Advice : Wedding, Marriage, Engagement, Anniversary

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.

Ever since history was first well recorded (mostly by the male) men and women in civilized nations have based their behavior on an unprovable belief. Their relations to each other have been founded on the assumption that women and men are vastly different emotionally, intellectually, and spiritually. They have considered each other almost as different species of Homo sapiens.

The myth breaks down into many specific false assumptions (some of which are embraced by men only, some by women only). Here are some examples:

1. Women are more emotional than men.
2. Men are better at abstract thinking than are women.
3. Women are more intuitive than men.
4. Men are more skillful with their hands (and in using tools) than women.
5. Women are more hypochondriacally than men, but men are little boys at heart, especially when they’re ill.
6. It is almost always the man who indulges in infidelity and breaks up the marriage.
7. Homosexuality is practiced more by men than by women.
8. The female usually snares the male.
9. Women are slier and more cunning than men.
10. Men are bolder, more physically vigorous, and more courageous than women.
11. Women are more loving than men.

Believers in these myths often try to support their view by asking questions like the following: Why have there been no famous women chess players? Why so few great female mathematicians, composers, violinists, artists? Why is the male such a beast of infidelity while the woman is usually loyal and chaste? Why do more men have ulcers than women? Why do more men remain emotionally immature all their lives? Why do men start all the wars? It is supposed to be self-evident that these observations are explained by the inherent differences between the sexes.

Rousseau, the great French philosopher, wrote, ‘Woman is especially constituted to please men. . . . to please them, to be useful to them, to make themselves loved and honored by them, to educate them when young, to care for them when grown, to counsel them, to console them and to make life agreeable and sweet to them-these are the duties of women at all times, and what should be taught them from infancy.”

A woman author in nineteenth-century England, who signed herself “Lady of Distinction,” wrote, “The most perfect and implicit faith in the superiority of a husband’s judgment, and the most absolute obedience to his desires, is not only the conduct that will ensure the greatest success, but will give the most entire satisfaction …. ”

Blackstone, the jurist, wrote in his famous Commentaries,

Aristotle wrote, “The male is by nature superior, and the female inferior; and the one rules and the other is ruled …. The male is by nature fitter for command than the female …We must look to the female as being a sort of natural deficiency.”

Even the Christian church downgraded and stereotyped the female. ‘What is woman but an enemy to friendship, and unavoidable punishment, a necessary evil, a natural temptation-a wicked work of nature covered with shining varnish,” wrote St. John Chrysostom. A canonical decree prohibited women from approaching the altar or ministering to the priest. “A woman is incapable of true spiritual jurisdiction,” said a Pope.

All of these statements were made during the last 2,400 years, well into the era in which the male has been dominant in most civilized countries. During this period he has had roles in society which make him appear stronger, wiser, and superior.

There are several explanations for the present acceptance of the natural superiority of men.

First is the fact that in the past the members of the two sexes have found themselves in different social roles. These roles have given the impression that the type of work done by the individual, and his social position, indicate his character and talents. For a long time, man was by necessity the hunter; therefore, he was believed to be more courageous and bold. Woman was immobilized by pregnancy, child rearing, and home duties. Because she was for biological reasons assigned to a domiciliary role, it was assumed that she had a passive nature, and she was treated accordingly. This kind of reasoning is called the self-fulfilling prophecy. The individual believes a certain thing-then unconsciously arranges life so that what he believes becomes a fact.

Because laws and customs usually gave power, property, and authority to the male, the female found that her only obvious avenue of survival was patience, cunning, sex allurement. So she began to exhibit these characteristics even though inherently she possessed them to no greater degree than did the male.

Woman had almost no opportunities to exhibit her abilities in physical activity, intellectual creativity, and invention-abilities usually regarded as being uniquely male. Therefore woman has been considered lacking in these areas.

There is evidence that in prehistoric days (which lasted much longer than the historically recorded period) society was matriarchal-managed by the female. Agriculture, spinning, weaving, pottery-all activities except war and hunting-were carried on by the female. In those days women were the inventive ones, the abstract thinkers who from necessity created tools for turning plant fiber into yam and yam into cloth, discovered such complicated processes as baking and fabricating clay into pottery, and developed the crude instruments for sewing, erecting movable shelters, and so forth. The basic inventions which allowed man to change from a half-animal caveman into a civilized being were made by females because technology was their area of concern. Both men and women long have scoffed at the idea of a female being a political leader. Yet when a woman takes on such a role she often does well. Witness Queen Elizabeth, Cleopatra, Queen Victoria, and Queen Liliuokalani.

It is mainly the pressure of society that determines what roles, attitudes, kinds of behavior, the members of each sex will embrace. These roles, attitudes, and kinds of behavior have almost nothing to do with the sex of the individual-but many males refuse to accept this fact.

The way a person’s role in society influences his status can easily be illustrated. In Hawaii, for example, an Army enlisted man generally is treated as a socially inferior person (except by the merchants who want his money). If a young lady goes out with an enlisted man, friends may raise eyebrows. It is assumed that the enlisted man usually drinks a lot and is not well educated, and that his only reason for dating a local girl is to sleep with her. The status of the Navy enlisted man in Norfolk, Virginia, is even worse.

But observe Private John Smith closely. See how attractive he is? Even though he is the lowest of the enlisted men, Private Smith-like many other servicemen-is a college graduate, from a fine, loving family. He is a person of integrity, gentleness, ambition; and he has a clear, brilliant mind. Yet regardless of his talents and fine character, when people see Private Smith, in his enlisted-man’s uniform, walking down Kalakaua Avenue, they assume that he has the undesirable behavioral tendencies traditionally associated with enlisted men. And they treat him accordingly.

However, if Private Smith is suddenly promoted and becomes Lieutenant John Smith, he ipso facto becomes socially acceptable even to the elite. His role in society has changed. People now assume he is more decent, has better manners, a better mind, than the John Smith who wore a different uniform (and hence played a different role) only a few days before. At neither time do the observers have any information about John Smith. They estimate his worth from the role he is in, according to traditional, anachronistic values. Also, John Smith’s opportunities to exhibit his talents when he was an enlisted man were limited (although not insurmountably) by the social role in which he found himself. Even the wife he chooses will be influenced by whether or not he wears a silver bar.

The same method of assuming that the nature of a role reflects the inherent characteristics of the one playing it has been employed in judgments about the qualities of the male and the female. People have assumed man and woman to be vastly different simply because historically they have carried out different duties in society. It is not usually realized that when the roles of male and female are reversed, each acquires many of the mannerisms and personality traits usually associated with the other. In certain areas in Greece during the Nazi invasion there were no able-bodied men left. The Greek women fought the Germans ferociously and vigorously with rifles, swords, hatchets. The old Greek men stayed home to care for the children and assumed the women’s role. In the same way, the effect of a reversal of roles is strikingly exemplified by young Israeli women who fought bravely in war, swore, cut their hair very short, and dug ditches alongside the men with whom they served. History supplies many instances of this kind.

Another factor which has promoted the belief in rigid male female differences is the influence of publications by scientists most of them men-who unwittingly biased their own experiments to conform to their preconceptions about female inferiority. Their bias created a distortion similar to that which results when Negro children are tested for intelligence by Southern examiners; the children evidence lower IQs than a similar group tested by Northern examiners. We have learned only recently that experiments are influenced by the natural bias of the experimenter and by the environment in which the experiment takes place. The experimenter, without knowing it, affects the behavior of the person he is examining. Often this influence is so great that the response of the subject is almost entirely created by the already held beliefs of the experimenter. It is well established now, for example, that the hallucinations of subjects taking the drug LSD vary with the personality and beliefs of the experimenter and with the environment in which the session is held.

Likewise, when a person has hallucinations as a result of sensory deprivation (in experiments where the subject, with eyes and ears covered, is placed in a quiet, dark room-devoid of any kind of external stimulus), the hallucinations vary according to what the subject has been told he may expect.

It is obvious, of course, that there are physical differences between men and women. There are also psychological differences; but it is difficult to estimate them, let alone measure them accurately. The slight hormonal differences between them relate mainly to sexual functioning. But what happens when the sex hormones are altered? Does this change cause the individuals to be radically incompetent in their present social roles, or make it impossible for them to maintain their status in society, or change their sex patterns? It does not. It has been well demonstrated that both male and female castrates (those having testicles or ovaries removed for medical reasons) can function adequately in their normal social roles if they have internalized the roles before being castrated. They can even achieve sexual satisfaction and orgasms. Perhaps most convincing of all is the work done by Hampton, Money, and Money, in the studies they originated at Johns Hopkins University, concerning hermaphroditic children. Hermaphrodites are physically closer to one sex than the other. But, it has been found, the hermaphrodite child makes a better adjustment to the sex with which its parents have identified it than to the sex to which it is biologically closer. For example, such a child may have functioning ovaries and only rudimentary testicles. In such a case, by hormonal and surgical treatment a physician can most easily bring about a biologically-that is physically-female child; but if the parents have been treating it like a boy and wishing it to be a boy, there will be trouble: the child may turn out to be a homosexual. The psychological trend established by the parents in such cases is more influential than the anatomical situation.

In an example like that of the hermaphroditic children, we are dealing with the extreme end of the continuum; such drastic changes in the bio-psychological nature of human beings can be made only after years of hormone treatments, surgery, and by psychological consultations.

The anthropologist Margaret Mead shows in her books Male and Female and Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies that masculine and feminine behavior is conditioned by the attitude of society. In Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies she discusses her observations of three tribes:

These three situations [in the three tribes] suggest, then, a very definite conclusion. If those temperamental attitudes which we have traditionally regarded as feminine–such as passivity, responsiveness, and a willingness to cherish children-can so easily be set up as the masculine pattern in one tribe, and in another [the second tribe] be outlawed for the majority of men, we no longer have any basis for regarding such aspects of behavior as sex-linked. And this conclusion becomes even stronger when we consider the actual reversal in Tchambuli [the third tribe] of the position of dominance of the two sexes, in spite of the existence of formal patrilineal institutions [in which children carry the name of the father].

Today, in our Western culture, we have our own tribal laws about sex roles. In early life both parents, wittingly and unwittingly, transmit the cultural values to the child by indicating that “boys don’t cry,” “girls don’t fight,” and so on. Mothers tell their daughters, “The trouble with men is…” Fathers implore sons, “For God’s sake, don’t let ‘em sucker you”…

Later on, when dating is culturally appropriate, mothers pass their attitudes toward the opposite sex on to their daughters, and fathers pass their attitudes on to their sons. Mothers seldom discuss dating with their sons, and fathers seldom discuss it with their daughters. In this manner, the parents help perpetuate the myth of the separation of the sexes.

In summary, it is debilitatingly erroneous to believe that there are vast differences between the male and the female and that these differences cause most of the troubles in marriage, There are no vast, innate differences. The behavior patterns, attitudes, and temperaments of the male and the female are not inherently rigid. Despite the habits and cumulative forces of society, the man and woman can determine for themselves what role each will have in marriage. When they are unable to do this, then the marriage either will fail, or will be merely a numb, routine affair. Trouble is caused not by vast differences (which don’t exist), but by the inability to choose and activate the desirable or necessary role.

Both our own research and a review of publications by many social scientists have led us to the conclusion that spouses who have been married for more than three or four years rarely state spontaneously to an interviewer that they are in love with one another. They are more apt to speak in utilitarian terms or to make unilateral statements like “John is a good provider” or “Jane is a good mother to our children.” Yet in many marriages, especially discordant ones, each partner tenaciously and stubbornly believes that he is a loving individual-more loving than his spouse.

Each partner strongly feels that he is trying, with courage and self-sacrifice, to make the marriage work; and that if there is friction; the other partner is causing it. Each may cite specific episodes which demonstrate that he is loving, patient, and good (and that the other is selfish, unkind, and unreasonable).

In many cases, spouses who believe their behavior to be generous and loving, are unwittingly lying to themselves. A large percentage of what they believe to be loving acts are in truth profoundly destructive acts, the expression of an unconscious hypocrisy. The spouses usually are not aware they are murdering their marriages and mangling their partners under the guise of love.

The pattern, in brief, is this: Spouse A believes (consciously) that he is behaving in a loving, benevolent manner to spouse B. In reality (unconsciously) A is behaving in a harmful manner. If B labels the behavior as harmful rather than benevolent, A is hurt and replies, “I was only trying to be helpful.”

The accusations, misunderstandings, and fights now begin.

Here are three examples.

1. Michael Young (who was a bachelor until he was thirty-two) is a marvelous cook and an efficient housekeeper. His wife, Martha, knows almost nothing about domestic science. She has lived abroad most of her life. Her family had servants for all chores. Michael is unhappy over Martha’s low-grade performance in cooking and home maintenance.”I will show you how to do it,” says Michael. “I will teach you.” On weekends Michael puts on a brilliant performance, cleaning the house with efficiency and speed, and concocting gourmet meals effortlessly. He repeats the act whenever there are guests present (”because that’s when Martha needs help most”) and frequently reminds her that he is helping her.Actually he is showing her up, nagging her, making her feel even more helpless and incompetent. He is making her afraid to try to learn, and is convincing her that no matter what heroic efforts she makes, she will be a failure. He is unconsciously persuading her that she will never be able to equal his own performance and satisfy him. But he says-and believes-he is helping her and being loving.
2. Joan Dalrymple is a great cook. She majored in domestic science at a women’s school and later studied cooking in Paris and Vienna. Preparing things to eat-the fancier the better-is the passion of her life. She bakes her own bread, makes her own mayonnaise, grows her own herbs, and livens up vegetables and meats with rich egg and cream sauces. Her desserts are famous. People are eager to be invited to the Dalrymple home.Joan is proud of her skill. She has elaborate dinner parties regularly, which she regards as her way of exhibiting her love for Howard and of helping him in his business. She forgets how much she enjoys receiving the praise of her guests, and their requests for recipes.
3. Howard is getting fatter by the month. His blood cholesterol is up; his physician wants him to lose weight. But Howard’s health requirements do not take precedence over Joan’s determination to nourish her own ego by impressing others with her skill as a cook and as a thoughtful loving wife, nor over her wish to advertise how much she is helping Howard professionally.Howard tries to follow his doctor’s advice, but finds it hard to refuse eating in front of guests; or to appear difficult after listening to Joan enthusiastically describe how she drove twenty miles to a farm to obtain absolutely fresh cream.Howard may, with tired despair, eat the food and hope to reduce in other ways. Paradoxically, Howard believes he is being loving when he does so, because he doesn’t wish to hurt Joan’s feelings-especially in front of guests. In this way he is compounding Joan’s deceit and destructive behavior. He is not only permitting Joan’s “loving” actions and attitudes to destroy him; he is assisting her.
4. Joe, who has been married about three years, works hard in his advertising office. He comes home at night extremely fatigued. At his moment of arrival his wife greets him effusively and insists on “relaxing him and taking care of him.” During the summer she always meets him at the garden gate, kisses him affectionately, puts her arm around him, and leads him to the chaise longue in the shade beneath the apple tree. There, waiting for him, are a glass of freshly made lemonade and two aspirins.”But, Marie, I don’t want to …”"Now, darling, you’re exhausted and nervous, and I know what’s good for you. That’s my sole function in life-to take care of you…

Observed objectively, this dialogue sounds like part of a comic opera, but variations of it occur daily in thousands of homes.

Joe may be flattered, but he is also irritated. What he would like to do is have a martini, a hot tub, and about a half hour of quiet. But Marie insists, and Joe usually gives in. Yet each evening, driving home from work and thinking about the reception he’ll receive from Marie, he feels extremely angry. Sometimes he even wishes his wife would die: “If she were dead, I could get into the house without being molested.” This thought recurs so often that Joe finally feels he is losing his mind, and goes to a psychiatrist.

The psychiatrist interviews both Joe and Marie.

Here is part of his private report: “Marie is a ’sweet’ person who has firm ideas about what a wife should do for her husband. When her determined benevolence violates her husband’s concepts, Joe resists and tells her to stop managing him. Marie responds by bursting into tears, clinging to Joe, and pathetically sobbing that he is rejecting her and does not love her.”

And indeed after several years of Marie’s “benevolence” Joe does reject her and dislike her. Marie has “loved” him into a nasty divorce.

Joe’s friends are shocked. How can he leave such a loving wife?

Joe shakes his head with the unmistakable air of a man misunderstood. “Yes,” he is able to reply, after several months of seeing the psychiatrist, “Marie worked hard to make a good marriage. She worked so hard she forgot about me as an individual.”

There are many other examples of behavior which appears to be loving but is really selfish. Consider, for instance, the spouse who “loves” the other so much that whenever they are separated he frets, phones, telegraphs, writes his partner to distraction. Or examine the behavior of the individual who believes he wishes to make the other proud of him-but really desires to exhibit his fine intelligence and talents. In a group with the spouse, he will dominate all conversation, answer all questions addressed to the spouse, and even steal all the punch lines, all with the air of being supportive and helpful, of trying to make “both of us” look intelligent.

The husband who picks out a new car and gives it to his wife as a surprise birthday present is proud of his generosity and his loving behavior. He looks ahead for the Hash of joy which will light her face when she finds the car with her initials on it waiting in the garage. But this desire for an enthusiastic response, a look of joyful surprise, is selfish-he is nourishing his own ego. Were his wife’s happiness and pride as significant to him as his own, he would have told her to pick out the automobile which she wanted, giving her the pleasure of choosing the make, model, color, accessories, and so forth. Or he would have suggested that they both go out and look at cars together. We do not mean to imply, however, that the occasional, spontaneous acts of giving which occur in marriage are harmful.

The generalized recommendation to “be loving” offered by counselors is too vague to be helpful and often simply makes the worried spouse feel guilty about being human and occasionally unloving. And when giving is spontaneous rather than forced, it brings joy to both the giver and the receiver. And when a so-called marriage counselor recommends a “loving” act which one spouse performs independently (without discussion and mutual agreement), he is leading the spouse into debilitating behavior. The “loving” spouse is here unilaterally deciding the nature of the marriage relationship. This kind of behavior unequivocally leads to trouble.

Yet just such behavior-which we call loving self-deception, is recommended by many writers on marriage in newspapers, magazines, and books, and by many marriage counselors, some of whom have an M.D. or a Ph.D. after their name. The advice goes something like this: “If you want to make your wife happy, send her roses once a week.” But the wife may resent the spending of seven dollars a week on flowers. She may prefer to spend the money at a beauty parlor or on new clothes. Consider the following (paraphrased) remarks of a nationally syndicated marriage counselor to a woman who seeks advice on how to behave toward her husband, whom she has just caught making love to another woman:

Dear Madam:

It is obvious that you have not been providing your spouse with sufficient stimulation at home. How long has it been since you’ve had your hair restyled? Do you wear a dirty wrapper to the breakfast table.–:-your hair still in curlers?

I suggest you say nothing about the situation to your husband.

Simply make it a practice to arise a half hour before he does in the morning and start his day off right by being a charming, attractive wife.

It is not obvious why the expert chose appearance as the focal point for his cure, but he is treating the situation as if it were solely the wife’s fault. There are many reasons why his advice is unfortunate-if not actually harmful-including such obvious possibilities as the following:

1. The husband’s fondness for his paramour may indicate not sexual dissatisfaction, but a desire for intellectual companionship; he may already feel his wife is too vain and resent her lack of interest in intellectual activities. The columnist’s advice, in this case, will only increase their problems.
2. If the wife is suddenly “loving” and charming and the husband is feeling guilty for having behaved badly, what will he think of his wife’s inappropriate behavior? He may easily imagine that she is simply biding her time before letting the ax fall-by secretly making legal arrangements for separation or divorce. In the meantime, with no honest communication between them, his suspicions and guilt and her suspicions and anger will only drive them further apart.
3. Most important, how does this advice aid the couple to examine their total relationship-which is, after all, the key to the reasons for any form of infidelity?

Thus behavior which appears to be loving may in reality be a form of one-upmanship, selfishness, and lack of consideration. Deception of oneself and others is destructive, and accelerates the disintegration of a marriage.

All human beings perform unilateral and selfish acts. To do so is not always bad; it sometimes can be wholesome if the individual knows what is happening. But under no circumstances can these acts be regarded as loving, and the first requirement for a workable marriage is to live and relate on a basis of reality, not of myths, obsolete and meaningless traditions, and self-deceit.

Most of us in this country are taught diplomacy, decorum, and the art of self-restraint. Many husbands and wives believe that politeness, consideration, and benevolence are important in a marriage, and not wishing to be rejected, they may attempt to practice these arts unremittingly.

If spouses are thoughtful of each other on all occasions, the likelihood is that they have a sick marriage. It is obvious that individuals have competing tendencies-different interests, different ways of using time, different biological rhythms, and so on -and they cannot always have the same desires, needs, wishes, or whatever at the same time. The problem then is: What should they do when conflicts arise?

There are several possible answers, but the most important one is that the individual should do what he feels he has to do at this particular moment, and should believe enough in the durability of the marriage to withstand even a period of hate from the other spouse. When such conflicts do not ever arise, it must be concluded that the spouses are peculiarly lucky in having chosen partners with exactly the same values, tastes, needs, and so on, or that somebody is sacrificing quietly and will unwittingly pay the other spouse back.

This may sound like explosive propaganda. But the alternative is a relationship in which one spouse thinks so little of his partner that he cannot permit an independent act that happens to displease him for the time being. How can spouses trust each other if they never have any disagreements? How does each know what the other really thinks and feels if he is accommodating and thoughtful all the time? For all anyone can tell, one spouse may secretly hate the other’s guts.

Tom Henderson was a successful insurance executive with a mad passion for golf. He had been planning for some time to attend a golf clinic being given in Concord, Massachusetts, by his favorite professional. Not only was he delighted to have the opportunity to work with his favorite pro, but knowing this geographical area he realized that coming here would be very pleasant for his wife and two children; they could rent an attractive older home, swim in a nearby lake, and engage in many of the pleasant activities of the city. Mary, his wife, was a bit reluctant, particularly because she was not well acquainted with the East and wasn’t sure what she was getting into. However, Tom’s enthusiasm overcame her reluctance, and the kids were always eager for a vacation.

But over the next few months a subtle campaign of propaganda was beamed toward Tom Henderson. It came from all directions. For example, Mrs. Smythe, Mary’s mother, had taken an apartment in Honolulu, near the beach. She wrote to her daughter that she wished the whole family would visit her, and described what a wonderful time the children would have. Thereafter, the advantages for the children formed the core of Mary’s propaganda campaign. Magazines with pictures of brown skinned, lithe surfers lay exposed on the coffee table and occasionally at the writing desk. Also, knowing Tom’s interest in golf, Mary one morning read him an article about a recent golfing match at the Waialae Country Club. She mentioned with a shy smile that her friend Nancy, who lived in Honolulu, had told her that golfers consider a round at the course of the Oahu Country Club one of the great golfing experiences of all time.

While Mary spoke, Tom was hastily reading his mail and finishing his last mouthful of coffee. Not until he had nearly reached his office did it occur to him to wonder, “How come Mary’s interested in golf all of a sudden?”

“Oh, well.” He turned to the tasks of the day. His errant thought lay untended and died.

When Jane, their oldest daughter, celebrated her birthday in May, Mary presented her with a ukulele and a book of twelve easy lessons.

Now the propaganda had reached the stage where it became obvious even to Tom. One night he confronted his wife. “Darling,” he said, “I thought we had agreed we were going to Concord this summer for our vacation. Now 1 get the impression that you’re pushing for Honolulu.”

Mary regarded him with her wide, startlingly blue eyes much as she would a man from Mars suddenly appearing in her bedroom.

Tom absently nodded and went into the bathroom to brush his teeth. He felt like a bit of a stinker for having raised the question, but something was still tugging at his mind and he was not satisfied. When he got to bed he went right to sleep, with no thought of being amorous. Mary didn’t rest well that night, for the hand that grasps for power is always a bit shaky.

As the days went by, Tom was reminded by both children of what a wonderful place Hawaii is. He suspected that Mary was putting them up to this, but where was the evidence? Jane seemed to have a new-found interest in hula lessons, and Tom junior spoke with wonder of the intricacies of surfing. Then one day Mary brought Tom a somewhat pleading letter from her mother describing her wish to see them and stating that a lovely apartment would become available close by during August-the very month that they were planning to spend in Concord. Now Tom was no longer in doubt. He recognized the nature of the enemy, but almost as quickly as he turned to fight he found his resistance fading. What father likes to deny his children? What husband wishes to keep his wife separated from her aged mother (whom she may never see alive again), and from school chums whom she hasn’t seen in many years? Who can deny the beauty of Hawaii and the excellence of its golfing spots? And so Tom succumbed and erected in place of the defeat in the Battle of Concord an icon at which he daily worshiped: the image of Tom Henderson, Family Man.

Mary’s mother was waiting for them at the airport in Honolulu.

Although the Henderson family had been surfeited with food and drink, everyone accepted grandma’s gracious hospitality as she took them to lunch at the Outrigger Club. Leaning against the back of his chair and looking out at the sparkling Pacific, Tom sipped his favorite beer, hoping that some appetite would come so that he would not have the embarrassment of being the only one not eating. He half listened to the cheery conversation as grandma told the children about the wonders they would soon behold. Mary interrupted; running in and out of the conversation like a track star with what Tom considered wife-type questions: ‘Where can you get this?” “Where’s the best place to buy that?”

Since first getting on the plane Tom had been aware of a slow ball of dread forming in his stomach, and now it felt distended. He had been helped on the flight by two vodka martinis and half a bottle of Chablis, but the liquor hadn’t dissolved the lump in his gut. It had only anesthetized the surrounding area. Tom sat there, and to his horror he began to feel hate-not for the children, not for his mother-in-law, but for Mary. Suddenly, for the first time in the months of propaganda and the weeks of knowing that he had been hoodwinked, he experienced a surge of resoluteness. He sat straighter, and gulped his beer instead of swishing it around like mouthwash.

Tom had a plan, but he said nothing about it. He allowed his mother-in-law to pay for the lunch, and made arrangements for transporting their huge pile of baggage to the apartment. He worked hard helping the family get settled and even went with Mary to the supermarket to lay in a stock of food. He had time for these things because his plane did not leave until midnight.

Mrs. Smythe had them over to supper. Tom went through the routine of replying to meaningless questions about his work and how his golf game was faring, and played an All about Hawaii word game with the kids. Finally the Hendersons left grandmas. When they reached their own apartment, Tom called his family into the small living room and told them, as dispassionately and kindly as he could, that he was leaving on that midnight plane for San Francisco and had been lucky enough to secure a connecting Hight to New York. When his wife, with her white, stricken face, started to open her mouth, Tom held up his hand and said, in a tone stronger than he usually employed, «Let me finish.” Talking to the children, so that Mary could listen without feeling so attacked, he explained that he was not leaving the family, but was doing something that he felt he had to do. He recognized that his decision was expensive, would upset the rest of the family, and would ruin him forever in his mother-in-law’s eyes. He would like to rejoin them in two weeks, and would be very sad if they were so immutably angry about his decision that he was no longer welcome; however, this was a chance he would have to take. He had counted on this golf vacation for a long time and-he reminded them without an air of martyrdom-it had been many years since they had taken the vacation he wanted. He stated that at times it was necessary to do something drastic to break a pattern that was forming, and this one threatened to encrust not just the marriage, but the interrelationships of the entire family.

Then he told them that he was not willing to discuss the matter, since his decision was irrevocable. Here he was wise, for there is nothing more useless than beating and bloodying a fait accompli with hopeless argumentation. His wife’s response was to run crying from the room. Tom had expected this, and it did not curb his resolution. He kissed the children and, sad but erect, walked down the long stairs.

All this occurred ten years ago. The Hendersons are still married, and enjoy a mutual respect that was formerly missing. During her husband’s absence Mary recognized that she was something of a spoiled child. She recalled that her own father had rarely gotten his way, and did not fight for it. As a result, Mrs. Smythe had grown more and more into a skillful manipulator and dictator, often using the excuse that something was «best for Mary” to get her own way. The parallel was very obvious to Mary, and she respected Tom for breaking the mold. They eventually agreed that for them the only workable system would be to take turns in making decisions, since this would eliminate the need for covert maneuvering and propagandizing through the children.

The Honolulu episode also proved useful in another way. During the two weeks Tom was in Concord, Mary performed superbly. To her own surprise she found that her anger at him gave her the strength to enjoy the children in a manner she had not experienced before.

The Henderson story came close to having a very different ending. But great changes are built upon risk taking.

While “family” isn’t the topic of this series and “marriage” is; yet it would be an injustice to any description of the marital system to assume that the child plays no role in the making or breaking of the marriage.’ To have children is one of the explicit reasons for marrying; indeed, in some religious groups, sexual intercourse between spouses is supposed to occur only for the purpose of procreation. It is easily observed that some spouses are totally child-oriented: they live for their children. In return, the children keep the marriage alive by providing the parents a raison d’ etre for the marriage, and help fill the emotional and physical distance between the spouses, so that the expression of tension and friction between them is kept at a minimum. When the children leave home, these marriages typically are in serious difficulties-unless the parents are fortunate enough to have developed outside interests sufficient to maintain the protective distance between them.

Certain basic questions, propositions, and observations concerning the effects of children on marriage merit special discussion. Let us consider, first, whether childless marriages are less successful than marriages which beget offspring. This is a real yes-and-no proposition despite the public’s general belief that marriages which result in children are more successful. For example, spouses who marry relatively late in life tend not to have children and yet appear to have a higher average of functional marriages than couples marrying earlier. But it is the fact that they do not marry until later than their peers that has most to do with how the marriages turn out; the fact that they do not have children is accessory. Several studies also indicate that professional women who marry later than their peers and choose not to have children have a better marital record than their undergraduate college classmates. Successful professional women who marry later than their collegiate peers tend to hold satisfying, well-paying jobs, so they do not rush into marriage for financial reasons and feel they must have children, in part, to hold their husbands. In the lower classes, a father may desert his family when he staggers under the realization of how many mouths there are to feed. Here the presence of children is clearly a liability.

Thus, one cannot generalize with certitude about the proposition that children help or hinder a marriage. Instead, the question becomes meaningful only when specific types of marital interaction within varying ethnic and socio-economic groups are studied. It is obvious, for example, that conventional, middle-class Midwesterners in agricultural areas are quite likely to marry, to stay married once they have said “I do,” and to have children-because their values teach them to do so. Again, one cannot say that they have more successful marriages than other groups because they usually have children; having children is just part of their larger cultural context and value system.

Another observation often made is that it is desirable for married couples to wait a year or two before starting a family. This statement, for a number of reasons, deserves a nearly unequivocal yes. Now that we have “the pill,” family planning should be as frankly discussed as the budget, and it should be as forthrightly carried out as the inevitable purchase of a television set.

Young people who marry because the girl is pregnant are very often doomed to find themselves parties to a divorce or an annulment. Marriages in which the wife becomes pregnant on the honeymoon seem to be much less risky than those beginning with a shotgun wedding. However, though there is no convincing set of statistics to indicate that these couples divorce more frequently than couples who postpone pregnancy, marriage experts agree that early pregnancy destroys (or at least maims) the important “getting-to-know-you” period of the first year or so of marriage.

Often serious problems result from the purely fiscal or physical aspects of early pregnancy. For example, the husband may have to quit school and get a job because there is an unexpected mouth to feed. Correspondingly, if pregnancy forces the wife to leave a job from which she derives a great deal of satisfaction, she may have a good many negative feelings about her new role as a mother. Pregnancy may throw the couple’s beginning sexual adjustment out of whack because the girl is resentful of what he “did” to her, and the young husband may feel trapped because of what she “allowed to happen.”

But what about couples that have been married for a number of years? Can a correlation be found between their chances for marital success and the number of offspring?

In Puerto Rico, India, and other countries where devices preventing pregnancy have been in use for five or more years, statistics are becoming available. These indicate that most couples do not wish large families, and that there are a higher percentage of happy, productive marriages among couples who have no children. Recent research suggests that the same situation exists in the United States, and that the parents of five or more children who so proudly point to their huge brood may be putting on an act.

In countries where the new contraceptives (pills and intrauterine contraceptive devices) are utilized, evidence is accumulating that not even those who traditionally have large families such as Catholics, Negroes, and the poor-necessarily want a great many children. In the United States the difference in family size between poor .people and the well-to-do used to be sizable. Now it is diminishing rapidly.

Our picture of the large, happy family (the poor and shoeless) was based on myth. Instead, it appears that desertion rate among fathers diminishes when family size is controlled-when the very size of the family doesn’t panic the father into leaving.

These facts do not mean that the presence of children reduces the chance for success of any particular marriage. However, it is clear that the begetting of children is not a magic which will improve an already shaky marriage; instead, it will help to destroy it even further.

One aspect of the myth that children will automatically improve a marriage stems from the parent’s unconscious (sometimes even conscious) belief that he can experience through his child the things he was denied or failed at as a child. Or, perhaps, from the belief that he can develop in the youngster those desirable qualities lacking in the other spouse. For example, a man who is secretly ashamed of his wife’s dowdiness may work extra hard to earn money to buy attractive outfits for his infant daughter. His wife may share his enthusiasm for their “cute little girl” and take pride in the neighbor’s comments about the daughter’s outfits, but she also understands (often unconsciously) her husband’s opinion that she is dowdy-even though he may not tell her so directly.

Childless couples can sometimes reconcile their marital differences and disappointments by ignoring the discords, pretending they do not exist. They can seek compensating gratifications elsewhere, perhaps in their work-it is simple for both of them to have jobs. However, when there is a child, this shift of emphasis is impossible, and the child becomes living evidence of the dissatisfaction in the marital relationship.

Children by their presence may aggravate an already unhappy marriage by virtue of the role which they play in the relationship between spouses that may be labeled the battle of the sexes. The power struggle between the sexes often focuses upon the question of who-husband or wife-does the more important work. Should the husband have certain prerogatives because he earns the money? Should the wife, who stays at home doing routine work and does not meet new people daily as her husband does, have some compensating rewards? Should she be taken out often, or have several nights off to attend motion pictures, or to play bridge with the girls? By finding some chore which the father may logically be expected to do for the child, the wife may be indicating to the husband that he is neglecting an important part of his function and that even if he earns the money and is important in his office, he is no better than she is. Conversely, the man who wishes to put his wife one down can always find some instance of child neglect, particularly if the child becomes noisy or ill.

It is obvious that sacrificing or compromising one’s personal desires in order to meet the needs and wishes of another can create a sense of deprivation and become abrasive in any relationship. Children require a great deal of care and attention which often conflicts with their parents’ own needs and desires. Yet in our culture fathers and mothers cannot often admit their sense of personal deprivation. Therefore, since they cannot feel guilty about having children, they end up blaming each other.

If when a child is conceived the parents hope the infant will mend a fractured marriage, the disappointment may be excruciatingly painful. The child’s presence in a discordant union, therefore, may instigate new troubles and the marital relationship may deteriorate even more.

For example, a young woman feels that her amorously adventurous husband will be “steadied” by becoming a father. Within a year she gives birth to a baby girl. The husband is pleased and proud of the little girl. He pours the majority of his affection on her, thus rejecting the wife in a blatant manner. The mother begins disliking the child almost to the point of hate.

At first the wife thinks it cute when the little girl (at eighteen months of age) refuses to obey her and waits for Daddy to come home and arbitrate matters between her and her mother. It is not so funny when the little girl becomes an accomplished enough actress to stage tearful scenes. If her mother appears adamant, the daughter, now four years old, dramatically tells other adults how bad Mommy is and declares that she and Daddy are going to live somewhere else. The father is usually flattered by this behavior and rarely interferes. Occasionally he becomes embarrassed and even frightened by the situation, and in a rage, punishes the child. The mother then attempts to protect her daughter and again the parents are caught up in mutually destructive behavior.

In another situation, common in white upper-middle-class marriages, the wife uses the children to undermine the husband’s authority and power. She manages this by unwittingly encouraging or assisting the children to break the rules established by the father when he is trying hard to be “in charge.”

For example, as the father backs out of the garage on his way to work, he notices the children’s toys in the driveway. He gets out, throws bicycles, skates, toys, and baseball bats out of the way, then dashes to the kitchen and shouts, “Coddamn it, Martha, you tell the kids to put their stuff in the playshed and the next time anyone leaves anything out he’ll spend the day in his room.”

That night he is late for dinner. When he drives into the garage, he hears the crunch of wheels rolling over a skate board and a bicycle. He storms into the house. His family has begun eating. Martha is looking fresh, clean, and relaxed.

He screams, “Martha, who in the goddamn hell left the toys in the garage? This morning …”

Martha replies, “Oh dear, that’s probably my fault. I chased the twins in to get their baths and didn’t think about the bicycle and toys. Dear, is that such a terrible crime?” The husband turns on his heel and leaves, loudly slamming the back door. Another devastating battle has begun with the usual first act, “The Defeat of Dad.”

All these examples illustrate Haws in the basic myth that when two people are about to be married and there are potential problems (caused, for example, by little money, different racial backgrounds, or different cultural levels), these major problems will be solved by the couple’s sheer joy in having a child. True, they may find pleasure in the youngster, but the presence of the child probably will not eliminate existing difficulties. The adults must find solutions on their own. And unfortunately, the child may well aggravate the problems.

The truth of this observation becomes apparent when one considers that the family is a system and that every person in a system is equally important in maintaining it. Just when Martha has forgiven John for one of his occasional temperamental outbursts, John junior puts on an act which Martha associates with his father, and she is angry at her husband all over again. When John senior comes home that night seeking solace, his wife attacks him for being temperamental; he feels, “But I haven’t done anything,” and has a temper tantrum. John junior, watching this outburst, has his own temperamental behavior reinforced. The three individuals are caught up in a system which will repeat itself, and Martha’s blaming John’s heredity for his being temperamental-or John’s blaming Martha’s physiology for producing “bad times” each month-will only obscure the nature of the system in which they are caught.

Even though people are reluctant to admit it, most husbands and wives are disappointed in their marriages. There is overwhelming evidence to confirm this.

At least one person out of every two who gets married will be divorced within about ten years. Many of these will indulge in legal polygamy-that is, they will marry and divorce several times. All told, the divorce rate in the United States is 51 per cent.

Marriage is so turbulent an institution that articles on how to patch up disintegrating marriages can be found in almost every issue of our family magazines and daily newspapers, with titles such as “How to Keep Your Husband Happy,” “How to Make Your Wife Feel Loved.” Surveys show that this sort of article frequently attracts more readers than anything else in the publication. It appears because of public demand, a demand which must originate from millions of unhappy, confused, and dissatisfied couples. Evidently the dreamed-of marriage often does not materialize. There are unexpected shortcomings, bickering, and misunderstandings. Most spouses to varying degrees are frustrated, confused, belligerent, and disappointed.

Almost every expression of our culture, including advertisements, has something to say about how to improve female-male relationships. Motion pictures, plays, television, radio, feature the friction between wife and husband more than any other subject.

The offices of marriage counselors, psychologists, and psychiatrists are crowded with clients who are concerned over problems which mainly involve marriage, and who pay from twenty-five dollars to fifty dollars an hour for assistance. But these troubled people usually cannot identify their problems; even worse, they usually do not sincerely seek solutions. What each one wants is confirmation that he is correct and good, and that his spouse is the one at fault!

One reason for this marital disenchantment is the prevalence of the mistaken belief that “love” is necessary for a satisfying and workable marriage. Usually when the word “love” is used, reference is actually being made to romance-that hypnotic, ecstatic condition enjoyed during courtship. Romance and love are different. Romance is based usually on minimum knowledge of the other person (restricted frequently to the fact that being around him is a wonderful, beatific, stimulating experience). Romance is built on a foundation of quicksilver non-logic. It consists of attributing to the other person-blindly, hopefully, but without much basis in fact-the qualities one wishes him to have, though they may not even be desirable, in actuality. Most people who select mates on the basis of imputed qualities later find themselves disappointed, if the qualities are not present in fact, or discover that they are unable to tolerate the implication of the longed-for qualities in actual life. For example, the man who is attracted by his fiancée’s cuteness and sexiness may spend tormented hours after they are married worrying about the effect of these very characteristics on other men. It is a dream relationship, an unrealistic relationship with a dream person imagined in terms of one’s own needs.

Romance is essentially selfish, though it is expressed in terms of glittering sentiment and generous promises, which usually cannot be fulfilled. (”I’ll be the happiest man in the world for the rest of my life.” “I’ll make you the best wife any man ever had.”)

Romance-which most spouse’s mistake for love-is not necessary for a good marriage. The sparkle some couples manage to preserve in a satisfying marriage-based on genuine pleasure in one another’s company, affection and sexual attraction for the spouse as he really is-can be called love.

If romance is different than love, then what is love? We do best to return to the definition of Harry Stack Sullivan: “When the satisfaction or the security of another person becomes as significant to one as is one’s own satisfaction or security, and then the state of love exists.” In this sense, love consists of a devotion and respect for the spouse that is equal to one’s own self-love.

We have already shown that people usually marry on a wave of romance having nothing to do with love. When the average American (not long from the altar) lives with the spouse in the intimacy of morning bad breath from too much smoking, of annoying habits previously not known, when he is hampered by the limitations of a small income (compared with the lavishness of the honeymoon), or encounters the unexpected irritability of premenstrual tension or of business frustration and fatigue, a change in attitude begins to occur. The previously romantic person begins to have doubts about the wonderful attributes with which his spouse has been so blindly credited.

These doubts are particularly disturbing at the start. Not very long ago, after all, the spouse believed that “love” (romance) was heavenly, all-consuming, immutable, and that beautiful relationships and behavior were voluntary and spontaneous. Now, if doubts and criticism are permitted to intrude upon this perfect dream, the foundations begin to shake in a giddy manner. To the husband or wife the doubts seem to be evidence that one of them is inadequate or not to be trusted. The doubts imply that the relationship is suffering from an unsuspected malignancy.

To live with another person in a state of love (as defined by Sullivan) is a different experience from whirling around in a tornado of romance. A loving union is perhaps best seen in elderly couples who have been married for a long time. Their children have grown, the pressure of business has been relieved, and the specter of death is not far away. By now, they have achieved a set of realistic values. These elderly spouses respect each other’s idiosyncrasies. They need and treasure companionship. Differences between them have been either accepted or worked out; they are no longer destructive elements. In such instances each has as much interest in the well-being and security of the other as he has in himself. Here is true symbiosis: a union where each admittedly feeds off the other. Those who give together really live together!

But it is possible to have a productive and workable marriage without love (although love is desirable) as well as without romance. One can have a functioning marriage which includes doubts and criticisms of the spouse and occasional inclinations toward divorce. The husband or wife may even think about how much fun it might be to flirt with an attractive neighbor. Such thoughts can occur without being disastrous to the marriage. In many workable marriages both spouses get a good deal of mileage out of fantasy.

How, then, can we describe this functional union which can bring reasonable satisfaction and well-being to both partners? It has four major elements: tolerance, respect, honesty, and the desire to stay together for mutual advantage. One can prefer the spouse’s company to all others’, and even be lonely in his absence, without experiencing either the wild passion inherent in romance, or the totally unselfish, unswerving devotion that is basic in true love.

In a workable marriage both parties may be better off together than they would have been on their own. They may not be ecstatically happy because of their union, and they may not be “in love,” but they are not lonely and they have areas of shared contentment. They feel reasonably satisfied with their levels of personal and interpersonal functioning. They can count their blessings and, like a sage, philosophically realize that nothing is perfect.

We must return once again to the meaning of the word “love,” for no other word in English carries more misleading connotations. The following is an actual example of how distorted the thinking of an individual may become when he believes he is in love.

A young woman and her fiancé visiting a marriage counselor had completed an interpersonal test which told much about their behavior and how they viewed each other. The counselor, after studying the data, asked why the woman wished to marry this man, who was an admitted alcoholic. She said she had sought the counselor’s help because she did have some doubts. Her previous husband, from whom she had recently been divorced, was weak and passive. Now she was looking for a man strong enough to take care of her.

The marriage counselor explained that he could not understand why she had picked an alcoholic-obviously a weak man who could not possibly look after her. She would have to look after him.

Her fiancé sat passively by and did not enter the conversation. The counselor asked again, ‘Why do you want to marry this man who appears to be just the opposite of the spouse you say you need?”

The young woman shrugged her shoulders, smiled happily, and said, with dogmatic conviction, “Because I love him.”

Her fiancé smiled and nodded in support of her unsupportable statement.

It is obvious that this woman did not know what she meant by “I love him.” She did not even know how she felt about him. Because of her complex neurotic needs she had a desire for this man-and it could probably be shown that this was a unilateral and totally selfish desire. Her choice of someone to “love” had nothing to do with her prospects for having a workable or satisfying marriage. The word “love” was a cover-up for an emotional mix-up which she did not understand.

Often “I love you” is an unconscious excuse for some form of emotional destructiveness. Sometimes it is a camouflage for a status struggle, which may continue even after a couple has separated. A spouse who has been deserted (especially for another) may covertly or unconsciously wish to be identified and applauded as the good and loyal partner. The jilted spouse assumes a saintly, pious behavior-especially in public-and makes certain everyone knows he still “loves” the other and will lovingly and patiently wait forever until the other comes to his senses. This can be accomplished with operatic flamboyance while the individual simultaneously has a well-hidden affair with someone else’s husband or wife; and the apparent inconsistency later can be rationalized away: “After John’s [or Mary’s] departure there was such a hole in my life I had to do something to stay on an even keel. If I had had a breakdown it would have hurt the children. But my behavior didn’t alter the fact that I loved him.”

This type of “love” is especially likely to manifest itself when one spouse believes he received ill-treatment from the other for some years prior to the final desertion. The “injured” spouse (for so he regards himself no matter what he did to hurt and destroy the other) will loudly maintain with grief: “But I still love him.” It takes little clinical experience or psychological brilliance to recognize that usually this person really is exhibiting hurt pride and rage at being the one who was left, rather than the one who did the leaving.

“Love” may also be used as an excuse for domination and control. The expression “I love you” has such an immutable place in our traditions that it can serve as an excuse for anything, even for selfishness and evil. Who can protest against something done ”because I love you,” especially if the assertion is made with histrionic skill and in a tone of sincerity? The victim-the one on the receiving end-may intuitively realize that he is being misused. Yet he often finds it impossible to remonstrate.

Sullivan’s definition of love is important. It describes not a unilateral process, but a two-way street, a bilateral process in which two individuals function in relation to each other as equals. Their shared behavior interlocks to form a bond that represents mutual respect and devotion. One spouse alone cannot achieve this relationship. Both must participate to the same degree. The necessity for both spouses to “give” equally is one of the reasons that a marriage built upon mutual love is so rare.

People naturally wish to have a happy marriage to a loving spouse. But such a union is hard to come by without knowledge of the anatomy of marriage, plus much patience, work-and luck. Many people fail to face the fact that if their parents’ marriage was unhappy or their childhood was neurotic, they do not possess the prerequisite experience for choosing the correct mate. Where have they observed a good model for marriage? How can they possibly know what a loving marriage is like-and what elements must be put into it?

Most Americans enter marriage expecting to have love without having asked themselves the question, Am I lovable? Following close behind is another question: If I am not lovable, is it not likely that I have married an unloving person?

There is another misuse of the word “love,” Some people believe that they can love generously even if doing so requires behaving like a martyr. They believe their rewards will come not on earth but in heaven, or at least in some mystical, unusual way. Therefore they seem able to love unilaterally and want nothing for themselves. They suffer happily and enjoy making sacrifices while pouring their love out on another. The more undeserving the other is the more of this love there is to be poured.

This situation is deceptive. Martyrdom is actually one of the most blatant types of self-centeredness. No one can be more difficult to deal with than the one-way benevolent person who frantically, zealously, and flamboyantly tries to help someone else, and apparently seeks nothing for himself.

Nathan Epstein, William Westley, Murray Bowen, John Workentin, Don Jackson, and others who have conducted research on couples who are content with their marriages and have reared apparently healthy, successful children, agree that companionability and respect are the key words in the lexicon these couples use to describe their marriages. A husband interviewed in one study stated: “In love? Well, I guess so-haven’t really thought about it. I suppose I would, though, if Martha and I were having troubles. The Chinese have a saying, ‘One hand washes the other.’ That sort of describes us, but I don’t know if that’s what you mean by love.”

The happy, workable, productive marriage does not require love as defined in this book, or even the practice of the Golden Rule. To maintain continuously a union based on love is not feasible for most people. Nor is it possible to live in a permanent state of romance. Normal people should not be frustrated or disappointed if they are not in a constant state of love. If they experience the joy of love (or imagine they do) for ten per cent of the time they are married, attempt to treat each other with as much courtesy as they do distinguished strangers, and attempt to make the marriage a workable affair–one where there are some practical advantages and satisfactions for each-the chances are that the marriage will endure longer and with more strength than the so-called love matches.

Once upon a time there was a well-received television drama (it later became a motion picture) called Marty. At the conclusion of the performance, the viewer experienced a feeling of satisfaction and general good feeling, the same sense of well-being and joy that a person has when he has read a fairy tale, such as Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs or Little Red Riding Hood.

The story of Marty concerns a lonely, shy boy, Marty, who finds, or is found by, a lonely, shy girl. They supply each other’s needs, decide to marry, presumably live happily ever after. It could be wonderful if such events could take place frequently in the lives of lonely people. But the action in Marty represents-for most people-fantasies, not reality. Lonely people who marry each other to correct their situation usually discover that the most intense and excruciating loneliness is the loneliness that is shared with another.

There are several types of loneliness.

First is the loneliness of individuals who have a limited behavioral repertoire. The “behavioral repertoire” is the accumulation of behavioral acts that have been learned since birth and are at the individual’s command. People afflicted with this type of loneliness find themselves to be strangers in a more than normal number of situations involving relationships. They yearn to be on a cheerful, or perhaps competitive, or perhaps collaborative, action-interaction basis with other people. But they have difficulty because their behavioral repertoire is limited and therefore in many cases they do not understand other people and other people do not understand them. So they are strangers-and lonely.

When such lonely people marry each other, each has expectations of his spouse, and neither realizes that the other is paralyzed by a limited behavioral repertoire. Neither of these individuals has much to give to the other, unless the behavioral repertoire is enlarged and developed. If lonely spouses recognize this problem, they may have a chance for a workable marriage; if they are cognizant of their limitations, perhaps they can form a team and slowly and painfully increase the range of their behavior. Usually, however, each expects satisfying behavior from the other-the kind of action which is beyond the capability of his spouse. As a result, both of them end up lonelier than ever before. And to this loneliness, bitterness frequently is added. For each of them is vulnerable, and when he does not receive the behavior he expects from the spouse, he believes he has been given a rebuff. Usually it is not a rebuff at all, but merely a reflection of social inadequacy. What happens next? The “rebuffed” spouse draws back and then the other feels that now he is being rebuffed and rejected; and thus the distance between the two quickly increases.

An extreme example of the result of limited behavioral range in marriage occurred with a couple known to the authors. The situation described here actually existed. A shy young woman married a shy young man. His mother and sister had reared him much as one would raise a hothouse plant. Several years after the marriage, the girl formed a close friendship with the young lady who lived next door. From her she learned that sexual intercourse was supposed to take place in a normal marriage. She and her husband had been so ill informed that they had merely embraced. Neither of them had been brave enough to bring up the question of how babies were made.

When the young wife learned the facts about sex, she felt humiliated and cheated. Vituperatively, she scolded her surprised husband, and as a result they experienced so much turmoil that it became necessary for them to seek the help of a psychiatrist.

One of the mysteries of this situation is why the young woman did not recognize that she was just as uninformed as was her husband, and why he did not point this out to her.

A second type of loneliness (more prevalent among males than females) frequently characterizes the individual who lost his mother at a very early age. This type of person has been denied love as a child and unconsciously seeks “triumphs” over others as a love substitute. He cannot get along with anyone over whom he cannot triumph in some way, or except in some rare instances in which he collaborates with someone else to triumph against society.

Within this category we find many “successes” in the arts, in industry, and in business. These are the perfectionists, the people who are obsessed with becoming champions or innovators, or the top person in a field. Such people have limited emotional repertoires. Usually they can be loving and kind and considerate only to those who are useful to them; and they define usefulness only in terms of their drive for perfection or success. In the marriage of such a person nothing which the spouse does is ever good enough. He is constantly critical of the spouse’s performance level. People of this sort trust no one to do anything well. They suspect that almost everyone will impede their gallop toward success. They require almost everything to revolve around themselves; and as this seldom happens in married life, these individuals drift from one marriage to another, always looking for the impossible and becoming more and more suspicious and more and more lonely.

The third type of loneliness is perhaps the most painful of all.

It is usually experienced by individuals who have had an intelligent, dominant mother and a passive father who behaved as if he were her inferior. These people are obsessed with the desire to be popular and well thought of. They have bright personalities and well-developed social skills. Frequently they are glib talkers and good dancers, and dress attractively. Often they are excellent salesmen, advertising personnel, and social leaders, and they tend to be gossips. By gossiping (transmitting malicious information about somebody else) they bribe others to approve of them. A high percentage of these people give the appearance of being flirtatious and “sexy,” but really are sexually unskilled, and often frigid, even though they act passionate and may have had more than the normal number of affairs. This type of individual finds it difficult to be intimate and collaborative with anyone unless their mutual behavior results in his being the center of attraction. This can happen only if he marries a passive person, probably his inferior. But the fact is that in marriage-and in relations with people in general-unless one can participate in behavioral interactions which are characterized by equality, one is lonely despite the appearance one may give of being very gregarious and a great mixer.

Loneliness cannot be cured by marriage. Loneliness is better tolerated by those who live alone; they have no expectations, and thus no disappointments. Lonely people who live together have about the same chance of realizing their expectations as the host who insists that everybody have a good time at his party.

The first myth is the belief that people get married because they are “in love.” It is extremely difficult to define love satisfactorily. Dictionaries disagree. Psychiatrists and psychologists who specialize in marital problems usually are unable to define love. When they are asked the question by a client, they usually evade the issue by asking, ‘What do you think love is?”

The definition of perfect love which is most cherished in the Western world is the one given by St. Paul in the thirteenth chapter of First Corinthians. True, it is a Christian definition; but it is so universal that its almost exact equivalent is used by Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and Jews.

Love suffereth long, and is kind; love envieth not; love vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;

Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;

Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

Love never faileth…

We however, have never met a person who consistently loves according to St. Paul’s definition. We have known many decent people, people who have integrity and who are kind most of the time; but they do not consistently love in this biblical sense. It is our opinion that it would be too difficult for spouses to practice this kind of relationship described by St. Paul-unless both were saints.

A more practical definition of love has been given by the great American psychiatrist Harry Stack Sullivan: ‘When the satisfaction or the security of another person becomes as significant to one as is one’s own satisfaction or security, then the state of love exists.”!

The state of love described by Sullivan is possible in marriage -but few spouses are prepared for it, or capable of experiencing it, right after the wedding. Its coming, if it comes at all, is the result of luck or of years of hard work and patience-as we hope to demonstrate later. Observation of hundreds of married couples shows that very few experience love.

It is a false assumption that people marry for love. They like to think of themselves as being in love; but by and large the emotion they interpret as love is in reality some other emotion often a strong sex drive, fear, or a hunger for approval.

If they are not in love, then why are they impelled to marry? There are several reasons.

During courtship, individuals lose most of their judgment.

People who believe themselves to be in love describe their emotion as ecstasy. “Ecstasy” - from the Greek ekstasis, which means “derange”-is defined as the “state of being beside oneself; state of being beyond all reason and self-control.” When an emotional courtship starts, the man and woman appear to relinquish whatever sense of balance and reality they ordinarily possess.

Courtship-the time of ecstatic paralysis-has been cleverly designed by Nature to lure members of the species into reproducing themselves. Courtship is a powerful manifestation of sexual excitement. In Western culture, it has well-defined rituals; these are simple steps leading up to the ultimate goal-legal breeding. The man and the woman are in a trance. By the magic of Nature, they have become wonderfully attractive to each other.

It is marvelous to observe how ruthless and cunning Nature is in her effort to perpetuate the species. Individuals are in such a dizzy state that they become reckless. The problems of marriage are not noticed or considered. The frightful divorce statistics mean nothing; it seems obvious that bad marriages, like death, are for others only. Frequently, the partners-to-be know that they are marrying the wrong persons, but they are in such a passion (some call it romance), and are being driven so hard by the applause of society, that they cannot help themselves. For example, they may realize that the man is unable, as yet, to earn a living; or that the woman is incompetent to manage a home; or that each has radically different tastes and values from the other. These and many other obstacles to a workable marriage usually have no significance to a couple in the courtship stage. The courting individuals are obsessed by one desire only-to mate. And society ordains that a ceremony must sanctify the mating. Although in a majority of marriages the magic and marvelous attractiveness of courtship diminishes (and often vanishes entirely) within a brief time after the honeymoon, it is obvious that the instinct to reproduce-the sex drive (which mistakenly is called love)-lures a great many individuals into marriage.

People often marry because society expects it of them. In our society a spinster is frequently regarded as an unattractive failure; and a middle-aged bachelor is suspected of being a homosexual, or of having a mother complex. Society encourages marriage in many ways and for many reasons. For example, marriage is-to put it crudely-good for business. It gives employment ‘to ministers, justices of the peace, caterers, florists, dressmakers, printers, jewelers, furniture manufacturers, architects, landlords, obstetricians, and so on almost endlessly. Whenever there is a wedding a hundred cash registers tinkle. Therefore members of the profit-making multitude smile and applaud, frequently in honest approval. This approval adds to the myth that the very act of marriage is a good thing; it brings prestige in society’s eyes to the young couple.

For the clergy and for officials, marriage is a source of power and control, a means of perpetuating loyalty to the Church through the children. Certain historical necessities-which in point of fact may no longer exist-are also reflected in the attitudes of society. For example, in earlier days, when mortality rates were high, a “big family” meant more people in the community and thus a greater chance for survival; and marriage was prerequisite for the existence of the big family. Though circumstances have changed now, the approbation of marriage has not. In short, almost all segments of society disapprove of the single state but approve of marriage. This universal attitude tends to cause people who think they are in love to be impetuous, hurried, and careless in getting married. Marriage, they have been taught, is a “good thing.”

The pressures and the maneuverings of parents often push their children into premature and careless marriages. Parents maneuver, manipulate, and meddle. Fathers and mothers claim that they meddle for their children’s benefit. The truth is that parents often feel failure or disgrace if their children aren’t married at the conventional age. And parents are seldom fully honest to their children about their own relationships. Therefore, most youngsters believe that their parents are or were in love, and that they must be emulated in this respect.

Romantic literature, tradition, and social hysteria have given marriage false values which the excited male and female often accept as true. They enter wedlock expecting a high level of constant joy from that moment on. Although they take an oath to love and cherish each other throughout all adversity, in fact they do not expect any serious adversity. They have been persuaded that love (which they cannot even define) automatically will make it possible to solve all problems.

Loneliness often drives people into marriage. Many individuals simply cannot bear to be alone. They get bored and restless, and they think that having somebody of the opposite sex in the house will stop them from being miserable. Thus they marry because of desperation, not love.

Many people are fearful concerning their economic future. Men may believe that the responsibility involved in supporting a wife and children will automatically motivate them to produce more than they would if they remained single. Women often feel they will find financial security through marriage, regardless of the current ability of their fiancés to provide for their needs.

Some individuals marry because of an unconscious desire to improve themselves. Almost all human beings have a mental image-called the ego ideal-of what they would like to be. In reality an individual seldom develops into this ideal person. But when he meets someone of the opposite sex who has the qualities which he desires, then up pops another false assumption. The individual unconsciously concludes that if he marries, he will, without effort, acquire the missing desirable characteristics or talents. For this reason a drunk sometimes is attracted to an abstainer; an inherent liar may be drawn to a simple, naive person; a man with poor physical coordination often marries a slender, athletic woman; a person who cannot carry a tune often marries one who can sing well; and so forth. After the marriage the spouses learn that intimacy does not bring about the desired self-improvement. Each blames the other and the discord begins,

Many marriages are motivated by neuroses. Certain individuals pick as mates those who make it possible for them to exercise their neuroses. These people do not wish to be happy in the normal sense. If they enjoy suffering, they unconsciously choose partners with whom they can fight, or who will abuse or degrade them. Some of these marriages endure for a considerable time because the partners get pleasure from discord, but this type of perversion can hardly be called an expression of love.

Some people miss their father or mother and cannot live without a parental symbol. Therefore they find-and marry-a person of the opposite sex who will play the parental role.

In summary, then, it may be said that people generally enter matrimony thinking they are in love and believing that marriage will bring them “instant happiness,” which will solve all problems. Actually, in most instances they are swept into marriage on a tidal wave of romance, not love. Romance is usually ephemeral; it is selfish. Romantic “lovers” are distraught and miserable when separated, and this misery is caused by selfishness of the most egocentric type. The “lover” is sorry for himself and is grieving over his loss of pleasure and intimacy. This state of mind is closely related to another selfish emotion-jealousy. Romance is exciting -but it is no relation to love, no kin to that generous concern for someone else which Harry Stack Sullivan defines as love.

Most people believe they are marrying for love. This is a false assumption and a dangerous myth.

Both individual experience and statistical surveys make it clear that almost everyone suffers severe disappointment within a few months after marriage. A study conducted by the Mental Research Institute with couples married for an average of one year indicated that they felt marriage was different from what they had expected.

One young woman said, “Marriage is not what I had assumed it would be. One premarital assumption after another has crashed down on my head. I am going to make my marriage work, but it’s going to take a lot of hard work and readjusting. Marriage is like taking an airplane to Florida for a relaxing vacation in January, and when you get off the plane you find you’re in the Swiss Alps. There is cold and snow instead of swimming and sunshine. Well, after you buy winter clothes and learn how to ski and learn how to talk a new foreign language, I guess you can have just as good a vacation in the Swiss Alps as you can in Florida. But I can tell you, doctor, it’s one hell of a surprise when you get off that marital airplane and find that everything is far different from what one had assumed.”

This realistic and candid young woman is now happy in her marriage. But for her to reach this point required two years of patient working and changing and of expensive visits by herself and her husband to a competent marriage counselor for a once-a-month “checkup.” She learned that the institution of modem marriage is based on many false assumptions and untrue beliefs.

Whenever a decision or a system is based on false assumptions it is almost certain to be a failure. And marriage is no exception. We believe that if men and women were acquainted with the realities of marriage before they entered it, and if they accepted these realities, the divorce rate in the United States would diminish markedly.

To understand the realities of the marital relationship it is essential first to recognize the unrealities. What follows is a discussion of seven of the major myths of marriage.

• People Marry Because They Love Each Other: Myth
• Most Married People Love Each Other: Myth
• Loneliness Will Be Cured by Marriage: Myth
• Love is Necessary for a Satisfactory Marriage: Myth
• Children Improves a Difficult or an Unfulfilled Marriage: Myth
• Telling Your Spouse to Go to Hell a Sign of a Poor Marriage: Myth
• Behavioral Differences in Partners Cause Marital Troubles: Myth

A delightful alternative for the flower girl, a posy ball is easy to carry.

Constructed from fresh, artificial, or dried flowers, posy balls have a charm all their own. The size can be adjusted to suit the age of the flower girl.

Make the fresh flower posy ball up to 48 hours ahead, using resilient flowers such as miniature carnations. Or substitute artificial flowers and greens, following the same directions.

Start the twig ball at least two weeks before the wedding, allowing enough time for the flowers to dry completely.

Select the lace ball with silk roses for a very young flower girl. It is lightest in weight and can be jostled about with little concern for its durability.

Making a Flower Covered Posy Ball

You Will Need

• Styrofoam ball, 2in. to 4in. in diameter
• 20 to 50 fresh miniature carnations, or artificial flowers
• Fresh green leaves, or artificial greens
• 1yd. ribbon, 5/8in. wide
• 2/3yd. ribbon,1/4in. wide
• Flat-headed straight pins
• Hot glue gun

1. Cut two pieces of 5/8in. ribbon equal in length to circumference of Styrofoam ball plus 1in. make loop with one ribbon, overlapping ends 1/2in.; hot-glue. Glue loop to top of ball, and secure with two straight pins.
2. Wrap second ribbon around ball, crossing through top loop. Overlap ends at bottom of ball. Hot-glue ends together and to ball; secure with two straight pins.
3. Hot-glue fresh or artificial leaves flat to ball, covering surface.
4. Cut flower ends off stems, just below calyx. Starting