We now come to the common sense of it. Undoubtedly in a great number of
cases of perversion and other sexual trouble, we need not search for
the cause in a mother-attachment, an incest-wish, or an undeveloped
function. The cause is often of a relatively simple nature.
Perhaps at the top of the list we may put woman’s fear of being
impregnated, of conceiving and bearing a child; a fear which a man who
loves his wife often shares with her. Such fears are sometimes morbid,
and are part of a general fear of life. Women who are made, as it were,
to be mothers, may be evading their life-work and refusing pain and
responsibility. That is quite possible.
But, on the other hand, if we look at the matter in the light of common
sense, we see, first, that to an imaginative person, the fear is
perfectly natural, just as a perfectly natural fear may spring up in a
man as he goes into battle; and that, second, circumstances may justify
and deepen the fear to a point where it becomes a deterrent to normal
sexuality. For instance, poverty might make it impossible for the
parents to support children, or more than the one or two already born.
Or the woman’s health or structure may be such as to make child-bearing
a grave danger.
Of course “birth control” is urged for such people; the use of
contraceptives. However, not only are such things sometimes unreliable,
but certain types of people find their use exceedingly unpleasant,
turning what should be a joyous union, a spontaneous act, into
something mechanical and self-conscious. Besides that, if the fear of
impregnation is great, the use of contraceptives does not abolish it.
It is no wonder then that very many married people turn from normal
sexuality to something that comes under the heading of perversions. The
whole aim is to get the glow and satisfaction by any means rather than
that of normal entrance. Naturally, if either of the couple concerned
is strongly normal in his sexual desire, there is a loss here; but
whether that loss is as great as the loss through worry and fear, is
open to question.
There is no use denying that when man ceased to regard the sexual act
as purely animal, for propagation purposes, and made an art of it, he
turned aside from nature; just as he has turned aside when he invented
the wheel or used fire for cooking. Those who argue that nature’s
way is best should return to the jungle. But if we agree that man may
refashion not only his environment but his mind and his character, then
we must admit that he may also refashion his sexuality.
As Jung said, it isn’t the _form_ of the sexuality, but the attitude
we have toward the sexual. If it is an expression of mutual love, an
endearment of life, an art, something that brings a greater beauty
to life, and riches otherwise missing, surely it is both right and
good. And even if it is a necessary outlet for something not so good,
but which is undeveloped, and needs development, at least it is a
preventive of sometimes serious disorder.
Certainly the ideal of Havelock Ellis is the highest, that sexuality
should be the art of love, and that the forepleasure should culminate
in the act itself; and it is true also that in many cases the fear of
impregnation may be conquered, and that the self-control of the man may
shield the woman. It is also true that often the use of contraceptives
may cease to seem unnatural. But how legislate in the matter?
Prohibition does not prohibit; and there is no way of making a couple,
in the privacy of their own lives, observe an external standard. What
is far better is to allow each couple to find their own moral law with
reference to sexuality. If they know they are living up to something
good, they should be courageous enough not to be ashamed of it.
If the fear of impregnation is woman’s chief fear, that of man’s is
often the fear of impotence. Many men, through lack of experience
sexually or for some other reason, have this fear. This, too, may be
morbid. It may originate in the fear of life itself; an inability to
break through in the world; a feeling of failure, of “not being a man.”
Or it may be due to undeveloped sexuality. But if we look at the matter
sensibly we may see that often it is not due to any such cause, but
to something more simple. For instance, it might be caused by either
of two opposite teachings: the one, that sexuality in itself is a bad
thing, the other, the gossip of men, that a man isn’t a man unless he
is sexually virile.
If a man believes the first, he must always connect with sexuality
something evil and low, and if he is at all religious he may feel
that he is harming his soul, or even damning it, if he has sexual
pleasure. Such an inhibition in itself would be enough to cripple his
sexual expression, for the very essence of sexuality, like love, is
that it casts out fear. The sexual feeling in a man brings courage and
aggressiveness.
On the other hand, if a man believes that he is unmanly unless he
is virile, and that other men, if they knew of it, would think him
a eunuch or womanly, he might (and many do) feel it incumbent upon
himself to prove, over and over again, that he is a man. But it is
foreign to the sexual act to use it to prove anything. If it is not a
joy, and a self-forgetfulness, it is nothing. Hence, the man trying to
prove his case, is apt to turn out exactly as he fears.
There must be a change of attitude. In some men virility of character
is combined with sexual virility; in other men, it is not. If we
remember the distinction between extravert and introvert, we may
understand that some men may be outwardly weak, but inwardly giants,
giants of intellect or of art; and doubtless many of these men, by
their virility of thought or of creativeness, have made the world
itself more virile. It is said of Michelangelo that he was not normal
sexually, yet his mighty torsos in marble, his colossal painting of the
Last Judgment could only have been produced by a giant of character.
There is no single test for what constitutes manhood. With some
sexuality would play a large part, with others not. What is important
is that a man be true to himself, and if his sexuality is of an
inferior or undeveloped order, that he acknowledge it as such and so
bring it to a better development. He may then discover, when he ceases
to strain after lifting himself by his bootstraps, that, with the
disappearance of fear, he is actually more sexually powerful than he
thought.
Another great cause for perversion or unsuccessful sexuality, which
is also perfectly obvious, is mismating. Between sensitive people,
sexuality amounts to very little unless the couple are also mates. A
man may find that his wife, however fond of her he may be, does not
stimulate that side of his nature; or the woman may make the same
discovery of her husband. Without the natural means of attraction,
other means are sought for. Some employ drink to stimulate them; others
resort to perversions.
There is also the case of a woman, brought to an analyst’s attention,
who did not love her husband, but was madly in love with another man.
If, in intercourse with her husband, she thought of him as the other
man and so pictured him, the sexuality was successful.
However, this forcible mating of the mismated is not often good; and
indeed if the physical antipathy is strong enough, it may not even be
possible. In such cases, often enough, another of the simple, but great
problems, comes up. It is that either of divorce or of polygamy.
Is man naturally polygamous? That is a question hard to answer. I
rather think that the introvert is more monogamous, the extravert
more polygamous. The introvert tends to go deep with everything; to
concentrate more and more on a few things; and he is the same in his
relationships. They tend to be few, but to be rather intense. When it
comes to marriage, this concentration is apt to exclude every woman but
his wife.
With the extravert it is different. Since his attention goes out
from himself to the world, since his interest is easily aroused, his
relationships are apt to multiply. They are not often deep, but they
are swift and easy, and without great trouble he can pass, if he is
sexual, from one woman to another.
Now it seems to me (though I know this question is still up in the
air) that woman is less polygamous than man. To man sexuality is in
every way a lighter matter. To begin with, he is more swiftly and more
easily satisfied, and, moreover, he has for himself few consequences
to fear. It is apparent that the woman, more slow to respond, gives
a great depth in the response when it finally comes, and the man who
has the key to her must take on an overwhelming value. Not only that,
but her nature connects the sexual act with child-bearing, and this at
once gives the whole matter a more serious coloring. She may, in time,
disconnect the sexual act from that of child-bearing, but it still
remains more intense and more serious than for a man. For this reason,
and especially if the man is the father of her children, his value is
such that she concentrates on him with possessiveness, and this tends
toward monogamy.
However, woman’s lack of economic independence in the past, her great
dependence on man, may have been a large factor in the problem;
and, indeed, today it is not rare to find women who claim the same
freedom that men have often claimed, and who are polyandrous in their
relationships.
It would seem, again, that the matter should be relegated for solution
to the individuals concerned; and so far as the State is concerned that
either divorce should be made easy, or extra-marital relations allowed
for good cause.
As a matter of fact, with the attitude now prevailing, there is much
needless suffering. I remember the case of a man who married the girl
of his choice when they were both very young. He was a man absorbed in
his business to such an extent as not to be aware of any sexual need.
He was content to have a wife who ran the home, was his companion in
his travels, and helped receive his guests. They were very fond of each
other, but had no sexual relationship.
He told his wife everything. He discussed his business and personal
problems with her; and everything went well until he became so
successful that a trust bought out his business. As soon as he relaxed,
he was aware that he had not known the full joy of living. It was not
surprising that at that very time, he met an independent and very
attractive woman, and that he fell madly in love with her. He was
quite intoxicated; life suddenly had become an intense affair, full of
glamour. He was irresistibly drawn into an affair with her, and what
was more, he found her so delightful a person, that it appeared to him
that the relationship would become permanent.
However, his old fondness for his wife was unabated. Their many years
together, their complete candor with each other, had given their
relationship an enduring basis. He knew, nevertheless, that if his wife
got wind of his new relationship, it would quite wreck her life. She
was puritanic, she believed in monogamy, and she trusted him completely.
He attempted to evade the matter; to get time off by giving business
excuses; but she soon became suspicious, and deeply troubled. She knew
he was hiding something, and feared that it was exactly as it was.
Finally, in his dilemma, he came to an analyst. After hearing the case,
the analyst asked him:
“Can you give up the other woman?”
The poor man was lost in his thoughts for several minutes. Then he
looked up, and spoke slowly:
“No, I cannot. I should rather die.”
Such tragedies are hidden in our present system of inelastic monogamy.
Had the wife been brought up to a more sensible attitude, or had either
of them been taught the value of sexuality in their youth, the tragedy
might have been avoided.
Certainly there is one thing that every couple must take into
consideration; and that is, that the nature of either may undergo
a change so divergent from the other, as to cause the need of a
genuine readjustment. But if people take this into consideration, they
cannot but be less possessive of one another; and, indeed, too great
concentration on each other is usually an evil in marriage. For one
thing, it often leads to the feeling of staleness, and this in turn
either leads to artificial stimulants, to perversions in the sexuality,
or it may end in a break.
One of the essentials in most marriages is occasional separation, and
diverse interests and relationships.
It will be seen then that from the standpoint of common sense there are
many reasons for abnormal or unsuccessful sexuality besides those that
are due to deeper causes.