The Laws of Sexual Attraction
It has been recognised from time immemorial that, in all forms of sexually
differentiated life, there exists an attraction between males and females,
between the male and the female, the object of which is procreation. But as
the male and the female are merely abstract conceptions which never appear in
the real world, we cannot speak of sexual attraction as a simple attempt of
the masculine and the feminine to come together. The theory which I am
developing must take into account all the facts of sexual relations if it is
to be complete; indeed, if it is to be accepted instead of the older views, it
must give a better interpretation of all these sexual phenomena. My
recognition of the fact that maleness and femaleness are distributed in the
living world in every possible proportion has led me to the discovery of an
unknown natural law, of a law not yet suspected by any philosopher, a law of
sexual attraction. As observations on human beings first led me to my results,
I shall begin with this side of the subject.
Every one possesses a definite, individual taste of his own with regard to the
other sex. If we compare the portrait of the women which some famous man has
been known to love, we shall nearly always find that they are all closely
alike, the similarity being most obvious in the contour (more precisely in the
"figure") or in the face, but on closer examination being found to extend to
the minutest details, ad unguem, to the finger-tips. It is precisely the same
with every one else. So, also, every girl who strongly attracts a man recalls
to him the other girls he has loved before. We see another side of the same
phenomenon when we recall how often we have said of some acquaintance or
another, "I can't imagine how that type of woman pleases him." Darwin, in the
"Descent of Man," collected many instances of the existence of this
individuality of the sexual taste amongst animals, and I shall be able to show
that there are analogous phenomena even amongst plants.
Sexual attraction is nearly always, as in the case of gravitation, reciprocal.
Where there appear to be exceptions to this rule, there is nearly always
evidence of the presence of special influences which have been capable of
preventing the direct action of the special taste, which is almost always
reciprocal, or which have left an unsatisfied craving, if the direct taste
were not allowed its play.
The common saying, "Waiting for Mr. Right," or statements such that "So-and-so
are quite unsuitable for one another," show the existence of an obscure
presentiment of the fact that every man or woman possesses certain individual
peculiarities which qualify or disqualify him or her for marriage with any
particular member of the opposite sex; and that this man cannot be substituted
for that, or this woman for the other without creating a disharmony.
It is a common personal experience that certain individuals of the opposite
sex are distasteful to us, that others leave us cold; whilst others again may
stimulate us until, at last, some one appears who seems so desirable that
everything in the world is worthless and empty compared with union with such a
one. What are the qualifications of that person? What are his or her
peculiarities? If it really be the case - and I think it is - that every male
type has its female counterpart with regard to sexual affinity, it looks as if
there were some definite law. What is this law? How does it act? "Like poles
repel, unlike attract," was what I was told when, already armed with my own
answer, I resolutely importuned different kinds of men for a statement, and
submitted instances to their power of generalisation. The formula, no doubt,
is true in a limited sense and for a certain number of cases. But it is at
once too general and too vague; it would be applied differently by different
persons, and it is incapable of being stated in mathematical terms.
This book does not claim to state all the laws of sexual affinity, for there
are many; nor does it pretend to be able to tell every one exactly which
individual of the opposite sex will best suit his taste, for that would imply
a complete knowledge of all the laws in question. In this chapter only one of
these laws will be considered - the law which stands in organic relation to
the rest of the book. I am working at a number of other laws, but the
following is that to which I have given most investigation, and which is most
elaborated. In criticising this work, allowance must be made for the
incomplete nature of the material consequent on the novelty and difficulty of
the subject.
. . . The law runs as follows: "For true sexual union it is necessary that
there come together a complete male (M) and a complete female (F), even
although in different cases the M and F are distributed between the two
individuals in different proportions."
Were a man completely male, his requisite complement would be a complete
female, and vice versa. If, however, he is composed of a definite inheritance
of maleness, and also an inheritance of femaleness (which must not be
neglected), then, to complete the individual, his maleness must be completed
to make a unit; but so also must his femaleness be completed.
If, for instance an individual was three-quarters male and one quarter female,
then the best sexual complement of that individual would be a person one
quarter male and three-quarters female.
. . . In this matter we may neglect altogether the so-called aesthetic factor,
the stimulus of beauty. For does it not frequently happen that one man is
completely captivated by a particular woman and raves about her beauty, whilst
another, who is not the sexual complement of the woman in question, cannot
imagine what his friend sees in her to admire. Without discussing the laws of
aesthetics or attempting to gather together examples of relative values, it
may readily be admitted that a man may consider a woman beautiful who, from
the aesthetic standpoint, is not merely indifferent but actually ugly, that in
fact pure aesthetics deal not with absolute, but merely with conceptions of
beauty from which the sexual factor has been eliminated.
I have myself worked out the law in, at the lowest, many hundred cases, and I
have found that the exceptions were only apparent. Almost every couple one
meets in the street furnishes a new proof. The exceptions were specially
instructive, as they not only suggested but led to the investigation of other
laws of sexuality. I myself made special investigations in the following way.
I obtained a set of photographs of aesthetically beautiful women of blameless
character, each of which was a good example of some definite proportion of
femininity, and I asked a number of my friends to inspect these and select the
most beautiful. The selection made was invariably that which I had predicted.
With other male friends, who knew on what I was engaged, I set about in
another fashion. They provided me with photographs from amongst which I was to
choose the one I should expect them to think most beautiful. Here, too, I was
uniformly successful. With others, I was able to describe most accurately
their ideal of the opposite sex, independently of any suggestions
unconsciously given by them, often in minuter detail than they had realised.
Sometimes, too, I was able to point out to them, for the first time, the
qualities that repelled them in individuals of the opposite sex, although for
the most part men realise more readily the characters that repel them than the
characters that attract them.
I believe that with a little practice any one could readily acquire and
exercise this art on any circle of friends.
. . . I do not deny that my exposition of the law is somewhat dogmatical and
lacks confirmation by exact detail. But I am not so anxious to claim finished
results as to incite others to the study, the more so as the means for
scientific investigations are lacking in my own case. But even if much remains
theoretical, I hope that I shall have firmly riveted the chief beams in my
edifice of theory by showing how it explains much that hitherto has found no
explanation, and so shall have, in a fashion, proved it retrospectively by
showing how much it would explain if it were true. . . .
|
|
