Woman, William J. Robinson [classic literature books txt] 📗
- Author: William J. Robinson
- Performer: -
Book online «Woman, William J. Robinson [classic literature books txt] 📗». Author William J. Robinson
But to return to our thesis: the difference between man's and woman's sex and love life. If a man had to make his choice between physical love, i.e., actual sex relations and spiritual love, i.e., love making, kisses, love letters, etc., he would generally choose the former. If a woman had to choose, she would generally choose the latter. The man and the woman would prefer both at the same time: physical and spiritual love. But that is not the question. The question is: if it came to a choice; and then the results would be as I have just indicated. The correctness of my statements will be corroborated by anybody having some knowledge of human sexuality. A man can fully enjoy sexual intercourse without any preliminaries; with a woman the preliminaries are of the utmost importance, and when these are lacking she is often incapable of experiencing any pleasure. Nay, the feeling of pleasure is not infrequently replaced by a feeling of dissatisfaction and even disgust. A man cares more for the physical and less for the mental and spiritual attributes of his sexual partner; with the woman just the opposite is the case. I am leaving out of consideration sexual impotence, because this is a real disability, and a man suffering with it only irritates the woman without satisfying her. For this she will not stand. But where the man is sexually potent—he may be aged and homely—his other physical attributes play but a small rôle with woman; his mental and spiritual qualities count with her for a good deal more. While a woman may be able to give a man perfect sexual satisfaction, and she may have an angelic character, if her body is not all that could be desired, the man will be dissatisfied and unhappy.
Try as we may, we cannot get away from the fact that in man's life love occupies a subordinate place. I am speaking now of love, and not of "being in love." Being in love, as pointed out in another place, is a distinctly pathological phenomenon, akin to insanity, and when a man is in love it may engross every fiber of him, it may preoccupy every minute of his waking hours, he may neglect all his work and shirk all his duties, in fact he is apt to make a much bigger fool of himself than a woman is under similar circumstances. He is less patient, he has less control over himself, he is less able to suffer, he is less capable of self-sacrifice. But this, as I said, all refers to "being in love," which is an entirely different thing from loving. A man may love ever so deeply, and if his love is reciprocated he will go on with his work in a smooth, unruffled manner. He will do better work for it—love is a wonderful stimulus—but he will be perfectly satisfied if he sees his love for an hour or two every day, or even once or twice a week. And if he has important and interesting work to do, he can part with his love for three months or six months without his heart breaking. Not so with woman. A woman who loves considers every day on which she does not see her lover a day lost. And she is apt to be unhappy and inefficient in her work on such days, and she bears separation with much greater difficulty than does man. I do not think that this is due to the fact that a woman's love is always more intense than a man's; no. But he usually has other interests which occupy his thoughts and his emotions, while most women's thoughts and emotions are centered on the man they love. When a woman loves, she could and would spend all her time with the man she loves. She would never tire of love making (I am not referring here to sex relations), or merely of being in the man's proximity. To woman love is a cloyless thing. Man distinctly does tire. No matter how much he may love a woman, too much lovemaking becomes cloying to him, and he wants to get away. Even mere proximity, if too prolonged, becomes irksome to him, and he begins to fret and fidget, and pull at his chains, even if the chains are but of gossamer. Woman should know these facts and act accordingly.
We now come to the last point in our discussion: the polygamous or varietist tendencies in the male versus the monogamous tendencies in the female. No matter what our moralists, who try to fit the facts to their theories instead of fitting their theories to the facts, may say, the fact remains that man is a strongly polygamous or varietist animal. That many men live through their lives without having had relations with any women except their wives is cheerfully admitted. I assert this in spite of the incredulous smiles of all the cynics and roués in the world. I have known personally a great number of such men. But that they do it without any struggle, and in some cases a very severe struggle, is emphatically denied. And that hundreds of thousands of men are unequal to the struggle—or do not care to engage in any struggle—and live a sexually promiscuous life—anybody who knows anything about life as it is will testify. And his testimony will be corroborated by the reports of the vice commissions and the statements of disreputable-house keepers. To a great percentage of men a strictly monogamous life is either irksome, painful, disagreeable or an utter impossibility. While the number of women who are not satisfied with one mate is exceedingly small.
A man may love a woman deeply and sincerely and at the same time make love to another woman, or have sexual relations with her or even with prostitutes. It is quite a common thing with men. It is quite a rare thing with women, though it may happen. As iterated and reiterated time and again, there are always exceptional cases, but we are speaking of the average and not of the exception. The rule is that in her sex and love life woman is much more loyal, much more faithful, much more single-affectioned than is her lord and master—man.
Is she on account of it better than, superior to, man? It is futile to speak of better or worse, of superior or inferior. This is the way they are. This is the way man and woman have been made by nature, by a thousand centuries of heredity, by a thousand centuries of environment. The differences lie in biological roots, and it is futile to fight and rail against nature and biology. The proper thing to do is to recognize the facts and make the best of them. To act the part of the ostrich, deliberately to ignore facts which are not pleasant, may be easy, but is it wise?
Wide-spread Belief in Maternal Impressions—No Single Well-authenticated Case of Maternal Impression—Birth of Monstrosities—Ridiculous Examples Given by Physicians—So-called Shock Often a Product of Mother's Imagination—Four Cases of Alleged Maternal Impressions—Mother's Health During Pregnancy May Have Effect Upon Child's General Health.
It is believed by many people that strong impressions made upon the mother during pregnancy may produce marks or defects in the child. This belief dates from earliest antiquity, and is widespread among all races. The belief particularly refers to the emotions of fright or sudden surprise; thus it is believed that if a woman during pregnancy should be frightened by some animal, the child might carry the mark of the animal upon its body, or it might even be born in the shape of the animal. Thousands of such alleged cases are given in proof. There is hardly a layman, or, particularly, a laywoman, who does not claim to know of authentic cases of maternal impressions.
It is a thankless task to try to shatter well-established beliefs, and I do not hope to succeed in persuading all my readers that all the stories and examples of maternal impressions are untrue and lack scientific foundation. But I consider it my duty to state my belief, whether you accept it or not. In my opinion there is not a single well-authenticated case of maternal impression. There is hardly a case of defect or monstrosity where the cause is supposed to be due to maternal impression, which cannot be explained in some natural way, or simply by accident. Thousands of women are frightened or shocked by disagreeable sights, by crippled men, by animals, and still their children are born perfectly normal. On the other hand, many marked, or defective, or monstrous children are born in which no maternal impressions can be given as the cause. So why can it not happen when the mother was frightened by something during her pregnancy, and the child was born with some mark or defect, that the latter was simply an accident and not the result of the impression? Because a thing follows another thing it does not mean that it was caused by that other thing.
Many of the cases given as examples, and by physicians too, are so ridiculous that no scientific man can give them the slightest credence for one moment. When a physician (Dr. Thomas J. Savage) tells us that he attended a lady who had been frightened by a large green frog at or about the middle of pregnancy, and that she gave birth to a monstrosity, the head of which was that of a large frog in shape, with the eyes and mouth and even the coloring of a frog, then he is either telling an untruth, or he shows himself as ignorant and credulous as any illiterate old woman can be. The doctor should know that at the middle of pregnancy the child is fully formed and that there is no possibility of an already formed human being changing its shape into that of an animal. Another example given by the same doctor, and showing the calibre of his mentality, is that of a child which, when an infant, not old enough to walk, "would crawl over the floor and pick up little objects such as pins, tacks, small beads, without the slightest difficulty or fumbling." The reason for this "remarkable" skill the good doctor ascribes to the fact that four months before the birth of this child the mother had an outing in the woods and had derived great enjoyment from gathering hickory nuts which she found scattered among the leaves with which the ground was thickly covered!
Very often the so-called shock or fright which the mother experiences during gestation is simply a product of her imagination. We know of many cases where the mothers never mentioned that anything happened to them, and only after the child was born with some kind of mark or defect they began to hunt for causes and claimed that such and such a thing happened to them while they were pregnant, but on close investigation the alleged event was found to have originated in the mother's brain.
In short, while the subject of maternal impressions is an interesting one and demands further investigation, there is at the present time no scientific justification for the belief in maternal impressions. Particularly must we scout any stories
Comments (0)