CHAPTER V
PREPARATION FOR MARRIAGE
Looking Forward to Marriage. Marriage is generally considered the most important step in life. A happy marriage is the ideal to which practically every young woman looks forward. This theme is the material with which, from girlhood, she builds her airy castles. And the average young man, too, is scarcely less concerned with this romantic prospect of his future, although he does not reveal it so obviously.
Still, with all this abstract interest in, and generalization over, the vital problems of marriage, no condition of life is usually entered upon with less preparation. The disastrous results that have followed in the wake of so many marriages—about one in every seven[1] now ending in divorce and probably a considerable percentage of the rest saved only on their face to preserve appearances—must be due in no small degree to the lack of preparation on the part of those who enter into matrimony.
In undertaking almost any other important duty and responsibility in life, it is generally recognized that preparation is necessary. To this end, children are sent to school to receive instruction that will prepare them in a general way for the ordinary duties of life. Young men and young women go to college for a period of years that they may be qualified for professional activities, or special lines of intellectual endeavor. Many more serve several years' apprenticeship at trades to prepare themselves for their life's work. Athletes train for years to become proficient in a very limited sphere of physical effort, usually covering a comparatively limited period of time. The same tendency is noted in practically all fields of human undertaking.
The only exception of consequence is in preparation for marriage, which undoubtedly is, or should be, the most important undertaking of all. Of course, there are frequently elaborate preparations for the marriage ceremony, or for the social side of the function, and for many of the superficial things that enter into the event. But for the vital part of married life, there is in the majority of cases less than no preparation. As a matter of fact there is a handicap of misinformation to be overcome before there can be a basis of real knowledge and understanding, which is so necessary to insure a happy, harmonious married life. For marriage is fundamentally a sexual union, and its success or failure, all things considered, is largely determined by conditions arising from the problems of sex in their broad, as well as specific, aspect.
Marriage is the most intimate possible relationship between two human beings. Each should know something of the physiological facts of his, or her, sexual nature, and of the opposite sex, and also of the psychology of the sexes. All of this, with the incidental useful knowledge that would be vouchsafed in a general conception of sexual problems, would tend to cultivate a basis of understanding, a sense of insight and a practical grasp of vital facts that are now left entirely to the hazards of chance.
Nevertheless, despite the obvious desirability of preparation, little or none has been given to young people. Then when the ship of matrimony has drifted into dangerous waters, or has become hopelessly wrecked, the same static-minded people who say, in effect, that nothing should be told about the vital problems of life, or no sexual information given, are the first to rise in dismay and lament over the disintegration of modern marriage and presage the collapse of our civilization.
Innocence and Modesty. In the traditional upbringing of girls, the ostensible purpose of which is to fit them for the responsibilities of womanhood, there has been a confusion of innocence with ignorance, and of modesty with prudery. This misconception of terms has not only resulted in untold misery to womankind, but it has tended to place a premium upon the very conditions which caused the misery.
The term "innocent" is an obsolete one from the standpoint of modern intellectual development, and its use in relation to the upbringing of an individual in our modern social environment is bound to lead to confusion. It is a relic of another age, when girls and women were not supposed to know anything outside of domestic "duties."
One may properly be innocent of a crime, or of moral guilt; but it is no crime or moral offense to know something about one's own person. In fact, it is something of a crime for a parent to withhold the safe-guarding knowledge of self from a young person.
So the application of the term "innocent" to a condition which is really one of vacuity, or emptiness, is merely juggling with words and befogging an important issue. No enlightened modern young woman should want to be considered "innocent" of questions relating to her own person and the functions of her physical organism, any more than she should want to be considered innocent of a working knowledge of the grammar of her mother tongue.
One, however, may make a choice between modesty and prudery, over the essence of which our forebears became so hopelessly confused. Modesty implies the restraint, unobtrusiveness and freedom from excesses which must always command respect, and when combined with an intelligent grasp of human problems, assure their possessor of esteem and admiration.
Prudery, on the other hand, is either affectation or ignorance, and sometimes an ignominious combination of both. When not a conscious affectation of excessive modesty or virtue—always so utterly transparent—it connotes a state of ignorance or narrow-mindedness, with an emphasis on intolerance. The militant prude is usually an insufferable bore, except to his own compatriots, and in the end tends to defeat his own aims by his vindictiveness which alienates the sympathy of all reasonable people.
Marriage—Past and Future. The fact is significant that marriage is so universally anticipated in the feminine mind with the highest expectations and hopes. To the student of human nature it warrants a healthy optimism in the institution of marriage—notwithstanding the considerable proportion of failures and tragedies that are strewn in the wake of matrimony.
The fact that the monogamic marriage is the prevalent form of mating among most of the human race, regardless of great differences in traditions, racial culture, religion and social customs, is further suggestive of the deep human impulse behind it. Of course, I am fully aware of the legal character of polygamy in certain parts of the world, both at the present time and in the past, and also of the extra-legal form of polygamy (prostitution and promiscuity) that has been practiced more or less by all races at all times.
From the standpoint of modern psychology, however, we get a light on the matter somewhat at variance with the conception of the older sociologists who attributed it exclusively to the promiscuous tendencies of the male. Making due allowance for the sexual aggressiveness of the male, promiscuous sexual practices are seen by the sex psychologist to rest, in no small measure, upon an unadjusted or neurotic sexual basis, which in married life may be further complicated by unsatisfactory conjugal relations.
In other words, the sex life of the individual is disorganized, chaotic, and unable to realize its goal of satisfaction in the state of monogamy to which it is committed. The resultant sense of incompleteness acts as a prod or incentive to promiscuous endeavors. That these adventures are rarely more successful in bringing the satisfaction sought is another story—but suffice to lend confirmation to the theory of the neurotic character of the sexual varietist.
Another very important factor in contributing to the promiscuity of the male has been the traditional chasm that has separated the sexes. Throughout history, we find the woman for the most part subservient economically, politically, socially and otherwise—a subject condition that ranged all the way from abject slavery to the status of the carefully shielded lady of the "pedestal" period, with all the mawkish sentimentality and hypocrisy that went with it. It is only in comparatively recent years, with a few notable exceptions in the past, that this dual morality has given way, and a new spirit of camaraderie, ethical partnership and intellectual community of interest has entered into the marriage relations. As a matter of fact, the tendency toward this ideal may be said to be just beginning, so great is the work to be accomplished. However, enough progress has already been made in this direction to be hopeful for the new outlook in the future of marriage.
From the injustice, inequalities and ignorance of the past there developed a situation that made love in marriage practically an impossibility, and when it existed, almost a miracle. So true was this that the older literature in all its branches is largely a monument dedicated to conjugal infelicity and extra-marital love.
With the gradual rise of woman to a position of economic, social and political importance, her relative independence and intellectual equality have given her a dignity which the real monogamic marriage must have to exist in fact.
True monogamy, in its essence, is based on the equality of its constituency—and the monogamic marriage has not been a conspicuous success, historically, because the parties to it have not been social equals. A sentimental palliative in the name of a largely fictitious tradition of masculine chivalry had grown up to offset the gross inequality of the sexes, which had been artificially cultivated by the dominant male.
True love can flourish only in the healthy air of freedom of choice and action. Coercion and force will kill it as surely as the night follows the day. Woman's independence has given her a constantly increasing degree of freedom of choice and of action, and has tended to put love on a basis of equality and mutuality.
In commenting upon the extra-marital tendency of love in the past, and the prospect of realizing love in marriage, Jean Finot,[2] a Continental philosopher, many years ago expressed his ideas on the subject as follows:
"Future unions will accomplish, perhaps, what seems to us the paradoxical work of having love born and endure in marriage. This is because love, in its turn, will benefit by the evolution of woman. It has been volatile, egotistical, brutal, tyrannical, so long as it was mainly an expression of the sexual instinct. But the advent of the new woman will secure for love a broader basis, embracing the comprehension of souls founded upon common interests often protected in common. This will also be the source of friendship, a serious and stable feeling, which will reign in a more frequent and more lasting fashion between the husband and the wife. Love, idealized by spiritual principles, will gain in depth and in duration. Perhaps it will not be so rapturous, but it will be more human, if not more divine."
With the advent of woman's intellectual liberation, there has come a reversal or modification, at least, of all the old social dogmas. Whereas suppression was once the rule, now woman is expressing herself in more ways, and even more furiously than she can, in many instances, comfortably manage to direct into constructive form. But this is inevitable in a process of large individual adjustment and social adaptation.
The essential point is that true love can survive only in a free atmosphere and on a plane of equality. This condition is now more and more becoming the rule.
There is, however, another tremendously important factor in the matrimonial relations, and that is a sound, rational knowledge of sex life, and what it involves. Progress in this respect is bound to be slower, because more formidable obstacles are to be encountered. It is necessary that every agency in the interest of marital happiness be directed toward the surmounting of these obstacles.
The success of the monogamic form of marriage from the social standpoint depends upon the equality of its constituency; the success of love in marriage from the individual standpoint depends upon a mutual understanding of, and compliance with, the laws of sex, upon which the intimate relations of marriage are so largely based.
Both of these requirements, the social and the individual, are essential for the preservation of love in marriage.
The Realities of Marriage. Sex, as we have already seen, is the magnetism which draws all life together. Whether the union is successful or not depends to a great extent upon many correlated factors.
As human beings are not exceptions to this law, sex, then, is the magnetic, cosmic impulse that draws men and women together in marriage. (If they marry without this impulse, then it is merely an "arrangement" made usually for economic, social or other considerations.) The universality of this impulse and the hopes and expectations behind it have been referred to above. The correlated factors that have the potency to make a marriage a success or a failure are based primarily on an understanding of the nature and manifestations of sex.
Bear this in mind. It is important. To those who are contemplating matrimony, it is of vital importance. Women build their hopes of happiness on marriage; but in order to have the realization compare favorably with the expectation, it is necessary that they know something tangible of the profound realities that are bound up in marriage.
It is one thing to anticipate matrimony with a romantically sentimental notion of what marriage implies. This notion is gathered, not only from an endless stream of fiction, but in no small degree from the actual teachings and misrepresentations that are inculcated in the name of education and social forms.
It is an entirely different thing to prepare for marriage with an understanding of the duties and responsibilities that are involved in this serious undertaking; of the love and joys, the trials and triumphs, that are the logical fruits of an intimate reciprocal relationship and mutual adjustment, and of the actual sexual foundation that underlies the whole complex structure.
COURTSHIP AS A PREPARATION FOR MARRIAGE
Not an Educational Substitute. Under modern social conditions, and from the standpoint of prevailing ideas on the sexual question, the nearest approach to preparation for marriage is obtained in courtship. Of course, it cannot be considered as a substitute for such a genuine preparation as has been advocated in the form of a well-rounded educational program from childhood; this program to embrace an understanding of biology in general and sexual ethics in particular.
However, we shall consider courtship in its more or less conventional sense, with its limitations and advantages. Even young people who have never been adequately informed upon the subject of sex, usually are unconsciously groping for a practical solution of their problems in courtship.
As young people normally approach adulthood, they feel the attraction for the opposite sex in a general way, and more especially for some particular individual of that sex. Sometimes this attraction reaches quite an acute stage upon very short acquaintance, even at the first meeting, as we have discussed it in a previous chapter under the classification of "love at first sight." But, as time has abundantly proven, marriages based on so superficial an acquaintance are rarely successful. Hence, the desirability of courtship as a period of intimate association and companionship.
It is because of the lack of psychological insight on the part of both young men and young women that unnecessary misunderstandings sometimes occur when the promptings of love make themselves felt; at least both parties feel themselves baffled by the strange tactics of each other, except insofar as they have acquired some haphazard knowledge, or have been fortunate in their intuitive gifts.
For instance, the tactics of the man in courtship, as well as in his biological rôle generally, tend to be active, even aggressive, whereas, the woman is disposed to be passive, at times resistant, and reserved, perhaps procrastinating. When he is satisfied that their love is real and taken for granted, he wishes to rush the matter through at once, to marry, or consummate their bliss in complete union, which is in keeping with the aggressive rôle of the male.
On the other hand, very often the young woman displays an attitude of reserve and hesitancy that altogether baffles her Romeo—perhaps it would be evidenced even more often than it is were it not for the artificial stimulus of social ambition or economic pressure.
As Gallichan observes: "The contest between the vehement wooer and his defensive partner is not without real stress and often torment, even when both are enthused by sincere and fervent love. Courtship is not simply a preliminary. It is a continual preparation for a career of the supremest import to the pair and to the race. The impulse to dominate and subdue the coyly resisting woman is very powerful in the man, and in morbid forms this impulse may become cruel."
This natural reticence on the part of the female is quite the general rule throughout the animal world. It has as its biological reason the enhancing of the desirability of the female, and arousing the male to greater resourcefulness and skill as a lover. Behind all this is the purpose to stimulate the erotic impulses, to quicken the sexual instincts in the service of the species. It is known that a high degree of excitement of the nervous system is a desirable prelude in facilitating procreation.
Courtship affords opportunities for the cultivation of favorable mental impressions, or predisposing fetiches—in their best sense and normal relation. These tend to crystallize into tender sentiments and finally love, with all the psychic, spiritual and physical manifestations that are bound up in this complex pairing hunger.
In this connection, Prof. Morgan remarks: "The hypothesis of sexual selection suggests that the accepted mate is the one which adequately evokes the pairing impulse. Courtship may thus be regarded from a physiological point of view as a means of producing the requisite amount of pairing hunger (sexual passion), and courtship is thus the strong and steady bending of the bow that the arrow may find its mark in a biological end of the highest importance in the survival of a healthy and vigorous race."
Length of Engagements. The length of engagements must necessarily vary on account of widely varying conditions prevailing in different cases. Generally speaking, however, prolonged engagements are not to be recommended, as the close communion of the loved ones implied in the betrothal, without the release of nervous tension afforded in the normal culmination of the love episode, tends to prove a wearing ordeal on the nervous system.
It is particularly difficult to the man who lives a continent life, unless his sexual libido is weak, because the frequent excitement of the masculine nature, without experiencing detumescence, produces tensions that are deprived of the normal means of relief.
In this way the accumulation of secretions may set up local irritations or inflammation of the glands of the groin, causing congestion that is detrimental to the reproductive system; or the frequent stimulation of the sexual centers of the brain and the excitation of the organism generally, may influence the nervous system adversely. It is not too much to say that the health of men has temporarily suffered from experiences of this kind, besides the more general bad effects on efficiency in everyday life.
While the man may feel the experience the more keenly, in many instances the more slowly aroused woman, too, will in time show the wearing influence of a prolonged engagement on her sensitive nerves, as a result of the recurring sexual excitement and the erotic stimulation on her imagination.
Physicians versed in the ways of sexual dynamics, advise against long engagements, unless there are some unavoidable conditions that prevent an earlier marriage, or personal idiosyncrasies that exempt the individual from the strain that is normally felt.
Proper Age to Marry. The question of the proper age to marry must necessarily be more or less an academic topic of discussion, because there are so many influences—social, economic and others—that are apt to conflict with the primary requirements of the individual.
Dr. Iwan Bloch, the famous sexologist, states that marriage at an age too youthful (below twenty for the woman and below twenty-four for the man), and at too advanced an age (above forty for the woman, and above fifty for the man) is also disadvantageous to the offspring, as manifested by higher mortality of the infants, and by the more frequent occurrence of malformations and abnormalities.
From the ideal standpoint, both the young man and the young woman might find it advantageous to marry upon the completion of their full physical development—which, of course, varies chronologically somewhat in different individuals, as well as in different races. This is the time, too, when the enthusiasms and ideals are at a high mark, when the vitality and health are at their best, and when there is normally excellent adaptation to meet the personal adjustments that successful marriage implies.
Probably the only real drawback to the early period is the comparative lack of mental maturity that might militate against the permanancy of the affections in the face of radically changing ideas, or evolving intellectual potentialities that may finally throw the parties to the marriage into different and uncongenial spheres.
But the conditions of modern life are such as to make even the most ideal arrangement quite inexpedient, to say the least. To begin with, the average young man, upon the advent of adulthood, is rarely able to meet the obligations that are called for in the support of a wife, with the added possibility of a family. If he is preparing for a profession, there is the prospect of a number of years elapsing before he completes the training requirements demanded by his calling, and while a business vocation may make an earlier start possible, the remuneration is often insufficient for more than bare personal needs.
There is the possibility, when an early marriage is earnestly desired, of the girl contributing to the success of the plan by augmenting the income, if she is prepared by training to do so, as girls and women are becoming economically independent in increasing numbers. Even this arrangement, however, will fall through if pregnancy occurs, which will soon keep the young wife home. And not only will the household be deprived of her portion of the maintenance, but the normal household expenses will eventually be increased by the expenses of the confinement, and the permanent additional expense of the child, perhaps to be followed by others.
If it were possible for young couples so situated to have access to reliable contraceptive, or birth control, information, so that they could postpone the coming of children until such time as the income of the husband would meet the family needs, then this phase of the problem would be solved. In more and more instances, married people are becoming informed upon this important subject, as the birth statistics show, notwithstanding the obstacles that are thrown in the way by those who would make parenthood an accident of chance, instead of a voluntary act.
CONSANGUINEOUS MARRIAGE
Advice is frequently desired on the question of marriage between blood relatives (consanguineous marriage), either as a matter of general information, or for personal reasons by those considering marriage with a blood relative. This question usually comes up in connection with the marriage, or prospective marriage, of cousins (either first or second), nephew and aunt, or niece and uncle.
The opinion is widely prevalent that consanguineous marriage, even when the contracting parties are in excellent health, will quite inevitably result in children that are physically and mentally inferior, deformed, feeble-minded, pre-disposed to disease, or otherwise defective; if, indeed, the union will not be barren.
This opinion, which is based on popular fallacies and misinformation, undoubtedly received its currency from the quite universal prejudice against incest, or sexual intercourse between close relatives.
Extensive investigation, however, indicates that consanguineous marriage is not in itself injurious to offspring; that if both parties are healthy and vigorous, and have no objectionable hereditary strain, the children of such a union should be just as healthy and bright as those of any other healthy parents. As a matter of fact, if the blood-related parents are exceptionally strong and gifted, the chances are that their offspring will possess these desirable qualities in an enhanced measure. The reason for this is that hereditary strains in the children of blood relatives tend to become intensified.
Therefore, if the parents have a certain hereditary taint, or predisposition to disease or abnormality of any kind, even though it be latent or unnoticeable in either of them, this undesirable trait may become dominant in their children, or at least in a certain proportion of their children.
The same thing may be said of children of parents not blood related, if they happen to combine hereditary strains that have a similar pathological predisposition. For instance, it is decidedly inadvisable for people to marry, even when not blood related, if there is on both sides, a similar unfavorable hereditary strain, such as unsoundness of mind, or any degenerate tendency, even though it be latent in the individuals considering marriage. When two latent hereditary traits combine in offspring, they tend to become dominant.
So the whole problem hinges on the fact that certain traits, both good or bad, are transmitted by heredity; and in consanguineous marriage, they are apt to be intensified in the offspring. If the family history[3] may be considered unfavorable to the marriage between blood relatives, it would be better not to contract it; or if such a marriage does take place, the principals might well consider carefully the responsibility they are undertaking, and risk they are running, before having children.
In this connection, Dr. S. A. K. Strahan ("Marriage and Divorce," 1892) writes: "This accentuation of all family character is what must always happen in the case of consanguineous marriages. If there is any taint in the family, each member of the family will have inherited more or less of it from a common ancestor. Take the case of cousins, the descendants of a common grandparent who was insane, and of insane stock. Here the cousins are certain to have inherited more or less of the insane diathesis. Even if the taint has been largely diluted in their case by wise, or more likely, fortunate marriages of their blood-related parents, yet they will have inherited a certain tendency to nervous disease, and, if they marry, that taint may appear in an aggravated form in their children. Some of the children of such parents are generally idiotic, epileptic, dumb or scrofulous. It may be that the parents and possibly the grandparents of these children have not up till that time displayed any outward evidence of the tendency to disease which they have inherited and handed down to their descendants, and not looking back, the parents assert that insanity, epilepsy, scrofula, etc., are unknown in their family."
In consanguineous marriages, the danger lies in the strong probability there is of both parents bearing some particular taint of degeneration which will become pronounced in their children, yet which might be escaped if they each were to marry a person not bearing that same, or allied, trait. Blood relationship of parents in itself is not inimical to healthy progeny. It is the double tendency to disease when the tendency exists, which brings about the ill effects to children.
The ancient Egyptians, the Romans, Persians, Phoenicians, the Incas of Peru, and other peoples of antiquity, were addicted to consanguineous marriage. Among some of these races, it was the practice for brothers and sisters to marry, and even mothers and sons, and fathers and daughters.
The Ptolemies, the famous ruling family of Egypt, intermarried, brothers with sisters, so as not to defile the royal line with ignoble blood. Cleopatra, for instance, was the daughter of a brother and sister, and she married her own brother.
One of the outstanding geniuses of the modern world, Charles Darwin, was the offspring of blood-related parents. They were first cousins. John Ruskin, also, was a son of first cousins.
- ↑ Based on the Federal Census for the year 1924, as reported by the Department of Commerce. During that year there were in the United States 1,178,206 marriages performed, and 170,867 divorces granted.
- ↑ Problems of the Sexes, New York, 1913.
- ↑ "A family history including less than three generations is useless, and may even be misleading."—William Atkin.