Does it signify a contract for a lifelong exclusive love?—Certainly not; if marriage signified that, all Christians would be opposed to this institution. And yet these are the things which, according to the common estimation, make up the nature of marriage, whenever the question is discussed in a manner which is regarded as “respectable” and “decent.”—As a matter of fact, there is nothing respectable or decent in this mystification.
What is it, then, in which the true nature of marriage is to be found?—It is the possession of a human being for lifelong exclusive sexual service.
Very various views have prevailed on the question how many human beings it is legitimate for one human being to employ for his exclusive sexual gratification, and among different nations, and at various times, the most widely divergent rules and regulations have prevailed regarding the mode of sexual possession, and, on the other hand, regarding the duties towards this sexual property; but wherever marriage has existed, it has signified a right of property in respect of sexual utilization.
If we oppose marriage, we mean that we oppose that which actually constitutes marriage according to morality, and according to written law, that which even the most enthusiastic advocates of this institution regard as so debasing that they are ashamed to name it openly.
But, with the exception of the matters relating to sexual service, we hold fast to and defend everything which is publicly considered as marriage, and we expect that in this case we shall be “faithful,” “constant,” and “trustworthy” in all circumstances. For, according to our view, these most important imponderabilia, and these intimate associations of interest between husband and wife, are not the inevitable result of the longing for physical enjoyment in common, but are the much-to-be-desired result of a well-considered longing for any one or all of the relations entering into the question. According to our view, however, the duration of this union, and constancy while it lasted, would not be dependent upon the activity of sexual desires.
A special Association for Sexual Reform was founded in Berlin in the year 1906, at the instance of the editor of the Die Schönheit, Karl Vanselow. It is an Association of cultured men and women who also have in view the formation of local groups, and the delivery of artistic and scientific lectures in furtherance of their movement for reform.
In the above-mentioned monthly magazine, Mutterschutz, edited by Helene Stöcker, all the modern problems of love, marriage, friendship, parentage, prostitution, and all the associated problems of morality, and of the entire sexual life, are discussed from their philosophical, historical, legal, medical, social, and ethical aspects.
The editor herself, a talented disciple of Nietzsche, has since the year 1893 been chiefly occupied in the study of the psychological and ethical aspects of the problems of higher love, and has recently published her collected writings on this subject in a single volume.[207]
It is an interesting literary physiognomy which is offered to us in this book; we encounter here a lofty, free, and pure conception of the love of the future. After the first spiritual wanderings and confusions, which no one in emotional pursuit of the ideal can escape, we see this courageous and undismayed advocate of the eternal, inalienable rights of love, ultimately insisting on the recognition of the lofty mission of love, in accordance with the saying of Nietzsche, which she lovingly quotes: “Ye shall not propagate onwards, but upwards!” (“Nicht fort sollt Ihr Euch pflanzen, sondern hinauf!”). She especially insists on the duty and responsibility of individual love. No one can take a more earnest view of love than is taken here. Helene Stöcker is throughout no radical revolutionist, but an evolutionist and reformer. She sees quite clearly that to-day there is no panacea, no unfailing solution of sexual problems. While she energetically contests the old sexual morality, and demands its replacement by a new freer conception of sexual relationships, she, none the less, recognizes throughout the significance and the value of self-command, of relative asceticism, the wonderful influence of which, in the deepening of emotional life, she has most rightly emphasized. Especially the soul of woman, she believes, has by the asceticism imposed on women by conventional morality, gained in a high degree, depth, fulness, and comprehensiveness. The inward development of woman will be greatly advantaged by the newer valuation of love. This will be characterized, neither by an arid renunciation and denial of life, nor by a coarse, egoistic search for pleasure, but by a joyful affirmation of life and all its healthy powers and impulses.
Whilst Helene Stocker has laid especial stress upon the psychological and ethical relationships of free love, its equal importance from economical and social points of view has been discussed by Friedrich Naumann,[208] W. Borgius,[209] Lily Braun,[210] Maria Lischnewska,[211] and Henriette Fürth.[212]