Sexual Miscellany
 

Chapter 15 contained a discussion of the eventual decline of the average woman's desire for sexual intercourse. The subject matter of this chapter deals rather with early aversions brought about by some specific known or unknown happening. Reference has been made to the possibility of a woman's developing sexual restraint because of the proximity in girlhood of her bedroom to that of her parents—not a typical situation, however. Nonetheless, too many women are disinclined to engage in intercourse as frequently as their husbands wish, however reasonable the men may be in their demands.

If this condition exists, then the husband is faced with a grave problem, and his wife with a still more serious one; she risks losing him to another woman, and it will not be entirely his fault. However, since few women realize this until too late, it is best for husbands to avoid the possibility by attacking it at the beginning, at the wife's very first manifestation of excessive aloofness to intercourse. This is the sole responsibility of the husband; the wife can do nothing to assist except express herself, which she probably will not do.

If the husband's marital sexual behavior has not created this distaste for intimacy in his wife or if there is no serious general incompatibility, then only a few conclusions are possible: either she is not experiencing the orgasm; she is not being thoroughly satisfied; the sex act is painful; her husband no longer physically attracts her; she suspects him of philandering; she has developed some mental quirk with respect to intercourse, subsequent to her marriage; or some conception of pre-marital existence has asserted a greater influence than she believed possible.

If the husband is constant, one possibility is eliminated; another, if she admits intercourse is not painful; and a third if she has not fallen out of love.

While good sex relationship cements, preserves, and adds balance to domestic life, there are women who can be constant and devoted wives and never experience the desire for intimacy. They are, of course, completely frigid, at least as far as their husbands are concerned. They can feel every other emotion—admiration, respect, appreciation, affection, to mention a few—for their husbands, but not physical desire.

However, if the wife is still in love with her husband, only common possibilities remain for consideration. They may be regarded in this fashion: since the husband knows that prior to marriage his wife was normally responsive to love-making, barring the intercourse which may or may not have taken place, he knows also that she did feel some physical attraction for him, and that his caresses were not disagreeable to her. This makes it clear either that the girl was not frigid or else was a capable actress, which is unlikely; no woman can affect a convincing display of sexual affection over a long period of time. It is reasonable to assume, then, that she found him physically appealing when she married him.

Consequently, the fault must lie in the intercourse or in some pre-marital or post-marital concepts concerning it; it is up to the husband to determine which.

The first move a psychiatrist makes toward destroying a phobia is to discover its origin. Having succeeded, he next tries to make the patient realize that it is a phobia. Also, a psychiatrist will admit that improvement begins when he gains the patient's confidence. In sex life, more than any other type of association, every husband must practice psychology, and psychiatry to the extent of determining the nature of his wife's sexual inhibitions, if any. As her husband, he already has the advantage of her confidence. If he hasn't, he must gain it.

Gaining a wife's confidence with respect to sexual behavior is not the easy task it might seem. In fact, it is a most difficult one. Frequently, regardless of how much a husband may try to convince his partner that certain forms of indulgence are perfectly proper, she will fail to be reassured.

One of the greatest mistakes a husband makes is in not realizing this. He assumes a wife will take anything he says for granted simply because he is her husband. However, no woman will accept a man's bare word for the propriety of a sexual behavior that she has always regarded doubtfully, unless she has complete confidence in his sexual knowledge. The thought persists that he may be fitting his explanations to suit his personal desires; that such desires are peculiar, perhaps, only to him. It is well to add, also, for the benefit of the male that the casual approach to sex is not only the sophisticated way of dealing with the matter, but is also the most effective means of establishing confidence in a woman. Consequently, when a wife sees that a husband regards intimacy with a matter-of-fact attitude, that everything which takes place is performed with the same unselfconsciousness that characterizes eating breakfast, she is more inclined to accept sex at its face value.

Unfortunately, when a woman is sexually aloof, most men try to attack the problem in bed, the one place which should be avoided. They attempt to force, persist, argue, and bully their way through a purely mental obstacle. Their unreasonable and lustful attitude intensifies the woman's distaste for something which is proving to be precisely what she regards it—disagreeable. She acquires a dread of bedtime and its customary interval of bickering. She affects headaches, pretends she wants to sit up and read, throws out a hint that she is unusually tired, and invents a hundred and one devices to postpone the inevitable moment. If through sheer weariness, she finally submits, the husband has accomplished nothing but the satisfaction of his own desire and the intensification of the irritation which disturbs his wife.

It is obvious also that whatever must be done cannot be effected overnight. The husband must be prepared to expend time and patience in the destruction of a mental block, if it is only that. Failing in this, he must rely upon whatever professional services are available or be forced to look elsewhere for a suitable mate. However, he should make every possible effort to solve the problem before abandoning it.

Since the husband knows that, before marriage, his wife was affectionate and not averse to conventional caresses, he can at least regard the situation as hopeful. Also, since the process of elimination indicates that the trouble lies in the intercourse or pre- or post-marital ideas concerning it, he has definitely limited the field of consideration. And since the final analysis suggests that whatever the reason, intercourse is disagreeable, he must determine why. As long as he fails to do this, the situation will not improve.

Obviously, as a previous chapter advised, the logical approach is a direct and frank discussion wherein the wife is asked specifically what phase of sexual relation is repugnant to her and why. This she can certainly explain, but she may be evasive for fear of hurting her husband. Therefore, he must be prepared to bring out the answers and hear revelations possibly embarrassing to him.

For one thing, his breath may be bad, a fact which he does not realize; he may be careless with respect to body odor; he may engage in distasteful practices; he may wish to indulge too frequently; he may leave his wife unsatisfied; he may neglect foreplay. These are only a few of the possibilities for which he himself may be directly at fault.

On the other hand, none of these factors may present the difficulty. The wife may know only that the sex act in general is disagreeable. Even so, she can explain to what extent. Perhaps, she finds it sordid and an affront to her modesty. At least, her husband has now isolated the cause. Although he may not know what lies behind the aversion, he knows it is purely mental.

Since he has determined that intercourse is disagreeable to her, he undertakes to make it agreeable. If the barrier is physical, it is the more easily removed. The real problem exists when the aversion is mental. Should he be able to discover that his wife's coldness has its seat in the past, his approach must take this into consideration.

Assume, for example, that when she was a girl her parents engaged in constant sexual squabbling; it is clear that her husband must refrain from such practice if he is not to aggravate her aloofness. He must also intrude as little of himself as possible into each intimacy. In a perfectly natural and relevant manner, he can implant from time to time some thought that he wants to register. This he does prior to bedtime to give his wife opportunity to turn it over in her mind. He might avoid the bedroom altogether as the scene of intimacy; it may arouse unpleasant memories in her. Whatever the procedure, its success depends almost entirely upon his approach.

It must be emphasized that a woman, particularly the lowly and moderately sensitive, will rarely complain or volunteer information in connection with sexual activity. She will tell a man that she does not like his suit, his tie, his disposition, his untidiness, his attitude, his behavior, his initiative, or a hundred other things all of a purely personal and intimate character. But some unaccountable modesty will prevent her from complaining about, or even discussing, a condition regarding which the greatest frankness of all is necessary—his sexual association with her.

Man, himself, is to a limited extent also a victim of this false modesty, but not nearly to the same degree as woman. Regardless of his general ignorance, he is by comparison more informed than the female, though it be only through hearsay. A woman assumes he is more experienced and usually looks to him for initial instruction. What he suggests or prefers in the early stages of marriage she accepts and allows to become a habit, unless it conflicts too sharply with her established, preconceived ideas. She regards their activity as a standard procedure probably existent in every home. He is a man, and she believes he should know. If she subsequently discovers certain elements are in opposition to her emotions, she is inclined to believe that she, rather than the system, is at fault. Her desires, she feels, may be out of proportion to what is usual, and she does not wish to shock her husband. He seems to be perfectly satisfied with the game as everyone is playing it. Consequently, she maintains patience until a point of saturation is reached.

Unfortunately, she does not know that millions of women stand precisely on the same ground: that they have drawn her conclusions and are likewise maintaining silence. The result is that sooner or later this group decides that sex is a highly over-rated activity. In the end, they look upon it as an obligation, and, when pressed, submit to it passively, mechanically, and unenthusiastically. To their husbands they are cold.

If a woman is married to a man in all other respects perfectly adequate, there is no reason why he should not just as adequately satisfy her sexually. If he fails, something is wrong; no woman can avoid enjoying sexual intimacy if it is properly conducted and she loves her husband. Nine times out of ten, the fault will lie with the male, but he will fail to realize it unless he is told.

It is true that desire tapers off gradually the longer a couple is married. However, at those rarer intervals when the inclination does assert itself, there is no reason why it should lack appeal any more for one than for the other. Nor will it, if the couple has always maintained satisfactory sexual relationships. Should it do so, it is only because a flaw has always existed.

When a couple have not grown tired of each other— there is nothing to be done when that stage is reached— most discontent may be attributed to false modesty. This is a deadly quality and, as has been said, imposes a firm barrier to the complete abandon necessary to perfect sexual association. In connection with normal sex, an invisible legend should hang in every bedchamber in the country: "Nothing Done in Bed Is Wrong." If every reader would implant that statement firmly in his or her mind and accept it, regardless of how far his desires may impel him, the sexual intimacy of man and woman would be vastly improved. It should always be borne in mind that millions of people are doing everything the reader does or would like to do.

There is nothing indecent about the nude human body; it is only one's thoughts which make it so. The penis is no less an organ than an arm or a leg, and a woman's breast no more unusual than the buttocks exposed in a brief swimming suit. Today, a reproduction of "September Morn" arouses hardly a flash of interest. We are accustomed to it.

Nudism is not an intelligent practice, nor is it advocated. However impracticable, it can scarcely be criticized on the ground that exposure of the private organs constitutes an indecency. As long as many people regard these organs as such, so long will they experience a guilt reaction every time these organs are utilized for any purpose other than tending to necessary wants. This develops inhibitions, and there should be none between sexual partners.

The artist looks at his nude model with a mind far removed from the pubic region. He sees only those organs which he wishes to paint. The obstetrician probes, and the surgeon removes an ovary, without becoming sexually aroused. Their minds are clean, and all see the human body for what it is—an assortment of organs. Others look at it and see only indecency. Let them examine their minds.

Europe is a continent where an American can feel very uncomfortable in the beginning but perfectly at home after he adjusts himself. It may take a little time for an American tourist to become used to the experience of finding female attendants in some men's lavatories. Street-corner urinals may embarrass his wife and daughter, but the native pays no attention to them. Tending to one's wants is as natural to him as nature intended it to be. Of course, we Americans prefer our own habits not only because we are accustomed to them but also because we see no reason to emphasize unnecessarily purely private functions. But, having become exposed to these other environments, it is not difficult for a person to adjust himself once he realizes that it is the order of another world.

With respect to sex, the European is just as informal. He regards it as a perfectly normal function, as a routine practice. The attitude toward love is as philosophical as the resignation to war. "C'est Vamour" is uttered with the same imperturbability as "C'est la guerre"

Between couples, it must be remembered that one or both may be sexually responsive either in a manner not within the previous experience of the other, or not corresponding to adolescent conceptions. Consequently, when a wife in her adult life begins to experience sexual desires which do not fall within her previous concepts, she may conclude that she is outside the normal sphere and must maintain a check upon her impulses.

Her husband, on the other hand, may hold a similar belief regarding himself. Thus, two people continue to practice only conventional sex. Each hopes the other will manifest some tendency to engage otherwise; each wonders if he dare take the initiative and risk being misunderstood. This is unfortunate, particularly when a knowledge of what is actually taking place between millions of couples would assure one or the other, or both, that their desires are perfectly normal and constitute proper sex practice.

How, then, should a woman go about expressing her inhibited desires to a man whose response may be a state of outraged morals? If he never takes the initiative, it is best for her to do so. The probabilities are almost entirely in her favor that she will not shock him but will behave in a manner which he himself has been wondering secretly how to bring about. The same applies to the male, but he also runs little risk even should the woman be extremely reserved in her habits. Under normal circumstances, she will be inclined to mark it down as a general masculine tendency and not an exclusive habit of her husband.

With respect to second marriages, a great danger exists in the fact that those who engage in it may be sexually disappointed in the new. The first partner may have been highly passionate, and the second decidedly passive. This is unfortunate, and there is nothing to be done except to attempt to develop the sexual possibilities of the woman. However, a man's sexual disposition cannot be altered. A passionate woman is therefore faced with the greater problem if her newly acquired mate does not measure up to her demands. Since a man is capable of gratification with any type of woman, his situation is less disturbing. Though he might enjoy a more active partner, his discontent lies only in the degree of his enjoyment, not in his ultimate gratification; a woman can be affected in both respects.

It might seem, then, that the most fortunate combination would be both a woman and man without any previous sexual experience whatever. It might seem that each could enjoy the other, unimpeded by a knowledge that a still more suitable partner for either of them might exist. However, even that situation may not work out too well. It would be satisfactory for the husband, but his ignorance might not enable him adequately to handle a wife whose emotional level might be very high. Incompatibility could result in any case.

Regardless of conditions, sexual incompatibility is always a threat. That it is so in fact is testified to by the tremendous amount of existing sexual dissatisfaction. Occasionally, two people of perfectly complementary sexual natures unite. It is rare, and they frequently fail to appreciate their good fortune. Generally, however, sexual harmony is a grab-bag affair, a blind article which can turn out to be anything once the couple are wed.

Actually, the most desirable situation presents a thoroughly seasoned male with the capacity to adjust himself to whatever sexual temperament he may find in his wife and the ability to develop her as far as her possibilities will allow. Such an informed husband knows that the deep sexual attraction which initially draws two people together is impermanent; that general compatibility is the most important condition of all. He knows that when the physical desire dwindles, as it is certain to do, there must be something more than the body to hold two people together; he therefore strives only for the balance which good sexual association will impart to the marriage. No happy state of wedlock can exist permanently when it is based solely on a sexual foundation. While the spiritual and mental factors are far more important than the physical, it is unfortunate, nevertheless, that regardless of the importance of the other materials, the entire matrimonial structure may topple unless bound together with sound, sexual ribs. It is not the writer's purpose to elevate sex beyond its importance, but to emphasize its actual value as a primary factor in keeping the marriage together.

Intelligent people will accept nature's impulses for what they are and respond to them in whatever manner gives them pleasure, whether or not it coincides with their preconceived notions of conventional sex. After all, what is conventional sex? It is true that society may determine convention, but no individual group has been elected to do so or has been designated as arbiter of the public taste. Many try to usurp the position, but they may be disregarded. Consequently, there is nothing conventional about sex, because no one has the authority to set a fashion for it.

False modesty touches both sexes, but is largely confined to the female. The assumption of every husband should be that his wife is to some extent a victim of it. He should, therefore, take the initiative, and make a studied effort to insure the fact that his mate enters into intimacy with complete abandon. In fact, the thoughtful husband, whatever his mood, will be alert to anticipate his wife's feelings. Since the average woman is reluctant to make passionate advances, she waits for him to take the initiative; frequently she waits in vain. On the other hand, a dutiful and considerate wife, unless she is indisposed, tired out, or mentally upset, should be equally solicitous; this assumes, of course, that no abnormal circumstances exist.

The female has very definite duties apart from her obligation to render normal sexual service to her husband. She must remember that, while there are certain regular periods in which intercourse is neither practicable nor convenient, her husband may nevertheless require sexual relief. Should her period run five, six, seven, or eight days, this is a lengthy interval for the male to practice self-control. Of course, he should be able to do it, but there is no reason to force it upon him when the simple expedient of the female hand or oral connection can remove the necessity. Since many men are reluctant to force any type of relationship upon their wives during this period, the woman herself should take the initiative. Furthermore, in all probability this variation will prove enjoyable to him and will be just as satisfying. A thoughtful wife will, independently, look for these opportunities to gratify her husband's sexual needs. It is true that she deserves first consideration, but not the only consideration. It might be added, also, that in conducting sexual intimacy, it is equally the duty of the wife to excite her partner by engaging in genital stimulation. The woman who lies passively and overlooks these essentials is as guilty of neglect in her way as the husband who fails to satisfy her. Sex in marriage is not a one-sided matter. If excessive modesty or aloofness tends to make it so, a wife had better adjust her conceptions; otherwise, she may find her husband seeking the society of a more suitable mistress.

The male is usually direct in indicating his feelings. When his hands start moving over the female body, a wife instantly recognizes in this a symptom of his mood. Nevertheless, although they also are entitled to similar liberties, and should not hesitate to stimulate the male organ as an expression of their mood, few women will release their inhibitions to this extent. When they do, however, the greatest degree of sexual compatibility usually exists, because they feed the male ego and the partner is made to realize that he still has the ability to attract his wife physically. As a result, an understanding of some nature should definitely be arranged.

Many newly wed men, instead of proceeding leisurely, are impatient to run the gamut of sex in the first few relationships. One can well understand the reaction of a woman who, on the second night of intimacy with her husband, finds him experimenting with the rear-entry position, the conception of which may be completely new to her. If she assumes that he is utilizing her as a mechanism to satisfy jaded tastes or as a medium of experiment, she can hardly be blamed, particularly if she is uninformed. Virgins have been known to burst into tears when their husbands first attempted this position, and accuse the men of lacking respect for them. Obviously these women are naive. Nevertheless, a man should consider these possibilities; there is no excuse for haste. Naturally, an informed woman will regard the varying of a position as a perfectly common procedure; even an uninformed bride will consider it in the same light, given time for adjustment.

A woman who insists upon practicing sexual activity exclusively in the dark or beneath the covers is, indeed, overdoing the matter of modesty. This is the sign of an immature conception of sex and an indication of an inhibited nature. This is bad not only for the individual so constituted but for the partner as well; it eliminates, too, an element very necessary to sexual relationship: variety. Indulgence conducted in the light has the capacity also to heighten the excitement of the male; it gives him the opportunity of viewing the physical charms of his wife. However, they should be casually observed and not gloated over.

There is an old axiom, the substance of which is that the perfect wife is a lady in the drawing room, a capable cook in the kitchen, and a wanton in bed. There is much truth in this. Many a prostitute can satisfy a man more completely than a virtuous woman; she is a mistress of sexual technique, knows masculine psychology, and has no inhibitions. Having consorted with all types, she understands their sexual natures thoroughly and conducts herself accordingly. This appeals to most men. The wife who abandons herself will be looked upon by an intelligent husband as simply behaving like a woman. By so doing, she adds to his pleasure as well as to her own. If a woman will bear in mind that there is nothing she can do in bed that is not being done in this country and throughout the world by women every bit as respectable, she cannot regard herself as an exception in a sexual universe.

However, it is easily understood why wives who have never experienced the orgasm, may be sexually indifferent. Passivity for them is a natural state. Many such wives are mistakenly regarded by their husbands as being cold. Actually, the fault lies in the ignorance of their male partners who do not recognize the absence of a climax in their wives during intercourse. Obviously, no amount of discussion can remove such a woman's inhibitions. She has no sexual responses to appeal to and, therefore, finds no reason to alter her previous conceptions. To her, intercourse is a disappointment and represents nothing but an indecent coupling of the bodies. Had she been at all informed, the absence of any unusual emotion or the disappointing unfullfilment of her desires might have aroused her suspicions to the point where she would have talked over the matter with her husband. Obviously, such a wife must become accustomed to the climax before a discussion stage can be considered. Even then, the problem still remains of removing inhibitions seriously ingrown during her years of passivity. If, however, her sensations of orgasm are sufficiently overwhelming, this new experience may offset the time factor and encourage a satisfactory re-adjustment.

Removing these mental blocks to a point where a wife may eventually enter into complete abandonment sexually, involves patience and persistence. Situations may exist, however, where for some subconscious reason, having its existence deep in the past, a woman may not be able to unharness her restraints. This condition calls for psychotherapy, a treatment that can consume a lengthy period of time and a substantial amount of money. However, it is possible to attack the problem in a similar manner, but one less complex, less expensive, and more frequently than not, one that produces speedier results. It is not at all a new science. In fact it is as old, if not older, than modern psychiatry as fathered by Freud. Furthermore, it is beginning to occupy a prominent position in the scientific field. Many people, suffering from mental disturbances of various types, have been successfully treated by this advancing medium of hypnotherapy, which has a characteristic advantage of reaching the root of an established ailment with surprising speed. Because under hypnosis the patient is more or less unaware of his responses, he will answer questions and unburden himself with less hesitancy and greater frankness than under any similar form of questioning. Hypnosis directly touches the sub-conscious mind wherein lie our forgotten experiences and suppressions.

For this reason, costly sittings and tedious sessions, in which the patient consciously attempts to probe his memory for unremembered incidents, are eliminated. So far as the sub-conscious is concerned, our total experience is impressed there. Little, if anything is forgotten by it, and hypnosis releases this stream of data directly to the operator.

No one need fear hypnotism when practiced by an ethical member of the medical profession, of whom there are many and of steadily increasing number. One day posterity will look back on us with wonderment at our failure to utilize its almost miraculous possibilities.

A few facts with respect to hypnosis will dissipate much of the mistrust surrounding it, mistrust born of old wives' tales and misinformation.

Firstly, no hypnotist can force a subject to commit any act to which the subject would be opposed in a conscious state.

Secondly, no subject can be hypnotized against his will. His full cooperation is essential.

Thirdly, a capable hypnotist can function effectively before witnesses. In the matter under discussion, a husband need not be barred. In fact, his presence could be desirable.

Fourthly, the subject will awaken even though the command to do so may not be given by the hypnotist.

The first reaction of the layman to the word "hypnotism" is the thought that, like Svengali's Trilby, he can become the slave of the hypnotist. With women, their minds immediately turn to the sexual helplessness hypnotism may induce. Lastly, of course, is the fear of not awakening. None of these are causes for alarm.

Without going into a discussion of hypnotism, beyond its relationship to sexual problems it is recommended that a couple who may be considering this form of therapy, visit a reliable medical practitioner of the science. A professional man who has not studied hypnotism is hardly a person to consult. In fact, he is likely to know less about it than an intelligent layman.

Since a man is inclined to be thoughtless with respect to his sexual duties, his wife, as has been said, is entitled to make her desires known. However, if after reading these pages, she is still reluctant—as many may be—to approach the matter directly, there is an indirect method of arousing a sluggish male. It must be employed carefully, casually, and with seeming innocence if it is not to lose its illusion.

A wife should realize that all normal men are sexually responsive to the exposure of the female body. This is particularly true where strange women are concerned, since the male perpetually seeks variety. It accounts for the popularity of burlesque and girl shows in general, and for exhibitions of the "strip-tease," bubble-dance, and fan-dance character. Few husbands, if any, are totally indifferent to these attractions.

At the same time, they are also susceptible to stimulation where a parallel situation arises with their wives. For example, a stockinged leg exposed to the thigh has eye appeal for any man even though his wife may be the possessor. A wife attired in brief lingerie has as much opportunity to arouse interest in an apathetic male as the scantily clad chorines in a present-day musical. A negligee, carelessly draped to provide an occasional glimpse of what lies beneath it, will succeed in stimulating male desire where absolute nudity fails completely. A sheer nightgown whose transparency outlines the female body has greater seductive value than one of coarser fabric; otherwise a woman may just as well wear a house dress to bed. In fact, any indirect exposure which would stimulate a man if observed on another woman has a comparable effect when provided by his wife; perhaps not in the same degree, but sufficiently extensive to make him desire her. It is up to the wife to sense these opportunities and utilize them subtly. Nudity is not effective when paraded.

It must be borne in mind that there is more to sex than intercourse, although many minds rush to dwell only on that phase. Sex is comprised of numerous small and incidental habits, such as the use of an enticing perfume, a well-fitted brassiere, a tight stocking with the seam running straight up the back, a high-heeled slipper—not a shapeless flat-heeled moccasin or ballet pump—to lend grace to the leg, instep, and ankle, a clean house dress, unsmeared lipstick. These and numerous other small and unneglected considerations are what keep a wife sexually desirable to her husband and lead to frequency of sexual intimacy, not merely periodic occurrence. It should be added that keeping sex vitally alive in the marriage is a constant engagement against the forces of familiarity and consequent indifference that follow. It is as important as the struggle of a woman to maintain her figure, delay the wrinkles, and control her weight, a struggle which needs every possible ally.

Since sex will not automatically retain its original vigor, a couple cannot overdo their attempts to keep it active. In this respect, one of the most important nutrients to sex life is variety, and it should be introduced at every opportunity. By variety is not meant change of position exclusively, but change in environment or locale, even though it be in the same apartment.

The sex life of the average couple is a deadly routine gone through with a monotonous sameness, the same position in the same bed at the same time in the same way. There is no reason why matrimony need interrupt all the pre-marital habits of a wedded couple. An occasional drive to the haunts of yesteryear and a petting party to recapture a measure of the old-time magic should not strike the married reader as a preposterous suggestion. Neither should a weekend spent at a modest farm or an occasional night at a hotel. If one cannot afford a periodic vacation or does not own a car, there are always alternatives to the familiar bed. Anything which breaks the monotony of sameness is desirable.

These are the identical procedures in which a man engages with his sweetheart, in which a man at any age engages with any woman excepting, unfortunately, his wife. If a husband feels too old and mature for such romantic nonsense, then let him remember that his wife never does. Actually, neither does he. Let him become smitten with an attachment twenty years his junior, and he will discover it also.

It is appropriate to discuss in this section a piece of folly characteristic of both sexes, especially the female. It will never result in the slightest bit of good, and it always has the power to inflict serious harm. This menace consists of voluntary confessions of pre-marital and post-marital "affairs." The former, in particular, are the more unnecessary and, of course, the more numerous, although a guilty conscience has driven many a woman to confess to the latter. Notwithstanding its utter stupidity, this honesty indicates, nevertheless, a strong sense of innate though misguided decency which in itself should be powerful enough to bring about complete forgiveness. Unfortunately it often fails to receive the full consideration it deserves.

Never was a platitude more fitting to a circumstance than the one applying in this instance, "What you don't know, won't bother you," and only a person who is determined to tamper with future happiness will ignore it.

A woman, in particular, should never voluntarily confess indiscretions to her husband unless blackmailed. At that time, there is no other sane course to take but confess and prepare to accept the consequences. Regardless of what happens, she will be more secure in the long run than undergoing the consistent mental torture inflicted by an extortioner. In all probability, it will result in exposure anyway. If a husband is not the type to forgive isolated infidelity, then he is neither deep nor generous, and the woman is better off without him. Some men will forgive, others will not, but it is regrettable that few, if any, will forget.

It does no harm and may even do good if the prospective husband should hint at the fact that he has sown wild oats, provided he really has. Most women expect this in a male. However, one or two pre-marital sex relationships hardly make a man of experience; it requires considerably more before he can know how adequately to handle even his wife.
But should he actually have some background of experience, the suggestion of it to his prospective bride will allow her to take some confidence from the fact that he will be at least an informed lover. This is quite heartening, particularly where the female is actually innocent and consequently ignorant of sex and its ramifications.

It by no means follows, however, that the voluntary confession of post-marital philanderings is helpful in any degree. It simply means that the husband will plant in his wife's mind unnecessary doubt regarding his behavior at all times, even during required and innocent absences. This will result in coldness and definite unhappiness for her.

With respect to a woman's voluntary admissions of pre-marital experiences, even though the average man should at this date expect them to be the rule rather than the exception, nothing at all is to be gained. At the least, it is likely to remove the edge from her husband's enjoyment, since most men want to believe that their wives were intact even if they must delude themselves into thinking so. Furthermore, the husband can develop uneasiness since, if he is a novice, as many men are, he constantly wonders how he may be comparing with a predecessor. If for obvious reasons he knows that he has not been the only man, as in the case of his marrying a divorcee or widow, the bride should bolster his ego by making him believe he is by far the most proficient lover, even if she must stretch the truth. Should she find him inadequate, her previous experience should enable her to lead him tactfully in the right direction so far as she herself knows it.

It has been said that a clever woman with favorable structural conditions can delude a man into believing that she is a virgin. In the event this is impossible by reason of the fact that entrance is completely painless and immediate, there is no need for her to confess, if pressed, to more than one affair of long duration. And she is unwise if she admits to more; one of length could as readily have created the existing condition as could a prior marriage. Naturally, if a husband asks no questions, which is highly improbable, it is far better to let the matter rest and never refer to it.

However, should a woman ever voluntarily confess to infidelity, she can prepare herself for almost an absolute certainty: never again will she enjoy her husband's trust. He may forgive her, but no matter how broad-minded he may be, he will always wonder, always doubt. A woman who creates this unnecessary condition has behaved stupidly, no matter how lofty her motive. Although that one dereliction may always remain the only one, the husband will never feel certain. Men, irrespective of their own digressions, look for strict fidelity in their wives.

While it is urged that the practice of confessing voluntarily to infidelity is unwise, the advice concerns only those who are not habitual in this respect, whose lapses have been limited. The perpetually philandering husband or wife of similar bent need take nothing said in this connection as encouragement for such activities. Under any circumstances, it is only a question of time before day-after-day inconstancy is discovered.

Deceit, if deceit this be, is for the best. There may also be children, upon whose innocent heads the stupidities of the parents fall. A happy and successful marriage maintained by some slight deceit, is far more to be advocated than eventual divorce brought about by complete frankness. Only the naive or hopelessly dull can believe that "confession," with matrimony hanging in the balance, "is good for the soul.