Unfortunately, the infantile condition can completely satisfy,
consciously, the infant of adult size. This makes it difficult to
approach him, makes him difficult of access. If one present him with a
fully developed adult woman, he immediately recoils much farther into his
youth which he regards as a fine quality. Because of the uncomfortable
nature of the comparison he unconsciously sees his inferiority and
unconsciously compensates for it, by getting (in the only way he can) the
feeling of satisfaction that comes _via_ mental autoerotism whenever it
fails to be obtained from the outside world.
Adult society always produces this reaction somewhere in the sub-adult
psyche; so it becomes a great problem, to devise some method for getting
the sub-adult to desire to react in adult modes.
§ 191
Any plurality of women for a man implies reservation. He cannot love all
of a woman entirely who thinks he loves in any degree any other woman.
If for example he “loved” one woman for her hair and another for her
eyes, another for her smile, this could not be called love, but only
physical sex stimulation, or fetishism. Man’s supposed love of more than
one woman is where his reservation makes him love one woman consciously
and the others unconsciously. But conscious love is not complete love
either, so that a man who consciously loves his wife, but is not able to
arouse in her the erotic acme for any reason, cannot really be said to
love her. He may rationalize to himself that his wife is a good mother to
his children, a good housewife, patient, painstaking, self-sacrificing;
but that other women whom he has seen interest him more in various
intellectual spheres.
His wife could not be a brilliant pianist, good conversationalist, noted
writer, artist, and singer, all at the same time. It would be a physical
impossibility. He is interested in all those spheres in other women; why
should he not find pleasure in their company? Why should he not call love
that interest which the thought-provoking, intellectually stimulating
woman arouses in him? Simply because he would not and probably could not
evoke in her the fullest erotic reaction, and probably has not in his own
wife.
Plurality of women would compare with Guyot’s violinist who should say
he could play “Yankee Doodle” only on one violin and only a concerto on
another, or could play only in E flat Major on one, and A flat Minor on
another, needing a different instrument for each of the twenty-four keys.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account