Читать книгу A Plea for Monogamy - Wilfrid Lay - Страница 24

Table of Contents

Is there any clearer truth than that all autoerotic practices in the marital union are unmanly? And is there any statement more incontrovertible than that the average husband who has not taken the trouble to know and control his wife in the erotic sphere is unequivocally autoerotic mentally?

Can it be doubted that the average woman has no possible means of knowing whether her suitor will, after marriage, be an autoerotic boy or virile man? Can we blame her if she is forced by our crazy laws to make this a trial marriage, divorce him if she can, and make another trial? Can we blame anyone for taking food if she is starving and call her act stealing? Not unless we have made it perfectly plain to her how and where she may legitimately obtain food. But we can blame the man, for he is, he always has been, and he always will be the provider of erotic power. A man has no right to undertake the erotic support of any woman, and then proceed to starve her and incontinently to fatten himself upon her. Universally such a man is scorned and always will be, except by women whose erotic instincts have been overgrown and overwhelmed by the egoistic-social impulses of conventionality. These do not scorn a man who resorts to prostitutes to feed his autoerotic appetites, or who keeps mistresses or has other illicit liaisons for the same purposes.

The moment an anthropoid human realizes what he is getting from the promiscuous relations, and that he is autoerotically getting in a puerile way instead of giving in a virile way, he takes no more interest whatever in the promiscuous relation. The reply to an obvious objection here is that if he finds his wife lacking in passion it means he has not learned to know his wife, and, if he thinks he finds more passion in the extra-marital woman, he is either deceiving himself or being deceived by her, the extra-marital one; and that he is sexually as anesthetic to all women as he fancies his wife to be anesthetic to him.

Unless she is a chronic invalid he has no justification in thinking that passion is impossible between them. He has not the knowledge of himself wherewith to develop in himself enough virility to awaken her erotic instincts. When once awakened these will adequately satisfy him. If he has not aroused them in his wife there is little chance that he will arouse a real feeling in other women. If he cannot consistently be satisfied with one woman and believes that men are incurably polygamous, let him, first, be sure to sound his wife’s erotism to the bottom, and he will then need no other woman nor fatuously imagine he wants another. This is the surest cure for the polygamous-nature-of-man delusion.

The errant husband may think he roves in search of a real woman. As husband he has a real woman by his side; but, having a real woman as near to him as he can bring himself to approach, he wanders forth in search of an imaginary woman, who does not exist in reality. There is no such thing as the imaginary woman except in his mind. His virile function is to make over this real woman at his side according to the mental pattern he has of woman as she should be, and within reasonable limits he can do it, if he has the virile strength to control his own emotions in her presence. If he cannot do it in hers he cannot do it in another woman’s, just because he has failed to do so in his wife’s.

The answer will of course be made that a man may marry a shrew. To this the reply is that a shrew like Katharine in Shakespeare’s play is a woman who has not been taught to love as every wife should be. A shrew is simply a woman not yet erotically developed. It may, to be sure, take a more than ordinarily ardent lover to develop such a woman, but barring the exceedingly rare cases of women in whom love is a physical impossibility, the shrewishness of a woman is only a measure of the inadequacy of the husband. Except for the sporadic freaks of nature there is no such thing as an impossible woman.