function which clouds the reason and upsets the judgment
more than all the other instincts put together.
The process may be pleasant and romantic; but the
consequences are not. It would be far better
for everyone, as well as far honester, if young people
were taught that what they call love is an appetite
which, like all other appetites, is destroyed for the
moment by its gratification; that no profession, promise,
or proposal made under its influence should bind anybody;
and that its great natural purpose so completely transcends
the personal interests of any individual or even of
any ten generations of individuals that it should
be held to be an act of prostitution and even a sort
of blasphemy to attempt to turn it to account by exacting
a personal return for its gratification, whether by
process of law or not. By all means let it be
the subject of contracts with society as to its consequences;
but to make marriage an open trade in it as at present,
with money, board and lodging, personal slavery, vows
of eternal exclusive personal sentimentalities and
the rest of it as the price, is neither virtuous,
dignified, nor decent. No husband ever secured
his domestic happiness and honor, nor has any wife
ever secured hers, by relying on it. No private
claims of any sort should be founded on it: the
real point of honor is to take no corrupt advantage
of it. When we hear of young women being led
astray and the like, we find that what has led them
astray is a sedulously inculcated false notion that
the relation they are tempted to contract is so intensely
personal, and the vows made under the influence of
its transient infatuation so sacred and enduring, that
only an atrociously wicked man could make light of
or forget them. What is more, as the same fantastic
errors are inculcated in men, and the conscientious
ones therefore feel bound in honor to stand by what
they have promised, one of the surest methods to obtain
a husband is to practise on his susceptibilities until
he is either carried away into a promise of marriage
to which he can be legally held, or else into an indiscretion
which he must repair by marriage on pain of having
to regard himself as a scoundrel and a seducer, besides
facing the utmost damage the lady’s relatives
can do him.
Such a transaction is not an entrance into a “holy
state of matrimony”: it is as often as
not the inauguration of a lifelong squabble, a corroding
grudge, that causes more misery and degradation of
character than a dozen entirely natural “desertions”
and “betrayals.” Yet the number of
marriages effected more or less in this way must be
enormous. When people say that love should be
free, their words, taken literally, may be foolish;
but they are only expressing inaccurately a very real
need for the disentanglement of sexual relations from
a mass of exorbitant and irrelevant conditions imposed
on them on false pretences to enable needy parents
to get their daughters “off their hands”
and to keep those who are already married effectually
enslaved by one another.