Part 3

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.

SOME THINGS TO DO

As I said in the beginning, it is time for this dark cloud of ignorance and prejudice and fear which we call the sexual problem, to roll away. This can only come about by a passionate realization of the principle of _difference_. There are different kinds of people, and it takes all kinds to make a world. We cannot legislate a sexual code, whether the law we make says, “Thou shalt not,” or even “Thou shalt,” without violating the natures and needs of large sections of the population. What it comes down to, finally, is the individual. It is he who must be studied, and it is he who must find his own path.

Doubtless we shall not come to a true sexual morality until our education includes the psychological study of children. Until the child is known, his hidden need is not apparent. If he is an introvert, he should not be developed, as he is today, particularly in this country, along extraverted lines that are against his bent. And if he is an extraverted sensational, we cannot demand the same standard of him as we could of an intuitive.

But even these type differences are insufficient for our study. The child, after all, is himself, and therefore in some ways different from all others. His problem is always unique, and must often be solved in new and unique ways.

But since a change in our education which would include the technic of modern psycho-analysis, is still far off; all that we can do in the meantime is to spread the new knowledge and new insight, so as to break down the old prejudices, shames and fears, and put new weapons into the hands of parents.

It is often difficult for parents to be candid with their children concerning sexuality, especially if their own attitude is vague or prejudiced. Where the difficulty is too great, the child should be turned over to a trusted friend or teacher for enlightenment and guidance.

The first step in gaining the confidence of the child is to give him a good attitude. Nothing that he tells will be used against him; there will be an attempt to understand all. Besides that, he should be told that the problem is practically universal, and the things that he does, if at all, are not so much sins as bits of childishness which may, in many cases, be overcome.

When he has learned to speak freely, he may, for instance, for the problem is general, say that he practices auto-erotism. In this case, if the child is still under the age of puberty, he can be told that it may become a habit and later on give him considerable trouble, and that it is something he should attempt to overcome. He is to report progress and should not mind confessing a slip.

Most children are amenable to such treatment, and overcome the habit. In a few cases, this appears impossible, and some deeper cause should be looked for. For instance, the child is afraid of the dark, and uses auto-erotism to quiet himself and soothe himself to sleep. In that case, it would be better, of course, that there was a light in his room, or someone remained near him while he was trying to sleep. Or it may be found that he has contracted the habit as a substitution for some other gratification. He may, for example, have a craving for candy which a too-wise parent has entirely tabooed for him. The cure is candy, by all means.

It will often be found that the hidden cause is as simple as the foregoing, and that the cure is equally simple.

However, if the child is at puberty, if he is adolescing, the problem is more difficult. In many cases, if the boy is shown that such a habit may make it difficult later on to be normal sexually, he will break it, and by a vigorous life avoid the problem. But there are cases which refuse to yield to such common sense, and either such a child needs an analysis, or, as one of our noted psychologists thinks, he may be permitted a limited expression until he gets past the dangerous years. In such a case, he must be warned against excess, to limiting himself only to overwhelming desire.

This may seem like a poor way of handling the matter; but unfortunately we have here “not a theory, but a condition.” Actually if the boy is scared off, he may merely go on practicing the habit in private and with no restraint; or if he has become afraid of that, may turn to homosexuality or seek out a woman or a girl. Since this is not a mere child’s problem, since it is known that the run of men who go off on long expeditions, or sea voyages, or live in camps where there are no women, resort to such practices, we can hardly expect highly-sexed boys to observe a higher code.

The best thing, of course, would be a psycho-analysis at the hands of a perfectly competent analyst. In that case a deep and hidden cause might be found, such as those outlined in the earlier part of this booklet. Where some boys find a kind of outlet in athletics and in general activities, such a boy might, for example, find an outlet in creating some form of art. He might be gifted as a painter or poet or writer of fiction. In many cases, this is the cure, until he is old enough to handle his sexual problem in the way best suited to him.

When it comes to adults, there is very little to be said. It would seem, for instance, as though homosexuality ran counter to the best tendencies of this age. Why this should be so is not apparent. When Greece was at her height, and that height was great, homosexuality was held in high esteem and practiced, along with normal sexuality, by the most enlightened and developed men. The Greeks practiced bi-sexuality and were a great nation, with production of marvelous ideas and deathless art. Yet today homosexuality runs against the grain.

It may be, of course, that, in the end, no man completes himself, except through woman. The rise of woman has made her all the more man’s counterpart and complement. It is more or less through woman that man is able to develop his true individuality. And it may be that man must honor the symbol of woman, as well as the woman herself, by guiding his desire toward her, and fulfilling himself also physically through her love.

But, however true this may be, there is a certain percentage of men, relatively small, who seem more like the victims, than the willing practicers, of homosexuality. The overwhelming prejudice against them, the fact that they are mocked or shunned like pariahs, the sense they have that they cannot escape their doom, the often effeminate traits which give them away, make them as a rule pitiable objects. It is true that sometimes they turn, as a driven animal turns, and stand at bay, flaunting their difference in the face of the world; but as a rule it is the opposite.

Certainly, at least, such cases are for the psycho-analyst’s study, rather than for the world’s contempt. There are cases which, as I have noted, can be cured; since they are psychological in origin; but there are other cases which still defy our insight.

But however reprehensible any given practice may be, when it comes to adults there is very little legislation that can be done. They can, and will, and do follow individual paths. One can only enlighten them on the meaning of their acts. It is only in such excessive cases as that of the seducer of young girls or the sadist who harms others that the State can step in and put a stop to it.

Another aspect of the problem which must be included in this review is that of prostitution and sexual disease. Is prostitution an evil, or will its abolishment lead to more promiscuity? That, too, is a difficult question, and by no means answerable in a simple way. It does, however, seem apparent that prostitution is an evil, and that its gradual elimination is leading to a greater promiscuity.

The obvious evil of prostitution is that, as a rule, it brings sexuality down to its animal basis, and thus destroys one of the beauties and joys of life. Its further evil is that it turns women again into chattels. And finally, of course, it is a breeding ground for disease.

Naturally, a part of the education in sexuality should include a knowledge of the diseases of sex. This, in itself, especially among the young, tends to curb the impulse toward promiscuity, or at least to limit it to “petting” rather than to full sexuality.

Nevertheless, we must admit the fact that there is a growing promiscuity, along with a change of attitude on the whole sexual problem. Whether this is a passing phase, and due to the revolt of youth against the old puritanism, or whether the future will look upon sexuality with new eyes, we cannot really know. However, those who fear that the institution of marriage will soon totter on its foundation have not, I think, a very deep insight into man. Human nature has much in it of restlessness, of desire for change, and for experiment, but as a rule it has more on the side of inertia, with a deep craving for security and comfort. Everything in man that loves to settle down and be secure makes also for monogamous marriage. That, for most people, is the only safe center in the world, the cave or retreat, the cavern of comfort. Beside that, of course, so long as children are born into the world, just so long will the run of people find much of the meaning of life in their children’s growth and success. This is the powerful force that keeps parents together, even where their tastes and their very natures are incompatible.

LOVE

The love of man for woman and woman for man, It is not often love....

When the married couple kiss do they drink the music of each other’s souls, Are they moved to unspeakable reverence and adoration, Would they renounce the world for the good of the beloved?

No, kisses are become to them a routine and a duty: They find each other’s bodies at midnight as they find breakfast in the morning: And they fill the idle hours with games, shows, rides and liquor, All to escape from one another....

I have thoughts of a love that might be: Of a love that is the tender caress of forehead and cheeks with barely lingering hands: Of a love that opens the skies at midnight for silent flight, Flight far, with wings, in one another’s arms....

These lovers shall mean as much to each other as they mean to themselves: Their tenderness shall melt down irritations: Their passion shall surcharge tasks with meaning....

Not alone shall the man find God in himself, But in the beloved shall he find him, and in the sight of the beloved shall he adore him....

--_Songs for the New Age._

That still remains the ideal. To the couple who have found such meaning in each other, sexuality, as Havelock Ellis shows, becomes the art of love, and the union is one of joy and mystery, revealing the greatness of life.