AFTER MARRIAGE

Considering the instability of all our tastes and desires and the almost total want of personal discipline which prevails in the present day, it is really remarkable that the legal marriage goes on even as well as it does! ­but that the state could be much happier is patent to any understanding, and it may be interesting to look at one or two aspects of it, and see from whence comes the discord.  A woman enters into matrimony for various reasons, but, in the majority of cases in England and America at least, it is because she is, or fancies she is, in love with the man at the time.  He, therefore, if this is so, starts with an enormous power over her, which, if he chooses to keep it, will enable him to turn their future life in any way he will, because the greatest desire even of the most strong-minded and domineering woman when in love is to please the man.  A woman only becomes indifferent as to whether or no she is doing this when she no longer cares.  Therefore, it is the man’s business to keep her in this state if he wants his home to be happy.  The first thing for him to realise is that she cannot remain in love with him by her own will, any more than she can cease to love him by her own will ­these states are produced in her by something in himself.  And if he discontinues using the arts and attractions which awakened her love, he cannot expect it to continue its demonstration, any more than a kettle will go on boiling if the heat beneath is removed from it.  This argument, of course, applies to both sexes.  Unfortunately, in a great many cases of marriage, the simple attraction of sex has been the unconscious motive which has caused the man to enter the bond, and naturally, when he has gained his wishes he ceases to endeavour consciously to attract the woman.  And then one of two things happens; either she grows to love him more for a time, because of that contrariness in human beings which always puts abnormal value upon the thing which is slipping out of reach ­or she herself becomes indifferent; and then it is a mere chance if they both, or either of them, possess character and a sense of duty as to how the marriage goes along.  We will take the case of a union when both parties are in love when they start, and really desire that their marriage should remain happy.  Each ought to decide that he or she will do his or her uttermost to continue to put forth those charms which enchanted the mate before the ceremony.  No one would expect the bloom to remain upon grapes if he carelessly rubbed it off, but both man and woman are extraordinarily surprised and disgusted when they find their partners are no longer in love with them, and at once blame them for fickleness, instead of examining themselves to see what caused this ceasing to care ­what they did ­or omitted to do ­which made themselves no longer able to call forth love from their mates.  And until it can be grasped that all emotion of love is produced by something consciously or unconsciously possessed by the other person ­and that it is not in the power of the individual to order himself to feel it, or not to feel it, but that only the demonstration of the state is in his power ­unions will go on with mutual recriminations and the hitting of the heads against a stone wall.

Some natures are naturally fickle and unstable ­and no matter how good and sweet the partner may be, they break away.  These cases are misfortunes, but in analysing the facts the actual responsibility cannot be laid at the doors of such people, since they could not by will have kept the sensation of love for their partners, any more than by will they could have ceased to care for them.  They could only by will have been able to control the expression of their feelings.  I seem to be reiterating this point to the verge of tiresomeness, but it is so vitally important to understand, because its non-comprehension produces such injustice.  If John by his will were able to make himself remain in love with Mary, and failed to do so, then she might have a right to blame him because he had sworn that he would at the altar.  But as he cannot command his actual emotion, she can only blame him for infidelity of the body, since of that, at least, it is possible he could be master.  But, alas!  Mary very seldom realises this, and reproaches John for ceasing to feel loving towards her! which is as sensible on her part as to reproach him for the skies pouring rain.  John, on his side, in like case does the same thing, because he also has not understood the truth.  A valuable point for both to keep in remembrance is that the attraction of sex is the basis of all “being in love.”  However ennobled the emotion may become afterwards, it always starts with that. (This fact is explained and elaborated in the conversation between the Russian and the Clergyman in my story, “The Point of View.”) If common sense is used in thinking about this matter, it will be seen that if this was not the foundation of “being in love” the emotion would be calm, and like that of brother and sister.  So, admitting that this is the foundation, it can be understood how important a part it plays in the happiness of two people bound together by law for life, and how important it is to the woman to endeavor to continue to make herself lovable in the eyes of the man ­and vice versa ­it is of supreme importance to whichever of them cares the most.  When the thing starts equally, the man nearly always cools the soonest, because of his fundamental instincts, and the force of satiation.  He then probably goes on liking his wife ­perhaps he admires and respects her intellect, but the thrill which used to come when her hand even touched his hand is no longer there, and he only feels emotion towards her when he is in the mood, which would make him feel it towards any woman who happened to be there at the moment.  And just in the measure that he was passionate towards his wife, so he will be the easy or difficult prey of a new emotion.  And if this aspect of the case distresses the woman, she must look to her guns ­so to speak ­and use the whole of her intelligence to regain her hold over his affection.  She will not improve matters by lamenting or reproaching the man.  If it does not distress her, then she can congratulate herself that a time of peace has come!

A woman must face the fact that man is a totally different creature from herself, governed by other instincts, which can be best explained by realising them in animals in their boldest nature aspect, i.e. a male dog at times will tear down any barrier that is within his personal strength to enable him to get to his mate, and a female dog will fight through unheard-of obstacles to reach her puppies.  Here is a plain illustration of the different ruling original instincts in animals, and human beings are only the highest form of animal, given by God a more developed soul and a choice of action, but still influenced by fundamental nature instincts, which, beneath all the training of civilisation, unconsciously still direct their actions and affect their point of view.  Civilisation, on its good side, teaches man to overcome his bodily desires and to keep them in check, but not to eliminate them, to do which would militate against the Creator’s scheme of things.  Civilisation on its evil side has frequently perverted woman’s natural instinct, so that in numbers of cases the wonderful devotion of the animal to her young has become numb in her, or dead.  If only all women would bravely face these facts of nature instincts in themselves and in men, they would approach marriage with much broader-minded views, and would have a much greater chance of happiness, because they would realise that they must be lenient to man in the matter of his fidelity to them; and if man realised these instincts, he would enter marriage knowing he must make a fight with nature to keep the vows he has sworn, and so he would be on his guard against the first inclination to stray, instead of an easy prey to it.  For, as it is, there is a recognised unwritten law among most men that honour must always be kept with “the other woman,” but that it is not necessary with a wife.  A man’s honour towards a woman is only certain of holding with his inclinations ­that is:  A married to B will be unfaithful to her with C ­which is technically dishonour.  He will not consider that, but will tell any lie to protect C and stick to her, because his sense of honour has gone with his inclination.  He feels he must “never give away C to B,” although he experiences no qualm in having already tacitly “given away” B to C, by his very part of taking C for his mistress.  B is also a woman, but only his wife!  He has not been the least aware of it, but his sense of honour has followed his inclination, in a way it would never do over a business arrangement with another man.  To give a parallel case in a business arrangement:  A makes a bargain with B that he will deal with him alone; he then finds he likes the goods of C better than those of B ­but no honest tradesman would think of breaking his contract even secretly with B and dealing with C, for, if he did, he would know himself that he was dishonest, and that all his fellows who knew he had done this thing would despise and ostracise him.  But a man when deceiving his wife not only generally feels no shame himself, but knows his male friends will probably not think the worse of him for it.  There is not the slightest use in arguing about these facts, any more than, as I said in my first paper upon marriage, there is in arguing about fundamental instincts, and it would be well for women to realise this elastic, unwritten law of honour in men towards them, and so not expect, at the present state of man’s evolution, that they will receive anything different.  They must never forget that this adjustable sense of honour springs from the same fundamental male instinct we spoke of ­and therefore cannot be turned round by women and applied to their own cases, because the same instincts do not come into force with them.  Woman must always remember that man is conquering primitive nature in being faithful to her at all, and therefore she ought, if she desires that he shall be so, to look to her own every point of attraction to make it possible (if not easy!) for him to fulfil her desire.  I must reiterate again that it is wiser to remember that it is civilisation alone (civilisation embracing development of moral sense, and religious sense, and the force of custom) which keeps him from straying whenever he feels inclined, and that all she can do to prevent it is to redouble her own attractions, and to help the women of the future by instilling into her own sons’ minds the idea that, as marriage is an ideal and not a natural state, the man who enters into it must be prepared to school himself to live up to an ideal, and control his vagrant emotions.  To teach the boys a new and higher sense of honour is the only possible way to alter matters, as a grown man is seldom changed.  In marriage, both partners must understand that they are undertaking to do a most difficult thing in vowing to live together and love for ever!  Whichever cares the most will have to use intelligence to keep the other ­and if it is the woman who is unfortunate enough to occupy this position, she generally absolutely sacrifices herself to gratify the man’s smallest wish, and so makes herself cheap.  She should use her wits and keep a firm hand over herself so as not to let herself become in his eyes of no importance.

Selfishness is another basic instinct of man, caused because he was originally and unquestionably Lord of Creation, and only in the countries where men are in the majority are the greater number of them unselfish even now to woman.  In England, where women are in the majority, selfishness in every male child is fostered from his cradle.  So women must not indiscriminately condemn every man as being selfish, as though it was his personal fault; they must look to the cause, and condemn that if they want to, or, better still, try to eradicate it in the future by influencing their own sons to desire to be chivalrous and unselfish to the woman of the next generation.  In this way they would help to raise the standard of honour and responsibility in humanity in general.

The most selfish man is not often selfish to the woman whom he is in love with.  While she excites these emotions, however he shows his cloven hoof to the rest of the household, he will not show it to her.  And even when he ceases to be in love, if his wife has filled him with respect and admiration for her, he will hardly dare to exhibit his bad qualities.  You will see a man with the most odious character showing only the nicest ways to some particular person, when he wishes to stand well with that person.  Therefore, to deal successfully with a selfish man, it ought to be obvious to a woman that the only effectual method to employ is to seek to create in his mind the desire to please her.  If only men could understand that to be kind and courteous to their wives in the home would give them much greater liberty abroad, they would greatly add to the happiness of most marriages.  It is her daily life which matters to a woman, because, as a rule, her brain is not developed enough to be looking ahead to the great questions of the day; and to have joy in her home is her earthly paradise.

Nearly all love marriages begin with too much emotion and too little self-control, and so become shipwrecked upon the rocks of satiety and indifference.  Young people undertake the most risky experiment in the world as lightly and unpreparedly as they would go on a summer holiday!

It must be understood that all these arguments are used from the standpoint of supposing the married pair start with love.  When they do not, but are entering into a marriage simply from expediency, their minds are generally calm, they have no illusions, and are therefore free to use that judgment which they would employ over any business affair of their lives, and often, therefore, they get along very well.  But these cannot be considered as ideal marriages, or likely to produce highly endowed children.  And in England, at least, such unions are the exception and not the rule.

Broadly speaking, to make any marriage happy each partner ought deliberately to use every atom of his or her intelligence to think out the best method to live in sympathy with the mate, and should not simply be set upon expressing his or her own personality, regardless of the other.  Chain any two animals together and watch the result!  Nothing will teach what marriage means more effectually.  It is only when the two poor beasts are of one mind that their chains do not gall.  But human beings are above animals in this, that they have wills and talents and aspirations, and can judge of good and evil, so that their happiness or misery is practically in their own hands, and to quote an immortal remark of a French writer ­“If as much thought were put into the making a success of marriage as is put into the mixing of a salad, there would be no unhappy unions!”