the rules of a monogamous
matrimonial code are absurd and impracticable. With all the respect
due to the moral sentiments of Tolstoi, we are obliged to declare that
his ascetic opinions on sexual relations are only the dreams of an
enthusiast.

When a libidinous man marries a young girl who is sexually frigid, and
when coitus continues to be a horror to his wife, it is quite as cruel
to demand continence in the husband as submission in his wife. In such
cases, the conditions can only be made tolerable by divorce, consent
to concubinage, or bigamy, when a relative adaptation cannot be
obtained by mutual concessions. At present our prejudices only allow
divorce in such cases.

When a man and woman are already tied by pregnancy or by a child, and
when, apart from the differences in their sexual appetites, love and
concord reign between them, separation would be cruel.

I readily agree that such extreme circumstances should not be the
rule, and that in many cases the one who is the more erotic can
restrain himself, and the one who is cold become accustomed to coitus.
Nevertheless, in the present chapter we are not concerned with morals
but with rights, and we have only to reply to the question of knowing
what should be done when, in sexual connection between two conjoints,
one desires it and the other does not.

The concentration of sexual passion on a single individual, which is
generally good from the social point of view, is fatal in these
special cases. A man falls passionately in love with a woman, or a
woman with a man, but instead of being reciprocal this love is
despised by the other. Such a misfortune, which often leads to the
most tragic consequences, not only in novels but also in real life, is
only reparable by the renunciation of the one who loves. It is surely
less cruel to renounce a proposed union than to become the sexual prey
of a person one does not love. It is, therefore, inhuman and immoral,
as much in religion as in poetry, to preach in any form, the
exclusiveness of sentiments, the indissolubility of monogamous
marriage, and the immutability of love.

It has often been stated that a woman can only love once in her life.
Such a false and cruel generalization must be energetically opposed.
It is the business of sentimental poets to delude themselves with such
sentiments, but those who think it a duty to adhere to dogmas of this
kind are to be pitied. It is not only death or illness of one of the