Art Of Choosing A Mate For Ideal Marriage

( Originally Published 1940 )

TYPES OF MEN AND WOMEN ACCORDING TO DEGREES OF SEX INTENSITY

ANYONE who has carefully and observantly read the foregoing chapter, will surely have come to the conclusion that there are many more degrees and shades of sexuality in our love-life, than he suspected. Our sexual impulses are so manifold and different, that it is sometimes scarcely possible for us to distinguish one from the other; and how many errors, misunderstandings and false judgments result! I will therefore try to define some notions more precisely; many an obscure point will thus be cleared up.

In our sexual behaviour we can give expression to our affections more sexually or less sexually, and this may be shown in an ascending scale, from the most harmless caresses to the most fateful manoeuvres, e.g. a friendly hand-shake, a tender kiss, going arm-in-arm, a very passionate embrace, passionate love-making, local feeling and tickling, satisfaction through external caresses, Karezza, intercourse with preventives, attempts to fecundate.

Each of us would fix the limit where, according to his ideas of propriety, familiarity should end, at a different point in the scale for each particular case.

We also know full well, from history and ethnography, that the higher we ascend in the scale of civilisation, the more recognition of intermediate stages we meet with. The greater the progress made by self-control, the more we can and should really admit some of these degrees on the scale to be quite harmless and ethically permissible. Thus Our sexual life will be constantly richer, proportion-ally with our self-control (see chapter 30), for each of these steps has its own particular value.

But the picture will be still more complete, if we regard not only the actual behaviour, but the inmost feelings. Then we obtain a still more plentifully graded series of sensations on the scale, from an icy frigidity to erotic frenzy. It is to be regretted that our own language so often fails us in this matter, and that we are then obliged to borrow foreign terms to express the finer shades of meaning; not merely from a false shame, but as an enrichment of our vocabulary.

If in speaking of anyone, we say he is sexual, we generally mean that he has an obvious sexual need. But we criticise this in quite a different manner, according as it happens to affect us sympathetically or objectionably. If I find it in the case in point to be something agreeable, I say: he or she has a warm disposition, is very affectionate, at most I say he is lively, high-spirited, rather inclined to be gay or careless, etc. If, however, it makes an unpleasant impression on me, I say: this person is annoying, or rude, or impudent, or I use some still less complimentary epithet.

If, however, we are speaking of someone who only feels the sexual urge to a very slight degree, we say, if it meets with our approbation, this person is very proper, modest and moral; if it does not suit our ideas, we talk of indifference, coldness or frigidity, obstinacy and asexuality.

The same sexual behaviour may really represent a totally different ethical value. If, for instance, chastity is the result of a feebly expressed sexuality coupled with a feebly expressed will-power, then this chastity betokens a deficiency, and may cause great disappointment in married life. If, on the other hand, it is the result of iron self-control exercised with a strong will over a passionate nature, then this chastity is the highest of all virtues.

Frequently also, my judgment must vary with my mood. If I am feeling very sexual, and have on that account to sustain a hard fight with my passions, I can scarcely bear an expression of liveliness: if, however, I am old, and still would like to be stimulated for a bit, then something daring or even cynical would delight me.

This point of view may vary from time to time with the same person. Suppose that just for a moment one wishes to have a joke; the more one notices that one has gone a little too far, the more reserved one would naturally be the next time. And then someone would say, quite unjustly: yes, he's only pretending, the hypocrite; last time he was not so pious.

One must not always show one's true nature, especially in the sexual sphere; this lack of frankness is often a duty of self-control. For instance, as soon as a girl shows openly how much she feels the need of sexual satisfaction, this frankness is only to quickly taken advantage of; even if only in words or in external behaviour towards her. And so in future she would be obliged to be doubly careful. I have often observed among young people, that it was just those who felt the sexual urge the most, who exercised the greatest self-control and appeared the coolest; while on the contrary, those who were asexual, tried to hide this defect by impudence.

If a man marries such a forward girl expecting to find a very passionate nature, he is terribly deceived.

If anyone incidentally seeks the sexual, it is not necessarily a sign of a deeply felt sexual need; the motives may easily be curiosity, coquetry, vanity, ambition, love of adventure or speculation about marriage: all motives of a mental order, that have nothing to do with the sexual urge. And this may lead us into serious, error.

Also people with southern or oriental temperament, who have very lively and active habits, might easily give the impression that they are fearfully sexually inclined; while, although, we in our colder climate are less demonstrative, we perhaps feel passion more deeply and permanently.

These various examples show us how difficult it is for each of us to fix a standard of living for himself in this respect, and still more so to judge others. Especially in the sexual sphere, we should remember the warning: "Judge not!"