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
here into 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 that
_jealousy 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 may not 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 love
_several_ individuals 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, we
_do not cease_ to 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
be _simultaneously_ in 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 and powerful 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 intercourse _more them once in his life_
with 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 perpetuate _many 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 another
member 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 (and _vice 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 men _and_ women that there 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 often _is_
inferior. 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
above _would_ have 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 his success would gain him
admirers, which might perhaps take him away from her. Wives have been
known to do everything in their power to _exhaust_ and 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 is _nothing_ a 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 less susceptible 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 it is 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 on unexpectedly
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 her_ and 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 their _manifestations_ are modified by this
influence; and the more cultured, the more educated a person is (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 thereby _dishonored_ her
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 a
_conditio 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 effect has 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.
CHAPTER FIFTY-TWO
REMEDIES FOR JEALOUSY
Prevention and Cure--Prophylaxis of Jealousy--Fitting Remedy to
Circumstances--The Neglectful and Flirtatious Husband--No
Question of Love--Advice to the wife of the Flirtatious Man--An
Efficient Though Vulgar Remedy--Jealousy Must Be Experienced to
Be Understood--Necessity for Freedom of Association--Lines of
Conduct for the Wife--Contempt for a Certain Type of Wife and
Husband--The Abandoned Lover--The Effects of Unrequited
Love--Sublimated Sexual Desire--Replacing Unrequited Love--The
Attitude of Goethe--Simultaneous Loves Possible--Successive Loves
Possible--Eternal Loves--When Sex Relationships May Be
Beneficial--Purchasable Sex Relations and Their Value--The Broken
Engagement--The Terrible Effects on the Young Man--The Young
Streetwalker--Sex Relations with Fiancé--Inundating Sense of
Shame--Collapse--Attempts at Suicide--An Active Sex Life--The
Results--The Prevention of Jealousy.
We are all agreed that prevention is more important than cure. But
when a patient comes with a fully developed disease it is futile to
speak to him of prevention. It is too late to sermonize. What he wants
and what he needs is a cure, if such can be had. What has preceded has
reference chiefly to the prophylaxis of jealousy, to the prevention of
the development of this disease in the future.
The question is: Is there a _remedy_ for this malady? Is there a
_cure_ for this horrible disease of jealousy?
The conditions are extremely complex, and the remedy must be fitted to
the circumstances. Let us assume that the husband neglects his wife
and causes her to be jealous, not because he is in love with another
woman, but because he is flirtatious, light-headed, feather-brained
and inconsiderate. Such cases are in the great majority. Many husbands
who like or love their wives and who believe themselves secure in
their love think it is quite proper for them to hunt for new conquests
and to carry on petty love affairs with as many girls or women as they
comfortably can. There is no question here about love--it is just
flirtation or sexual relations. When this is the case the wife should
have a frank and firm talk with her husband; she should tell him that
she does not like his behavior and that it makes her unhappy. In many
instances this alone will suffice to effect a change in the husband's
conduct. Where this does not suffice, where the husband is too
egotistic and does not want to give up his little pleasures, then it
is left for the wife to adopt the old and rather vulgar remedy. It is
old and, as said, rather vulgar, but it has the merit of efficiency:
it very often works. Let the wife adopt similar tactics, let her also
flirt, let her go out and come back at uncertain hours, let her keep
the husband guessing as to where and with whom she is. And nine times
out of ten this, under the circumstances, fully justifiable conduct on
the part of the wife will effect a quick and radical change in the
conduct of the husband. He will be only too glad to cry quits. Some
people are utterly devoid of imagination. They lack the ability of
putting themselves in another person's place. Jealousy particularly is
not a feeling which any one can understand without having experienced
it, unless he is endowed with the imagination of a great poet. And as
few husbands have a great poetic imagination, it is only after they
have felt the claws of the monster tearing at their own hearts that
they can understand their wives' feelings, and are willing to act so
as to save them--and themselves, of course--the cruel tortures. Many
wives and many husbands have talked to me and written to me on the
subject, and, as stated before, in nine times out of ten the remedy
worked.
But how about the tenth case? How about the cases where the husband is
unable or unwilling to give up his outside flirtations and relations?
We, advanced sexologists, know that not all men, no more than all
women, are made in the same mould, and what is possible or even easy
for nine men may be very difficult or absolutely impossible for the
tenth. We know that there are some men to whom an ironclad monogamic
relation is an absolute impossibility. The stimulation of other
women--either the purely mental, spiritual stimulation or the
stimulation of physical relations--is to them like breath in the
nostrils. In fact, there are some men whose very possibility of loving
their wives depends upon this freedom of association with other women.
They can be extremely kind to and love their wives tenderly, if they
can at the same time associate--spiritually or physically--with other
women. If they are entirely cut off from any association with any
other woman they begin to feel irritable, bored, may become ill, and
their feeling towards their wives may become one of resentment,
ill-will, or even one of hatred. This is not the place to talk of the
wickedness of such men--thus they are made and with this fact we have
to deal.
What is the wife of such a man to do? Two lines of conduct are open to
her--two avenues of exit. The line of conduct will depend upon her
temper and upon her ideas of sex morality. But she ought to select the
line of conduct which will cause the least pain, the least
unhappiness. If she is a woman of a proud, independent temper,
particularly if she belongs to the militant type, she will leave her
husband in a huff, regardless of consequences. But if she is a woman
of the gentler, more pliable, more supple (and I may also say more
subtle) type, and if she really loves her husband, she will overlook
his little foibles, peccadilloes and transgressions--and she may live
quite happily. And the time will come when the husband himself will
give up his peccadilloes and transgressions and will cleave powerfully
to his wife, will be bound to her by bonds never to be torn asunder.
_I know of several such cases._
And I will take this opportunity to say that I have the deepest
contempt for the wife who, on finding out that her husband had
committed a transgression or that he has a love affair, leaves him in
a huff, or makes a public scandal, or sues for divorce. Such a wife
_never_ loved her husband, and he is well rid of her. And what I said
about the wife applies with _almost_ equal force to the husband.