=Modesty and Prudery in Woman.=--In woman the sentiments of modesty and prudery have a peculiar character, which results from her natural disgust for p.o.r.nography on the one hand, and also from her attachment to fashion and prejudice. Many women have a perfect terror of exposing certain parts of their body, even to a medical man. This fact depends on convention, and sometimes on the absence or perversion of s.e.xual feelings. Brought up to prudery, sometimes to an absurd extent as in England, these women lose their natural feeling and often suffer from the excitation, indignation, and perpetual fright, which result from it. The exaggerations of prudery, moreover, easily lead to opposite excesses, or else degenerate into hypocrisy. The prude is ashamed of the most natural things, and undergoes continual torment.

Prudery can be created or cured by education in childhood. It may be created by isolation, by covering all parts of the body, and especially by making children regard nudity as shameful. On the other hand, it may be cured by mixed bathing, by accustoming the child to consider the human body, in all its parts and functions, as something natural of which one need not be ashamed, lastly by giving instruction on the relations of the s.e.xes, in due time and in a serious manner, instead of replying to ingenuous questions by pious falsehoods, by equivocation, or by an air of mystery.

The chapter on love is infinite, and its relations to the s.e.xual appet.i.te make it still more complex. We shall confine ourselves to indicating two more of its irradiations, peculiar to each s.e.x, but having for each a physionomy corresponding to its own mentality.

FETICHISM AND ANTI-FETICHISM

"We understand by fetiches, objects, portions of objects, or even simply the qualities of objects which, from their a.s.sociation with a certain person or with the idea of this person, produce a kind of charm or at least a profound impression, which in no way corresponds to the nature of the object itself."--(Krafft-Ebing.) The fetich thus symbolizes a person in whom we have such a profound interest that everything connected with her disturbs our feelings. It is we ourselves who place in the fetich the charm arising from the person whom it symbolizes for us.

In many religions fetichism plays an important part, so much so that fetiches such as amulets or relics produce ecstasy in the faithful.

Binet, Krafft-Ebing and others give the name _erotic fetichism_ to the charm which certain objects or certain parts of the body exercise in a similar way on the s.e.xual desires or even on love, in the sense that their simple representation is powerfully a.s.sociated with the erotic image of a person of the other s.e.x, or with a particular variety of s.e.xual excitation. In both man and woman certain portions of the clothes or the body, the hair, the foot and hand, or certain odors of the person desired, may take the character of fetiches. It is the same with certain intellectual peculiarities and certain expressions of the features. In man, the woman's hair, her hands or feet, her handkerchief, perfumes, etc., often play the part of erotic fetiches.

We may call _anti-fetiches_ certain objects or certain qualities which, on the contrary, destroy eroticism. Certain odors, the tone of a voice, an ugly nose, a garment in bad taste, an awkward manner, often suffice to destroy eroticism by causing disgust for a person, and their simple representation is enough to make her unbearable.

Symbolizing disgust, the anti-fetich paralyzes the s.e.xual appet.i.te and love.

In normal love, it is especially by a.s.sociation of ideas in calling to mind the image of the person loved that the fetich plays the part of an exciting agent. It often, however, becomes itself the more special object of the s.e.xual appet.i.te, while the anti-fetich produces the opposite effect. But, in degenerates (vide Chap. VIII) it is sometimes exclusively to the fetich itself that an irresistible s.e.xual appet.i.te is addressed, the irradiation of which becomes a ridiculous caricature of love.

We thus see that normal love is based on an extremely complex synthesis, on a symphony of harmonious sensations, sentiments and conceptions, combined in all kinds of tones and shades. The pathological aberrations of which we shall speak, demonstrate this by forcing one tone or another to the more or less marked exclusion of the rest.

PSYCHOLOGICAL RELATIONS OF LOVE TO RELIGION

Love and eroticism play a great part in religion, and many derivatives of religious sentiment are intimately a.s.sociated with the s.e.xual appet.i.te. As Krafft-Ebing says, _religious ecstasy_ is closely related to _amorous ecstasy_, and very often appears in the guise of consolation and compensation for an unhappy or disappointed love, or even in the absence of s.e.xual love. In the insane, religion and eroticism are combined in a very characteristic manner. Among a number of peoples certain cruel religious customs are the result of transformed erotic conceptions.

As in religion, there is something mystical in love; the ineffable dream of eternal ecstasy. This is why the two kinds of mystic and erotic exaltation become blended in religions.

Krafft-Ebing attributes the cruelty found in many religions to _sadism_ (s.e.xual l.u.s.t excited by the sufferings of others). (Vide Chap. VIII.)

"The relationship so often established between religion, l.u.s.t and cruelty can be reduced almost to the following formula: at the acme of their development, the religious and s.e.xual pa.s.sions show a concordance in quality and in quant.i.ty of excitation, and may consequently replace each other, under certain circ.u.mstances. Under special pathological influences, both may be transformed into cruelty."--(Krafft-Ebing.)

We shall return to this subject in Chapters VIII and XII.

FOOTNOTES:

[3] This tendency of man has been a.n.a.lyzed with a very refined psychology by _Labiche_, in one of his most celebrated comedies: "_Le voyage de M. Perichon._"

CHAPTER VI

ETHNOLOGY AND HISTORY OF s.e.xUAL LIFE IN MAN AND IN MARRIAGE

In the study of the s.e.xual question it is absolutely necessary to guard against subjectiveness and all preconceived theory, and to avoid sentimentalism as well as eroticism. These two dangers play a considerable part in the study of human s.e.xual life. Presented in a conscientious and scientific way the history of marriage furnishes us the most trustworthy material for the study of the s.e.xual relations of man in social life. It is from this material that we can learn the relative importance of the different psychological and psycho-pathological factors in social evolution. But, to furnish valid material, history must not only be based on trustworthy and veracious sources; it must also give a comparative study of the s.e.xual relations which exist in most, if not all, of the peoples actually existing. The present savage tribes no doubt resemble more closely the primitive peoples than our hybrid agglomeration of the civilized world.

Moreover, the modern study of ethnology gives us more certain information than the uncertain, incomplete and often fabulous statements of ancient doc.u.ments. I am speaking here of primitive history, and not of the Greek and Roman civilizations. Unfortunately the correctness of ethnological observations, and especially their interpretation, still leave much to be desired.

Edward Westermark, professor at Helsingfors, in his "History of Human Marriage," has given us a monumental work, which is remarkable, not only for the richness and exactness of its material, but also for the clearness and good sense of its criticism. I shall give a _resume_ of Westermark's results, as the subject is beyond the domain of my special studies. The author has collected a great number of observations in order to avoid erroneous conclusions. He warns the reader against a hasty generalization, which attributes without proof certain customs of living savage tribes to our primitive ancestors.

ORIGIN OF MARRIAGE

In the previous chapter we have considered the phylogeny of love in general. We have seen that some of the lower animals, such as the ants and bees, give evidence of an instinctive social altruism much greater than that of man, while other animals, such as birds, are superior to us as regards monogamous conjugal fidelity. But it is a question here of a.n.a.logies due to phenomena of convergence, and these animals are of interest to us only as remote objects of comparison.

As regards marriage in primitive man, we can only compare ourselves with the living animals most closely allied to us, viz. the _anthropoid apes_.

In most mammals, marriage (if we may give this name to their s.e.xual union) is only of very short duration, depending on the time necessary for the procreation of a single brood of young. After copulation the male generally pays little attention to the female, beyond protecting her for a certain time. In the anthropoid apes (orang-utan, chimpanzee, gorilla and gibbon) however, we find monogamous marriage and the inst.i.tution of family life. The male protects the female and the young, and the latter are often of different ages, showing the existence of conjugal fidelity extending beyond one birth. While the female and the young remain in their nest, perched on a tree, the male takes his place at the foot of the tree and watches over the safety of the family.

According to Westermark this was probably the same in primitive man.

Formed by the father, the mother and the children, the family was in primitive man a general inst.i.tution, based on monogamy, polygamy or polyandry. The wife looked after the children, and the husband protected the family. No doubt, the husband was not particularly anxious for the welfare of his wife and children, but concerned himself chiefly in the satisfaction of his s.e.xual appet.i.te and his pride. He was useful, however, in building the nest, or hut, in procuring the necessary food, and in defending his family.

Most legends relate that primitive man lived in promiscuity with women, without marriage, and that marriage was inst.i.tuted by some G.o.d or by some law. But this opinion, which is still held by most modern authors, is quite erroneous, as Westermark has demonstrated in a masterly manner, by the aid of doc.u.ments which are absolutely conclusive.

The duty of the husband to provide food for the family is a general law among savage peoples. A confirmation of this law is found in the fact that most often in polygamous races the man has only the right to as many wives as he can support. Every man must give proof that he is capable of feeding his family. Even after divorce the husband's duties continue, and may even be transmitted to his heirs. For example, among certain peoples, his brother is obliged to marry his widow. The husband's duties appear to be inherited from the higher apes, among whom conjugal fidelity lasts longer than the s.e.xual appet.i.te. This fidelity has therefore deep phylogenetic roots in our nature, and we shall see later on that we cannot neglect it without compromising our social state (Chap. XIII).

The following is the definition of marriage as given by Westermark: _Marriage is a s.e.xual union of variable duration between men and women, a union which is continued after copulation, at least till the birth of the child._

According to this definition, there may be monogamous, polygamous and polyandrous marriages, as well as marriage in groups and limited marriage. It is evident that permanent monogamous unions, such as occur in birds and the higher apes, are, according to this definition, true marriages, of better quality even than those of many men.

Among animals which have a definite rutting period, marriage cannot depend solely on the s.e.xual appet.i.te, or egoistic eroticism, without ceasing with the rut. It follows from this that natural selection and the mneme (engraphia) have derived from the s.e.xual appet.i.te certain social or altruistic instincts, with the object of preserving the species by protection of the young. Although not the only means of preserving the species, such instincts are certainly important.

The family is thus the root of marriage. This explains the custom, among certain races, of marriage only becoming valid after the birth of a child. In many forms of marriage by purchase, the wife is even bound to return to her husband the sum paid for her if she remains sterile, and among many savages the marriage is only celebrated after the birth of the first child. In Borneo, relations between the s.e.xes are free till pregnancy occurs, and it is this which determines the duties of marriage. In this respect, these savages are more just and wiser than us.

In man, a special reason in favor of marriage is the fact that he has no rutting period. In animals the rutting period is generally regulated so that the young are born exactly at the time of year when they will find food most abundant. For example, the muscardin copulates in July and brings forth young in August, at the time when nuts are ripe, while elephants, whales and certain monkeys, who find food at all seasons, do not copulate at any definite period.

The anthropoid apes, however, have a rutting period, and something a.n.a.logous is found among certain human races (Californians, Hindus and certain Australians) in the spring, when s.e.xual orgies are indulged in. In man there is no particular correlation between eroticism and the possibility of easily obtaining food for the children at the time of birth. Nevertheless, a recrudescence of the s.e.xual appet.i.te is generally observed in the spring and beginning of summer, with a corresponding increase in the number of conceptions. This is probably explained by the fact that infants born in the autumn or winter are more robust. Moreover, natural selection has almost entirely ceased in civilized peoples, owing to the artificial means used to rear children, and to the diminution which results from their mortality.

We thus see that the inst.i.tution of marriage in man does not depend on the excitation of the s.e.xual appet.i.te, for this is, on the whole, continuous.

ANTIQUITY OF MATRIMONIAL INSt.i.tUTIONS

The fact that the anthropoid apes produce feeble and dependent young, whose infancy is long, has probably been the origin of marriage.

Kautsky says that in primitive man the child belongs to the clan; but this is an error. Originally, human societies were composed of families, or rather a.s.sociations of families. In primitive man, these families play the fundamental role and const.i.tute the nucleus of society. In the anthropoid ape we already find the family, but not the clan. This must also have been the case with the pithecanthropoids and other extinct transitory forms. In fact, the lowest savages still live as isolated families like the carnivorous mammals, rather than in clans or tribes. This is the case, for example, with the Weddas of Ceylon, the indigenes of Terra del Fuego, the aboriginal Australians, the Esquimaux and certain Indians of Brazil. In this way they have better conditions for subsistence.

In primitive times therefore, man lived in families, on the produce of the chase. Later on, the spirit of discovery, the more abundant food obtained by traps and by the cultivation of plants allowed men to live in tribes. Thus, intellectual development was the first cause of social life in man, and Lubbock is certainly wrong in considering that the establishment of clans dates further back than the first beginning of civilization. Westermark's conclusions are as follows:

(1). _At no period of human existence has family life been replaced by clan life._

(2). _Conjugal life is a heritage from ancestors who lived in a similar way to the anthropoid apes of the present day._

(3). _Although less intimately and less constantly bound to the children than to the mother, the father has always been in man the protector of the family._

CRITICISM OF THE DOCTRINE OF PROMISCUITY