This entry was posted on Monday, September 10th, 2007 at 7:01 am and is filed under Sexuality. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Fidelity is one of the major problems in marriage. Although accepted as an absolute and unequivocal value and prerequisite, its realization is today more questionable and confused than ever before. At times, actual physical possession of a woman was possible-by force of a strict law (harems), or by ruthlessness (slavery). Even then the rather slight possibility of infidelity did not prevent violent jealousy. Today, possession of another person either physically or mentally is entirely impossible. There is no security whatsoever about the faithfulness of the partner. The question is even advanced whether human beings are capable of fidelity. Doubt arises especially about the monogamous nature of males. Scientists refer to the biological difference which permits a man to beget innumerable children almost consecutively, while physiological conditions limit a woman to one a year, or perhaps two-unless she is exceptional and produces quintuplets. Making a psychological distinction between men and women on the ground of difference in physiological mechanisms is always dubious procedure generally used to justify masculine privileges.
The undeniable biological differences have small bearing on habits and customs. The biological ability of a man to have fifty children at one time means practically nothing; when he can suppress his forty-nine desires for other women, he can as well control the one remaining philandering desire to which he wants to be entitled. Feminists who would attempt to postulate the right of women to sexual licentiousness could equally well point out that one woman is capable physiologically of more sexual gratifications than anyone man can provide. We must remember that conditions of human life are not governed by natural forces, like biological and physiological drives or impulses, but by social conventions. Monogamy, therefore, has nothing to do with the intrinsic structure of human nature. Man can live monogamously or polygamously and women are a part of mankind. The development of monogamy can be explained by the establishment of civilization, with segregated families. During the evolution of mankind, the idea of the «individual” distinguishable as such from the mass, the clan, or the sib, developed. Human progress means establishment and extension of individual conceptions and drives. Monogamy resulted as the strongest union of two individuals. Christianity, historically the first concept of fundamental human equality, stipulated, in the strongest possible way, monogamy as the ideal relationship between men and women, at a time when social conditions, especially the love concept of the antique society, gave man polygamous rights as the prerogative of his supremacy.
This ideal of everlasting unbreakable devotion and loyalty has been maintained and intensified throughout the last centuries, although we are still far from achievement. Not only do social conditions and morals point toward monogamy; a deep psychological desire for complete and lasting union elevates monogamy to a dream of mankind. For psychological reasons, too, monogamy in its true sense still is more of a dream than a reality, although it is legally demanded and supervised.
Causes of Unfaithfulness
The problem of fidelity is confused by the uncertainty about the nature of faithfulness. From a materialistic point of view, faithfulness refers to physical chastity-an attitude necessitating very intricate and peculiar distinctions if the Christian ideal of monogamy is to be preserved under present conditions. It remains controversial where adultery starts. Some are inclined to regard a warm handshake or a deep look into each other’s eyes as trespassing the limits of decent behavior. Others have no objection to a kiss or even a passionate embrace. If we include dreams and thoughts as criteria, certainly few of our ideals could be maintained. Christianity itself found a means of uniting the spiritual desire for chastity with the psychological inability of man to accomplish it. The distinction between the willingness of spirit and the weakness of flesh is only the expression of the conflict within ourselves. But does this mean that we must overpower our human nature to be faithful? Some think so. They believe in the irreconcilable antagonism between the sexual drive toward unrestricted gratification and the social obligation of chastity. In reality, the longing for sexual variety is, as we have demonstrated, as closely connected with the social aspirations as is the devotion to one person. The hostility, fear, and opposition which prevent complete devotion and surrender and create this desire for variety do not stem from sexual urges, but hostility and antagonism can utilize sexual capacities in the pursuit of anti-social tendencies. The “weak flesh” is an expression of the restricted social feeling of mankind in a world which, even now, still makes it difficult for human beings to; achieve close human cooperation, courage, and a sense of belonging. Psychological factors which endanger human relationships stand in the way of unconditional cooperation and unreserved mutual acceptance. They make true monogamy today rather an exception and hamper exclusive and permanent sexual and personal interest.
Our susceptibility to temptation grows out of disappointment, quarrels, and antagonism, so often occurring in marriage. The longing for variety arises not incidentally but always in direct connection with some marital conflict. Polygamous tendencies arise when a person is discouraged in his love, when he wants to withdraw, to punish, or to exhibit privileges and the rights of his sex. No individual who finds full satisfaction in his marriage looks elsewhere. But since our capacity for love is restricted by general discouragement and distress, almost everyone at some periods of life has felt the longing for variety. Especially when we grow older the desire to prove our ability to conquer and win often leads to yearning for other experience. The legal expression of this yearning is divorce, which gives opportunity for various sexual experiences without openly violating the principle of monogamy.
Is “Friendship” Between Men and Women Possible?
At this point a discussion of platonic friendship seems indicated. The frequency with which this question is raised indicates a general skepticism. Of course, there are some natural obstacles to such friendship. If a man and a woman are devoted to each other, if they have many common interests, if they feel close and friendly, sex naturally intrudes. When this happens, we speak no longer of friendship but of love.
It is rather strange to differentiate between love and friendship, as if they were contradictory, and as if sincere love did not include friendship as well. However, in speaking of friendship between the sexes we mean a «platonic” relationship, without obvious sexual attraction. One school of thought, Freud’s psychoanalysis, maintains that any kind of sympathy and devoted personal interest, even between two persons of the same sex, is based on a so-called latent sexual desire. The validity of this theory is very much challenged. It certainly leaves no room for human friendship as such. It does not explain the obvious difference between a merely human and a sexually tinctured relationship.
The question, how far a close personal relationship devoid of sexual interest on either side is possible between a man and a woman, can only be answered when we recognize that we ourselves are the masters of our emotions and can create or suppress any of them according to our inclinations. We actually can establish any kind of relationship with a person of the same or of the opposite sex. We can either develop sexual reactions or suppress them. A mere friendship between a man and woman can develop, for instance, when both are in love with someone else. This seems to be the most favorable condition for retaining a “platonic” friendship, although any friendship between persons of opposite sexes can be maintained without the interference of sexual desires, if and when both are determined not to regard the other as a possible object for erotic gratification.
This fact, however, will not prevent a jealous husband or wife from resenting a true friendship between his mate and another person of the other sex. The reference to possible infidelity is only a convenient excuse, as jealousy is not restricted to the sexual sphere; jealousy can as well be aroused by members of the family, by any other outside interest of the mate, even by his work. Therefore, one-sided friendships need not disrupt or endanger marital harmony. Husbands and wives can retain their friendships as long as they trust one another, provided neither wants to possess the other completely.
