Under our present economic and social conditions, when men marry at the age of thirty, thirty five and later, chastity in men is not feasible, not advisable and probably not desirable. We are confronted in practice with certain cases in which the man's libido and potentia, either one or both, are partially or completely lost as far as the wife is concerned. Their libido and potentia is normal toward other women, and a temporary change often renders their feelings normal towards their own wives. In such cases we are morally justified in recommending such a change.
There is a class of cases where the man, without losing his libido or potentia, gets a feeling
of unconquerable ennui or tiredness or dulness, with regard to his life partner. A temporary
separation or change generally effects a cure in such cases.
There are certain men doing creative work to whom an occasional new relation; seems
absolutely necessary, in order that they may do their best work.
There are men of powerful sexuality, whom the wife alone, tho perfectly normal, cannot
fully satisfy. While normal, her sexuality is much below that of the man. What are we to do
in such cases?
There are men who, on account of certain psychological peculiarities, cannot live in
permanent union with any one person; are not fit to be married men. Such people live
happily in temporary unions with congenial or similarly constituted women, and such
temporary unions are therefore the proper thing for them.
If the above premises and theses are correct, the following conclusions may be
enunciated:
The monogamic system of marriage will probably survive in the future as the dominant
system. The family will in the future, as in the present, form the basic unit of society, for a
happy, harmonious family is the best environment for the proper bringing up of children, for
the proper development of character.
Of course it is possible that the state institutions for the
care of children in the future will be of a much higher character than the institutions of the
present. But the institutions with which we are familiar do not inspire us with very great
expectations in this respect.
A good home is superior to the best institution or asylum or
pension or dormitory, and no substitute has yet been found for mother love and father love.
It is possible that many wives and husbands will find it more suitable to their characters
to live in separate houses or apartments. Constant co habitation in one house is terribly
wearing on the nerves of some of the most loving husbands and wives.
Whether or not the people will still solemnize their marriages with religious or legal
ceremonies is a matter of minor importance. One thing is certain: marriage will not be such
a practically indissoluble arrangement or contract as it is now. There isn't any question in my
mind that on the petition of both parties a divorce or dissolution of marriage will be granted
without further ceremony.
The two persons who have to live together are the best judges as
to whether they want to continue to live together or not. And when there are no children
to be taken care of, a simple declaration by husband and wife, repeated perhaps after a lapse
of three or six months, should be and will be quite sufficient for the termination of the
marriage contract. Here the state has nothing to say. When there are children the state will
make sure that they will be properly cared for and provided for, before a divorce is granted.