Page:Fielding - Sex and the Love Life.pdf/126

"unmentionable"; that any display of sexual interest, feeling or passion was incompatible with feminine refinement and respectability—only a depraved woman was supposed to evince this human trait; that, accordingly, all manifestations of a sexual nature were to be avoided whenever possible, or passively and reluctantly accepted when surrender proved inevitable.

On the other hand, the sexual aggressiveness and passion of man were duly recognized; in fact, he only was accredited with sexual feeling without regard to the inclinations, wishes or feelings of his mate. The only consistency in this generally inconsistent and wholly inequitable relationship was that, as woman was considered without sexual responsiveness or feeling, it was not of much concern to her when she was, or was not, sexually approached. It was purely a matter of masculine convenience and gratification. Woman was absolutely a negative factor in the union.

We were told of the "gross animal instincts" of the male, and of the more "spiritual" nature of the female. There was a grotesque attempt in the old theory of the marriage relations to unite the "beast" and the "goddess,"—neither symbolizing a human being—and expect happiness as a result.

It was impossible to bring about a basis of sexual harmony on such a false assumption. In the marriage relations we cannot accept as a premise two utterly different concepts—in fact, contradictory concepts—of thought and feeling, and look for happiness.

There are boundless possibilities for happiness in marriage, but they must be achieved on a human basis, taking into account all the complex bundle of feelings, emotions, passions and responses that go into the make-up of normally constituted men and women. And underlying the whole structure, there must be the fundamental principle of mutuality.