sex and marriage

Chapter 19 The Family in the Personal Psychology
In this chapter I want to discuss the influence of family relationships on personal character.This topic can be divided into three parts: first, the influence on the child's character; second, the influence on the mother's character; third, the influence on the father's character.Of course, it is difficult to separate these three parts completely, because the family is a tight overall unit, so whatever can affect the parents can also affect the children.Nevertheless, I intend to divide this issue into three parts.Naturally it should begin with the children, for everyone is a child in the family before becoming a parent.

If we are to believe Freud, the child's feelings toward the rest of the family seem somewhat hostile.A boy hates his father because he sees him as his rival in love.He has a feeling for his mother that is extremely abhorred by traditional morality.He hates his siblings because they draw some of his parents' attention, and he just wants their parents' attention to be on him alone.In later life, the consequences of this emotional confusion are complex and dire, ranging from homosexuality at best to mania at worst.

Floyd's statement did not cause much panic, which is beyond our expectations.It is true that some professors were expelled for believing in such teachings, and the British police authorities even sent Homer Lane, a distinguished contemporary, into exile for practicing Freud's teachings.But, influenced by Christian asceticism, people were more shocked by Freud's grotesque emphasis on sexual liberation than by his descriptions of infantile hatred.However, we must make an objective and unbiased assessment of whether Freud's views on children's emotions are right or wrong.First, it should be admitted that the numerous experiments with children of the last few years have taught us that there is much more truth in Freud's theory than we had previously imagined.Nevertheless, I still think that Freud's theory represents only one aspect of the truth, and it is this aspect that parents with some knowledge can easily accept and agree with.

Let's start with the Oedipus complex.Infants are undoubtedly more sexual than anyone before Freud imagined.I even think that in infancy there is a greater intensity of heterosexual affection than we see from Freud.It is very easy for an unwise mother to focus her young son's affection for the opposite sex on herself, quite unconsciously.Needless to say, if this were the case, the consequences Freud pointed out might have occurred.However, if the mother's sexual life is satisfactory, that situation is likely not to occur, because in this case, she does not have to seek from her child the kind of emotional satisfaction that should only be obtained from adults.The pure parental impulse is a child-rearing impulse that does not demand outright love from the child.therefore.If a woman is happy sexually, she will actively avoid the emotional response of seeking any inappropriateness from the child.So a happy woman may be a better mother than an unhappy one.However, no woman can guarantee that she will be happy forever, so when she is unhappy, she should have a certain amount of self-control to avoid asking children for improper emotions.This kind of self-control is not difficult to achieve, but its necessity has not been realized before, so that the mother's excessive caressing behavior for the child is considered quite justified.

In fact, children's heterosexual emotions can be vented naturally, beneficially and innocently from other children.In this way heterosexual emotion becomes part of the game and, like all other games, prepares for future adult activities.So, after the age of 3 or 4, a child needs the company of two other children of the opposite sex for his or her emotional development, not only older or younger siblings, but also siblings of the same age. people for company.This kind of pure small family in modern times is too rigid and closed for the healthy growth of children in the early stage, and cannot help a person to achieve healthy growth in childhood, but this does not mean that there should be absolutely no such atmosphere in the child's environment.

It is not only the mother who develops illicit affections for her child, but also the maids and nursemaids and later female teachers are very dangerous, and even more so, because they are hungry for sexual needs.The educational authorities hold that it should always be unhappy spinsters who have intercourse with children.This idea shows their ignorance in psychology, because no one who has seriously studied the psychological development of children will have such an idea.

In families, jealousy between siblings is commonplace.In later life this jealousy sometimes produces homicidal mania or more severe insanity.This situation is not unavoidable, except in minor cases, provided that the parents or other caregivers take some effort to control their behavior.Of course, we must never give preference to toys, food, care, etc., we must be very impartial.When a new brother or sister is born, we must prevent other children from thinking that they are not as important to their parents as they once were.If there are incidents of serious jealousy, it is because these simple measures have been too neglected.

Therefore, if we want family life to have a good impact on children's psychology, several necessary conditions should be met: parents, especially mothers, must make their sex life as happy as possible; The kind of emotional relationship that will cause children's adverse reactions: among brothers and sisters, one must not favor one another, but should treat them completely fairly; after children are three or four years old, the family should not be their only environment, but let them spend a considerable part of their time. Used in communication with children of the same age.If these conditions are met, then I believe that the bad consequences that Freud feared will probably not happen.

On the other hand, if the parent's affection is justified, it will undoubtedly promote the healthy growth of the child.Children who do not get the warm affection of their mothers.Often thin and nervous, and often suffer from mania.Parental love can make children feel safe in this chaotic world and give them the courage to explore and explore their surroundings.It is essential to the spiritual life of the child that he feels himself the object of passionate love, for he feels instinctively that he is alone and weak, in need of the protection that only love can provide.If the child is to be brought up to be a happy, generous, and fearless human being, then he needs to be given a warmth from his surroundings that can only come from the love of a parent.

Wise parents can offer their children another kind of help, although until recently this was almost never done.That is, they can introduce the facts about sex and parenthood to their children through the most appropriate channels.If children understand that sex is a relationship that exists between the parents who bore them, they will know sex in its highest form and its biological purpose.In the past, children first learned about it as a dirty joke or a source of unspeakable pleasure.Such first revelations, received in secret and obscene conversations, are often so impressed that it is difficult for the children to develop a noble attitude towards any sexual subject.

In general, if we are to determine whether family life should or should not exist, we naturally need to examine the only two practical options: first, the matriarchal family; and second, public institutions like orphanages.Turning either scheme into an institution would require massive economic reforms.Now, assuming that both of these programs are implemented, let us examine their psychological effects on the child.

First, let’s start with the matriarchal family.We assume that the child only knows the mother, and that the woman can have the child as she wishes without wishing the father any special affection for the child, or choosing the same father to produce different children.If the economic situation is satisfactory, will the children suffer from this system?What psychological use can a father have for his child?Perhaps the most important usefulness, I think, lies in the point we made earlier, which is the linking of sex and conjugal love and procreation.Furthermore, it would be beneficial if, after the child had left early childhood, we could bring him into contact not only with the feminine but also with the masculine outlook on life.From an intellectual point of view, this contact is especially important for boys.However, I also believe that this benefit is not of paramount importance.As far as I know, those who lose their father in infancy are, in general, no worse off than other children.There is no doubt that having an ideal father is better than none, and many fathers are so far from ideal that their absence may be more positive for the child.

What has been said is based on the assumption that we have a very different custom than we have at present.If there is a custom, the child is tormented by our breaking that custom.Because there is probably nothing more painful for a child than to feel that they belong to another category.This is for divorce in today's society.A child who had both parents in the past and was deeply attached to them loses all sense of security when the parents divorce.Indeed, under such circumstances he may develop fear or delirium.Once children develop a deep attachment to both parents, they are greatly hurt when the parents separate.I therefore think that a society without fathers is much better for children than a society where divorce is frequent, although divorce is still considered an isolated phenomenon.

Plato's opinion is that children should be separated not only from their fathers, but also from their mothers.I disagree with Plato's statement.For the above reasons, I believe that parental love is essential to the development of a child, and that it is sufficient if the child receives it from only one parent.But if you can't even get the love from your parents, it would be too regrettable.From the point of view of sexual morality (just to the point that is most relevant to us now), the important question is the utility of the father.Although it is difficult to answer this question with absolute certainty, the conclusion seems to be that, in fortunate cases, a father is of some use; Fighting becomes more harmful than beneficial.Therefore, the argument in favor of the father is not very strong from the psychological point of view of the child.

Judging from the current situation, the psychological importance of the family to the mother is difficult to estimate.I think that, during pregnancy and breastfeeding, women usually have some instinctive desire for protection from a man—a feeling no doubt inherited from the ape period.In today's chaotic society like ours, a woman who thinks she doesn't need a man's protection probably has some abnormal aggressiveness and self-esteem.However, this feeling is only partially instinctive.If the state can provide adequate care for pregnant or breastfeeding mothers and children, this feeling will be greatly reduced, or even completely eliminated.I think the main harm done to women by the abolition of the father's place in the family is that it will diminish the intimacy and dignity with which they have sex with men.

Learning knowledge from the opposite sex is a fact of human structure, but a purely sexual relationship, even if it is passionate, will not be satisfied by the exchange of ideas between the sexes.Collaboration in the solemn enterprise of raising children, and life as a couple over the years.A relationship can be formed that is important and enriching for both partners.This relationship is much more important and richer than that which a man has when he is irresponsible to his children.But I don't think that mothers who live in an all-female environment or have little contact with men are as good from an emotional education standpoint as mothers who are happily married and cooperate with their husbands in everything. Love children like that (except in individual cases).However, one must also see many cases to the contrary.If a woman is deeply unhappy in marriage-and this is by no means an accident-her unhappiness makes it difficult for her to have the normal emotional balance in the care of her children.In this case, no doubt she would have been a better mother if she had been separated from the father of her child.Therefore, we come to the very common conclusion that happy marriages are beautiful and unhappy marriages are ugly.

When it comes to the family in the personal psychology, the most important question is the influence of the family on the father.We have repeatedly said the importance of patriarchy and the passion that goes with it.We learn about the role of patriarchy in ancient history, closely related to the development of the patriarchal family and the subservient status of women.From this we can conclude.The father's emotion is of great intensity.For reasons incomprehensible, this enthusiasm is never so strong in highly civilized societies as it is elsewhere.In the era of the Roman Empire, the upper-class Romans obviously did not have this kind of emotion, and many educated people in today's era have little or no such emotion.Of course, the vast majority of people still have this feeling, even in the most civilized society.It is for this reason that men marry, and not for the sake of sexual hunger, because men can easily obtain sexual satisfaction without marriage.

There is a theory that desire for children is more common among women than among men, but according to my observations, the opposite is true.In the vast majority of modern marriages, children are often the product of the woman's concession to the man's desires.In any case, women have to face the pain of childbirth and the possibility of losing their beauty when they give birth, but men don't have to worry about it.The reason why men want to limit the development of the family is often due to economic reasons.Of course, a woman also has this reason, but she also has her own unique reasons.Employed men are willing to suffer the loss of material comforts in order to educate their children at a costly expense that their class deems necessary.When we think of the above phenomena, it is self-evident that men have a strong desire to have children.

Do men still want children if they do not enjoy the rights that their present status as fathers confers on them?There are many people who say that if men can be irresponsible, they will go out of their way to have children at will.I disagree with this statement.A man who wants children also wants the responsibilities that children bring.Today, when contraception is widely practiced, children are often not an accident when a man pursues pleasure.It is true that no matter what the law says, men and women always need a long-term union, because only in this union can men enjoy the pleasures that come from fatherhood.But if both law and custom favor the view that children belong only to the mother, women feel that anything resembling an existing marriage would infringe on their independence and would cause unnecessary loss of their absolute possession of the child, For they could have enjoyed this possession alone.We should understand, therefore, that men cannot always succeed in persuading women to renounce their rights under the law.

In the last chapter we have spoken of the effect of this system on the psychology of men.Such a system, I believe, will greatly reduce the gravitas in the relationship between a man and a woman, making it more of a mere pleasure rather than a union of heart, mind, and body.This will reduce all relations between men to a mere trifle, and men will concentrate their passions on business, on the country, or on things that have nothing to do with them personally.Of course, this statement is a bit too general, because there are differences between people.In the eyes of one person, it is a treasonable thing: in the eyes of another person, it may be a great thing.I think (although I hesitate to make these points) that patriarchy as a recognized social relation is eliminated.It can make people's spiritual life dull and irrelevant, which must eventually lead to a slow growth of boredom and hopelessness.During this period, births will gradually tend to disappear, and the population will be replenished by those groups that still maintain the old customs.But I think boredom and frivolity are inevitable.

Of course, the problem of population decline can be solved by paying women enough money to be mothers.Of course, if militarism has always been as strong as it is now, this situation will probably be realized soon.This aspect of the problem belongs to the population problem that will be discussed later, so I will not say more here.

(End of this chapter)