Carrying it closed in right hand by the side--Follow me.
Closing it up--I want to speak to you, love.
Swinging to and fro on the handle, on right side--I am married.
With handle to lips--Kiss me.
The trouble is, all women must carry their parasols somehow, and in
more than nine cases out of ten, they have no faintest dream of these
so-called signals. If you ignore them, and they are intended, you
insult the lady; if you act on them--as, for instance, stepping up and
kissing a stranger who has nervously brought the handle of her parasol
to her lips--you are liable to be fined $750 in Pennsylvania, $2,500 in
New York State, and the vast sum of $1.15 in New Jersey. This whole
procedure is a bit too dumb even for Rotary Club members and old maid
school teachers, the two classes who seem to know least about life.
Now for the fan:
_Fan Flirtations_
Drawing across the forehead--We are watched.
Fanning fast--I am engaged.
Open and shut--You are cruel.
Dropping--We will be friends.
It fills space in the books, but don’t try to follow it, unless you
wish to get the most unpleasant surprise of your career.
We learn that a girl who drops both gloves means thereby “I love you”;
that the right hand with the naked thumb exposed means “Kiss me,” and
so interminably on. So anything done with the handkerchief is supposed
to mean some tender message. There are 21 tender messages conveyed
with napkin, knife, fork, spoon, and cup; there are 40 tender signals
conveyed by finger signals through a window, perhaps the dumbest being:
Closing hand to the eye, _a la_ telescope--I would see you.
Or take the elaborate language of flowers. If a man sends a girl white
roses, quite a possible gift if they are the most attractive things
in the florist’s shop, his message, also is, “I am too young to marry
yet”! If he presents her with tansy, one of the loveliest of the daisy
family, his message is “I declare war against you.” The books omit a
few of the more useful flowers and vegetables, so we add them here as a
supplement, urging that they be tried out at least. Send your girl one
of the following (or send it to your man), with the meaning indicated:
_Chrysanthemum_--I prefer Norma Talmadge to kissing at Coney Island.
_Cauliflower_--My sister is married to a retired butcher with a cork
leg.
_Onion_--You will weep if you don’t marry me.
_Japanese Persimmon_--Kiss me, my lips are ripe.
_Apple_--I’ll be your Eve, if you care, Adam.
_Wild Leek_--Please ’phone the plumber for mother.
Having carefully memorized this list, proceed to forget it, and go
ahead and woo naturally without it.
_Judging Men._--In general, men have a fairly easy time in judging
the girls they go with. For, common opinion to the contrary
notwithstanding, a man is more secretive and shrewder in hiding his
faults than a woman. A girl who is sparing in her use of paint and
cosmetics ordinarily is sensible and fit to be a mate. A girl who
over-rouges and over-paints is one of two things: either typically
“fast” or an imitator of her favorite movie heroine. Either may make a
good mate. In either case, the progress of the wooing will soon teach
the man whether the girl has any conception of happy mating, or is
only a parasite who wants to be decked in fine feathers and princessed
through life, with the man paying the bills.
When a girl comes to judge a man, her task is harder. The man who is
liked by other men is, in most cases, to be preferred to the man
who is despised by men, and adored by vapid women. There is a class
of women who are mere men-hunters, ranging from the out-and-out
gold-digger, who sells her charms as shrewdly as she can for outright
gifts amounting to support--and who may remain, in the eyes of society,
a “good girl” in spite of it--to the girl who protests vehemently that
she despises the gold-digger, yet spends all her energies in securing
men to take her to dinner and the theater, and to give her gifts
sufficient for her support, or at least sufficient to give her the
luxuries she would not otherwise get. These parasitic or sponging women
are to be avoided, except by the man who wants them frankly, being
willing to pay the price for the temporary stimulus of their company.
There is a far larger class of men who prey on women. These men are
the vestiges of the social system that is already dying--the system
of the double standard of morals for men and women, by which a man
was allowed to sow as extensive a crop of wild oats as he could, with
social sanction; and by which the woman who strayed a trifle from the
narrow path of rectitude was thereafter regarded as a “fallen woman,”
and any man’s legitimate prey. To such men, women are the goal of man’s
predatory instincts. It was a man’s imperative to seek out innocent
girls, and seduce as many of them as possible, taking no thought
for their welfare, and caring only to shield himself. The girl who
resisted the seductions (and she was equipped for resistance only with
an intense and abiding ignorance of all things concerning sex life)
was qualified to be a man’s wife; the other, the girl who was deceived
by glib promises and a suave exterior into a surrender of her body,
and the girl who was willing to experiment with love, were henceforth
regarded as fallen women, and were disqualified as permanent mates.
Such men exist today: the general class of traveling salesman, not
quite fairly, is taken as an example of such men of prey. Needless to
say, the girl’s task is to ascertain at once if her would-be suitor
belongs to this class. If he does, she must decide whether or not she
wishes to play with such unworthy fire. It is a safe gamble that, if
she gets him to the point of marrying, with any intention of reforming
him, she will fail in the last undertaking by a tremendous margin. If
she wants the experience of being seduced, she may go ahead and undergo
it, for the man will be found willing. And modern standards of judgment
hold that the girl who has sowed her wild oats is no more “fallen” than
the man who has sowed his wild oats. Society is only slowly accepting
this point of view; but as more and more women become wage-earners,
as managers and owners of businesses, as office workers and store
workers, they are reaching the point where they can buy their will of
the world, and insist that their wild oats be judged no more harshly
than a man’s. The girl supported by others, as the girl living at home,
cannot afford to run such risks. Furthermore, even the working girl has
to face blackmail from the seducer, the possible loss of her job, and
the unpleasantnesses and expense of bearing an illegitimate child. But
if she understands matters of sex, and desires to go ahead, that is her
business.
The more normal girl will regard such a man as the vestigial
anachronism that he is, and will promptly give him his walking papers.
She will confine her acceptance of courtship, and her wooing itself, to
a man with more intelligence and a more modern outlook upon life.
Should a girl woo, when she is convinced that the man is worthy to
be her mate? There is no reason in the world why she should not. Her
object is to make herself attractive to the man: and this usually
involves preserving a certain amount of dignity. Thus her wooing
should, as a rule, be less obtrusive and more subtle than a man’s. But,
once having decided that she desires a man for a mate, she should use
every method of proving herself his invaluable companion--a campaign
that the man should use in a similar situation. A little tactful
questioning on her part will soon discover where the man’s ideals lie.
If he really wants a home-maker, and she is willing to give this rather
subservient role a trial, she can emphasize her domestic capabilities,
cook him tasty dishes if there is an opportunity, embroider his
handkerchiefs, and otherwise show that she fits into the role of his
desired mate. If he wants an intellectual companion primarily, she can
indicate that she qualifies in this respect.
In general, there is a prejudice against a woman’s taking the
aggressive in the actual wooing, and the final proposing. This
prejudice is dissolving. Wooing and mating should be matters of mutual
choice: and if, for instance, the man is the more backward and bashful
of the two, it is the duty of the girl to aid him over the difficult
spot, even to the extent of doing the proposing. Just so she preserves
the role of being pleasing and attractive, there is no limit to what
she may ethically do.
This altering standard carries with it a change in the man’s attitude.
There was once a so-called chivalrous attitude, which would prevent a
man’s refusing a woman, in such a situation. Now such chivalry is based
upon a false assumption, and tends to produce lifelong unhappiness,
rather than happiness. After the preliminaries have been finished, the
course of the courtship and the mating should be marked by as high a
degree of honesty and sincerity as is possible. Insincere chivalry is
a wrecker of happiness. If the man does not want to marry the girl,
it is his duty to say so, just as sincerely as a girl would refuse,
if the roles were reversed. He will, of course, phrase his rejection
finally, but at the same time so tactfully that the girl will not feel
insulted. In such cases, a good way is to refuse on the ground that the
man regards himself as unworthy: a courteous insincerity which both
will understand, if the man makes it clear that his decision upon this
ground is final.
_“Nice” Girl or Human Being?_--The old-fashioned training of girls
developed them into “nice” girls, with Victorian prejudices, ignorant
of everything essential to life. The pendulum has swung to the other
extreme: the modern generation of petters and neckers, who have the
forefront of today’s picture, are the very reverse of this. There
are still enough girls today, who have much of the old so-called
“niceness,” and hardly tend at all to the petting type. Many of them
retain this finicky and meticulous niceness, because they are assured,
by their dumb elders, that this makes them more attractive in the eyes
of men.
It does not. Unless you desire your man to continue to divide womankind
into two classes--“nice” women like his wife, to whom he may not tell
a clever risque story, whom he will love physically only in a “nice
way”; and the other type of women, to whom he probably will turn sooner
or later, and thereafter increasingly, for the solid human comfort
of utter physical mating--unless you wish your husband to share his
physical love with less worthy and more human women, you had best get
over your “niceness” as soon as possible, and graduate into the class
of human beings.
Here is a typical problem. A young friend of mine was tremendously
intrigued by an attractive young girl. He told her censored versions of
some of his favorite stories, such as the story of the negro preacher
who announced to his congregation: “Breddren an’ sistren, I aim to take
my text, dis mawnin’, from de text ‘De widder’s mite.’” As he paused
impressively, a deacon in the front row rose. “Brudder, dere’s only one
thing wrong wid dat text: Dey do!” This is a delightfully clever story,
with a subtle and inoffensive double meaning. The girl put on her
“nicest” expression, and said, with finicky distaste in her face, “How
revolting!”
When she had made the same response to all efforts on his part to
interest her in matters which men regard as almost too mild for a
laugh, and which other girls of his acquaintance were highly amused at,
he came to the wise conclusion that this was not the girl for him. He
had no intention of being saddled for life with a girl whose attitude
was “How revolting!” He ceased to pay attentions to her, and soon found
a much more admirable girl, with whom he is at present happily married.
The “How revolting!” girl still thinks that her conduct was right; that
the man has lowered himself; and will continue to delude herself so
until she wastes into a vinegary old-maidhood.
If a girl has had a normal rearing, she will not make the mistake of
thinking that the Puritans were right: that bodies end at the neck
and at the shoe-tops, with nothing between, and that ordinary human
matters, especially those touching the tabooed facts of life, are never
to be mentioned intimately between men and women. No matter what the
taboo before mating, after mating the happy lovers speak with utter
frankness to each other. A certain amount of coarseness, in its place,
is a splendid release for energy that would otherwise fester and
warp, and lead the lovers to seek satisfaction outside of the mating
relationship. And, since this will come after mating in well-mated
couples, even before the mating an increasing frankness will mark the
intercourse of an intelligent young man and young woman.
There is one other thing to be remembered by the girl, both as wooer
and as wooed. Courtship is an education in the opposite sex, and in
love: and this education should not be superficial. It is a common
statement of doctors that engaged people as a rule know each other
physically before the marriage. I will take this up in the next
chapter.
V
CONDUCT DURING THE ENGAGEMENT
_Conduct in Public._--An engagement is a pledge, mutually given by two
people, that their courtship is to terminate in mating or marriage.
This is both a private and a public matter. Personal reasons may
make it necessary to keep this secret, at least for a time. It is
preferable, from many standpoints, that it be announced as soon as
possible. Intimate friends, at least, should be let in on the secret.
Whenever possible, it should be made public. For it affects other
people, and their conduct toward the engaged couple, as well as the two
themselves.
An engagement, luckily for men and women, is not irrevocable: I will
take up the breaking of engagements later. But it should not be entered
upon too casually. This is especially true when, for instance, two
men woo one girl. If one man persuades her to decide in his favor and
against the other man, he should weigh more carefully than usual his
proposal. For, if he gets her to surrender something tangible--the
courtship of the other man--for his own courtship, it is less fair to
her thereafter to break the engagement. She has actually surrendered
something; it may be impossible for her subsequently to accept the
attentions of the other man, who will not renew an offer once rejected.
A breakage in such cases should only be urged by the man, when the
happiness of both clearly demands it.
The matter of an engagement ring comes up, as the conventional way
of announcing to the world that the girl is engaged. There is a
decided feeling today against wedding rings, originating as symbols
of servitude; and this extends, among some girls, to a dislike of
engagement rings as well. For all their jeweled state, they represent
a subjection, a surrender of freedom to the other party. The sting of
the subjection is lessened, if both man and woman wear wedding rings,
and both wear engagement rings. Yet there are men who are not willing
to wear rings: and, if the girl objects, it may be better for neither
to wear them. As to choice of ring, the girl is wisest who makes sure
that the young man does not exceed his legitimate income for spending,
in purchasing her a ring. The object should not be to secure a ring
slightly larger than any worn by her girl friends; it should be to wear
an attractive token of an inner affection. There is no sense in going
into love blindly, even at this stage: it is the girl’s duty to find
out what her fiancé’s financial prospects are, and for him to find out
hers. Since they propose to share financial life together, there is no
sense in even starting this blindly.
As to the ring, it is true that it symbolizes a loss of freedom. But
it is also true that this loss of freedom is an actual thing. Parties
to an engagement must of necessity surrender much, when they decide to
proceed with a courtship into a mating or marriage. Before the proposal
is given and accepted, the man and the girl as well have the whole
world of women and men to choose from: the proposal and its acceptance
definitely mark a surrender of all the other possibilities, in favor
of this one. When you scan a menu of desserts, you can select pie, ice
cream, pudding, or many another choice. The choice of one, as a rule,
must mean the surrender of the right to choose any of the others. This
is, as a rule, as true of lovers as it is of desserts. Since, then, the
loss of freedom is actual, there is no great extrinsic objection to the
custom of the wearing of rings by both.
The compensations for the loss of freedom should overbalance the
surrender. A man cannot forever balance in his mind the rival
possibilities of settling in Florida, California, Chicago, New York, or
some village: he must sooner or later make up his mind, choose one, and
do his best to make his life a success there. It is so with love. The
engaged couple have given up the rest of the world as potential mates:
and they step at once, and increasingly, into the pleasure-garden of
mated human love. A mere choice of all the women in the world is not
to be compared with the actual embrace of the one among these that you
desire. Only the man or woman with an insatiable physical wanderlust
will prefer the wandering to the arrival at the goal of love.
Mating does not mean slavery to the other party: it means, as a rule,
exclusive physical love with one person, but constant human intercourse
with many more. There is not even the slightest ethical offense in a
girl’s acceptance of attentions from other men, which stop short of
the erotic. She can go to dances, plays, meals, with them; and a man
can do the same with other girls. Life after mating will be monotonous
enough, in most cases: if the engaged couple dance exclusively with
each other, the monotony may commence so soon that it will frighten the
pair off from ultimate marriage. As a rule, other people incline to
leave an engaged couple alone anyhow: it will be up to the man and girl
to encourage reasonable attentions from others.
This is theoretically sound: but the element of human jealousy must be
taken into account. If either of the parties is excessively jealous,
since the lover’s desire is to remain attractive in the eyes of the
other lover, there must be some compromise. Jealousy partakes of the
nature of a malignant disease: rooted in a normal desire to possess
the loved one, it may degenerate into an insanity that wrecks all
happiness. If the jealousy of the other party is increasingly extreme,
our advice is to end the relationship. If the decision is to continue
it, compromises will have to come in: and the girl or man will retain
the right to go with other people, only to the extent that the jealous
one can be persuaded to permit. This calls for all the tact and
sympathy in the world.
_In Private._--The conduct of engaged people in private must keep in
mind the purpose of the engagement. This is the great testing period
of compatibility and mutual adaptability. If both parties are not
adaptable, a heavier burden is laid upon the one who is. If the burden
of adjusting oneself to the whims, caprices, and crotchets of the other
is too great, there is still the chance to terminate the engagement.
And, if neither party is adaptable, there seems no other happy way out
of the situation.
The chief problem confronting the engaged girl is to what extent she
will experiment physically with love. As stated, many doctors say that
most engaged couples, before marriage, have experienced love fully.
This is not an indictment, but a statement of a fact. There are strong
arguments in its favor. If a man and woman are not physically pleasing
to one another, the happiness of the marriage is doomed from the
start. If, for instance, one of the mates is sexually frigid, and one
passionate, it is almost impossible for them to satisfy each other: and
the constant temptation will be present to try to find satisfaction
outside of the mating relationship, a temptation that is often yielded
to, at times to the wreckage of the relationship. There is no way for
people to know the physical nature of the other, without physical
experimentation.
The danger in the procedure is that the man may turn out to be a
predatory male, who becomes engaged to girl after girl for the mere
pleasure of temporary enjoyment of her. This is a danger that the girl
must run; and, if she has made it her task to study the man’s nature
carefully, she should know by now whether or not her intended mate is
to be trusted. There are many women who believe that, if a man is once
given the ultimate favor, he at once regards the girl as cheapened
in his eyes. The consensus of intelligent opinion seems to be to the
very other extreme: that that many a girl has wrecked her chances for
happiness, by refusing to grant the ultimate favor. Only an abnormal
man will habitually regard a woman who yields to him as cheapened.
As the time for the final mating draws near, and the mutual desires
rise toward their crest, he may regard it as utterly unreasonable for
the girl to withhold longer. The man is usually the aggressor in such
cases; and, if the woman is the aggressor, she will have the same
opinion of the man.
Yet, since there are risks on both sides of the matter, it remains a
subject on which the wise will give no advice, but will leave it to the
two concerned to work out their solution as wisely as they can, with
the facts spread out before them.
It is a matter concerning the private relations of the engaged couple,
when the attentions of outsiders pass the stage of the non-erotic,
and approach the erotic. Whether a man should be engaged to two or
more girls, and a woman to two or more men, at the same time, affects
the parties concerned too intimately to be regarded as a matter of
outsiders. Theoretically, there is much to be said on both sides.
A real engagement--a definite pledge to marry--cannot coexist with
an engagement to an outsider. The laws do not permit polygamy in
this country. Yet what are we to say of a provisional engagement,
where the parties merely assure each other that they think they
will marry each other, yet at the same time offer themselves to the
world as engaged? If such is the agreement, there is less objection
to concurrent engagements. From the standpoint of education in sex,
there is something to be said for the idea. Common sense would favor
it, yet human nature runs counter to common sense too often to let us
stop here. It is better, perhaps, to let the concurrent courtships
take place before the formal engagement; and then let the choice, for
the time being at least, be an exclusive choice. If either party is
attracted outside, to the extent of believing that more happiness lies
in the love of another, the engagement may be broken, and the other
relationship commenced and tested.
_Termination of Engagements._--Should an engagement be short, or long?
What is the proper length, for the happiness of the parties involved?
We have scriptural authority for the engagement lasting fourteen years:
the story of Jacob can be stretched into this interpretation. Jacob,
who loved Rachel, agreed with her father to serve seven years for her.
Frankly, we have yet to meet the woman who is worth such a sacrifice;
and, in this case, at the end of the seven years Jacob, tricked by his
prospective father-in-law, found himself married to the elder sister
Leah, instead of to his beloved. Accordingly, he put in another seven
years serving for Rachel, and, fourteen years after his engagement
started, was wed to her.
Especially in old-fashioned country districts, long engagements are
often known, and laughed at. There is the story of the countryman who
courted a schoolmate for years--until, in fact, both had drifted from
youth toward the end of middle age.
“Why don’t you marry Sarah?” he was asked.
“Marry her!” in surprise and dismay. “Why, if I got married, where in
tarnation could I go to spend my evenings?”