of the wife. Many a wife has driven her indolent husband into the hands of prostitutes or mistresses by her incessant nagging, false accusations and vicious epithets applied to all his female friends and acquaintances.
Yes, from whatever angle you consider it, jealousy is a mean, nasty, miserable feeling. Because itis a more or less universal feeling, because "we cannot help it," does not render it less mean, less nasty, less miserable.
I do not for a moment imagine that characterizing jealousy the way it deserves to be characterized, calling it a shameful, savage, primitive feeling, etc., is at once going to banish it from the breasts of men and women in which it has found an abiding place; throwing epithets at it will not cause it to unfasten its talons. Unfortunately, I know only too well that our emotions are stronger than our reason; the man or woman at whose poor heart jealousy is gnawing day and night is not amenable to reason, is not curable by arguments; all we can do is to sympathize with such a person and ask the Lord to pity him or her.
I have known a man who lived with his wife in free union, i.e., he was not married to her. He did not believe in marriage. Love was the only bond that should bind people together; as soon as love was no more the people should separate in a friendly, comradely manner. If the wife or the mistress wants another lover, she should be free to take one; she is a free human being and not her husband's chattel slave, etc., etc., etc., to the same effect. Thus the man talked. And he was sincere in his talk—or he thought he was. But one night onunexpectedly returning home he found another man; he promptly fired several shots at the man, which fortunately for both did not prove fatal, and then he beat and choked his wife—who wasn't even his wife legally—within an inch of her life.And then he married herand gave up his free love talk. And I know of any number of men who could philosophize for hours about the disgrace and humiliation of being jealous, but who, as soon as there was a justifiable cause for jealousy, became as unreasonable as a child and as jealous as any unlettered Sicilian woman ever was.
So you see, I am not deluding myself with extravagant hopes. But, nevertheless, this argumentation, this talk, is not entirely useless. A beginning must be made. This essay may not perhaps help—except for the suggestions that will be made towards the end—those who are already victims of the demon of jealousy, but it may help some people to keep out of his clutches (or should I say: her clutches? I really don't know whether the demon of jealousy is a male or a female.)
Feelings are stronger than reason; but that does not mean that feelings cannot be influenced by reason; they decidedly can be and are so influenced, and theirmanifestationsare modified by this influence; and the more cultured, the more educated a personis (I trust you will know that I use these terms in their true and not their vulgar, misused meaning), the more will his feelings, or at least actions, be influenced by his reason. I am particularly a believer in the effect on our feelings and actions of public opinion, of ideas universally or generally entertained.
Let me give one example which is pertinent to the subject. In former days it was universally held, and in many places it is still held, that when a wife sinned she committed the most unpardonable crime that a human being could be guilty of and that she therebydishonoredher husband. And the only right thing for him to do was to shoot the rival and cast out the wife; or at least to cast her out. This was aconditio sine qua non. To take her back to his home was a disgrace, a sign of unpardonable weakness, of degeneracy. Our ideas on the subject have changed a bit. A husband is no longer considered any more dishonored—in some strata of society at least—because his wife sinned than a wife is considered dishonored because her husband sinned; and adultery in the wife is now, by most rational people, considered only different in degree, but not in kind, from adultery in the husband. These humane ideas have gained vogue only within a comparatively very recent period; but their effecthas already manifested itself in a great number of instances. Forgiving the erring wife is becoming quite common. A number of cases have reached the newspapers. Recently a wife was implicated in a nasty scrape; her sin was not only unquestionable, but notorious; it was public property. And nevertheless the husband stood by her and took her back into his home and arms. And the number of such cases which do not reach the newspapers is very, very much larger than the public has any conception of, larger than it would be safe to estimate. And in a large percentage of these cases the husband begins to treat his wife with more love, more consideration, and the tie between them becomes more firm, more permanent.