Chapter 15 -2

● Section 3 The Problem of a Happy Marriage In the past, marriage was regarded as a sacred responsibility, either ordered by Shinto or adjudicated by the state.French essayist Montaigne said: "We do not marry for ourselves. At that time, the problem of satisfaction or dissatisfaction existed. After a person fulfilled this sacred obligation, he was considered to have achieved happiness. As for Those who are not happy are some exceptions and some evil people, you can ignore it. This view of marriage is not only arbitrated by religion, but also recognized by art. A love story with more crowns always ends up as a married couple. Reunion, happy union for a hundred years, and the church that presides over marriage also believes that this is the only possible result, and the other result is unimaginable. However, this view has long passed now, and the trend of the situation must pass. The so-called The situation, on the one hand, refers to the fact that what was admitted before is not the real fact, but the fact covered by imagination. Moreover, the modern society and living conditions are indeed much more complicated than before.”Today, not only is this view untenable, but everyone's opinion has gone to the other extreme, that is, marriage cannot provide a sweet life that lasts for a hundred years, and it cannot even provide considerable satisfaction and happiness.

Freud said in 1908: "The end of most marriages is spiritual disappointment and physical deprivation." He also said: "To withstand the torture of marriage, a woman must be particularly healthy." There are so many words of this kind that come from writers who are not as famous as Freund, and we can quote them at length as long as we want. However, what such words convey are after all personal impressions.On scientific topics, personal impressions are the easiest to be mistaken and unfounded.Personal impressions are always personal impressions and have no statistical basis.Moreover, this personal impression does not necessarily coincide with that of other experienced observers.The marital ills we know, no matter which one of the three aspects of husband, wife or children are concerned, although most of them are not difficult to prevent in advance, they are indeed many and very real.Popino of the Institute of Remily Relations in Los Angeles, USA found that among the 500 cases of difficulties between husband and wife in the 1930s, only one had no sexual component, that is, in In the remaining 499 instances, sexual incompatibility became a complicating factor.However, Exner said on the other hand, we don’t need to be too pessimistic about the future of marriage. If the society can be more cautious than before, it will not interfere with the ideals of young people, and the first few steps of young people’s involvement in the world will not be affected. This pessimistic attitude toward marriage can be tempered even more by deliberately imposing guidelines that lead them astray.Escher is quite right again, that general dissatisfaction in marriage, like a loss of money, is not necessarily a complete disaster.It means that most people engaged in marriage have a very high ideal, and they are all eager to realize this ideal, but this ideal is not easy to realize, and they react with dissatisfaction and disappointment; this is a good phenomenon, in fact, marriage It is a process of attainment, a process that requires continuous efforts to climb.Indeed, this insight is one that we often forget.In our Western civilization, perhaps in any civilization, a real marriage relationship, a marriage relationship that is fully worthy of the name marriage, is never achieved overnight.This was in our expectation, not surprising.Those who enter into marriage do not fully understand themselves or each other in all likelihood, or even do not know each other at all. They are just doing it like a blind man riding a blind horse. How can they achieve a truly consummate marriage relationship all at once?That is to say, strictly speaking, marriage has at least three aspects (according to Ms. Honey): one is a physical relationship, the other is a spiritual relationship, and the third is a personal relationship based on living together.There are so many and complicated relationships, yet so much lack of preparation, so many difficulties in the future and the hope that it will take a long time to overcome them before we can reach a truly perfect state, it can be said that it is inevitable and reasonable. Of course.Assuming that this state has never been reached, that is, there are always some gaps in the marriage relationship, if we observe carefully, in most cases, we can find various ways to fill the gaps.There are many unsatisfactory marriage relationships, and there are many ways to make up for this kind of compensation.American writer Emerson's theory of compensation originally applies to many aspects of life, but the most applicable aspect is undoubtedly married life.

To see the facts of marriage to a certain extent, a step-by-step investigation with a wide range is indispensable.But even with this kind of investigation, what can be obtained is only a rough result.Many are unwilling to admit that their marriage is a failure, to themselves, and even less to others.There are also some people whose attitude is just the opposite. Married life is always full of inevitable little troubles and conflicts. When they are in troubles and conflicts, they are easy to completely forget the outline of marriage or the central fact of marriage. , while quickly admitting that their marriage was a failure.After the troubled and conflicted scenes have passed, they have the opportunity to observe the big things in life more detachedly, and the general situation of marriage is presented to them again.

At this time, they will admit that their married life has been a great success.There is another basic reason for the difficulty, which is: few people understand the nature of the satisfaction they hope for in married life. How do they know that they are not harboring a luxury that marriage cannot provide at all?They don't understand that marriage is a microcosm of life after all, a married life that is too easy and too comfortable is not a microcosm, in other words, it is impossible.And for those who have real experience in life and have really tasted the ups and downs, this kind of marriage life that is too easy and too comfortable can not satisfy much in fact.

Therefore, although we cannot get an absolutely accurate answer to the question of whether we are satisfied or not, we must at least put the attempt of this answer on a statistical basis.Dr. Davis, under the assumption that "sexual relations are undoubtedly the main part of all marriage relations" (according to this assumption must be attached to conditions, can be established), found that among 1000 married women who were generally regarded as normal, 872 Without hesitation, they admit that their married life is happy. 116 were not very happy or not at all happy, and the main reason was sexual incompatibility.Only 12 women did not respond in this regard.

Dickinson's data is not quite the same as Dai's. His research objects were women who came to his gynecology clinic for examination.Their normal level is probably not as good as that of Dai's research subjects.Dietrich found that the percentage of self-satisfaction did not seem to be as large as that found by Dietrich.His conclusion is: in the 1000 cases studied, 3 out of 5, or 3 out of 5, are "properly adapted", that is, at least "no regrets" for married life. of.The remaining two-fifths are "regrettable" and "not good at adapting". The composition and quality of the "well-adapted" and "poorly adapted" groups of women were not significantly different.Their social status and economic status are very similar.There are two-thirds of the members in each of the two parties, and they have had a lot of automatic love habits in the past.

The "well-adapted" group was slightly more fertile.But the main general difference between the two groups seems to be in terms of outlook on life, with the "well adjusted" group having a more objective outlook on life, less self-centered, and less plagued by inner conflict.However, Di Shi also found that the group was "not good at adapting" The 100 wives in China are "normal in social life", and their education and economic level are above average, and a small number of them are also very gentle, well-dressed, and some are beautiful, Very smart.Thirteen of them were clearly unhealthy personalities. Among the 100, 19 were mentally unsound to the point of "profound disturbance of the whole personality".In any case, there is no great difference between this group and the "well-adjusted" group in terms of social status, educational attainment, or health, and the general appearance of the two groups may be said to be the same in personality and environment.Habits such as automatism or masturbation before marriage are about as common.And the beginning of "not well adapted" after marriage is not necessarily all due to sexual incompatibility, often incompatibility in other aspects is a starting point.The biggest difference between the two groups was the amount of "inner conflict".After reading Di Shi's research, we can understand that the issue of "adaptation" in marriage is often very complicated.

The number Dr. Hamilton studied was relatively small, but both sexes, and on the whole can be assumed to be normal, 100 married men and 100 married women.Han's discussion of the issue of satisfaction and dissatisfaction in married life is the most detailed.According to the points or points obtained by each person, he divided the degree of satisfaction or happiness into 14 levels.He found that the level of satisfaction of men is clearly higher than that of women. In the highest level of satisfaction (levels 7 to 14), there are 51 men, while only 45 women, and the remaining 49 men and 55 women are all in the low level of satisfaction.Hans believes that this statistical result is consistent with his very accurate impression from personal contact, which also believes that "in general, women are more disappointed in marriage than men are." .

The author cannot say that such a conclusion is surprising, and the results of my personal observations seem to be the same.Women are less likely to be satisfied in married life. Part of it may be inevitable, and it may be some inevitable results of the marriage relationship between the two sexes.The same is marriage, but for women, its meaning is much deeper than that for men, because they have to take care of their husbands, have children, and manage housework. She must devote a greater part of her energy to it.If, then, there was a sense of disappointment on her part, it must have been more serious.As for a man, since most of his ordinary life is outside the family, he occupies a relatively detached position with regard to family life and family relationships.In his sphere of activity, the family occupies only a relatively small place.But in this small field, in fact, he does not need to move, only needs to rest.

Conversely, a woman must always feel that marriage is the whole of her life, so she must always worry about various serious problems.This reminds us of Dickinson's very meaningful observation earlier, that is, the main difference between the "well-adapted" and "not well-adapted" wives is that the former are more objective and less disturbed by inner conflicts.In other words, this kind of wife who is more objective and not harassed by inner conflicts is more similar to an ordinary husband in terms of life attitude. However, we often meet some wives who are disappointed in their marriage. Although it is more or less superficial or not far from the superficial, it is actually a very rooted phenomenon.This disappointment is of course related to the changes in the lives of modern women.Women in modern times have had a larger perspective on life.Therefore, I feel a greater demand.The dominance of men and their relatively wronged status are considered natural and inevitable by their mothers, but they are very dissatisfied in their view.For a woman, the world is changed, especially in her religious and social life.For men, this kind of change is not uncommon, but far less profound than for women.Women cannot but feel the profoundness of this change, partly because a large part of this change is specially recognized by public opinion and specially regulated by law.The traditional life of men in general has not changed much either.Therefore, after a woman enters into a married life, it is easy to feel a paradox, a paradox between facts and theory, a paradox of life and opinion, and this paradox can easily cause some inner conflicts. conflict.There are many women, including women of the old romantic ideal, who grew up with little contact with men.Among them, there are relatively new-style women who first understand what a man is and what marriage is all about during the honeymoon period, and they have been deeply dissatisfied and disappointed since that day, and they will not completely forget it even when they are old. or get rid of.For old-style women, this is of course due to the mistakes of the old-style education, but for new-style women, this kind of dissatisfaction has to be traced back to the absurd situation just mentioned.

But there is a more fundamental reason for the dissatisfaction of married life, which the author has mentioned incidentally above.Although the marriage system in modern times has undergone many changes, most of these changes are limited to the surface, and the basic facts of the marriage relationship are often ignored.This kind of change focuses attention on various superficial conditions or formats, making everyone think that as long as the conditions are suitable and the format is appropriate, the prosperity of marriage will be guaranteed.The most unfortunate thing is that this change puts aside the most important aspect of the marriage relationship, that is, the marriage relationship is by no means comparable to ordinary human relations. Its depth can penetrate the personalities of two people and teach them the most intimate spiritual relationship. Except for extremely superficial and boring people, this kind of in-depth spiritual relationship is not easy to cultivate, but anyone can have it. Now, what we pay attention to is only the external conditions and format, the atmosphere The tendency is not only that people engaged in marriage forget the difficulty of cultivating such skills, but also teach them not to feel the necessity of such skills.In this regard, modern marriages have regressed, because in old-style marriages, this can be done more fully.The old notion that marriage must have its inescapable misery is out of fashion today.But the pain is still there, the difference is that the form has changed, and this pain emanates from the inner nature of the marriage relationship.Divorce may be quite ineffective in relieving this pain, and even if we admit that divorce should have the greatest liberty, it will not necessarily relieve it.We often meet people who divorce and remarry and do not enjoy greater happiness after remarriage. It can be seen that it is not the marriage that is wrong, but themselves.Count Keyserling of Germany, in his analysis of the marriage problem, described marriage as "a tension between two poles".Marriage is monistic, but this monad is organized by two foci.The focal points hold each other together because of a tense gravitational pull between them.He says elsewhere that this tension may be a tragic one.But if the relationship of this focus must be maintained undefeated, this tension can be canceled.This kind of relationship in focus is actually a symbol of life in general, and it has its own value that can add joy to life. This is true in marriage, and it is also true in life in general.When we say that marriage has its own painful component, or that the tension between focal points has its own tragic quality, we do not take the ascetic position that pain and tragedy are of such significance that they deserve to be said.What we mean by this is that the poet and prophetic writer Kahli I Gibran (Kahli I Gibran) has said repeatedly: happiness and sorrow are inseparable, "Isn't your cup of wine in the potter's kiln Has it been smelted?" Without the pain of smelting, how can there be the joy of drinking?Long before Gibran, the wise Montaigne, in his "On Virgil" In the paper "A Few Lines of Poems", we have been reminded that the muscles that make us cry are the same muscles that make us laugh.There are many memorable words of Montaigne's kind, and this is just one example. ● Section 4 Standards of Monogamy Up to modern times, single marriage or monogamous marriage is the only reasonable, reasonable and legal way of marriage considered by Western civilization.Western civilization not only recognizes it in this way, but also considers it to be a kind of pattern created by nature in general view, which needs no discussion; assuming there are one or two exceptions who dare to discuss or even raise doubts, those people are probably in fact A person with eccentricity or mental illness should at least be seen by others as having eccentricity or mental illness, so that it is worse than being eccentric or mentally ill. Of course, his opinion is not worth laughing at. Today, the issue of the way of marriage can no longer be admitted in such a wishful thinking and put aside. The way of marriage can be changed, and it is by no means that religion, morality, law, or even social practice can teach it to be static.Those who talk about it are no longer insignificant.Therefore, when people who study sexual psychology discuss the relationship between the sexes, they must be prepared to come up with some insights into the standard of monogamy. There are more than one pioneers who started to discuss monogamy as a social issue, and one of the earliest ones is the British James Hinton.Xing's commentary existed about fifty or sixty years ago, but it was only published in words in a relatively clear way about twenty years ago.The reason why he has not announced it is because he feels that the research on the single marriage system in the West is not enough, and he does not want to publish it lightly. But by the time it was announced, he was already an ancient man.Many people know about Xing's personality.He's a fairly normal guy with no heart problems.So we can't put him aside.considered insignificant.He was a famous surgeon in London and also a philosophical thinker. He had close contact with the activities of the scientific circle at that time, and he was also very interested in general social issues at that time.He is also a person who is closely related to real life, not just an expert who talks about theory or devotes himself to research on small topics.His posthumous manuscripts are unformed and unsystematic, but there are generally clues to be found and sorted out in the part of the comments on monogamy and the general social system based on monogamy.He believes that in the history of human marriage, there has never been a true single marriage system, and he also thinks that in Western societies he knows, the number of men who truly abide by the standard of monogamy is almost the same. There are not as many polygamous societies in the East.As far as the established pattern is concerned, monogamy is fundamentally a selfish and anti-social system, and it is responsible for the origin and establishment of the prostitution system.Monogamy is an ideal, we are catching up very fast, we want to achieve it overnight, and think that we have really caught up, but we don’t realize that we are too hasty to turn an ideal into a fact, into a universal legal form, no matter what kind The ideal is so lovely, but it is a big mistake after all.The result is that monogamy, apparently and nominally, seems to prevent much more obscenity than polygamy can.Therefore, according to Xing's view, the marriage system in the West has been rotten and is currently being disintegrated due to rot.He believes that what we need is a more fluid system of sexual relations that is not rigid and static, but allows for considerable variability.For example, it is permissible for a man to marry two women, as long as it is beneficial in many ways.Under the general principle of not hindering the common life of human beings, such changes should be made at any time. Since Xingshi, we can often meet this kind of discussion.The standpoint of the person who made the comment may be different from that of Xing's, and the sweeping power of the discussion may rarely or never match the pen of Xing's, but most of them are on the same path.At the same time, we should also pay attention to the fact that our marriage system has actually undergone many changes.If we compare the current state of the marriage system with Xing's at that time, we can see a lot of changes, and these changes are often in line with his desired direction.Divorce is easier, women have achieved greater legal and social independence, and society seems to be less harsh on illegitimate children than it used to be.The methods of birth control have spread more widely, and greater freedom of contact between the sexes has been recognized in all civilized nations. At the same time, in more ways than one, monogamy is as secure today as it was then, if not more so.This is not surprising. A thing that can last for a long time should be flexible. After the marriage system is flexible, a large part of the various abuses that occurred in the state of inflexibility before can no longer occur. Another point that must be made clear is that we often use the term "single marriage" incorrectly, which causes some confusion in understanding.For example, we often hear people say that among the two sexes, one sex is more inclined to "single marriage".The so-called one-sex refers to women in particular, while men tend to be more "multimarried".Strictly speaking, this wording is meaningless.Why there is no meaning is obvious at a glance.The simple fact tells us that the ratio of the two sexes in the population is almost equal at birth (initially there are slightly more males). Since they are equal, it is practically impossible for men in a civilized society to marry two wives. Even in a society where polygamy is recognized, only a few wealthy men are truly polygamous.Even if the numbers of men and women were not equal, and there were more women than men, we cannot say that most men in our civilized society (with a few exceptions aside) have the desire to have two wives, whether the two wives share a room, or There are always various inconveniences and disadvantages of living in two households, so that most men dare not try; as for women, it is even more unfeasible to maintain two families at the same time, each with a different father.She is bound to take the road of "single marriage". In fact, the term single or polyamorous is misused.When most people discuss whether men tend to be more "polyamorous" than women, their opinion is whether men are more likely to be "polyamorous" than women. In other words, what was asked was not whether they would like to marry more, but whether they would like to have more sexual freedom.For example, when we say that a certain man likes single marriages, we have not answered the question whether he means unrequited love or multiple loves.Even if we are sure that he is polyamorous, we cannot conclude that he likes multiple marriages, or even promiscuous marriages.The so-called promiscuous marriage refers to an indiscriminate and non-selective sexual union, which no one would have except in a special state of madness.Because of this misuse of terms, a large part of the discussion becomes confusing and therefore meaningless. Relying on our observation, regardless of men and women, most people are single married and polyamorous.That is to say, they only want to have a permanent marriage and at the same time hope that this marriage relationship will not prevent him or her from being sexually attracted to one or more other people of the opposite sex. The gravitational force they experience is different in nature, and they will also understand that it is possible to control this gravitational force so that it does not hit the wall and push the cart.This tendency to single marriage and polyamorous love seems to be a phenomenon common to both sexes, that is, there is no sexual difference between them.Women seem to be exactly the same as men, and they can also have sexual emotions for more than one object of the opposite sex at the same time, but because the meaning of sex is much deeper for women than for men.When she makes sexual choices, she may be more demanding than her nature.Naturally, therefore, she is more restricted on the surface, and at the same time, because of social and other concerns, she is more careful and less explicit than a man in expressing such emotions or accepting them. As mentioned earlier, most men and women tend to be single-married and polyamorous. Of course, there are other types, and there are countless individual variations.Among these many types of sexuality, we can never say that a certain one is absolutely the most rich in moral meaning or social value, while the rest can not catch up with it.Blonsky in Russia discusses that women can be divided into two main categories (most of Blonsky's research objects are school teachers) , which he called monandric and polyandric respectively, the former having strict sexual relations with only one man, while the latter tended to have sexual relations with many men, either at the same time, or Alternately at different times; between these two principal forms there are, of course, many intermediate groups.Blaine discovered that single-male women are superior to polymasculine women, both from a personal and social standpoint; polymasculine women are more selfish, assertive, and aggressive, while Nerves are also particularly susceptible to irritation.As for single-masculine women, they are more responsible, more stable in nerves, have stronger organizational skills, and are more likely to succeed in social and personnel relations.In number, there are twice as many single-male women as there are poly-male ones.Blaine's conclusion is undoubtedly correct on the whole, and it certainly applies in Russia, but it is also applicable in other countries.But we must be careful not to be too quick to make overly positive generalizations, we know that there are also many masculine women who are also very good in character, much better than Brecht claims and admits.Blaine's conclusions can also be fully applied to men. With regard to the issue of unrequited love or multiple loves, our responsibility is to explain the nature and cause of the problem. As for whether a person should have multiple loves, it is beyond our task to give us guidance.This is an issue of social morality, and any measures that can affect social morality must be personally responsible.However, when a person who studies psychology encounters such actions by others, he should observe them with a sympathetic and understanding attitude. He should know that the social environment he lives in is complicated, and everyone's reactions in this environment It is also necessarily not simple.In this way, it will probably not make the problem of social morality more serious.In this respect, we are undoubtedly witnessing a change in progress, but this kind of change has not gone to any remarkable extreme, at least far from the extreme that is currently hated by people who care about people's hearts and minds. At present, there is a tendency that some people refer to as "polyamyria" that can be painful, and most of them belong to what is called "serial polygamy", but this name is not correct.This type of polygamous tendency is due to the increase in divorce.A person gets married more than once in a row, the old marriage is dissolved, and the new marriage begins, again and again, and again and again, most of the so-called polyamory in recent times fall into this category.But this is not an extension of the ordinary single marriage, but the time of each single marriage is relatively short.Whichever way one looks at it, this phenomenon is always a acknowledgment of the claims of polyamorous tendencies.Every man or woman, as far as the basic and central love is concerned, no matter how much he or she tends to be single, there can always be some erotic emotions with other people of the opposite sex other than husband and wife; this is a fact .We didn't admit it much before, but today, our attitude towards it is much more frank.Therefore, from now on, the sexual relationship inside and outside of marriage will inevitably become more complicated, and the adjustment and adaptation of this relationship will inevitably be more difficult. Everyone must have a relatively open mind, a broad mind, and be able to understand each other and be able to communicate with each other. To be considerate, everyone must have a fair forgiveness, and be able to fully restrain the remains of the original jealousy, so that there is hope for this kind of adjustment and adaptation.Originally, without these improvements in character, not to mention problems in adapting to the relationship between men and women inside and outside of marriage, even a sound civilized life would not be able to maintain a harmonious state for a long time. However, as far as the general outline of the marriage system is concerned, it has always existed. It exists today, and it may still exist thousands of years later, and it is still the same as it was thousands of years ago.However, if we can add more flexibility to this system, have a more precise understanding of the reasons for this system, and show more sympathy for the needs of this system that vary from time to time and from place to place, the result will not only not be able to destroy it, but And it can make it a more consolidated place in human history. Marriage is more than just a sexual union, something we often forget.In a truly "ideal" marriage, what we can find is not just a sexual harmony, but a multifaceted emotional harmony that keeps pace with the years, a combination of taste and interest, a shared life. Cooperative development, a possible cooperative venue for childbearing, and often also a unit group of economic life.After other aspects of married life become more and more harmonious, the element of sex becomes less and less obvious.The element of sex will even take a backseat and completely dissipate, while a marriage based on mutual trust and loyalty remains firm. ● Section 5 Birth Control Earl Kesselring of Germany pointed out that those who cannot accept the real marriage relationship, we might as well advise them to avoid marriage altogether and adopt other forms of sexual relationship. In addition to such a solution proposed by Keshi, under the current situation, we should keep in mind that marriage also has a eugenic relationship, that is, a relationship of the possible qualities of future children. In the past, marriage and childbirth were the same thing, and in terms of purpose, the two were inseparable.To marry a man is to allow him to procreate.Persuading people not to have children is tantamount to telling him not to get married. The direct result is that two people who can enjoy married life will be put in a lonely and desolate life forever, and the indirect result is that they encourage prostitutes and other harmful people. way of liberating.This chain of marriage and birth does not exist today, at least any intellectual in a civilized country knows that it no longer exists.The so-called prevention of fertilization or contraception refers to the use of various methods to prevent sexual intercourse while preventing fertilization. Regardless of whether there is formal public opinion or not, it has been practiced for a long time, at least in the West. Almost no one knows how to use it.So what are the advantages and disadvantages of this phenomenon, it seems not worth discussing.In some countries, the current law still prohibits the dissemination of this kind of knowledge, but in fact the method of contraception is still very popular, and even in the religions that oppose this method, there are not many believers who use this method. few. In short, today, whether a person or a couple should get married is one thing, and whether they should have children is another matter, and we should make a distinction between the two.Whether it is suitable or not involves many issues. It not only involves the interests of the husband and wife, especially the wife, but also affects the health of the children.It is undoubtedly an improvement to be able to deal with the two problems separately.And this kind of progress is very natural, which does not include any drastic changes.In medical experience, we have long had a habit of persuading wives with special health conditions to terminate their childbearing by means of abstinence.What we are doing now is going a step further than that, and discouraging marriage at first.But this is not an easy thing.Many people know that neurotic people have a tendency to attract each other.This tendency follows the principle that like attracts like. It is a general tendency that people with similar personalities tend to attract each other. Of course, people with mental illness are no exception.It used to be believed that people with different personalities are likely to attract each other according to the principle of complementing each other or complementing each other, but now we know it is wrong; in other words, homogamy is much more common than heterogamy many.The attraction of exotic goods exists, but it is limited to the scope of secondary sexual characteristics; that is, a particularly masculine man is easy to get close to a particularly gentle woman; if a man is particularly gentle, the object of his love and pleasure is probably full of rigidity Women; but once the scope of secondary sexual characteristics is exceeded, the theory of gathering of different species does not apply. When two mentally ill people are thinking of getting married, they may need us to guide them; we need to guide them individually, otherwise the above-mentioned principle of the same product but different products is of great reference value.A mentally ill person with keen senses, high intelligence, and mostly gentle and delicate disposition and interests will feel a lot of sympathy for another mentally ill person, while a healthy and normal person People, in his view, seem dull and dull.Conversely, normal people also feel that a mentally ill person is a bit inhuman and unpredictable, so they always feel somewhat disgusted and difficult to get close to each other.以前常有人以为我们应当劝一个有精神病态的人寻取一个遗传健全而体魄强壮的人，如今看了本书的讨论，可知这种劝告是很徒然的。如果我们再参考到遗传的法则，例如孟德尔的品性隐显和品性分合之理，则更可知此种劝告在理论上也不会正确。无论如何，这种劝告是行不大通的，因为他根本没有理会一个简单的事实，即常态和变态是合不大起来的。即使结合于起初，也不会和谐于后来。教两个都有显著精神病态的人成婚，根据同品相聚的道理，宜若可以好合了，其实也不然，既然双方各有显著的病态，好合的可能性当然不大。因此，为他们自身计，为他们的配偶计，我们劝他们最好不要完婚。明知在独身的状态中，性欲的不容易满足是一个很大的难题，但依据福求其大、祸求其小的原则，也只好听之了。假若精神病态中又有显明的性歧变的成分，而这种歧变又属对方所无法顺应，无法满足，则不婚的劝告在我们就更义不容辞了。对于精神病态程度不深的人，此类反对成婚的理由当然就不大适用，事实上这种人也通常一往情深，因缘固结，旁人的劝告也极不容易发生效力。碰到这种例子，婚姻可而生育非的劝告就太有其必要了。 生育节制的必要到现在已经得到一般人的公认，不但是不想要孩子的人承认这一点，即是想要孩子的人也已大部有此认识。这是有显然的理由的，为母亲计，为孩子的健康计，两次生产之间应该有适当的距离，而这距离至少应当有两周年，这就需要生育节制的帮忙。早婚青年为了经济以及其他种种很合情理的原因，也许愿意把生育延缓几年。这也同样需要生育节制的帮忙。无论一个夫妇怎样喜欢孩子，子女的来临是应当有时间的选择的，就是应当选择父母最有能力来接纳他们和养育他们的那几年。尤有进者，大家庭的日子是过去了。为家庭设想，也为国家与民族设想，每一对结婚的夫妇平均能生育两个甚至三个子女，在文明社会的卫生条件下，事实上也已经足够维持人口的数量。如因不得已的理由，例如母亲的健康程度不宜于生育或父母的一方有不良的遗传品性，那最好是不要发生怀孕的反应，遇到这种例子，生育节制的方法就得严格地与强迫地加以运用了。 生育节制的各种方法的讨论不在本文范围以内。好在这方面的文献如今已经很多，大可供读者的参考；固然我们也承认究竟哪些方法最好，到现在还有争论的余地，而所谓最好的方法，不管是那一个（下文所论绝欲的方法除外），也不一定十足可靠。幸而在各国的大城市里，生育节制的咨询与治疗机关很快日益渐多，凡属愿意节制的人可以得所问津而解决他们种种疑难的问题。从此以后，因知识不足而引起的困难与失败可望逐渐减少了。不过我们也承认，知识的充足是一事。而运用的谨慎又是一事，运用而不慎，无论知识如何充分，同样可以失败，而运用之际，要始终谨慎行事，也是是容易的。在新式节育方法流行以前，最古老与最普通的节育方法或避孕方法是“中断交接”或“体外射精”，这是无需什么物理或化学工具的，也是不需指示而尽人能为的。并且，就防止受孕一端而论，也相当有效。不过这古老的方法会减少性交的满意，因为就大多数男子而论，这方法失诸过于迫促，过于仓皇，那是不痛快的，而对女人也不相宜，女人解欲的过程本较男人为迟缓，交接的时间过于短促则不满足的程度不免加深。体外射精对于男女的健康也有不良的影响，但这种影响并不像有的人所想象的那般大。