Part 3

_The Proposal, and After._--No sensible girl today wants the man to propose to her father, or her parents, before he proposes to her. After all, he is not marrying the father, or the parents; he is marrying the girl. The father or parents are consulted after the plans are made, for ratification and aid: the goal is the mutual consent of the lovers. Again, customs as to the seriousness with which proposals are regarded differ strikingly in certain localities and at certain seasons. In the South, from which I came, a girl is proposed to almost as easily as she is asked for a dance; she becomes engaged as casually as she accepts a drink of water, and breaks it off whenever the mood strikes her. During college days and the girl’s early debutante days, she may be “engaged” to several or half a dozen men at a time. In the North, the custom is ordinarily different. Again, there are seasonal variations: young couples who meet at a summering place may become engaged for their mutual pleasure during the summer, with no intention of ever seeing each other when they return to their regular homes in the autumn. All of these things must be taken into account.

Don’t study a book of etiquette as to how to propose. The more stilted and formal a proposal is, the easier it is for the girl to laugh at the ridiculousness of the situation. Real lovers know, without the words having been said, that their equivalent in deeds has been achieved. Even a slang proposal, “Well, honey, shall we hit it off together?” may be far more effective than “May I have the honor of making you my wife?” Be natural in this, unless you have ascertained that the girl desires the frills. In that case, give her what she desires. The acceptance may be given with a kiss, or with mere words. More usually, the girl will ask for time to consider the matter. If she means yes by this, proceed to make that clear to her. If not, keep after her until you win the acceptance, or her friendly refusal.

It is not hard to read from a girl’s refusal whether she means a real objection, or merely a delay. If you really desire her, she will be flattered by your continuing to woo her, and to make yourself more and more attractive in her eyes. In any case, if she is worthy at all, she will word her rejection so as never to wound the man unnecessarily. If the parties are suitable as mates, a rejection alters soon enough to an acceptance.

_Courtship After Marriage._--_How to Love_ (Little Blue Book No. 98) takes up the problem of how to act after the mate has been won. It may be briefly summarized here thus: the real lover, man or woman, continues the courtship as long as the mating lasts. All that has been said about making oneself attractive in the eyes of the other, applies with especial force to this wooing after marriage. Do your best to make a success of the mating; if your efforts fail, and a separation or divorce is necessary, you can never reproach yourself afterwards with the accusation that you did not try your best.

As for courtship of other women after marriage, or a woman’s courtship of other men after marriage, both of these are known; and, in our present organization of society, are natural. The man who is by nature promiscuous, or the woman who has the same nature, for his or her happiness will be as faithful as possible. If love comes toward another woman or man, the lover will come to it with more artistry and more experience than in the earlier attempts; and the technique of wooing should be correspondingly improved.

IV

HOW A WOMAN WOOS

_Fancy Flirtations._--Most textbooks on wooing and courtship devote their space allotted to woman’s wooing to such absurd devices as flirtation by parasol, fan, glove, handkerchief, dining table signals, window flirtation, and flower flirtation. The number of people who read such silly books is limited; the number among these who remember what they have read is far smaller; and perhaps no men are included in the latter number. Thus no man will understand what your signals mean. A few of the choice instructions given are as follows:

_Parasol Flirtations_

Carrying it elevated in left hand--Desiring acquaintance.

Carrying it closed in left hand--Meet on the first crossing.

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.