{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_40209/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_40209","id":"gutenberg_40209","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/40209","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Gender & Sexuality Studies","Category: Parenthood & Family Relations","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Marriage"],"text":"Produced by David Widger\n\n\n\n\n\nMARRIAGE\n\nIN FREE SOCIETY:\n\nBy Edward Carpenter\n\n1894\n\n\n\n\nMARRIAGE\n\n\n\n\nI.\n\nOF the great mystery of human Love, and that most intimate personal\nrelation of two souls to each other--perhaps the firmest, most basic\nand indissoluble fact (after our own existence) that we know; of\nthat strange sense--often, perhaps generally, instantaneous--of long\nprecedent familiarity and kinship, that deep reliance on and acceptation\nof another in his or her entirety; of the tremendous strength of the\nchain which thus at times will bind two hearts in lifelong dedication\nand devotion, persuading and indeed not seldom compelling the persons\nconcerned to the sacrifice of some of the other elements of their lives\nand characters; and, withal, of a certain inscrutable veiledness from\neach other which so frequently accompanies the relation of the\nopposite sexes, and which forms at once the abiding charm, and the\npain--sometimes the tragedy--of their union; of this palpitating winged\nliving thing, which one may perhaps call the real Marriage--I would say\nbut little; for indeed it is only fitting or possible to speak of it by\nindirect language and suggestion, nor may one venture to rudely drag it\nfrom its sanctuary into the light of the common gaze.\n\nCompared with this, the actual marriage, in its squalid perversity as\nwe too often have occasion of knowing it, is as the wretched idol of the\nsavage to the reality which it is supposed to represent; and one seems\nto hear the Aristophanic laughter of the gods as they contemplate man's\nlittle clay image of the Heavenly Love--which, cracked in the fire of\ndaily life, he is fain to bind together with rusty hoops of law, and\nparchment bands, lest it should crumble and fall to pieces altogether.\n\nThe whole subject, wide as life itself--as Heaven and Hell--eludes\nanything like adequate treatment, and we need make no apology for\nnarrowing down our considerations here to just a few practical\npoints; and if we cannot navigate upward into the very heart of the\nmatter--namely, into the causes which make some people love each other\nwith a true and perfect love, and others unite in obedience to but a\ncounterfeit passion--yet we may fairly, I imagine, and with profit,\nstudy some of the conditions which give to actual marriage its present\nform, or which in the future are likely to provide real affection with a\nmore satisfactory expression than it has as a rule to-day.\n\nYet the subject, even so limited, is one on which it is extremely\ndifficult to get a calm audience. Marriage customs (however much they\nmay differ from race to race) are at any one time and among any one folk\nremarkably tenacious, being sanctioned by almost a violence of public\nopinion; and as in the case of theology or politics, their mere\ndiscussion is liable to infuriate people--perhaps from the very fact\nthat the subject is so complex and so deeply rooted in personal feeling.\nNevertheless--since alterations have to take place in these as in other\ncustoms, and since, as many things indicate, we are moving towards a\ndistinct period of change in matters matrimonial--it would seem that the\nmore rationally we can survey these questions beforehand, the better.\n\nIt will probably be felt that certain present difficulties in the\nmarriage-relation are not merely casual or local, but are deeply\nintertwined with a long series of historical causes, which have led up\nto that exaggerated differentiation, and consequent misunderstanding,\nbetween the sexes, of which we have spoken in a former paper.* Behind\nthe relation of any individual man and woman to each other stands the\nhistorical age-evolved relation of the two sexes generally, spreading\nround and enclosing the former on all sides, and creating the social\nenvironment from which the individuals can hardly escape. Two young\npeople in the present day may come together, but their relation is\nalready largely determined by causes over which they have no control.\n\n     * Woman: Labour Press Society, Manchester.\n\nAs a rule they know but little of each other; society has kept the two\nsexes apart; the boy and the girl have been brought up along different\nlines; they hardly understand each other's nature; their mental\ninterests and occupations are different; and as they grow up their\nworldly interests and advantage are seen to be different, often opposed;\npublic opinion separates their spheres and their rights and their\nduties, and their honor and their dishonor* very sharply from each\nother. The subject of sex is a sealed book to the girl; to the youth\nit is possibly a book whose most dismal page has been opened first; in\neither case with its very mention is probably connected a painful and\nirrational sense of wickedness.\n\nIn this state of confusion of mind, of mutual misunderstanding, and\noften of suffering, the Sex-glamor suddenly descends upon the two\nindividuals and drives them into each other's arms. It envelopes in a\ngracious and misty halo all their differences and misapprehensions. They\nmarry without misgiving; and their hearts overflow with gratitude to\nthe white-surpliced old gentleman who reads the service over them. It is\nonly at a later hour, and with calmer thought, that they realise that\nit is a life-sentence which he has so suavely passed upon them--not\nreducible (as in the case of ordinary convicts) even to a term of 20\nyears.\n\n     * See Webster's Dictionary, which gives as one of the\n     meanings of Honor, \"any particular virtue much valued, as\n     bravery in men and chastity in females.\"\n\nThe married life, in so strange and casual a way begun, or drifted\ninto, is hardly, one might think, likely to turn out well. Sometimes, of\ncourse, it does; but in many cases, perhaps the majority, there follows\na painful awakening. A brief burst of satisfaction, accompanied,\nprobably through sheer ignorance, by gross neglect of the law of\ntransmutation; satiety on the physical plane, followed by vacuity of\naffection on the higher planes, and that succeeded by boredom, and even\nnausea; the girl, full perhaps of a tender emotion, and missing the\nsympathy and consolation she expected in the man's love, only to find\nits more materialistic side--\"This, this then is what I am wanted for.\"\nThe man, who looked for a companion, finding he can rouse no\nmortal interest in his wife's mind save in the most exasperating\ntrivialities;--whatever the cause may be, a veil has fallen from\nbefore their faces, and there they sit, held together now by the least\nhonorable interests, the interests which they themselves can least\nrespect, but to which Law and Religion lend all their weight. The\nmonetary dependence of the woman, the mere sex-needs of the man, the\nfear of public opinion, all form motives, and motives of the meanest\nkind, for maintaining the seeming tie; and the relation of the two\nhardens down into a dull neutrality, in which lives and characters are\nnarrowed and blunted, and deceit becomes the common weapon which guards\ndivided interests.\n\nA sad picture! and of course in this case a portrayal deliberately of\nthe seamy side of the matter. But who shall make light of the agonies\noften gone through in those first few years of married life?\n\nIt may be said--and often of course is said--that such cases as these\nonly prove that marriage was entered into under the influence of a\npassing glamor and delusion, and that there was not much real devotion\nto begin with. And no doubt there is truth enough in such remarks.\nBut--we may say in reply--because two young people make a mistake in\nyouth, to condemn them, for that reason, to lifelong suffering and\nmutual degradation, or to see them so condemned, without proposing any\nhope or way of deliverance, but with the one word \"serves you right\" on\nthe lips, is a course which can commend itself only to the grimmest and\ndullest Calvinist. Whatever safe-guards against a too frivolous view\nof the relationship may be proposed by the good sense of society in\nthe future, it is certain that the time has gone past when Marriage\ncan continue to be regarded as a supernatural institution to whose\nmaintenance human bodies and souls must be indiscriminately sacrificed;\na humaner, wiser, and less panic-stricken treatment of the subject must\nset in; and if there are difficulties in the way they must be met by\npatient and calm consideration of human welfare--superior to any law,\nhowever ancient and respectable.\n\nI take it then that, without disguising the fact that the question is\na complex one, and that our conclusions may be only very tentative, we\nhave to consider as rationally as we conveniently can, first, some of\nthe drawbacks or defects of the present marriage-customs, and secondly\nsuch improvements in these as may suggest themselves to us, and as may\nseem feasible.\n\nAnd if we turn to the question of how things stand in the present day,\none of the first points to strike us--and one that we have already\ntouched on in another paper*--is the serious want of any special\nteaching to young folk on matters of love and sex, and the\nresponsibility resting on parents and teachers to supply this want. That\none ought to distinguish a passing sex-spell from a true comradeship and\ndevotion is no doubt a wise remark, but that it is often difficult, even\nfor adults, to do so makes it all the more necessary that young people\nshould have some rational ideas on the subject, and above all that they\nshould get some understanding of the nature of that true love which\nalone can make marriage a success. The search for a fitting mate,\nespecially among the more sensitive and highly-organised types of\nmankind, is a most complex affair. And it is indeed hard that the\nyoung man or woman should have to set out--as they mostly have to do\nto-day--on this difficult quest without a word of suggestion or help,\nas to the choice of the way or the very real perplexites and doubts that\nbeset it.\n\n     *Sex-Love, and its place in a Free Society. Labour Press,\n     Manchester.\n\nThen, besides this more general teaching, it is also highly necessary\nthat those in question should have some knowledge of the use and\nguardianship of their own sex-functions. If the youth and girl whom we\nhave supposed as about to be married had been brought up in almost any\ntribe of savages, they would a few years previously have gone through\nregular offices of initiation into manhood and womanhood, during which\ntime ceremonies (possibly indecent in our eyes) would at any rate have\nmade many misapprehensions impossible. As it is, the civilised girl is\nled to the 'altar;' often in uttermost ignorance and misunderstanding\nas to the nature of the sacrificial rites about to be consummated. The\nyouth too (does it not seem strange?) has never been taught how to use\nthe female in this most important moment of their joint lives. Perhaps\nhe is unaware that love in the female is, in a sense, more diffused than\nin the male, less specially sexual; that it dwells longer in caresses\nand embraces, and determines itself more slowly towards the reproductive\nsystem. Impatient, he injures and horrifies his partner, and\nunconsciously perhaps aggravates the very hysterical tendency which\nmarriage might and should have allayed.*\n\nAmong the middle and well-to-do classes especially, the conditions of\nhigh civilisation, by inducing an overfed masculinity in the males and\na nervous and hysterical tendency in the females,** increase the\ndifficulties mentioned; and it is among the 'classes' too that public\nopinion, largely by repressing the utterance and ignoring the existence\nof sex-feeling, has created the special evils of sex-starvation and\nsex-ignorance on the one hand, and of mere licentiousness on the other.\n\n     * It must be remembered too that to many women (though of\n     course by no means a majority) the thought of Sex brings\n     little sense of pleasure, and the fulfilment of its duties\n     constitutes a real, even though a willing, sacrifice.\n\n     ** Thus Bebel in his book on Woman speaks of \"the idle and\n     luxuriant life of so many women in the upper classes, the\n     nervous stimulant afforded by exquisite perfumes, the over-\n     dosing with poetry, music, the stage--which is regarded as\n     the chief means of education, and is the chief occupation,\n     of a sex already suffering from hypertrophy of nerves and\n     sensibility.\"\n\nAmong the comparatively uncivilised mass of the people, where a good\ndeal of familiarity between the sexes exists before marriage, and\nwhere indeed marriage not unfrequently follows on sex-connection, these\nspecial evils are not so prominent. But among the masses the crying need\nfor some sensible and coherent teaching for the young is only too\nclear; and it is perhaps among the masses that the neglect of the law of\ntransmutation works to more evil results than among the classes; since\namong the former--sex-intercourse being comparatively accessible,\nand obstacles to marriage (from monetary and other considerations)\ncomparatively infrequent--the feeling is liable to flow far too much\nalong the mere physical channels; and the romance and sweet comradeship\nof love, especially after marriage, comes too often to be replaced by an\ninert and indeed rather brutish sentiment of simple juxtaposition.\n\nSo far with regard to difficulties arising from personal ignorance or\ninexperience in youth. But stretching beyond and around all these are\nthose other difficulties which are due to the marked special relation of\nthe woman to the man in civilised society generally, and of the man to\nthe woman; and which arise from deep-lying historic and economic causes.\nInto the large subject of these causes it is not necessary to enter\nhere. Suffice it to say that the difference in physical strength\nbetween the sexes, together with woman's disability during the period of\nchild-birth and rearing, gave man from early times an advantage, which\ncomplicating itself during the historical period has ultimated (though\nnot of course in the present day only) in what may be called the slavery\nof woman, her subordination to man, and dependence on him for the means\nof subsistence; the result being that, till a comparatively few years\nago, the woman was condemned to the most special and indeed narrow\nsphere of life and action; her education, as for this sphere, was most\nlimited, and quite different from that of the man; and her interests\nwere wholly diverse from and often quite opposed to his. Under these\ncircumstances there was naturally little common ground for Marriage,\n_except_ sex. And the same remains largely true even down to to-day. The\nsex-needs once satisfied, and the emotional charm weakened or undone,\nman and wife not unfrequently wake up with something like dismay to find\nhow little they have left in common; to find that they have nothing in\nwhich they can take interest together; that they cannot work at the same\nthings, that they cannot read the same books, that they cannot keep up\nhalf-an-hour's conversation together on any topic, and that secretly\nthey are cherishing their own thoughts and projects quite apart from\neach other.\n\nIt must suffice too to remind the reader quite briefly that this\ndivergence has crept deep down into the moral and intellectual natures\nof the two sexes, exaggerating the naturally complementary relation of\nthe male and female into a painful caricature of strength on the one\nhand and dependence on the other. This is well seen in the ordinary\nmarriage-relation of the common-prayer-book type. The frail and delicate\nfemale is supposed to cling round the sturdy husband's form, or to\ndepend from his arm in graceful incapacity; and the spectator is called\nupon to admire the charming effect of the union--as of the ivy with the\noak--forgetful of the terrible moral, namely, that (in the case of the\ntrees at any rate) it is really a death-struggle which is going on,\nin which either the oak must perish suffocated in the embraces of its\npartner, or in order to free the former into anything like healthy\ndevelopment the ivy must be sacrificed.\n\nToo often of course of such marriages the egoism, lordship and physical\nsatisfaction of the man are the chief motive causes. The woman is\npractically sacrificed to the part of the maintenance of these male\nvirtues. It is for her to spend her days in little forgotten details\nof labor and anxiety for the sake of the man's superior comfort and\nimportance, to give up her needs to his whims, to 'humour' him in all\nways she can; it is for her to wipe her mind clear of all opinions in\norder that she may hold it up as a kind of mirror in which he may behold\nreflected his lordly self; and it is for her to sacrifice even her\nphysical health and natural instincts in deference to what is called her\n'duty' to her husband.\n\nHow bitterly _alone_ many such a woman feels! She has dreamed of being\nfolded in the arms of a strong man, and surrendering herself, her life,\nher mind, her all, to his service. Of course it is an unhealthy dream,\nan illusion, a mere luxury of love; and it is destined to be dashed.\nShe has to learn that self-surrender may be just as great a crime as\nself-assertion. She finds that her very willingness to be sacrificed\nonly fosters in the man, perhaps for his own self-defence, the egotism\nand coldness that so cruelly wound her.\n\nFor how often does he with keen prevision see that if he gives way from\nhis coldness the clinging dependent creature will infallibly overgrow\nand smother him!--that she will cut her woman-friends, will throw aside\nall her own interests and pursuits in order to 'devote' herself to him,\nand, affording no sturdy character of her own in which _he_ can take any\ninterest, will hang the festoons of her affection on every ramification\nof his wretched life--nor leave him a corner free--till he perishes\nfrom all manhood and social or heroic uses into a mere matrimonial\nclothespeg, a warning and a wonderment to passers by!\n\nHowever, as a third alternative, it sometimes happens that the Woman,\ntoo wise to sacrifice her own life indiscriminately to the egoism of\nher husband, and not caring for the 'festoon' method, adopts the middle\ncourse of _appearing_ to minister to him while really pursuing her\nown purposes. She cultivates the gentle science of indirectness. While\nholding up a mirror for the Man to admire himself in, _behind that\nmirror_ she goes her own way and carries out her own designs, separate\nfrom him; and while sacrificing her body to his wants, she does so quite\ndeliberately and for a definite reason, namely, because she has found\nout that she can so get a shelter for herself and her children, and can\nsolve the problem of that maintenance which society has hitherto denied\nto her in her own right. For indeed by a cruel fate women have\nbeen placed in exactly that position where the sacrifice of their\nself-respect for base motives has easily passed beyond a temptation into\nbeing a necessity. They have had to live, and have too often only been\nable to do so by selling themselves into bondage to the man. Willing or\nunwilling, overworked or dying, they have had to bear children to the\ncaprice of their lords; and in this serf-life their very natures have\nbeen blunted; they have lost--what indeed should be the very glory and\ncrown of woman's being--the perfect freedom and the purity of their\nlove.\n\nAt this whole spectacle of woman's degradation the human male has looked\non with stupid and open-mouthed indifference--as an ox might look on at\na drowning oxherd--not even dimly divining that his own fate was somehow\ninvolved. He has calmly and obliviously watched the woman drift farther\nand farther away from him, till at last, with the loss of an intelligent\nand mutual understanding between the sexes, Love with unequal wings has\nfallen lamed to the ground. Yet it would be idle to deny that even in\nsuch a state of affairs as that depicted, men and women have in the past\nand do often even now find some degree of satisfaction--simply indeed\nbecause their types of character are such as belong to, and have been\nevolved in accordance with, this relation.\n\nTo-day, however, there are thousands of women--and everyday more\nthousands--to whom such a lopsided alliance is detestable; who are\ndetermined that they will no longer endure the arrogant lordship and\negoism of men, nor countenance in themselves or other women the craft\nand servility which are the necessary complements of the relation; who\nsee too clearly in the oak-and-ivy marriage its parasitism on the\none hand and strangulation on the other to be sensible of any\npicturesqueness; who feel too that they have capacities and powers of\ntheir own which need space and liberty, and some degree of sympathy and\nhelp, for their unfolding; and who believe that they have work to do\nin the world, as important in its own way as any that men do in theirs.\nSuch women have broken into open warfare--not against marriage, but\nagainst a marriage which makes true and equal love an impossibility.\nThey feel that as long as women are economically dependent they _cannot_\nstand up for themselves and insist on those rights which men from\nstupidity and selfishness will not voluntarily grant them.\n\nOn the other hand there are thousands--and one would hope every day more\nthousands--of men who (whatever their forerunners may have thought) do\n_not_ desire or think it delightful to have a glass continually held up\nfor them to admire themselves in; who look for a partner in whose life\nand pursuits they can find some interest, rather than for one who has no\ninterest but in them; who think perhaps that they would rather minister\nthan be (like a monkey fed with nuts in a cage) the melancholy object of\nanother person's ministrations; and who at any rate feel that love, in\norder to be love at all, must be absolutely open and sincere, and\nfree from any sentiment of dependence or inequality. They see that the\npresent cramped condition of women is not only the cause of the false\nrelation between the sexes, but that it is the fruitful source--through\nits debarment of any common interests--of that fatal boredom of which we\nhave spoken, and which is the bugbear of marriage; and they would gladly\nsurrender all of that masterhood and authority which is supposed to be\ntheir due, if they could only get in return something like a frank and\nlevel comradeship.\n\nThus while we see in the present inequality of the sexes an undoubted\nsource of marriage troubles and unsatisfactory alliances, we see also\nforces at work which are tending to reaction, and to bringing the two\nnearer again to each other--so that while differentiated they will not\nperhaps in the future be quite so _much_ differentiated as now, but\nonly to a degree which will enhance and adorn, instead of destroy, their\nsense of mutual sympathy.\n\nThere is another point which ought to be considered as contributing\nto the ill-success of many marriages, and which no doubt is closely\nconnected with that just discussed--but which deserves separate\ntreatment. I mean the harshness of the line which social opinion (at any\nrate in this country) draws round the married pair with respect to their\nrelations to outsiders. On the one hand, and within the matrimonial\nrelation, society allows practically the utmost passional excess or\nindulgence, and condones it; on the other hand (I am speaking of the\nmiddling bulk of the people, not of the extreme aristocratic and slum\nclasses) beyond that limit, the slightest familiarity, or any expression\nof affection which might by any possibility be interpreted as deriving\nfrom sexual feeling, is sternly anathematised.\n\nMarriage, by a kind of absurd fiction, is represented as an oasis\nsituated in the midst of an arid desert--in which latter, it is\npretended, neither of the two parties is so fortunate as to find any\nobjects of real affectional interest. If they do they have carefully to\nconceal the same from the other party.\n\nThe result of this convention is obvious enough. The married pair,\nthus _driven_ as well as drawn into closest continual contact with each\nother, are put through an ordeal which might well cause the stoutest\naffection to quail. Not only, as already pointed out, have the man and\nthe wife too few joint interests in the great world, few common plans,\nprojects, purposes, 'causes,' recreations; but--by this insistance of\npublic opinion--all outside interests of a _personal_ nature, except of\nthe most abstract kind, are also debarred; if there happens to be\nany natural jealousy in the case it is heightened and made the more\nimperative; and unless the contracting parties are fortunate enough to\nbe, both of them, of such a temperament that they are capable of strong\nattachments to persons of their own sex--and this does not always\nexclude jealousy--they must be condemned to have no intimate friendships\nof any kind except what they can find at their own fireside.\n\nIt is necessary here to point out, not only how dull a place this makes\nthe home, but also how narrowing it acts on the lives of the married\npair. However appropriate the union may be in itself it cannot be good\nthat it should degenerate--as it tends to degenerate so often, and where\nman and wife are most faithful to each other, into a mere _\u00e9goisme\n\u00e0 deux_. And right enough no doubt as a great number of such unions\nactually are, it must be confessed that the bourgeois marriage as a\nrule, and just in its most successful and pious and respectable form,\ncarries with it an odious sense of Stuffiness and narrowness, moral and\nintellectual; and that the type of Family which it provides is too\noften like that which is disclosed when on turning over a large stone we\ndisturb an insect. Home that seldom sees the light.\n\nBut in cases where the marriage does not happen to be particularly\nsuccessful or unsuccessful, when perhaps a true but not overpoweringly\nintense affection is satiated at a needlessly early stage by the\ncontinual and unrelieved impingement of the two personalities on\neach other, then the boredom resulting is something frightful to\ncontemplate--and all the more so because of the genuine affection behind\nit, which contemplates with horror its own suicide. The weary couples\nthat may be seen at seaside places and pleasure resorts--the respectable\nworking-man with his wife trailing along by his side, or the highly\nrespectable stock-jobber arm-in-arm with his better and larger\nhalf--their blank faces, utter want of any common topic of conversation\nwhich has not been exhausted a thousand times already, and their obvious\nrelief when the hour comes which will take them back to their several\nand divided occupations--these illustrate sufficiently what I mean. The\ncurious thing is that jealousy (accentuated as it is by social opinion)\nsometimes increases in exact proportion to mutual boredom; and there are\nthousands of cases of married couples leading a cat-and-dog life, and\nknowing that they weary each other to distraction, who for that very\nreason dread all the more to lose sight of each other, and thus never\nget a chance of that holiday from their own society, and renewal of\noutside interests, which would make a genuine affectional association\npossible.\n\nThus the sharpness of the line which society draws around the pair, and\nthe kind of fatal snap-of-the-lock with which marriage suddenly cuts\nthem off from the world, not only precluding the two, as might fairly be\nthought advisable, from sexual, but also barring any openly affectional\nrelations with outsiders, and corroborating the selfish sense of\nmonopoly which each has in the other,--these things lead inevitably to\nthe narrowing down of lives and the blunting of general human interests,\nto intense mutual ennui, and when (as an escape from these evils)\noutside relations are covertly indulged in, to prolonged and systematic\ndeceit.\n\nFrom all which the only conclusion seems to be that marriage must be\neither alive or dead. As a dead thing it can of course be petrified into\na hard and fast formula, but if it is to be a living bond, that living\nbond must be trusted to, to hold the lovers together; nor be too\nforcibly stiffened and contracted by private jealousy and public\ncensorship, lest the thing that it would preserve for us perish so,\nand cease altogether to be beautiful. It is the same with this as with\neverything else. If we would have a living thing, we must give that\nthing some degree of liberty--even though liberty bring with it risk. If\nwe would debar all liberty and all risk, then we can have only the mummy\nand dead husk of the thing.\n\nThus far I have had the somewhat invidious task, but perhaps necessary\nas a preliminary one, of dwelling on the defects and drawbacks of the\npresent marriage system. I am sensible that, with due discretion, some\nthings might have been said, which have not been said, in its praise;\nits successful, instead of its unsuccessful, instances might have been\ncited; and taking for granted the dependence of women, and other points\nwhich have already been sufficiently discussed--it might have been\npossible to show that the bourgeois arrangement was on the whole as\nsatisfactory as could be expected. But such a course would neither have\nbeen sincere, nor have served any practical purpose. In view of the\nactually changing relations between the sexes, it is obvious that\nchanges in the form of the marriage institution are impending, and the\nquestions which are really pressing on folks' mind are: What are those\nchanges going to be; and, Of what kind do we wish them to be?\n\nIn answer to the last question it is not improbable that the casual\nreader might suppose the writer of these pages to be in favor of a\ngeneral and indiscriminate loosening of all ties--for indeed it is\nalways easy to draw a large inference even from a careful expression.\n\nBut such a conclusion would be rash. There is little doubt, I think,\nthat the compulsion of the marriage-tie (whether moral, social,\nor merely legal) acts beneficially in a considerable number of\ncases--though it is obvious that the more the compelling force takes a\nmoral or social form and the less purely legal it is, the better;\nand that any changes which led to a cheap and continual transfer of\naffections from one object to another would be disastrous both to the\ncharacter and happiness of a population. While we are bound to see\nthat the marriage-relation--in order to become the indwelling-place of\nLove--must be made far more _free_ than it is at present, we may also\nrecognise that a certain amount of external pressure is not (as things\nare at least) without its uses: that, for instance, it tends on the\nwhole to concentrate affectional experience and romance on one object,\nand that though this may mean a loss at times in breadth it means a gain\nin depth and intensity; that, in many cases, if it were not for some\nkind of bond, the two parties, after their first passion for each other\nwas past, and when the unavoidable period of friction had set in, might\nin a moment of irritation easily fly apart, whereas being forced for\na while to tolerate each other's defects they learn thereby one of the\nbest lessons of life--a tender forbearance and gentleness, which as time\ngoes on does not unfrequently deepen again into a more pure and perfect\nlove even than at first--a love founded indeed on the first physical\nintimacy, but concentrated and intensified by years of linked\nexperience, of twined associations, of shared labors, and of mutual\nforgiveness; and in the third place that the existence of a distinct tie\nor pledge discredits the easily-current idea that mere pleasure-seeking\nis to be the object of the association of the sexes--a phantasmal and\ndelusive notion, which if it once got its head, and the bit between its\nteeth, might soon dash the car of human advance in ruin to the ground.\n\nBut having said thus much, it is obvious that external public opinion\nand pressure are looked upon only as having an _educational_ value;\nand the question arises whether there is beneath this any _reality_ of\nmarriage which will ultimately emerge and make itself felt, enabling men\nand women to order their relations to each other, and to walk freely,\nunhampered by props or pressures from without.\n\nAnd it would hardly be worth while writing on this subject, if one did\nnot believe in some such reality. Practically I do not doubt that the\nmore people think about these matters, and the more experience they\nhave, the more they must ever come to feel that there _is_ such a\nthing as a permanent and life-long union--perhaps a many-life-long\nunion--founded on some deep elements of attachment and congruity in\ncharacter; and the more they must come to prize the constancy and\nloyalty which rivets such unions, in comparison with the fickle passion\nwhich tends to dissipate them.\n\nIn all men who have reached a certain grade of evolution, and certainly\nin almost all women, the deep rousing of the sexual nature carries\nwith it a romance and tender emotional yearning towards the object of\naffection, which lasts on and is not forgotten, even when the sexual\nattraction has ceased to be strongly felt. This, in favorable cases,\nforms the basis of what may almost be called an amalgamated personality.\nThat there should exist one other person in the world towards whom all\nopenness of interchange should establish itself, from whom there should\nbe no concealment; whose body should be as dear to one, in every part,\nas one's own; with whom there should be no sense of Mine or Thine, in\nproperty or possession; into whose mind one's thoughts should naturally\nflow, as it were to know themselves and to receive a new illumination;\nand between whom and oneself there should be a spontaneous rebound of\nsympathy in all the joys and sorrows and experiences of life; such is\nperhaps one of the dearest wishes of the soul. It is obvious however\nthat this state of affairs cannot be reached at a single leap, but must\nbe the gradual result of years of intertwined memory and affection.\nFor such a union Love must lay the foundation, but patience and gentle\nconsideration and self-control must work unremittingly to perfect the\nstructure. At length each lover comes to know the complexion of the\nother's mind, the wants, bodily and mental, the needs, the regrets,\nthe satisfactions of the other, almost as his or her own--and without\nprejudice in favor of self rather than in favor of the other; above\nall, both parties come to know in course of time, and after perhaps some\ndoubts and trials, that the great want, the great need, which holds\nthem together, is not going to fade away into thin air, but is going to\nbecome stronger and more indefeasible as the years go on. There falls a\nsweet, an irresistible, trust over their relation to each other, which\nconsecrates as it were the double life, making both feel that nothing\ncan now divide; and robbing each of all desire to remain, when death has\nindeed (or at least in outer semblance) removed the other.*\n\n     It is curious that the early Church Service had \"Till\n     death us depart\"--but in 1661 this was altered to \"Till\n     death us do part.\"\n\nSo perfect and gracious a union--even if not always realised--is still,\nI say, the _bon\u00e2 fide_ desire of most of those who have ever thought\nabout such matters. It obviously yields far more and more enduring joy\nand satisfaction in life than any number of frivolous relationships.\nIt commends itself to the common sense, so to speak, of the modern\nmind--and does not require, for its proof, the artificial authority of\nChurch and State. At the same time it is equally evident--and a child\ncould understand this--that it requires some rational forbearance and\nself-control for its realisation, and it is quite intelligible too,\nas already said, that there _may_ be cases in which a little outside\npressure, of social opinion, or even actual law, may be helpful for\nthe supplementing or re-inforcement of the weak personal self-control of\nthose concerned.\n\nThe modern Monogamic Marriage however, certified and sanctioned by\nChurch and State, though apparently directed to this ideal, has for the\nmost part fallen short of it. For in constituting--as in a vast number\nof cases--a union resting on _nothing_ but the outside pressure of\nChurch and State, it constituted a thing obviously and by its nature\nbad and degrading; while in its more successful instances by a too\ngreat exclusiveness it has condemned itself to a fatal narrowness and\nstuffiness.\n\nLooking back to the historical and physiological aspects of the question\nit might of course be contended--and probably with some truth--that the\nhuman male is, by his nature and needs, polygamous. Nor is it necessary\nto suppose that polygamy in certain countries and races is by any means\nso degrading or unsuccessful an institution as some folk would have it\nto be.* But, as Letourneau in his \"Evolution of Marriage\" points out,\nthe progress of society in the past has on the whole been from confusion\nto distinction; and we may fairly suppose that with the progress of\nour own race (for each race no doubt has its special genius in such\nmatters), and as the spiritual and emotional sides of man develop in\nrelation to the physical, there is probably a tendency for our deeper\nalliances to become more unitary. Though it might be said that the\ngrowing complexity of man's nature would be likely to lead him into more\nrather than fewer relationships, yet on the other hand it is obvious\nthat as the depth and subtlety of any attachment that will really\nhold him increases, so does such attachment become more permanent and\ndurable, and less likely to be realised in a number of persons.\nWoman, on the other hand, cannot be said to be by her physical nature\npolyandrous as man is polygynous. Though of course there are plenty of\nexamples of women living in a state of polyandry both among savage\nand civilised peoples, yet her more limited sexual needs, and her long\nperiods of gestation, render one mate physically sufficient for her;\nwhile her more clinging affectional nature perhaps accentuates her\ncapacity of absorption in the one.\n\n     * See R. F. Burton's Pilgrimage to El-Medinah and Meccah,\n     ch. xxiv. He says however \"As far as my limited observations\n     go polyandry is the only state of society in which jealousy\n     and quarrels about the sex are the exception and not the\n     rule of life!\"\n\nIn both man and woman then we may say that we find a distinct tendency\ntowards the formation of this double unit of wedded life (I hardly like\nto use the word Monogamy on account of its sad associations)--and\nwhile we do not want to stamp such natural unions with any false\nirrevocability or dogmatic exclusiveness, what we do want is a\nrecognition to-day of the tendency to their formation as a natural\n_fact_, independent of any artificial laws, just as one might believe in\nthe natural bias of two atoms of certain different chemical substances\nto form a permanent compound atom or molecule. Such unions as that\ndepicted a page or two back, built up by patient and loving care over a\nlong stretch of years, and becoming at last in a sense impregnable,\ndo, we maintain, by their actual growth and evolution exemplify this\ntendency.\n\nIt might not be so very difficult to get quite young people to\nunderstand this--to understand that even though they might have to\ncontend with some superfluity of passion in early years, yet that the\nmost permanent and most deeply-rooted desire within them will in all\nprobability lead them at last to find their complete happiness and\nself-fulfilment only in a close union with a life-mate; and that towards\nthis end they must be prepared to use self-control to prevent the\naimless straying of their passions, and patience and tenderness towards\nthe realisation of the union when its time comes. Probably most youths\nand girls, at the age of romance, would easily appreciate this position;\nand it would bring to them a much more effective and natural idea of the\nsacredness of Marriage than they ever get from the artificial thunder of\nthe Church and the State on the subject.\n\nNo doubt the suggestion of the mere possibility of any added freedom\nof choice and experience in the relations of the sexes will be very\nalarming to some people--but it is so, I think, not because they are at\nall ignorant that men already take to themselves considerable latitude,\nand that a distinct part of the undoubted evils that accompany that\nlatitude springs from the fact that it is not recognised; not because\nthey are ignorant that a vast number of respectable women and girls\nsuffer frightful calamities and anguish by reason of the utter\n_inexperience_ of sex in which they are brought up and have to live;\nbut because such good people assume that any the least loosening of the\nformal barriers between the sexes must mean (and must be meant to mean)\nan utter dissolution of all ties, and the reign of mere licentiousness.\nThey are convinced that nothing but the most unyielding and indeed\nexasperating straight-jacket can save society from madness and ruin.\n\nTo such folk the appearance of our child--the real Marriage--now\npresented for their consideration (not without some care it must be\nadmitted, as to the smoothing of its hair and pinafore, and the trimming\nof its naughty little nails) will be strangely disquieting. Accustomed\nto look on human nature as essentially bad, and on Law and Convention as\nthe _only_ things that restrain it from wild excess, it will be hard for\nthem to believe that there is any formative principle of decent life\nin the apparition before them. We are however prepared to contend that,\nappearances or prejudices notwithstanding there is a heart of goodness\nin the young thing; and that, anyhow, whatever we may think or wish, it\nis here already and among us, and that practically what we have to do is\nto consider how it can best be made to grow up into a useful member of\nsociety.\n\nIn fact, and to leave metaphor; when after quietly looking all round the\nsubject we have satisfied ourselves that the formation of a mere or\nless permanent double unit is--for our race and time--on the whole\nthe natural and ascendant law of sex-union, slowly and with whatever\nexceptions establishing and enforcing itself independently of any\nartificial enactments that exist, then we shall not feel called upon to\ntear our hair or rend our garments at the prospect of added freedom for\nthe operation of this force, but shall rather be anxious to consider how\nit may best _be_ freed and given room for development and growth to its\nmost perfect use in the social order. And it will probably seem to us\n(looking back to the earlier part of this paper) that the points which\nmost need consideration, as means to this end, are (1) the furtherance\nof the freedom and self-dependence of women; (2) the provision of some\nrational teaching, of heart and of head, for both sexes during the\nperiod of youth; (3) the recognition in marriage itself of a freer,\nmore companionable, and less pettily exclusive relationship; and (4) the\nabrogation or modification of the present odious law which binds people\ntogether for _life_, without scruple, and in the most artificial and\nill-assorted unions.\n\nIt must be admitted that the first point (1) is of basic importance.\nAs true Freedom cannot be without Love, so true Love cannot be without\nFreedom. You cannot truly give yourself to another, unless you are\nmaster or mistress of yourself to begin with. Not only has the general\n_custom_ of the self-dependence and self-ownership of women to be\ngradually introduced, but the Law has to be altered in a variety of\ncases where it lags behind the public conscience in these matters--as in\nactual marriage, where it still leaves woman uncertain as to her rights\nover her own body, or in politics, where it still denies to her a voice\nin the framing of the laws which are to bind her. And beyond this, since\nin the modern industrial-commercial State all Freedom has to be largely\nbased on industrial and monetary freedom, it is obviously of paramount\nnecessity that woman should have liberal access to professional spheres\nand the means of securing her own independent monetary position through\nordinary industrial channels. Whatever the future may bring about in\nthe way of a changed social order and a consequently changed basis for\nwoman's independence, it is clear that as things are now, and for a long\ntime yet, her real freedom can only be secured through her command, even\nin the face of man, of the ordinary resources of the wage-earner.\n\nWith regard to (2) hardly any one at this time of day would seriously\ndoubt the desirability of giving adequate teaching to boys and girls.\nThat is a point on which we have sufficiently touched, and which need\nnot be farther discussed here. But beyond this it is important, and\nespecially perhaps, as things stand now, for girls--that each youth or\ngirl should personally see enough of the other sex at an early period to\nbe able to form some kind of judgment of his or her relation to that\nsex and to sex-matters generally. It is monstrous that the first case\nof sex-glamor--the true nature of which would be exposed by a little\nexperience--should, perhaps for two people, decide the destinies of a\nlife-time. Yet the more the sexes are kept apart, the more overwhelming\ndoes this glamor become, and the more ignorance is there, on either\nside, as to its nature. No doubt it is one of the great advantages\nof co-education of the sexes, that it tends to diminish these evils.\nCo-education, games and sports to some extent in common, and the doing\naway with the absurd superstition that because Corydon and Phyllis\nhappen to kiss each other sitting on a gate, therefore they must live\ntogether all their lives, would soon mend matters considerably. Nor\nwould a reasonable familiarity between the sexes in youth--tempered, as\nit would be, by previous education and by the subsidence of the\nblind passion--necessarily mean an increase of casual or clandestine\nsex-relations. But even if casualties of this kind did occur they\nwould not be the fatal and unpardonable sins that they now at least for\ngirls--are considered to be. Though the recognition of anything like\ncommon pre-matrimonial sex-intercourse would probably be foreign to the\ntemper of a northern nation; yet it is open to question whether Society\nhere, in its mortal and fetichistic dread of the thing, has not, by\nkeeping the young of both sexes in ignorance and darkness and seclusion\nfrom each other, created worse ills and suffering than it has prevented,\nand whether it has not indeed intensified the particular evil that it\ndreaded, rather than abated it.\n\nIn the next place (3) we come to the establishment in marriage itself of\na freer and broader and more healthy relationship than generally exists\nat the present time. Attractive as the ideal of the exclusive attachment\nis, it runs the fatal risk, as we have already pointed out, of lapsing\ninto a mere stagnant double selfishness. But, in this world, Love is fed\nnot by what it takes, but by what it gives; and the very excellent dual\nlove of man and wife must be fed also by the love they give to others.\nIf they cannot come out of their secluded haven to reach a hand to\nothers, or even to give some boon of affection to those who need it\nmore than themselves, or if they mistrust each other in doing so, then\nassuredly they are not very well fitted to live together.\n\nA marriage, so free, so spontaneous, that it would allow of wide\nexcursions of the pair from each other, in common or even in separate\nobjects of work and interest, and yet would hold them all the time in\nthe bond of absolute sympathy, would by its very freedom be all the more\npoignantly attractive, and by its very scope and breadth all the richer\nand more vital--would be in a sense indestructible; like the relation of\ntwo suns which, revolving in fluent and rebounding curves, only recede\nfrom each other in order to return again with renewed swiftness into\nclose proximity--and which together blend their rays into the glory of\none cosmic double star.\n\nIt has been the inability to see or understand this very simple truth\nthat has largely contributed to the failure of the Monogamie union. The\nnarrow physical passion of jealousy, the petty sense of private property\nin another person, social opinion, and legal enactments, have all\nconverged to choke and suffocate wedded love in egoism, lust, and\nmeanness. But surely it is not very difficult (for those who believe in\nthe real thing) to imagine so sincere and natural a trust between man\nand wife that neither would be greatly alarmed at the other's\nfriendship with a third person, nor conclude at once that it meant mere\ninfidelity--or difficult even to imagine that such a friendship might be\nhailed as a gain by both parties. And if it is quite impossible (to\nsome people) to see in such intimacies anything but a confusion of all\nsex-relations and a chaos of mere animal desire, we can only reply that\nthis view of the situation is probably one that arises greatly out\nof the present marriage system, and the modes of thought which it\nengenders--and that anyhow the difficulty to which it refers is likely\nto be guarded against better by candor and a little common sense than by\nhysterics and deception. In order to suppose a rational marriage at all\none must credit the parties concerned with some modicum of common sense\nand self-control.\n\nWithal, seeing the remarkable and immense _variety_ of love in human\nnature, when the feeling is really touched--how the love-offering of\none person's soul and body is entirely different from that of another\nperson's, so much so as almost to require another name--how one passion\nis predominantly physical, and another predominantly emotional, and\nanother contemplative, or spiritual, or practical, or sentimental; how\nin one case it is jealous and exclusive, and in another hospitable and\nfree, and so forth--it seems rash to lay down any very hard and fast\ngeneral laws for the marriage-relation, or to insist that a real and\nhonorable affection can only exist under this or that special form. It\nis probably through this fact of the variety of love that it does remain\npossible, in some cases, for married people to have intimacies with\noutsiders, and yet to remain perfectly true to each other; and in\nrare instances, for triune and other such relations to be permanently\nmaintained.\n\nWe now come to the last consideration, namely (4) the modification of\nthe present law of marriage. It is pretty clear that people will not\nmuch longer consent to pledge themselves irrevocably for life as at\npresent. And indeed there are already plentiful indications of a growing\nchange of practice. The more people come to recognise the sacredness\nand naturalness of the real union, the less will they be willing to\nbar themselves from this by a life-long and artificial contract made in\ntheir salad days. Hitherto the great bulwark of the existing institution\nhas been the dependence of Women, which has given each woman a direct\nand most material interest in keeping up the supposed sanctity of the\nbond--and which has prevented a man of any generosity from proposing\nan alteration which would have the appearance of freeing himself at the\ncost of the woman; but as this fact of the dependence of women gradually\ndissolves out, and as the great fact of the spiritual nature of the true\nMarriage crystalises into more clearness--so will the formal bonds which\nbar the formation of the latter gradually break away and become of small\nimport.\n\nLove when felt at all deeply has an element of transcendentalism in\nit, which makes it the most natural thing in the world for the two\nlovers--even though drawn together by a passing sex-attraction--to swear\neternal troth to each other; but there is something quite diabolical and\nmephistophelean in the practice of the Law, which creeping up behind, as\nit were, at this critical moment, and overhearing the two thus pledging\nthemselves, claps its book together with a triumphant bang, and\nexclaims: \"There now you are married and done for, for the rest of your\nnatural lives.\"\n\nWhat actual changes in Law and Custom the collective sense of society\nwill bring about is a matter which in its detail we cannot of course\nforesee or determine. But that the drift will be, and must be, towards\ngreater freedom is pretty clear. Ideally speaking it is plain that\nanything like a perfect union must have perfect freedom for its\ncondition; and while it is quite supposable that a lover might out of\nthe fulness of his heart make promises and give pledges, it is really\nalmost inconceivable that anyone having that delicate and proud sense\nwhich marks deep feeling, could possibly _demand_ a promise from his\nloved one. As there is undoubtedly a certain natural reticence in\nsex, so perhaps the most decent thing in true Marriage would be to say\nnothing, make no promises--either for a year or a lifetime. Promises\nare bad at any time, and when the heart is full silence befits it best.\nPractically, however, since a love of this kind is slow to be realised,\nsince social custom is slow to change, and since the partial dependence\nand slavery of Woman must yet for a while continue, it is likely for\nsuch period that formal contracts of some kind will still be made; only\nthese (it may be hoped) will lose their irrevocable and rigid character,\nand become in some degree adapted to the needs of the contracting\nparties.\n\nSuch contracts might of course, if adopted, be very very various in\nrespect to conjugal rights, conditions of termination, division of\nproperty, responsibility for and rights over children, etc. In some\ncases* they might be looked upon as preliminary to a more permanent\nalliance to be made later on; in others they would provide for\ndisastrous marriages, a remedy free from the inordinate scandals of the\npresent Divorce Courts. It may however be said that rather than adopt\nany new system of contracts, public opinion in this country would tend\nto a simple facilitation of Divorce, and that if the latter were made\n(with due provision for the children) to depend on mutual consent,\nit would become little more than an affair of registration, and the\nscandals of the proceeding would be avoided. In any case we think that\nmarriage-contracts, if existing at all, must tend more and more to\nbecome matters of private arrangement as far as the relations of husband\nand wife are concerned, and that this is likely to happen in proportion\nas woman becomes more free, and therefore more competent to act in her\nown right. It would be felt intolerable, in any decently constituted\nsociety, that the old blunderbuss of the Law should interfere in the\ndelicate relations of wedded life. As it is to-day the situation is\nmost absurd. On the one hand, having been constituted from times back in\nfavor of the male, the Law still gives to the husband barbarous rights\nover the person of his spouse; on the other hand, to compensate for\nthis, it rushes in with the farcicalities of Breach of Promise; and in\nany case, having once pronounced its benediction over a pair--however\nhateful the alliance may turn out to be to both parties, and however\nobvious its failure to the whole world--the stupid old thing blinks\nowlishly on at its own work, and professes itself totally unable to undo\nthe knot which once it tied!\n\n     * As suggested by Mrs. H. Ellis in her pamphlet A Noviciate\n     for Marriage.\n\nThe only point where there is a permanent ground for\nState-interference--and where indeed there is no doubt that the public\nauthority should in some way make itself felt--is in the matter of the\nchildren resulting from any alliance. Here the relation of the pair\nceases to be private and becomes social; and the interests of the child\nitself, and of the nation whose future citizen the child is, have to be\nsafe-guarded. Any contracts, or any proposals of divorce, before they\ncould be sanctioned by the public authority, would have to contain\nsatisfactory provisions for the care and maintenance of the children\nin such casualties as might ensue; nor ought there to be maintained any\nlegal distinction between 'natural' and 'legitimate' children, since\nit is clear that whatever individuals or society at large may, in the\nformer case, think of the conduct of the parents, no disability\nshould on that account accrue to the child, nor should the parents (if\nidentifiable) be able to escape their full responsibility for bringing\nit into the world.\n\nIf it be objected that such private contracts, or such facilitations of\nDivorce, as here spoken of, would simply lead to frivolous experimental\nrelationships entered into and broken-off _ad infinitum_, it must be\nremembered that the responsibility for due rearing and maintenance of\nchildren must give serious pause to such a career; and that to suppose\nthat any great mass of the people would find their good in a kind of\nmatrimonial game of General Post is to suppose that the mass of the\npeople have really never acquired or been taught the rudiments of common\nsense in such matters--is to suppose a case for which there would hardly\nbe a parallel in the customs of any nation or tribe that we know of.\n\nIn conclusion, it is evident that no very great change for the better\nin marriage-relations can take place except as the accompaniment of\ndeep-lying changes in Society at large; and that alterations in the\nLaw alone will effect but a limited improvement. Indeed it is not very\nlikely, as long as the present commercial order of society lasts,\nthat the existing Marriage-laws--founded as they are on the idea of\nproperty--will be very radically altered, though they may be to some\nextent. More likely is it that, underneath the law, the common practice\nwill slide forward into newer customs. With the rise of the new society,\nwhich is already outlining itself within the structure of the old, many\nof the difficulties and bugbears, that at present seem to stand in the\nway of a more healthy relation between the sexes, will of themselves\ndisappear.\n\nIt must be acknowledged, however, that though a gradual broadening out\nand humanising of Law and Custom are quite necessary, it cannot fairly\nbe charged against these ancient tyrants that they are responsible for\nall the troubles connected with sex. There are millions of people to-day\nwho never could marry happily--however favorable the conditions might\nbe--simply because their natures do not contain in sufficient strength\nthe elements of loving surrender to another; and, as long as the human\nheart is what it is, there will be natural tragedies arising from the\nwillingness or unwillingness of one person to release another when the\nformer finds that his or her love is not returned.* While it is quite\nnecessary that these natural tragedies should not be complicated\nand multiplied by needless legal interference--complicated into\nthe numberless artificial tragedies which are so exasperating when\nrepresented on the stage or in romance, and so saddening when witnessed\nin real life--still we may acknowledge that, short of the millennium,\nthey will always be with us, and that no institution of marriage\nalone, or absence of institution, will rid us of them. That entire and\nunswerving refusal to 'cage' another person, or to accept an affection\nnot perfectly free and spontaneous, which will, we are fain to think, be\nalways more and more the mark of human love, must inevitably bring its\nown price of mortal suffering with it; yet the Love so gained, whether\nin the individual or in society, will be found in the end to be worth\nthe pang--and as far beyond the other love, as is the wild bird of\nParadise that comes to feed out of our hands unbidden more lovely\nthan the prisoner we shut with draggled wings behind the bars. Love is\ndoubtless the last and most difficult lesson that humanity has to learn;\nin a sense it underlies all the others. Perhaps the time has come for\nthe modern nations when, ceasing to be children, they may even try to\nlearn it.\n\n     * Perhaps one of the most sombre and inscrutable of these\n     natural tragedies lies, for Woman, in the fact that the man\n     to whom she first surrenders her body often acquires for her\n     (whatever his character may be) so profound and inalienable\n     a claim upon her heart. While, either for man or woman, it\n     is almost impossible to thoroughly understand their own\n     nature, or that of others, till they have had sex-\n     experience, it happens so that in the case of woman the\n     experience which should thus give the power of choice is\n     frequently the very one which seals her destiny. It reveals\n     to her, as at a glance, the tragedy of a life-time which\n     lies before her, and yet which she cannot do other than\n     accept.","title":"Marriage in Free Society","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":10359}