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
Yes, there are two sides to the divorce question. But I would summarize it as follows: Where there is a real incompatibility of characters, where there is no love and no respect, then the sooner the couple is divorced the better, and not only for them but for the children also, if there are any. An atmosphere of hatred and mutual contempt is not a healthy atmosphere for the growing children. But where there is merely irritability, outbreaks of temper, or disagreements which if analyzed can be seen to be due to temporary and remediable causes, then "Go slow," "Don't hurry," should be your motto. There will always be time to get a divorce. While if a divorce has been obtained, even if you regret it, you will most likely stay divorced. Many divorced couples, I imagine, would remarry, if they were not ashamed. They fear it would make them ridiculous—and it would—in their friends' eyes.
If you have a disagreement with your husband, try to straighten out the tangle yourself. Don't call in outside help. You will regret it. A stranger's paws are too coarse and too unsympathetic to meddle with the delicate adjustments which constitute marital life, and after you have gotten over your disagreement and are again living harmoniously you will be ashamed to look that third party in the face, and you will probably bear a grudge against him—or her.
Altogether outsiders are not fit to mix in the internal differences between husband and wife. It is absolutely impossible for a stranger to know just where the trouble is and who the guilty party is. Sometimes there is no guilty party. Both husband and wife may be right; they may both be lovely people and still together they may form an incompatible, explosive mixture. And then again the party that to outsiders may seem the angelic one may in reality be the devilish one. It is a well-known fact that people who to the outside world may seem the personification of honor and good nature may be very devils at home. I have long ago given up not only meddling in, but even judging, domestic disharmonies. For it is almost impossible for an outsider to judge justly. I knew a husband who was considered a paragon of virtue. And when a clash came between him and his wife everybody was inclined to blame the wife. But it came out later that the husband had certain ways about him which made the wife's life a very torture. And vice versa. I know of another case where the wife was considered the sweetest thing in the world. She had nice ways about her, but she disliked her husband and made his life a hell. With genuine chivalry he bore everything, believing that it was a man's duty to bear his cross. She was unfaithful to him, but she was so clever and cunning that neither he nor anybody else suspected it. The fact became painfully patent to him, when on one of the rare occasions that they came together she infected him with a venereal disease, which incapacitated him for a long time. Nobody knew why he insisted upon a separation, and everybody, with the exception of his physician and perhaps one or two others, was blaming him for an unfeeling brute.
I will therefore repeat that as a general thing domestic tangles should be untangled by the tanglers themselves. It is not safe to call in outsiders—relatives or friends; they are apt to make the tangle more tangled, and, what is more, they are quite likely to put the blame on the innocent party, and bestow upon the guilty party the Montyon prize for virtue and gentleness.
Is Love Definable?—Raising a Corner of the Veil—Two Opinions of Love—The First Opinion: Sexual Intercourse and Love—The Second Opinion—The Grain of Truth in Each—The Truth Concerning Love—Foundation of Love—Sexual Attraction and Love—The Frigid Woman and Her Husband—Puzzling Cases of Love—The Paradox—Blindness of Love and the Penetrating Vision of Love—Limits of Homeliness—Physical Aversion and Genesis of Love—Mating in the Animal Kingdom—Mating in Low Races—Love in People of High Culture—Difference in Love of Savage and Man of Culture—Distinctions Between Loves—Varieties of Love and Varieties of Men—"Love" Without Sexual Desire—Refraining and Wanting—Cause of Love at First Sight—"Magnetic Forces" and Love at First Sight—The Pathological Side—Differentiation of Phases of Love—Infatuation—Difference Between "Infatuation" and "Being in Love"—Sexual Satisfaction and Infatuation—Sexual Satisfaction and Love—Infatuation Mistaken for Love—Love the Most Mysterious of Human Emotions—Great Love and Supreme Happiness.
I shall not attempt to give a definition, either brief or extensive, of Love. Many have tried and failed, and I shall not attempt the impossible. Nor shall I attempt to discuss Love in all its innumerable details.[9] To do so would alone require a book many times more voluminous than the one you have before you. I shall, however, endeavor to raise a corner of the veil which surrounds this most mysterious, most baffling and most complex of all human emotions, so that you may get a glimpse into its intricate mechanism and perhaps understand what Love is in its essence at least.
Sexual and Platonic Love. There are two widely different, in fact diametrically opposite, opinions as to what constitutes Love. One opinion is that Love is sexual love, sexual attraction, sexual desire. To people holding this opinion love and sexual desire or "lust" are synonymous. And they laugh and sneer at any attempt to idealize love, to present it as something finer and subtler, let alone nobler, than mere sex attraction. The writer has heard one cynical woman—and more than one man—say: Love? There is no such a thing. Sexual intercourse is love, and that's all there is to it.
The other opinion is that Love, true love, ideal love, or, as it is sometimes called, sentimental love, or platonic love, has nothing to do with sexual desire, with sexual attraction. Indeed, people holding this opinion consider love and sexual attraction—or lust as they like to call the latter—as antithetical conceptions, as mutually antagonistic and exclusive.
Both opinions, as is often the case with extreme and one-sided opinions, are wrong. Both opinions have a reason for their existence, because there is a grain of truth in both of them. But a grain of truth is not the whole truth, and if an opinion contains ninety-nine parts of untruth to one part of truth, then the effect of the opinion is practically the same as if it were all false.
Here is the truth, or at least what I think is the truth, as it appears to me after many years of thinking and many years of observing.
Foundation of Love. The foundation, the basis of all love is sexual attraction. Without sexual attraction, in greater or lesser degree, there can be no love. Where the former is entirely lacking the latter can have no existence. This you may take as an axiom. Some may call it love, but on analyzing it you will find that it is no such thing. It may be friendship, it may be gratitude, it may be respect, it may be pity, it may be habit, it may even be a desire or a readiness to love or to be loved, but it is not love. Experience has proved it in thousands and thousands of sad cases. And the girl who marries a man who is physically repulsive to her, who possesses no physical sexual attraction for her, though she may experience for him all of the feelings mentioned above, namely, friendship, gratitude, respect and pity, is preparing for herself a joyless couch to sleep on. Unless, indeed, she happens to belong to the class of women whom we call frigid, that is, if she is herself devoid of any sexual desire and feels no need of any sexual relations. Such a woman may be fairly or even quite happy with a husband who repels her physically, but whom she likes or respects. And what I said about the wife applies with still greater force to the husband. A man who marries a woman who is physically antipathetic to him is a criminal fool.
I repeat, sexual, physical attraction is the basis, the foundation of love. It is true we see certain cases of love which puzzle us. We cannot understand what "he" has seen in "her" or what "she" has seen in "him." But let us remember this paradox, which paradoxical though it be, is true nevertheless: Love is blind, but Love also sees acutely and penetratingly; it sees things which we who are indifferent cannot see. The blindness of Love helps her not to see certain defects which are clearly seen to everybody else; but, on the other hand, her penetrating vision helps her to see good qualities which are invisible to others. And a homely person may possess certain compensating physical qualities—such as passionate ardor or strong sexual power—which, render him or her irresistible to a member of the opposite sex.
But homeliness, ugliness or deformity have their limits, and I challenge anybody to bring forth an authenticated case in which a man fell in love with a woman—or vice versa—who had an enormous tumor on one side of the face, which made her look like a monstrosity, or whose nose was sunk in as a result of lupus or syphilis, or whose cheek was eaten away by cancer. Love under such circumstances is an absolute impossibility, because there is physical aversion here, and physical aversion is fatal to the genesis of love. A man who loved a woman may continue to love her after she has become disfigured by disease, but he cannot fall in love with such a woman.
I will repeat, then, and I trust you will agree with me on this point: sexual attraction is the foundation of all love between the opposite sexes. Where sexual attraction is lacking you can give the feeling any other name you choose: it will not be love.
Other Requisites. But a foundation is not a whole structure. To insure the stability of a high intricate building we must give it a good solid foundation; but the foundation does not make the building. That still remains to be built. So sexual attraction is the foundation of all love, but it does not constitute love. Many more factors, many more wonderful stones are needed before the wonderful structure called love is brought into existence. This wonderful structure sometimes goes up in the twinkling of an eye, as if by the touch of a magic wand—who has not seen or heard of instances of "love at first sight!"—but the rapidity of the growth of the structure called Love does not militate against our assertion that many stones, much variegated material, and a strong cement are needed for its completion. Fairies sometimes work very quickly.
A little thought will show clearly that Love is not merely sexual love, not merely a desire to gratify the sexual instinct. If love were merely sexual desire, then one member of the opposite sex, or at least one attractive member, would be as good as any other. And indeed in animals and in the lower races, where love as we understand it does not exist, this is the case. To a male dog any female dog is as good as another, and vice versa. Cats are not particular in the choice of their mates, nor are cows, horses, etc. And the same is true of the primitive savage races, and even among the lower uneducated classes of so-called civilized races. To the
Comments (0)