The Foundations of Personality by Abraham Myerson (color ebook reader .TXT) 📕

With the rise of Mandel’s theory of heredity, it has been assumed

that such a scheme offers a wider variety of possible character

combinations. At present it is safe to say that no one can give a

valid reason for the existence of male and female, and that while

this elaboration of the reproducing individual into two parts may

be necessary for some purpose, at first glance it appears like an

interesting but mysterious complication.

[1] See Lloyd Morgan’s book on sex.

I refer the reader to textbooks in anatomy and embryology, and to

the specialists on sex like Krafft-Ebbing, Havelock Ellis and

Ploss for details as to the differences between man and woman.

There are first the essential organs of generation, differing in

the two sexes, the ovary furnishing the egg, the testes

furnishing the seed or sperm; then the organs of sexual contact;

the secondary sex characteristics, such as stature, distribution

of hair, deposits of fat, shape of body and especially of the

pelvis, the voice, smoothness of skin, muscular development, etc.

There is an orderly evolution in the development of sex

characters which starts with earliest embryo life and goes on

regularly until puberty, when there is an extraordinary

development of latent characters and peculiarities. After puberty

maturity is reached by easy stages, and then comes involution or

the recession of sex characters. This is reached in woman rather

suddenly and in man more gradually. The completely differentiated

man differs from his completely differentiated mate in the

texture of his hair, skin, nails; in the width and mobility of

pupils, in the color of his sclera, etc., as well as in the more

essential sex organs.

Indeed there are very essential bodily differences that are

obviously important though not well understood. One is that the

bodily temperature of man is slightly higher than that of woman,

and that he has five million red blood corpuscles to every cubic

millimeter of his blood, while she has four and a half million;

that his brain weighs considerably more but is not heavier

proportionately; that her bodily proportions resemble those of

the child-form[1] more than do his, which some interpret as a

point of superiority for her, while others interpret it as a sign

of inferiority. On the whole, the authorities consider that man

is made for the discharge of energy at a high rate for a short

time, he is the katabolic element, while woman stores up energy

for her children and represents the anabolic element of the race.

[1] See Havelock Ellis.

As a corollary to the above, it is necessary to know that each

human being (and also each higher animal) starts out with the

potential sex organs of both sexes, and that each individual

becomes sexually differentiated at about the eleventh week of

intra-uterine life. Moreover every male has female organs, and

every female has male organs, though in the normal conditions

these are mere vestiges and play no part in the sex life of the

person. Yet this indicates that the separation of male and female

is not absolute, and logically and actually a male may have

female characters, physically and mentally, and vice versa a

female may resemble the male in structure and character.

The sex relations have in the racial sense reproduction as their

object, but it is wise to remember that in the whole living world

only man knows this, and he has known it for only a relatively

short time. Furthermore, in youth, when the sexual life is at its

intensest, this fact, though known, is not really realized, and

in the individual’s plans and desires parenthood figures only

incidentally, if at all. Society, in its organization, places its

emphasis on child-bearing, and so indirectly reproduction becomes

a great social aim rather than an individual purpose.

1. The feeling of parenthood is, as every one knows, far stronger

in woman than in man. But here again generalizations are of no

use to us, since there are women who develop only a weak maternal

feeling, while there are men whose intensity of response to

children is almost as great as any woman’s. Undoubtedly

occupation in other than the traditional woman’s field is

weakening the maternal feeling or is at least competing with it

in a way that divides the modern mother’s emotions and purposes

and is largely responsible for her restless nervousness. This I

think may safely be stated: that industry, athleticism,

education, late marriage, etc., are not making for better

physical motherhood.[1] On the contrary, the modern woman has a

harder time in bearing her children, and worst of all she is

showing either a reluctance or an inability to nurse them. Small

families are becoming the rule, especially among the better to

do. On the other hand, the history of the home is the gradual

domestication of the man, his greater devotion to the children

and to his wife. The increase in divorce has its roots in social

issues too big to be discussed with profit here, but perhaps the

principal item is the emancipation of woman who is now freer to

decline unsatisfactory relations with her mate.

[1] “The Nervous Housewife.”

2. The sex passion, as a direct feeling, is undoubtedly stronger

in the male, as it is biologically necessary it should be, since

upon him devolves the active part in the sex relationship.[2] The

sexologists point out two types of sex feeling, one of which is

supposed to be typically male, the other typically female.

[2] See Havelock Ellis, Krafft-Ebbing, Freud.

The male feeling is called sadism, after an infamous nobleman who

wrote on the subject. It is a delight in power, especially in

cruelty, and shows itself in a desire for the subjection of the

female. In its pathological forms it substitutes cruelty for the

sexual relation, and we have thus the horrible Jack the Rippers,

etc. The Freudians go to the extreme of seeing in all love of

power a sadism, but the truth is that the sadistic impulse is the

love of power, cruelly or roughly expressed in sex. The cave man

of the stories is a sadist of a type, and one generally approved

of, at least in theory. A little of sadism is shown in the

delight in pinching and biting so often seen; and the expression

“I’d like to eat you up” has a playful sadism in it.

The opposite of sadism is masochism. This is a delight in being

roughly used, in being the victim of aggression. The typical

female is supposed to rejoice in the power and strength of the

male as exerted on her. The admiration women often give to the

uncouthly strong, their praise of virility, is masochistic in its

origin. The desire of the peasant woman to be beaten as a mark of

man’s love is supposed to be masochistic, a pleasure in pain,

which is held to be a primitive female reaction.

Sex psychopathology discloses innumerable cases where extreme

sadism and masochism exist in both sexes; that is, not only males

but females are sadistic, and so not only females but males are

masochistic. Undoubtedly in minor degree both qualities express

themselves in male and female; undoubtedly the male is more

frequently a sadist than is the female. Though the majority of

women may thrill in the strength and power of the lover, there

are relatively few American women who will tolerate real

roughness or cruelty. As a matter of fact the basic feelings in

sex love, aside from the sexual urge itself, are tenderness and

admiration. Naturally men desire to protect, and this becomes

part of their tenderness; they admire and love the beauty of

women and are attracted by the essential (or supposed essential)

feminine qualities. And as naturally women desire to be

protected; this enhances their tenderness, and their admiration

is elicited by the peculiar male characters of strength,

hardihood and aggressiveness, as well as by beauty and human

qualities generally. Though the love of conquest is a part of sex

feeling, it is neither male nor female, but is that feeling of

superiority and power so longed for in all relations. Men like to

conquer the proud, reserved, haughty woman because she piques

them, and women often set out to “win” the reserved “woman hater”

for the same reason. Thus tenderness and sex passion, with sadism

and masochism in lesser degree, are basic in sex feeling, but

other qualities enter so largely that any complete analysis is

almost impossible. The belief, engendered by romance and

teaching, that happiness lies in love, spurs youth on. Admiration

for achievement, love of beauty, desire for the social standing

that winning some one gives, desire for home and perhaps even for

children are some of the factors of love.

Sex passion varies enormously in people. In some men it is an

almost constant desire, obsessive, and is relatively uncritical

and unchoosing. Occasionally, though much more rarely, the same

condition is found in women. Such abnormal individuals are almost

certain of social disaster, and when married their conduct

usually leads to divorce or desertion. Then there is a wide range

of types down to the almost sexless persons,[1] the frigid, who

are much more commonly found among women than men. In fact, with

many women active sex desire may never occur, and for others it

is a rarity, while still others find themselves definitely

desirous only after pregnancy. Not only are women less

passionate, but their desire is more “finicky,” more in need of

appropriate circumstances, the proper setting and the chosen mate

than with man. In other words, sex desire is more physical and

urgent in the man and more psychical and selective in the woman.

[1] Some claim that the “frigid” woman is such because her mate

is ignorant of the art of love. This is true of some frigid

women. Instruction to men and women about to be married on the

technique of sexual life might well take a fine place in the

curriculum of life.

A curious by-product of the sexual feeling is fetichism. To do it

justice, fetichism is found in all feeling toward others, but is

most developed in sex relation. The fetich is a symbol of the

desired person, thus the handkerchief and glove of the woman or

the hat of the man. Pathologically any part of the dress—the

shoe or the undergarments—may become so closely associated with

sexual feeling as to evoke it indiscriminately or even to

displace it. Normal fetich formation may become a bit foolish and

sentimental but never becomes a predominant factor in sex

relationship.

The history of modesty is the history of the sex taboo. As

pointed out, the sex feelings are the most restricted of any of

the instincts. I despair of giving an adequate summary of this,

but it may be best stated by declaring that all the restrictions

we hold as imperative have, at one time or another in some place,

been regarded as sacred and desirable. Brother and sister

marriages were favored by Egyptian royalty, prostitution was a

rite in Phoenician worship, phallic worship frankly held as a

symbol that which to-day we hold profane (in a silly way), plural

marriage was and is countenanced in a large part of the world

to-day, marriage for love is held as foolish in most countries,

even now. The practice of child restriction now prevalent in

Europe and America would be looked at with horror in those

countries where children of ten or eleven are allowed to marry.

Exogamy, endogamy, monogamy, polygamy,—all these are customs and

taboos, and though in our day and country monogamy has the social

and religious sanction, there is nothing to indicate that this is

a permanent resting place for marriage. Certainly the statistics

of divorce indicate a change