opinion that, through some reason or collection of reasons, the conjugal instinct in man is more fully developed than in woman. Most of us know of men not very good, some of them not good at all, who become model husbands from the time of marriage. How many know of wild women, of careless girls, of whom the same could be said? Whether this is due to the invisible connection between the material and the spiritual; whether woman’s nature is kept in an embryonic state to the verge of deterioration by the modern custom of bringing up girls in-doors, denying them physical exercise, separating them from associations with their brothers, to say nothing of other members of the ruder sex; whether the increasing prosperity of the world, which makes it no longer necessary that the entire interests of the family, including some of the confidences between husband and wife, should be heard by children as once they were, the fact certainly is that the opinion which the young girl at the present day has of matrimony is one of the most appallingly inaccurate notions that can be encountered in conversation anywhere.
Then how is the desired change to be brought about? Only through public sentiment, in which the churches ought to take the lead. Marriage by accident, which is the common method, should be frowned upon and discouraged, no matter how romantic or “cunning” the preliminaries may seem. Everybody knows that men never enter into a business partnership, which may be terminated at any time, without some sense of the fitness and compatibility of the contracting parties. Were they to fail in this respect, all of their friends would protest, and all of their acquaintances would make fun of them. Both parties would suffer in business reputation by such a blunder. It should be the same, though far more earnestly, regarding the life-partnership that is formed at a wedding. All relatives of the contracting parties have at least one interest at stake which justifies them in protesting against a blunder—I allude to family reputation.
Then aren’t young, tender, loving hearts to be allowed to choose for themselves? Nonsense! How much of love, in the true meaning of the word, is to be found in the great majority of marriages? If men, as a class, loved their sweethearts as much as they loved their dogs, there would be less ground for complaint; but men seldom tire of their dogs; who is there that does not know men who tire of their wives?
Am I harping again upon woman’s failure to remain dear to her husband? No; but I do say that the girl who makes the “best match,” as the saying is, and by marrying money marries above her station, is accepting more than she may afterward be able to live up to. Marriages should be between equals—persons who are competent to support one another in any and every condition to which their material life can ever lead them.
As for men, the greatest sinners, though not the greatest sufferers, by marriage blunders, the man who marries except with the idea of making his wife his closest companion, should be regarded by all his acquaintances a deliberate scoundrel. A chance passion is no excuse for marriage; neither is a condescending pity. The man who marries merely for the sake of getting a permanent cook, housekeeper or plaything, is equally a scoundrel, and deserves more earnest and general execration than if he entered into familiar relations with a woman without the formality of marriage. The whole community should be on guard against man or woman who makes any less of marriage ties than the highest honor demands.
Some people whose conjugal relations are irregular, are irreproachable otherwise, do you say? Yes; but you can say as much about some thieves and forgers; except for their one fault they are good fellows. The moral influence upon the community of an unfaithful or careless husband or wife is worse than that of a common criminal, for there is no fixed passion in human nature that causes people’s minds to dwell upon theft or forgery or murder, and to make excuses for the persons who are guilty of them.