That men should be subjected, therefore, to the same laws and restrictions which govern women is wise, for their own good as well as the good of society; and although seemingly now far distant, I cannot but hope that such a day will come, and that the future historian of morals will record, with infinite surprise, that at the beginning of the twentieth century society tolerated conduct in men which, in women, would have been visited with social ostracism.
It cannot well be denied, notwithstanding what Man More Sensual has been said to the contrary, that in man the sexual than Woman impulse is much stronger than in woman.1 He loves sensually, as a rule; and his choice is influenced by physical beauty, voluptuousness of person, and those other traits of the feminine character which go to make up the purely sensual ideal. To these of course will be added such mental and moral accomplishments as his varying degrees of education and refinement may suggest, but the love of the majority of men is largely sensual. With woman it is the reverse. Her sexual desire is, normally, small; her sentimentality large.1 She yields herself to the sexual embrace, perhaps most frequently, either as a matter of wifely duty or as a favor to the lover.1 But while sexual desire, which in the man is the ultimate culmination of all affection, is relatively small, she is a creature of love, in its higher moral and psychological sense. It is, as Byron says, "her whole existence." She freights her golden argosy of romance with every treasure of her heart; and if shipwreck come, her loss is total. In her choice of a life companion, mental and moral, rather than physical qualities prevail; and when she has passed through the pains of maternity, she always thinks of the man as the father of her child, rather than as husband, the sensual losing itself in the maternal instinct.
1 Psychopathia Soxualía, p, 13.
Thus, woman's love being spiritual, rather than sensual, any wound to it is necessarily deeper and more painful. To her, love is life; to man, the joy of life.*
It is a psychological, as well as a society, question—can a woman love truly twice in her life? I am inclined to think the normal woman cannot. Either the disappointment or fulfilment of her romantic ideal in marriage will equally preclude a second venture; and besides, woman is monogamous by instinct, while man is essentially polygynous. She may marry twice for somebody else's sake—for self-sacrifice is also her instinct—or for utilitarian ends; but, as Mantegazza intimates, it will usually be found that support, and protection for herself and her children, will oftener underlie the act than the recrudescence of love, or the gratification of sexual passion.
Man is only stronger than woman as he shows himself stronger than his sexual passion. As soon as he submits to woman's seductions she becomes stronger than he; and the handicap which man carries in Buch a contest lies, necessarily, in the greater strength of his sexual passion. Thus, it is not hard for a woman of charm to enervate and despoil the character of a man whose lust is stronger than his intellect. She need simply yield to him, give him his way, and his ruin is certain and easy. The more neuropathic, weak and sensual he grows, the more dependent he becomes upon her, the more servile in his devotion, the more amenable to her rule and direction. Hence arises the danger to the state, and society, that both may be ruled by prostitutes and courtesans, as in the days of Dubarry, Herodias and Messalina, through sensually effeminate men who become their tools and playthings. Indeed we have not to go so far afield as Greece, Rome, or even France, for instances of such gymeocracy. To those acquainted with the present status of Washington society, " federal matronage " will readily suggest itself as a far more appropriate phrase than "federal patronage;" and we do not have to read far in the biographies of statesmen, both in ancient and modern times, to find that, through their neuropathic condition, they were frequently the instruments of women who used their power in wayB far from conducive to the public welfare.
1 "Husbands have told me of brides who sobbed and trembled with Fright on the wedding night, the hysteria being sometimes alarming. E., aged 25, refused her husband for six weeks after marriage, exhibiting the greatest fear of hia approach." H. Ellis., loc. cit„ i, 25.
2 Helen, Brunhalt, Fredegonde, Messalina, Joanna of Naples, and other historical prostitutes whose lust was pathological, a species of insanity—est areas (Ue, via eat immttdfcabilis, est rabies insane—as Plutarch describes it, may only be mentioned to prove the rule of female chastity. It was not women's lust but men's that brought ruin upon Sodom and Gomorra; upon Rome and Sybaris; and that prompted Paul to arraign the Romans on the filthy charge of "leaving the natural use of women," committing "folly with beasts" and "burning with lust one toward another, man with man," working all sorts of abomination. (Rom. i, 27.)
1 Krafft-Ebing, he. cti.. p. 14, et ■■■■/.
But we must not forget that good women as frequently exercise their influence in those respects as bad. Marianne thus influenced Herod; and Serena, Diocletian; and Theodora, Theophilus; and Thyra, Gurumunde; in all four cases, unlike that of Xantippe and Socrates, the husband being the weak, bad, or vacillating character.