Dunch, Susan Miles.

Something has been said by others of one of the most fruitful sources of misunderstanding between men and women, where misunderstanding is likely to have the most disastrous results—what has been called by Rosegger "the sin of the bridegroom." Perhaps "sin" is a mistaken word. If irreparable harm is often done on the wedding night, it is quite as much due to ignorance as to cruelty. Nothing is more astonishing than the widespread ignorance of men and women of the fact that courtship is not a mere convention, or a means of flattering the vanity of women, but a physiological necessity if there is to be any difference at all between the union of lovers and a rape.

It is all, I suppose, part of the old possessive idea which, making of a woman something less than a human personality with wishes, desires and temperament of her own, forbade the man to realize or even to know that her body has its needs as well as his, and that to regard it merely as an instrument is to be in danger of real cruelty.

You can bargain for the possession of a violin and the moment it is yours, may play upon it. It is yours. If you are in the mood to play, it must be ready for you. If it is not, then tune it, and it will be.[G] But a human being cannot be treated so in any human relationship. It needs mutual patience and mutual respect to make a relationship human.

[Footnote G: But even a violin will need to be tuned.]

This simple fact, however, has been so little understood of lovers, that husbands have, in genuine ignorance of the cruelty they were committing, raped their wives on their wedding night. Judging by what one knows of wedding-days, it could hardly be supposed that there could be a more unpropitious moment for the consummation of marriage. And when to the fatigue and strain of the day is added—as is still quite often the case—blank though uneasy ignorance as to what marriage involves, or the thunderbolt of knowledge (sic) launched by the bride's mother the night before, or the morning of the day itself, it would be difficult with the utmost deliberation and skill better to ensure absolute repulsion and horror on the part of the bride. I think that any man who would consider this from the bride's point of view would see that she need not necessarily be cold or unresponsive because, in such circumstances, she needs rest and consideration more than passion. But I wish men could know a little more than this, and understand that to enforce physical union when a woman's psychical and emotional nature does not desire it, is definitely and physically cruel. Woman is not a passive instrument, and to treat her as such is to injure her.

Perhaps I may be forgiven for labouring this point because, in fact, misunderstanding here is so disastrous. Marriage, after all, is a relation into which the question of physical union enters, and if there is no equality of desire, marriage will be much less than it might be. Women are—idiotically—taught to believe that passion is a characteristic of the depraved woman and of the normal man, who is shown by this fact to be on a lower spiritual level than (normal) woman. This senseless pride in what is merely a defect of temperament where it exists has poisoned the marital relations of many men and women, and has led women into marrying when they were temperamentally unfitted for such a relation, and quite unable to make anyone happy in it. Nor ought they to be too much blamed, since they are often unaware of what they ought to be prepared to give in marriage and firmly convinced that their preposterous ignorance is in some inexplicable way a virtue. Why it should be admirable, or even commonly honest, to undertake duties of whose nature you are ignorant, neither men nor women seem ever to have decided, and the illusion is beginning to pass. But it is still not understood that the woman who is not temperamentally asexual may easily be made so by being forced when she is not ready, and physically hurt when a little patience and tenderness would have saved her. Forel, Havelock, Ellis and others have insisted on this, but their books are unfortunately not easily accessible to the general public; and something may be added to the more widely read productions of Dr. Stopes.[H] Not only the physiological but the psychological side of the problem has to be considered, and it would be hard to decide which is the more important or which the vera causa of the other's reaction. Scientists may perhaps tell us some day: here I want only to point out that there is a spiritual factor in the case which needs at least to be recognized.

[Footnote H: Married Love, Wise Parenthood, and Radiant Motherhood. By Marie Carmichael Stopes.]

Is passion a cause or an effect? In other words, should physical union be the expression of spiritual union? Is it the "outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace?" Or is it a means by which that grace is achieved? I think the first instinct of most women would be to say that spiritual union should be expressed by physical union, and that unless this spiritual union exists the physical union is "wrong." And yet everyone who stops to think will admit that the expression of an emotion deepens it. One can "work oneself up into a rage" by shouting and swearing. One can deepen love by expressing love. It is noticeable that the whole case for birth control has repeatedly been argued from the ground that the act of physical union not only expresses but intensifies and increases love.

Marriage is the most difficult of human relations, because it is the most intimate and the most permanent. To live so close to another—who, in spite of all, remains another—to be brought so near, to associate so intimately with another personality, without jarring or wounding—that is hard. No wonder it is not invariably a success! But passion makes it possible to many to whom, without this, it would not be possible. Ultimately passion should be transcended since in any case it must be left behind. Yet it has served its end, in deepening and intensifying the love of two people for one another.

Where then lies the difficulty, since probably men and women alike would agree that what I have said is true?

The difference of view is perhaps more in practice than in theory; yet it is all the harder of adjustment for that. In theory, both men and women would agree that physical union, ideally, should express a spiritual union; and that in doing so, it deepens and intensifies it. But it is still possible to disagree as to which of these two aspects of an admitted truth is the more vital and fundamental.

It may be, as I have already suggested, that the woman's point of view is due to her physiology; or it may at least be influenced by it. At least, I am convinced that to the woman the sense that physical union is only justified by already existent spiritual union, is the normal one. I believe that, however incapable she may be of explaining it, and however her power of reasoning may be vitiated by wrong ideas about the sexual relation, she does instinctively recoil from its use when its reason for existence is not there. She may attribute her reluctance to the fact that she is too womanly (sic), too spiritually minded to have any desire for sexual relations at all; her husband may attribute it to coldness of temperament or "modesty." In fact, it is due to the cause I have stated, and if she had never been called upon to give her body except when her own desire for the "outward and visible sign" of an "inward and spiritual grace" demanded it, her husband would have found that she was not temperamentally defective, but as good a lover as he.

No one who lives in the world at all can fail to understand that in every human relationship, and supremely in this one, there must be much mutual accommodation, much give and take, a great gentleness to every claim made in the name of love. All I am concerned to do here is to help to clear up misunderstandings. It is no claim that I put forward that the woman's point of view is superior to the man's: merely that they seem to me a little different.

A man who is conscious of jarring, who finds himself a little at cross-purposes with the woman he loves, and yet knows that the jarring is merely superficial and the love profound, may easily feel that to ask and offer once more the supreme expression of that love is the best way to transcend the temporary lack of sympathy and restore love to its right place and true proportion. Who shall say that he is wrong? Is it not certain that the expression of love does intensify and deepen love? Is not a sacrament the means of grace as well as its symbol.

Yet let him be warned. He may easily seem to his wife to be contenting himself with the symbol without the reality, the body without the soul. If she understands him, she may go with him. If she does not, no yielding on her part—no physical passion that he may arouse—will quite stifle the protest which tells her that she suffers spiritual violation. Do you remember the cry of Julie in "The Three Daughters of M. Dupont"? "It is a nightly warfare in which I am always defeated." That her physical nature is suborned to aid in the conquest only increases for her the sense of degradation.

This difference in point of view affects the relations of men and women far more widely than is realized, since it is apt to arise wherever the physical comes in at all—and where does it not? Not a touch only, or a caress, but all deliberate appeal to sexual feeling becomes more difficult to women as they grow more civilized. It is perhaps difficult for a man to realize, in the atmosphere of giggles and whispers with which sex is surrounded in the theatre, the novel and the press, how revolting it becomes to modern women to be expected to use such means for "holding" a lover, or extorting concessions from one who is "held." It was much easier, I suppose, when women did not understand what they were about. One sees that to such women it is comparatively easy to-day. And the position is complicated by inheritance of the age-old conviction that a woman is supremely woman when she can bend a man by precisely these means. But the revolt is here. And—for the sake of clearness—what I am concerned to show is that a woman is not necessarily asexual or cold because she will not use an appeal to sexuality in order to get what she wants. She may have all the "temperament" in the world, but she has also self-respect, and she revolts from the idea of exploiting for advantage what should be sacramental.

I believe that a better understanding on this point would save not only great disasters but an infinity of small jars and strains, and if I have put the woman's point of view at some length it is partly because I understand it better, but chiefly because it is comparatively "modern" to admit that she has a point of view to put.

Once understood, it becomes easier to understand also the startling successes and disastrous failures which attend the remarkable practice of "teaching a woman to love after she is married." The extent to which social tabus and prudery may actually inhibit a woman's natural sexual development makes it possible, as we have seen, for her to marry in ignorance of what marriage implies. When this happens, her love, though it may be noble, altruistic and spiritual, does not involve her whole nature. Her husband, if he respects her sufficiently, will be able to awaken that which sleeps, and in accordance with the undoubted truth that expression intensifies love, he does "teach her to love" him not only in one sense but in all.

On the other hand, if she does not already love him, he will not succeed in "teaching" her anything but disgust if he dreams that by compelling physical union he can create spiritual union.

Evidently it is a singularly dangerous attempt! It is to be hoped that in future no woman will run such risks out of ignorance, but that lovers will, before they marry, understand what each expects, what each desires to give, and at least start fair.

This is no less important with regard to other matters in which marriages are often wrecked. Surely people who propose to spend their lives together ought to know (for example) whether children are desired and whether many or few; and what the attitude of either is on the vexed subject of birth control. Imagine the case of a husband who thinks the use of contraceptives right and wishes to use them; and a wife who thinks them absolutely wrong and, being warned by the doctor that she must not have more children, cheerfully, and with perfect conviction that she is acting nobly, invites her husband to run the risk of causing her death! Yet I have known such cases.

I do not enter into the question of birth control, because it has been and is being discussed much more freely than in the past, and by married people who are much better able to estimate the difficulties and advantages on either side of the question than any unmarried person can possibly be. Since, however, I am continually asked at least to give my personal opinion, for what it is worth, and since it is true that I have heard a good deal (on both sides) from those who are married, I will say briefly that it seems to me of supreme importance (1) that every child that is born should be desired, and (2) that no mother's time and strength should be so far overtaxed as to prevent her giving to each child all the love and individual care that it requires.

This necessitates control of the birth-rate, for a baby every year means a too-hurried emptying of the mother's arms. But I disagree—very diffidently—with the majority of my friends and acquaintances who hold that the right and best method is the use of contraceptives. I do not think it the best; I do not think it ideal. Unlike some authorities who must be heard with respect, I can say with confidence that some of the noblest, happiest and most romantic marriages I know base their control of conception not on contraceptives but on abstinence. They are not prigs, they are not asexual, they do not drift apart, and they have no harsh criticism to make on those who have decided otherwise. These are facts, and it is useless to ignore them.

On the other hand, it is equally true that sometimes such an attempt at self-control leads to nervous strain, irritability and alienation. These also are facts.

Personally, I would submit marital relations to the two tests I have proposed, and add that we have succeeded in oversexing ourselves to an extent which cannot be ignored; that we have "repressed" till we are obsessed; and that, before we right ourselves, we shall have to make many experiments, try many roads, and suffer many things. It is then above all necessary that we be very gentle to one another and even a little patient with ourselves. I conceive it much better to use contraceptives than to bear unwanted children; I conceive it also better to use them than to be cruel to others or become neurotic oneself; but that it is the ideal I do not believe.



XI

COMMON-SENSE AND DIVORCE LAW REFORM

"Those whom God hath joined together let no man put asunder."

In view of what I have said[I] about our marriage and divorce laws, several people have asked what I should actually propose in the way of reform, and I am glad to take the opportunity of a new edition briefly to answer this question.

[Footnote I: See Chapter V.]

I do not wish to see reform take the line of a longer list of "causes" for divorce, such, for example, as drunkenness, insanity, imprisonment for life, and so on. I should prefer to abolish these lists altogether, and to bring all divorce cases under some form of "equitable jurisdiction," each case being decided on its merits.

It should be the business of the court to decide whether the marriage desired to be invalidated has in actual fact any validity or reality at all; and to declare the couple divorced if it has not. In such courts men and women (or a man and a woman) should act together as judges.

It will be urged that to decide such a question is beyond the power of any human judgment; but I submit that in fact such decisions are being given every day. A judge who grants a judicial separation is deciding that a marriage has ceased to be real or valid, and he divorces the couple a mensa et thoro, though leaving them without the power to marry again. He actually "puts them asunder" more rigidly than a divorced couple. Since this is possible, it cannot be impossible for him to decide that the marriage must be wholly dissolved, with freedom of re-marriage to other partners; though such a decision, being even more grave, should not be reached without certain safeguards.

These safeguards should include that teaching about marriage on which I have insisted throughout the whole of this book. Young people should know what sex is and involves: what marriage is: how necessary to the welfare of the race, their children and themselves are fidelity and love. They should know that unless they believe that their love is indeed for life they ought not to marry. They should understand that to fail here is to fail most tragically.

If, nevertheless, a man and woman believe that their marriage is a complete and hopeless failure, their claim to be released from it should not be granted in haste. A period of years should in any case elapse before divorce can be obtained, and every effort should be used to reconcile the two, to remove any removable cause of difficulty, to convince them of the possibility of making good, by loyalty, unselfishness and a deep sense of responsibility, even an incomplete and desecrated bond.

If, however, it is clear that for no worthy consideration can they be induced to take up again the duties and responsibilities of marriage—if they remain immovably and rationally convinced that their marriage is not a real marriage—they should be released. And this because it is not moral but immoral, not Christian, but unChristian, to pretend that a marriage is real and sacred when it is not.

If there is one quality more striking than another in the teaching of Christ, it is His emphasis on reality. It is in this that the height and depth of His morality stand revealed. We do no service—we do a profound dis-service—to morals when we admit that a marriage is so utterly devoid of reality that the best thing we can do for a "married couple" is to separate them from each other altogether—set them apart—free them from each other's "rights"—break up their home—and yet maintain the legal lie that they are still a married couple.

It will be asked how the interests of the children can be safeguarded. The interests of children are best safeguarded by the education and enlightenment of parents. They cannot be wholly saved if, after all, their parents have ceased to love or respect one another, for nothing the law can do will make up to them for that which is every child's right—a home ruled by love and full of happiness. The best that can then be done is to rescue them from the misery of a home full of unhappiness and hatred, and to assign them to the parent who, in the judgment of the court, is best fitted to care for them.

Let me add that, while I hold that the persistent and unconquerable conviction of two people that they ought to be divorced ought ultimately to entitle them to it, this should not be the case if one only of two married people seeks release. In this case, the decision should be entirely with the court.

To those who feel that not only our Lord's words but also the interpretation put upon those words by the Church is of supreme importance, the following statement will be of interest: "It is quite arguable that relief may be granted on the grounds that what is impossible cannot be done. It may be shown on the one hand that to such and such a person it is morally impossible to live with such and such another person, and on the other hand that it is morally impossible to live without marriage. In such instances there is room for the exercise of our 'dispensation from the impediment of the legamen' (bond). This is the practice of the Eastern Church, which allows the innocent party to re-marry, and also grants relief in cases of incurable insanity."

With regard to the Western Church, "Divorce and subsequent re-marriage in pre-Reformation days were only allowed on grounds existing before the contract was entered into. (There seems good reason for the belief that our Lord's words as recorded by St. Matthew refer to prenuptial unchastity.) But in spite of this apparently narrow restriction there were fourteen grounds on which a marriage could be declared null and void before the Reformation, and it was constantly being done. Canonists and Theologians taught that the full and free consent of parties was essential to marriage—which teaching obviously would enable a very wide view of the subject to be taken."[J]

[Footnote J: From a "Memorandum on Divorce," published in The Challenge, July 5, 1918.]

THE END