Advice : Wedding, Marriage, Engagement, Anniversary

How to cultivate fidelity presents one of the most difficult problems for marital living together. Unfortunately, we are uncertain not only of our partners, but of ourselves. So long as both partners have the confidence to face problems together and squarely, no problem actually will disturb the marital relationship. No matter how difficult a problem may be-and the problem of infidelity certainly is not an easy one-it should and can be solved jointly, provided both have faith, courage, and the desire for a solution. The greater the problems which people manage to solve together, the closer grows their relationship, because in their troubles they need and may find each other. After the danger is over, a sense of gratefulness for the mutual help and understanding deepens the all-important feeling of belonging.

Many regard jealousy as an adequate response to philandering tendencies in the mate. They feel there is no alternative, save to close their eyes deliberately and maintain an imperturbable ignorance that might prove to be more comfortable, but does not solve the problem. They forget that jealousy does not ever solve any problem either. Instead of bringing back the straying mate, it only increases the distance and endangers the unity. Suspicion and fear which lead inevitably to open hostility merely aggravate the problem which first tempted the mate to look outside the marriage for erotic adventures.

Shall we then ignore the danger of losing our mate? Or permit him to be unfaithful? No one could recommend that. But actually neither danger is avoided by jealousy. We can easily recognize the foolishness of a woman who is constantly afraid that her healthy husband may die someday, and envisions in every slight ailment potential complications. It seems obvious that her fear expresses other perturbations than actual concern with a possible and far distant loss. The same is true of jealousy. The fear of losing one’s mate does not in itself provoke jealousy. Neither does the loss of a mate. A husband suffering intensely because his wife has left him for another man may rationalize his emotions by insisting that he cannot live without her. The fallacy of this conviction would immediately become apparent if he were asked how he would feel if she were dead. He would then admit that alternative to be terrible, and yet . . . Here he might stop and discover that it is a peculiar kind of love which makes him actually prefer her death to her living with someone else.

Infidelity often is just a bugaboo. Every look one’s husband casts may foretell potential fatal complications. Slight tendencies to infidelity are certainly not less frequent or more dangerous than a common cold. It can lead to fatal pneumonia, but generally does not. Putting a person to bed at the first sniffle is as foolish as letting him go out in the rain when his temperature rises. A simple cold needs proper care; either neglect or over anxiety can be harmful. The first signs of undue extra-marital interests indicate disorder. Neglect or overzealousness can complicate the ailment. A clever and understanding mate will find many subtle ways of drawing an adventuring partner back without oppressing his feeling of freedom and independence. Jealousy is neither helpful nor necessary.

If fear of loss and fear of infidelity do not necessarily entail jealousy, what then are its causes? In order to understand any human emotion we must discover its actual accomplishments and hence its purposes. Jealousy never prevents loss or infidelity. This fact alone proves convincingly that it is psychologically not concerned with either. But what is actually achieved by jealousy?

What is the role of sex in marriage?

Like every other element in the marital relationship, sex involves behavior between individuals. The response of each partner varies with his mood, his physical state, and the oscillations of the relationship.

Given adequate physiological and anatomical equipment (which Nature rarely fails to provide) and a modicum of knowledge of sexual techniques, the spouses will enjoy sexual union when both are in a collaborative mood. The collaborative mood exists when each is adding something to the sexual act, not just submitting. When the spouses are not in a loving mood, they still may find in sex a release from tension and thus derive another type of pleasure from it, especially if they are in agreement about what they expect, but it is likely to be less fulfilling and often may be frustrating, because one partner has contrary needs which are left unmet.

This sex act-a comparably simple matter-has become the most written about, the most talked of, and the most muddled aspect of marriage. There are several reasons why the role of sex in marriage has become excessively emphasized and distorted.

A cultural fear of sex’s losing its effective status in the social structure. This fear is as ancient at least as the Old Testament dictum that “a man … shall cleave unto his wife.” The expectation is that if this pronouncement is violated the species will not fulfill its obligation to procreate in a familial or nurturing setting.

The fear of desertion and abandonment. In our culture, this fear is stronger in women than in men. Women are tied down by the processes of childbearing and childbirth and require assistance physically and emotionally. In response to this fear, and to provide a weapon for fighting it, the belief has developed in our culture that if one is “sexy” enough, one’s mate will not desert. The result has been an exaggerated consciousness of sexual performance as a ritual to increase personal security in marriage or to induce marriage. Yet if one is “sexy” enough there is the danger of being too “sexy” and violating the ancient commandments.

The female’s simulation of sexiness. The male requires an erection to enter into the sex act. If he is uninterested in sex, or afraid of it, he will not have an erection. However, a woman does not have any obvious physiological indications of spontaneous readiness. She can fake sexual spontaneity, and the male (at least for a time) may not be aware of the deceit. The female extends this stimulation of sexual interest into parasexual areas by means of hair dyes, falsies, girdles, cosmetics, perfumes, and high heels. These parasexual devices scream, “Look, I’m sexy. I’m desirable.” This mayor may not be true, but it is probable that women resent their need to advertise and would prefer to be accepted as they really are; men resent the necessity for sexual deception even though they foster it.

The economic forces in our culture sustain and stimulate these hypocritical actions. Any attempt to alter the pattern involves resisting the advertising and other merchandising techniques used by multibillion-dollar businesses to peddle false female sexuality. The women who attempt to retain a “natural” appearance, with undoctored hair, no makeup, and so forth, are few in number, and they may (because of cultural conditioning) be regarded by both men and women as deviates. Most of the people who might be inclined to rebel against this type of sexual mores are intimidated by cultural pressures and mass value judgments.

Furthermore, the emphasis upon female sexual paraphernalia is an inherited social custom which long has been associated with the elite. In past ages, makeup, breast accentuators, and the like were worn mainly by the ruling classes, and the tendency to show upward social mobility by imitating the elite still exists. Even today, the wealthier the spouses, the more they exaggerate the difference between the sexes. The wife wears elegant gowns, elaborate hairdos, scintillating jewelry, and expensive furs and perfumes. Her husband may favor dark conservative suits, homburgs, and thick-soled, handmade English shoes.

The erroneous belief that unsatisfactory sexual relations are the major cause of bad marriages. The speciousness here is clear. Unsatisfactory sexual relations are a symptom of marital discord, not the cause of it. It is difficult for the victims to see this because of the mass of propaganda about sex that attacks them day and night, on the street, in the home, in the office. We are such an absurd culture that even mouthwashes and Lysol are related to the sexual aspects of marriage.

John Jones, for example, is dissatisfied with his marriage. On his way to work he may look up and see a billboard with a picture of a nearly nude, beautiful woman, advertising a brand of stockings. John is stimulated sexually and says to himself, “Boy, I’d like to have an affair with something like that.” He knows this is wishful thinking, and may even recognize that the beautiful model might be incompatible with him. Next he retreats from the daydream and his thoughts turn toward his wife. But the sexual fantasy he has had about the girl in the ad colors his reflections about his marriage relationship, and he thinks, “Golly, Mary’s legs might look better in that kind of hosiery.” What he means is, “If Mary were a better sexpot we’d both have a happier marriage.” He is caught in a double error: the appearance of Mary’s legs has nothing to do with the couple’s sexual satisfaction, and he has forgotten his own function in achieving a successful union.

Such a process may be repeated frequently during the day, for John is never permitted to escape advertisements which suggest that sexuality is the key to happiness. Yet there is considerable evidence that an individual’s perception of the sexual relationship is more related to marital satisfaction than the sexual act itself.

In a survey conducted at an Ohio university, interviews of several hundred couples showed that by and large those who reported their marriages as satisfactory gave the frequency of their intercourse as twice a week. Those who reported their marriages as “unsatisfactory” also reported a frequency of twice a week, yet among the unhappy couples the husbands said that twice a week was more than their wives wished but satisfactory from their point of view, and the wives said it was less than their husbands wished but just right for them personally. The “happy” husbands and wives said the frequency of twice a week was satisfying to both themselves and their spouses. In other words, the problem was in the couples’ communication and not in the actual frequency of their sexual relations.

While sexual problems are often blamed for marital difficulties, one is seldom made aware of the other side of the coin: sexual relations may keep some marriages going, providing virtually the only kind of contact which the spouses have. Psychiatrists and other professionals who treat marital problems are aware that some individuals have been able to establish successful sexual relations with each other although they cannot get together in any other context. Many of these couples have the experience of waking at night to discover themselves involved in sex, with neither partner aware of who took the initiative.

The differences between male and female. The physical differences between male and female contribute to the novelty and adventure of sex. Heterosexuality is extra-fascinating and carries with it the illusion of intrigue. At the same time, the differences make understanding one another more difficult. Also, the excessive emphasis on sex as the major factor in marriage results in a distorted viewpoint. The natural differences between male and female are made to appear crucial for the success of a marriage. Actually, a woman will not improve her marriage by achieving a voluptuous bust, legs like a model, and an aura of exotic perfume. If her marriage is an unhappy one, her husband may develop a preference for small-breasted women who dress plainly and do not wear perfume.

Having reviewed some reasons for mistaken attitudes toward sexual intercourse, let us now take a look at its actual role in marriage. What is special about sexual intercourse, a highly satisfying male-female symbiosis, is that it requires a higher degree of collaborative communication than any other kind of behavior exchanged between the spouses. Sex is consequently precious, but also perilous. It is the only relationship act which must have mutual spontaneity for mutual satisfaction. It can only be a conjoint union, and it represents a common goal which is clear and understood by both.

The reason people keep asking where sex fits into marriage is that they have been hoodwinked, bamboozled, pressured, conned, and persuaded that the sexual act is compulsory in their lives and must be performed alike by everyone; the “standards” are established by advertisers, publicity for sexpot motion-picture stars, literature, movies, plays, television, and so on. But these are standards of fantasy. Therefore people ask silly questions: How often should we have sex? What is the best position? How intense should it be? Should we scratch and bite each other? What time of day should it be done? The questions sound like inquiries about the type of gymnastic procedures to be followed for attaining muscles like Mr. America’s or a rear end or bust like Miss America’s. Perhaps even worse off are the myriads of couples who don’t dare ask questions and just assume they must be abnormal because their own practice differs from some so-called standard.

The problem is obvious. In sex, trying to keep up with the Joneses is the road to disaster. To decide where sex fits into their particular marriage, a couple must look inward at the marriage, not outward at the deceptive advice and make-believe standards set by others. There are no standards, and most “advice” from friends or family is misleading, for few people can speak honestly about their own sex life. Rather than admit their own sex problems and misgivings, friends often let one assume that their sex experiences are indeed superior; otherwise, the implication is, and they wouldn’t be giving advice.

The role that either sex has to play is, as we have seen, determined by the social structure of the surrounding community. The social conventions of today, however, exact no definite behavior from either sex. Each individual has to establish his own behavior pattern as man or woman. There are many ways of expressing “masculinity” and “femininity.” It rests with each individual to decide what kind of man or woman he wishes to become.

As long as we regard masculinity as identical with superiority-and doubtless most men and women do so-the concepts that we develop of our own sexual role correspond to this superstition. Even the most ardent champions of feminine equality will probably aver that a “real man” is supposed to be strong, self-sufficient, courageous, and reliable, and that any man not meeting these demands probably shows “feminine” traits. The word effeminate–or, colloquially, sissy-indicates the general disparagement of “feminine” qualities. Actually, responsibility, the desire to work, to contribute, and even to support, are not yet recognized as obligations of any human being, regardless of sex. The notion of man being the stronger sex is responsible for many odd ideas which confuse people’s conceptions of their own sexual role, of their obligations or limitations.

Children at a very early age develop definite, but not always correct, conceptions of the social role attributed to their own sex. They are impressed and stimulated by the social implication of sex before they realize its emotional and physiological significance. As a rule, boys have much more liberty in every kind of activity. A girl who behaves like a boy is called a tomboy, a term implying specifically masculine traits. (The appellation tomboy, by the way, is far less contemptuous than the denunciatory term sissy.) Helping at home, cooking, cleaning, and mending are still demanded mostly of girls, especially in communities retaining European customs. Today, men wash dishes, too sometimes; but still in condescension. Yet the practice indicates a general trend toward more cooperation, difficult for European men to follow.

Many girls believe that woman’s place in society is subordinate. They either submit to their fate, seeking compensations in the feminine way, or they rebel and avoid anything feminine. The former attempts to win a respectable place in a masculine world by cultivating charm and helplessness and at the same time avoid responsibility. In short, strives to be a typical “ladylike” in their deportment. The latter, those girls with strong masculine protests, refuse to achieve feminine maturity. They hate to look feminine; they abhor the menstrual function. Many girls do not go to this extreme. They may surrender to the general pressure and take pains with their appearance. But regardless of how feminine they may look, their protest becomes apparent on various occasions. They may try to prove that, as women, they can be as good as any man and perhaps even better. Very often they avoid recognizing their opposition to men and remain unaware of what has caused their sexual and marital difficulties.

A Case of Transvestitism

Rejection of the feminine role may reach almost unimaginable extremes. One day a young man consulted me. When asked about his problems, he revealed that he was a girl. The patient was in the middle twenties. The masculine appearance was caused not only by clothing, but by a definite way of speaking and by specifically masculine mannerisms. Even the voice was characteristic more of a man with glandular deficiency than of a woman. She had come because she needed help in a very unusual predicament. In order to get a job in Austria, it was necessary to present identification papers. Hers revealed her feminine name, which was embarrassing and confusing. She was now seeking permission to change her name to a masculine one. I was puzzled. How could she wear men’s clothes since this practice was forbidden to a woman? She showed me a written permit from the police and explained how she had obtained it. When she wore women’s attire, she attracted unpleasant attention in the street, because everyone believed she was a man masquerading as a woman. She walked like a boy; her whole attitude was decidedly mannish, so that the police were forced to give her this unusual permission.

A physical examination disclosed the normal primary and secondary sexual characteristics; the breasts were fully developed, the distribution of hair was typically feminine, as were the hips. The menstrual period was regular. A laboratory analysis proved that the glands functioned normally. There was not the slightest evidence of any physical or biological abnormality. Her unusual development proved to be caused by different factors.

She had been born in a rural district of Austria, the first child of a farmer. In that part of the world, girls were not in high esteem. Peasants need at least one boy to inherit the farm and to replace the father when he wishes to retire. Consequently, her parents had hoped for a boy. Unfortunately for the girl, a young brother was born two years later. It is not difficult to imagine her reaction to the situation. Realizing her precarious position, she refused to accept a secondary role. She made full use of the few years in her favor to maintain her superiority over her brother, physically and mentally. Yet it was not sufficient that he submitted to her dominance. He still was a boy and she only a girl. To win this battle, she had to overcome this handicap, too. So she tried to behave like a boy. She played with boys exclusively and became wilder than any of them. She was a regular tomboy, but even this compensation was insufficient. She delighted in dressing her brother in girl’s clothes, while she herself put on his garments.

The parents enjoyed the masquerade and encouraged it.

Everyone thought it was “cute:’ She heard many favorable comments about her looking like a boy; people remarked that she would have made a better boy than her brother, who had become quite subdued and docile, and, in his timidity, dependent upon his stronger sister. This success naturally encouraged her to continue and even intensify her efforts. When she grew older, she adapted herself more and more to this coveted masculine role. In every one of her movements, in her gait, in her mannerisms, she was a typical boy. She even became fond of girls, but in a protective and gallant way. When she began to develop physically, she fought against any sign of femininity. She hated her breasts. She pressed them down in tight garments so that they would be inconspicuous. She disregarded her menstrual function completely and did not let it interfere with any athletic activities. She never developed any feminine traits, skills, or features, and had her hair cut in boyish fashion.

The moment of her greatest triumph came when she obtained permission of the police to wear masculine attire. But the logic which she tried to defy brought her into new conflicts. Now she needed a masculine name. This was not easy under Austrian law; but as the authorities had been compelled to yield the first time, it was necessary and logical to take the next step and grant her permission to use a name which was applicable to either sex. But a psychiatric recommendation was requested by the police. The girl was very enthusiastic. I tried in vain to convince her that, despite her successes, she was still fighting a lost battle. She still remained a woman, regardless of her ability to fool herself and others. Unless she accepted the role of her sex, she was bound to get into greater difficulties. But, like many people with sexual perversions, she did not want any advice or help and flatly refused to discuss her psychological problems.

To my surprise, she appeared again about one year later. I first thought she might now ask for psychiatric treatment. However, she came only to demand another service in her fight against society, which had marked her as an inferior being. She had fallen in love with a girl, and she expected me to make it possible for her to marry this girl. Of course, this was beyond anyone’s power, and I never saw her again.

Whenever the established equilibrium between the sexes is shattered and the heretofore suppressed sex has the opportunity to rise, it imitates the behavior and mannerisms of the formerly superior sex. We have examples of this tendency in certain primitive communities. It may be during such a period of declining matriarchal structure that one peculiar form of behavior is observed-and often misunderstood and misinterpreted-namely, couvades. After the birth of a child, the father took the baby with him to bed and stayed there several days, while the mother had to perform all the household tasks and take care of father and child. It seems that the man tried to imitate the female role. Where women are dominant, everything typically feminine may appear desirable to men. One wonders whether men in that period would not have tried to bear children, too, had nature permitted.

Similar contemplations may explain the behavior of women today. In some levels of the population, smoking has become more popular among women than with men, and men have to resort to pipes in order to maintain some kind of distinction. The old American habit of women smoking pipes may have characterized social changes and an early emancipation of women during the time of American pioneering, which gave women tasks and rights they had never had before. There was more factual equality between men and women than in the old countries. The impulse, which may even counteract an initial dislike for smoking, stems from women’s longing for masculinity, as it expresses in youngsters the desire to feel grown up. Other characteristic signs of our present state of transition are tendencies among women to assume masculine attire or hairdress. All these imitations do not signify actual equality, but indicate only an attempt by women to accentuate the change in their status.

The Function of the Sexes

Each individual develops a certain conception of the role of his own sex, the acceptance or rejection of which modifies personal attitudes and affects almost every phase of everyday life. A woman’s attitude toward domestic work, for instance, is a good test of what she conceives the role of women to be. The arguments pro and can must not deceive us. We can hear reasons why domestic work is desirable and why detestable-all equally good. The number of women who prefer housework to any other job is gradually diminishing. Many women resent this kind of “profession” because they consider it inferior or humiliating; they associate it with the derogatory conception of the feminine role.

This association also keeps many men from participating in house duties. Housework has been the responsibility of women for so many centuries that it will take quite some time before men and women can look objectively upon certain duties necessary for the welfare of all.

During the period of their complete suppression women were to a certain degree excluded from artistic productivity. Actresses and dancers were socially degraded as indecent. Many women who look for their place in society now accentuate their interest in art, music, drama, dance, etc., to a point that art becomes almost a feminine prerogative. Is it not the privilege and duty of any human being, regardless of sex, to participate in artistic activity?

Many men have yielded to women their interest in the arts. A boy who is interested in studying the piano is often called a sissy. Women frequently find it difficult to induce their husbands to join them in reading books, in attending lectures or concerts, or in visiting museums and exhibitions. In fact, some women do not even try sincerely, because they are proud of this distinction between their respective interests. And men are only too delighted to pay this small price for the continuation of their supremacy.

The general concept of the masculine role seems to be that the man’s job is primarily to make money. This conception is dangerous. It places exclusively in the hands of man the power which money still maintains. At the same time, it impedes man’s appreciation of culture and general knowledge which could modify and temper his economic power. The danger of unscrupulous misuse of this power increases with the neglect of man’s cultural development.

If women continue to be deluded by the advantages of convenient support, they will prolong their dependency.

The tendency to divide the social duties between the sexes is not based on biological factors, and specialized duties are fundamentally neither inferior nor superior. They are merely human obligations. In the distribution of work, certain tasks are allotted to each sex by custom and habit; they are considered as pleasant or distasteful according to the social position of the sex which performs each particular function. For the maintenance of marital life, the task of doing housework and that of earning money are of equal importance. If one earnestly believes in equality, one will be ready to do whatever is at the moment most necessary and most constructive and attach little importance to what is generally considered the proper sexual role. Despite all their nice words, few men or women are as yet ready to practice equality. The present problems of masculine and feminine adjustment cannot be solved merely by separating masculine and feminine activities and by establishing the respective competence of any sex in one well-defined field. Such a decision might relieve the competition temporarily, but it postpones the establishment of cooperation between equals.

We must recognize that human sex can be used for various purposes. First, it serves as a basis for procreation. Lust is the inducement of nature to lure every being into the service of maintaining and preserving the species. Religious and state laws regard this as the only permissible purpose of sex, any sexual activity outside of wedlock and any artificial prevention and interruption of pregnancy being prohibited or frowned on.

Second, sex can be used as a tool for personal gratification, mainly as a vehicle of pleasure. As man learned to escape nature’s compulsion, he made sex independent of the process of procreation. Today, the two functions, namely fertilization and sex experience as pleasure, are for most people completely unrelated, the percentage of sexual acts which lead to pregnancy being rather small. But pleasure implies many sensations, some of which have completely different and sometimes contradictory meanings and significance. Pleasure can imply superficial and rather incidental gratification or deep emotions which involve the whole personality. The kind of gratification sought determines the role sex plays in the lives of different persons. There are those who consider pleasure of any kind as the only reason for living; to such persons, sex is merely an inexhaustible source-perhaps the only source-of enjoyment. Their hedonism or “pleasure hunger” as Wexberg calls it, makes them grasp any opportunity for pleasure, with little or no regard to the price or consequences. Hedonists are usually disappointed and cynical people and, therefore, shortsighted in regard to life as a whole. They do not believe in their own future and happiness and, therefore, do not care what will happen later. For them, pleasure has to compensate for their feeling of being a failure. In the same category belong those who use sex for the purpose of gaining power, prestige, social status, or personal superiority.

Sex, however, can have a third function, that of unification. It is a tool which can unite two persons more closely than anything else. Through sex two may become one, physically and spiritually. This unifying function of sex also provides pleasure, of course. But it is a fundamentally different pleasure from the previously described pleasure. Its gratification is deeper and lasting. It implies giving oneself, while hedonism implies mainly taking advantage of another. While hedonistic excitement seeks variation and depends upon the spur of the moment, the desire for unification looks for stability and future happiness.

The subjective feeling of love may employ all three types of sexual functions. The first and the third, however, involve a long-range program, while the second, the tendency to seek mere gratification, is likely to neglect human and social values.

It seems that in our time sex has lost to a great extent its first, primary function, but people have not yet found the third, the fulfillment of unification. The concept of sex as being useful only for pleasure is prevalent and deprives people of deeper gratification, of lasting love, faithfulness, and devotion.

It is evident, then, that there must be something else which determines the mode of sexual behavior. Can it be that we, ourselves, choose the form of our own sexual expression? And does this choice reflect our use of sex for a definite purpose? The following case may help answer this question:

Mrs. D., age 54, complained that her husband, who was over 60 years old, was altogether too passionate. While her sexual desires had decreased considerably, Mr. D. approached her almost nightly-even more frequently then he used to. He maintained he could not control his urge and that it was her duty to satisfy it.

Mrs. D. was advised not only to accede to her husband’s demands but to appear even more passionate than he and to make even further demands upon him sexually. She accepted this advice, but not without some doubt. She later reported that her change in behavior had completely astonished her husband. At first he didn’t know what to do about it. Then, the more she demanded, the more he retreated. Finally he became impotent.

It will be readily seen that in this case we are dealing not alone with the sexual drive. Otherwise, the wife’s treatment of her husband would not have resulted in his impotence. Actually the couple was engaged in a competition for dominance, and the husband was using his sexual capacity in his fight for his “rights.” The basic marital problem was not sexual and therefore was not solved by the strategy outlined above. But the case affords an example of how sexuality may be used. We choose the mode of sexual expression in accordance with the way it serves our fundamental goals.

If we accept this thesis, how can we explain the fact that we don’t see the purpose in our own sexual behavior? Can it be that we merely seem to be passive victims of our drives and our emotions because we don’t want to admit responsibility for our behavior? As long as our basic intentions conform with our conscience, we accept full responsibility for our actions. But occasionally we can’t reconcile intentions with conscience. It is here that we refuse to acknowledge our intentions and resort to the use of emotions to justify our actions. The following case may help illustrate this point:

John B. was deeply “in love.” So great was his passion for Alice that he could think of nothing else. Unfortunately, she didn’t respond, and she rejected his proposal. But John was the sort of fellow who always got what he wanted. So he pursued her and pleaded his cause persistently. The girl remained obdurate. Then John became desperate and threatened suicide. At this point she weakened, for did this not prove how much he loved her? So she married him.

Now John lost his interest in Alice and neglected her, even sexually. When she complained tearfully that he didn’t love her any more, he told her he couldn’t help it, for he was no longer in love! Then she divorced him.

Whereupon John “fell in love” with Alice again. He could not live without her. Now he was really in love with her. And he again pursued her but with even greater urgency than before. To escape him, she married someone else.

Now John was really challenged. He was again determined to have Alice for his wife. So he began to threaten the life of her second husband. To protect the latter from John’s threats, Alice divorced him. The tempo of John’s pursuit now accelerated. He convinced her that his divorce had taught him a lesson, that he needed her, that he was a “changed man,” and that his love was now both profound and eternal. So she remarried him.

As one may suspect, it was not long before John again began to neglect his wife. And, of course, it was not his fault. For somehow or other he was again out of love.

It is now apparent that our hero was concerned not with the establishment of a satisfying state of being in love, but rather with proving that he could cause a woman to fall in love with him whenever he might choose. Once this was accomplished, he was no longer interested in her until his possession of her was again challenged. It was not love, but his desire to put a woman into his service that motivated him. How convenient it was to attribute this fluctuation in his interest to the notorious un dependability of the emotion of love!

We come now to the discussion of the emotion-complex we call love. Can we show that we ourselves determine the direction, and even the very existence of love? Do we use love as we use sex to serve our fundamental purposes?

Can women and men live without sex and still stay healthy? Yes, they can. People cast away on isolated islands have gone for years without sex and have not experienced any physiological or psychological breakdowns or deficiencies as a result. Priests, nuns, and many mystics, such as the great Mahatma Gandhi have eschewed sexual union and not damaged their health or decreased their longevity.

Sex, of course, is necessary for propagation; nature has provided this instinctual drive so that the species will survive. The drive is effective because of the variety of intense pleasures derived from its fulfillment. But no harm will occur to the normal individual to whom sex is denied.

Almost all adult human beings somehow have the feeling that experiencing sex frequently is a requirement for good physical and mental health, even if intellectually they know better. Both men and women who have enjoyed sex at regular intervals become frustrated, sometimes desperate, when it is withheld for (what seems to them) a long time. The sex aggressions of men at war in foreign lands and of sailors who have been at sea for months are well known. Such behavior stems more from a feeling of deprivation than from pure physical necessity. A person who voluntarily renounces or limits sexual intercourse-as priests, nuns, and others do for varied reasons-suffers no ill health or mental anguish as long as the renunciation corresponds to his emotional needs. If, however, a person desires sexual union and has deep, unmet needs for this form of human intimacy, yet is unable for some reason to meet the need, the resulting sense of deprivation and frustration may create emotional problems.

Sometimes unusual sex actions are stimulated by nonsexual deficiencies. For example, male children with a dread of being abandoned by their mother often will masturbate excessively. Men who have repressed homosexual tendencies (frequently the result of having a passive-or dead-father and a dominant mother) often are inclined to act oversexed in order to “prove their manhood.”

The beliefs (most of them specious) which most individuals have on “what kind” of sex is desirable, and “how much,” have several sources:

1. So-called “scientific” information obtained from books, articles, and lectures.
2. Customs, traditions, and advice conveyed by relatives and friends.
3. Customs, traditions, and examples transmitted by literature, radio, television, movies, and advertising.

Tradition molds many beliefs and habits having to do with sex in marriage. For example, consider the barbaric custom of the honeymoon-particularly in past centuries, when the girl’s chastity was treasured and important. In those days the bride and groom, who hardly knew each other, departed to a strange geographical area and into sexual intimacy. Usually the bride possessed only hearsay information on sexual matters and the husband’s sexual experience had not necessarily prepared him to understand the needs of a virginal bride. They hurried away from the courtship milieu of jollity, gregariousness, and traditional optimism into a new sexual environment of their own, and were expected to emerge a week or ten days later with all the tenderness, love, and devotion needed to create a successful, happy marriage-whether or not the sexual experience had been traumatic for one or both of them.

A modem version of the same ritual occurs today, with an additional cultural expectation introduced: the newlyweds are expected to achieve mutual sexual satisfaction during the honeymoon. The young couple usually is launched with a lavish wedding and a tremendous amount of effort and expense on the part of both their families. The newlyweds are under pressure to “have fun” on their honeymoon and to return looking radiant and serene. Frequently the opposite happens. We estimate that most honeymoons are periods of frustrating sexual disappointment. The honeymoon may be an exciting novelty, but usually it results in confusion even when there has been premarital sexual experience. The situation of the bride who cried all through her honeymoon is a common one. Sex, like anything else, has to be learned; and even if the two have had relations before marriage, the marriage state places them in a new psychological milieu to which they must adjust. Now they are “legitimate,” and they believe that their sexual experience will therefore be better. Now they are legally tied; they cannot walk away from each other. They feel the sex act must be a success every time; otherwise, the marriage is disintegrating.

This situation is aggravated by the pronouncements of most sex consultants, books, and articles on marriage. They usually indicate that sex is the keystone of marital success. We disagree. Sex is significant; and good sex is satisfying and emotionally nourishing. Sex is highly desirable, but it is not the only vital force in marriage, either during the honeymoon or later.

The situation is muddied further by the conflicting views of “experts” who give “scientific” information on sex. It is important that all “expert” opinions on sex be taken with a grain of skepticism.

Most “scientific” information on sex comes from two sources:

Psychiatrists and other physicians writing about data obtained from the experiences of their patients, and social scientists generalizing from data obtained in surveys conducted by means of some type of questionnaire.

In point of fact, conclusions based upon the medical data obtained from patients are not necessarily applicable to most people. Patients go to doctors for the treatment of one or more problems. If they have come for psychiatric therapy, they expect to spend many hours discussing sex and exploring the negative aspects of themselves, their spouses, their friends, and so on. Few (if any) will pay twenty-five or thirty dollars an hour and then spend the time discussing pleasant and satisfactory experiences. The gynecologist or the family physician who writes a sex book is scientific only in regard to anatomy. The nonanatomical aspects of the text are based upon his own personal sex experiences plus whatever his ailing patients have told him.

Some of the most popular tracts on sex and marriage are written by gynecologists whose practices consist to a great extent of women who spontaneously and voluntarily talk freely to the physician in their efforts to describe their personal discords. The fact that a person talks and answers questions in a doctor’s office (instead of in a public bar or a living room) does not prove that the individual is accurate or objective, and certainly does not indicate that his conclusions are generally applicable. Almost all patients’ views on sex are subjective and weighted; especially since those who feel the need to discuss their sex lives usually have special problems.

The same difficulty causes the flaws in the Kinsey reports (and in most other studies whose data comes from question-and answer procedures). Although Kinsey made an important study, one that required courage to initiate, we cannot overlook one important fact: he depended primarily on volunteers to answer his questions. Can we be sure that the people who volunteer to answer sex questions are representative? Some of the Kinsey interviewees talked two or three hours about their experiences evidently revealing intimacies was fun for some.

Also, there were considerable differences in experience and ability among Kinsey’s interviewers. Only recently, the work of the Department of Psychiatry at Harvard has demonstrated that the nature of an interviewing context (including the interviewer’s attitude) has a tremendous influence on the interviewee’s response. An interviewer who strongly believes that, say, many wives have intercourse with other men when their husbands are on trips, will come up with much more evidence to support this view than will an interviewer who holds the opposite opinion at the start of the investigation.

Nevertheless, the Kinsey material provides the most complete and reliable data we have on the sexual practices of middle- and upper-class Americans. It reveals that increasingly in our culture, sexual intercourse is not confined to married people; and it is certainly not limited to sexual congress between men and women.

The bulk of the Kinsey material and of other surveys (which primarily relate to college students) concerns homosexuality, masturbation, premarital intercourse, perversion, post-divorce sexual activities, the activities of spinsters and bachelors, and adultery. To our knowledge, no one has studied a sample of normogenic (average) married couples in significant numbers and scientifically determined what married people think and do in relation to sex. Little is known about socio-economic class differences, let alone ethnic idiosyncrasies.

Where does sex fit into marriage? It is almost impossible to estimate (except with respect to a specific married couple, after many hours of interviews) because so few studies have been made on the subject, and those which do exist are limited in scope and objectivity.

The answer to this question also depends upon time and circumstances, for sexual needs are fundamentally psychological. Middle-income spouses who have been married for a year and have no children, but want some, may have different sexual needs from the husband and wife without jobs, so poor they can’t pay the rent, who therefore are afraid to have children. A couple married for thirty years, with four children in college, may have different sexual needs from a couple married for five years, with only one child. Such differences are not merely due to age. Boredom plays a more significant role in decreasing the frequency of intercourse than do withering sex glands. Also, a couple whose sex experience is beautiful and satisfying may engage in sex less frequently than an unhappy pair frantically experimenting for a solution to their discord.

There is no accurate sex information which gives exact answers for everyone, since there are so many variables. Yet in the United States, the sex ethic has become all important. As we have already stressed, the fallacious concept that sex determines our lives is spread far and wide by those promoting the tremendous sales of products supposed to enhance sexual attractiveness. Also, “authorities” on sex lecture, write, and give sexual advice for a fee. Naturally, they exaggerate the importance of sex in marriage. Offering complicated sex techniques is a profitable profession, and the more difficult the techniques, the longer the expensive counseling will last. The most popular sex manual has been through countless revisions and has outsold all other books except the Bible.

The myth that perfect and heavenly sex must be experienced by an individual before he can consider himself normal has become the foundation for a national mania. Sex success is the theme of social instruction and of almost all advertising, even for products not in any way associated with the sex act.

Spouses who are disappointed in sex are profoundly concerned about their difficulty. This is a reasonable reaction, if the disappointment is well founded. Men often wonder about their manhood or suspect that their wives are frigid or malicious. Wives wonder about their frigidity and suspect that perhaps their husbands are having affairs or that they are effeminate or at least inconsiderate or ignorant of satisfying sexual techniques.

Spouses will try anything to bring about a happier union, one closer to the sex-success image which is our national demigod. Many a man and wife have spent a small fortune to go to a posh luxury lodge where they hoped they would miraculously achieve a sexual congress they couldn’t bring about in their own bedroom. If the weather is nice and the view is good, something may come of the weekend, but it is not apt to result in unusual sexual satisfaction. People frequently buy new houses, hire interior decorators-with the hope that a fresh environment will improve sexual relations.

If the various manifestations of sex were accepted as natural, and if people could abandon the view that there is a single absolute standard to be reached by all who are normal, the unhappiness of many couples would decrease-and their performance would automatically improve.

Our concern in this chapter has been with the problem: Is great, great, GREAT sex necessary for a satisfactory marriage, for a workable marriage? If sex is not up to culturally created expectations, is the marriage a failure?

It need not be a failure. It can be a good marriage even if the partners don’t find heaven in bed.

Next, is a less-than-heavenly sex performance “normal”?

No one knows the answer, neither clergymen nor doctors. No one knows what normogenic sex performances are in marriage. Scientists have studied pathological marriages, but not normal ones. Small-sample research (such as that by Epstein and Westley at McGill University) supports our contention that sex is not essential; it has been found that some apparently well-adjusted spouses have “given up” sex after a few years of marriage.

In summary, the important thing to remember is that there is no absolute standard against which the success of married sex can be measured as one would clock a hundred-yard dash. Occasionally, there are medical abnormalities (such as disfigured or diseased genitals, impotence, and a pathological fear of sex), but assuming that these are not present, there is only one important question: Is sex a source of pleasure-in the spouses’ own judgment?

What is a satisfying sex experience for two people may well be undesirable for two others, and vice versa. For example, it is estimated by most physicians that more than half of all women married an average of ten years and having three children have never experienced an orgasm. In a sampling made of such cases most of the women were not aware that they had not had a full sex act. They derived varying degrees of pleasure from the physical intimacy with their husbands. Equally interesting is the fact that the husbands frequently did not know that their wives voluntarily made the same noises and motions which they had heard or read were performed by passionate women; the husbands had accepted these as spontaneous and derived satisfaction from them as evidence of the wives’ pleasure.

Spouses should not permit their satisfactions to be influenced by authority figures (such as actors and actresses), advertising, art, literature, and social customs and traditions. Personal sex values concern the two people involved. For example, we know a couple in their seventies. Every evening they bathe and dress elegantly for dinner. They treat each other with the dignity and courtesy of a blossoming courtship. At night when they go to bed they hold each other throughout the night, even though they have not exercised their genitalia for years. The elderly gentleman has described their experience as “having a ten-hour orgasm every night.” For these two, it is a complete and wonderful sex act, and a very satisfying and nourishing one. Who is to differ with them?

Is sex important in married life? Yes, it is. It is one of the cements which hold the bricks of married life together. But the when, the how, the how often, and the quality can only be determined by the people involved.

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.

This striving for being gratified is unfortunately very common, and is the source of much friction and disappointment. Few recognize the sexual satisfaction which lies in satisfying. Not that they do not intend to satisfy, but they do not live in each other-only in themselves. What matters is their own feeling, their own ability, their own being hurt or rejected. They do not get away from themselves. Gratifying love means experiencing and feeling the other lover, unreservedly, unconditionally. As soon as one experiences a feeling of demand, the mind withdraws from the other and centers around one’s self.

The same is true if the feeling of obligation or of threat to one’s prestige develops. Although one seems to be interested in fulfilling his duty, this feeling of obligation-this interest in whether one will be capable or not-is incompatible with fully sensing the partner. Any interest beside mutual enjoyment and gratification distracts and kills the emotion. Impotence and frigidity are the consequences of emotional withdrawal. They are neurotic mechanisms and conceal the true intentions, as any neurotic symptoms do. While one seems consciously concerned with gratifying and gratification, one is actually more interested in one’s own prestige or failure and other problems of defense. It is resentment toward their feminine role that makes many women hesitant to play their feminine part in the communion, and this resentment creates frigidity. Often women are not even aware that they are frigid, for they love their husbands and even feel sexually stimulated. But they lack the final emotional climax which indicates complete surrender. Others vainly expect certain stimulation because they don’t realize that they themselves hinder the development of their emotions to full capacity. Masculine impotency is similar. Impotence means either a desire to keep aloof, to keep distance, or it reflects a profound doubt of being a «real man.” Lack of sexual stimulation or insufficient depth of emotion always mean withholding and desire for distance, often originated by marital discontent and disagreement in other spheres of life.

It is necessary to consider the physiological difference between masculine and feminine rhythm of sexual sensations, which has been discussed so much recently. What is generally overlooked is the fact that men and women must under any circumstances adjust themselves to each other, because no two persons have the same training. The danger in the sexual relationship is the tendency to make demands upon each other. He or she should act and respond differently, slowly or more quickly, gently or violently, adding or omitting certain actions. Unquestionably we educate each other, but never by demanding. A demand only irritates and creates discord and opposition.

If mutual gratification is not obtained automatically, one must start the process of adjustment by oneself. Women are more easily disappointed than men. It is a question whether their retarded reaction is of physiological origin or an expression of their general hesitant attitude toward sexual fulfillment, apparently demanded by social convention. This training of passivity makes women more inclined to demand and to be disappointed, expecting solutions from their partner. Then a vicious circle leads to resentment and profound disturbance of the sexual relationship.

Actually, men and women are more alike than materialistic physiologists are ready to believe. Two individuals united in wholehearted mutual acceptance have the remarkable ability to assimilate. Then, whatever occurs in one is shared by the other. It remains one of the human miracles how human beings are capable of transmitting feelings and even thoughts to each other through the barrier of their own confining bodies. As long as they do not interfere, with their fears and apprehensions, as long as they remain receptive in full relaxation, every emotional impulse of either one affects both alike. Under such conditions, any excitement and gratification occurs simultaneously, regardless of the act or its tempo. The extent of mutual adjustment is practically unlimited. It all depends on unqualified willingness to accept each other, without demand and resentment, without complaint and discomfort. Everything is right so long as both like it. If one-sided, sexual satisfaction is always a misuse of the partner, not much different from rape.” Love is a mutual task; sex a mutual understanding.

Today we may see indiscriminate mating as immoral and crude, but it was necessary for the preservation of the species under primitive conditions of life. The larger the gene pool from which an offspring emerged, the more likely he was to possess adaptive potentialities. When, by chance, “bad” genes (that is, those transmitting characteristics not favorable to survival in a particular environment) were inherited from mother or father, the offspring usually did not survive for long, so there was a tendency for these characteristics not to be perpetuated.

Another factor must have entered the picture at some point many thousands of years ago. Changing atmospheric and soil conditions made possible the advent of tall grasses; shelter and food became more available within a given geographical area, and with the domestication of animals and especially with the acquisition of control over fire, a “camp” could be maintained for relatively long periods of time.

Consider now in a speculative fashion the kind of organization which such circumstances might require. Women tied down by childbirth and child rearing would be likely to remain close to the camp. Men would hunt but return to the camp, either at nightfall (for protection and warmth) or after longer periods of hunting. Individuals would begin to have for their neighbors, though to a lesser extent, the kind of feeling that a mother has for her child. People would be regarded as belonging in one of two categories-those whom one knew and those whom one didn’t know. The latter probably were killed whenever possible, but gradually larger groups collected where the land would support them. And as their numbers increased, people found it necessary to develop tolerance for one another.

About this time, speech probably developed. The utterance of vocal noises appears to have evolved as one method available to primitive man for finding his camp and identifying his own kind. Thus, the rudiments of human speech probably derived from crude calls which identified the location of the camp and gradually came to indicate danger or success in hunting by varying inflections of tonality. Differences in vocalization also distinguished one tribe from another, and probably promoted a developing sense of clan membership.

As long as society remained primitive, the relationship between married male and female was a practical one: the family unit was a unit for physical survival. Almost everyone in it had to work long and hard. A male and a female who became partners and had children normally had greater chances for survival and more advantages than they would have had if they had stayed alone. The first young children were a survival liability, but as they grew up the original “couple” became a group-with all of its members participating in the survival activities. “Love” was not important. In primitive vocabularies there was no word for “love.”

It was not until the Middle Ages that the word “love” (in the sense in which it is used today) became current. Communities developed under the protection of the nobles in their great castles. The lady of a castle assumed the same prestigious position as her husband, the lord. Other people did the work, but the lady of the castle had leisure time to learn to read and practice the arts. Usually she was more educated than her husband, and if she had duties, they were light and principally administrative. Having so much spare time, she often became egocentric, and she began to adorn herself.

She also became bored.

When the Crusades began in the eleventh century, many of the nobles went off to war, leaving their wives at home. The men who did not go on the Crusades tried to amuse the ladies; they wooed them usually with extramarital sex in mind. During this period there arose the phenomenon of the troubadour, usually a noble, who went from castle to castle to entertain. These troubadours sang songs and ballads about “romance” to entertain the lady of the castle.

There is much literature that suggests that sex outside of marriage became the fashion with these ladies. Probably these married women were the aggressors and initiators in these sex activities. The women were bored. They were intellectually and artistically superior to their husbands, and probably resented the inferior, nonproductive position into which they had been forced by a male-dominated society. Extramarital passion was defined by them as “love.”

These ladies of the Middle Ages, in their excessive leisure, gathered into groups called Courts of Love, which defined the current rules and traditions of “love.”