this question of marriage is the most complicated and difficult in the whole range of utopian problems. but it is happily not the most urgent necessity that it should be absolutely solved. the urgent and necessary problem is the ruler. with rulers rightly contrived and a provisional defective marriage law a utopia may be conceived as existing and studying to perfect itself, but without rulers a utopia is impossible though the theory of its matrimony be complete. and the difficulty in this question is not simply the difficulty of a complicated chess problem, for example, in which the whole tangle of considerations does at least lie in one plane, but a series of problems upon different levels and containing incommensurable factors.

it is very easy to repeat our initial propositions, to recall that we are on another planet, and that all the customs and traditions of the earth are set aside, but the faintest realisation of that demands a feat of psychological insight. we have all grown up into an invincible mould of suggestion about sexual things; we regard this with approval, that with horror, and this again with contempt, very largely because the thing has always been put to us in this light or that. the more emancipated we think ourselves the more subtle are our bonds. the disentanglement of what is inherent in these feelings from what is acquired is an extraordinary complex undertaking. probably all men and women have a more or less powerful disposition to jealousy, but what exactly they will be jealous about and what exactly they will suffer seems part of the superposed factor. probably all men and women are capable of ideal emotions and wishes beyond merely physical desires, but the shape these take are almost entirely a reaction to external images. and you really cannot strip the external off; you cannot get your stark natural man, jealous, but not jealous about anything in particular, imaginative without any imaginings, proud at large. emotional dispositions can no more exist without form than a man without air. only a very observant man who had lived all over the planet earth, in all sorts of social strata, and with every race and tongue, and who was endowed with great imaginative insight, could hope to understand the possibilities and the limitations of human plasticity in this matter, and say what any men and any women could be induced to do willingly, and just exactly what no man and no woman could stand, provided one had the training of them. though very young men will tell you readily enough. the proceedings of other races and other ages do not seem to carry conviction; what our ancestors did, or what the greeks or egyptians did, though it is the direct physical cause of the modern young man or the modern young lady, is apt to impress these remarkable consequences merely as an arrangement of quaint, comical or repulsive proceedings.

but there emerges to the modern inquirer certain ideals and desiderata that at least go some way towards completing and expanding the crude primaries of a utopian marriage law set out in section 4.

the sound birth being assured, does there exist any valid reason for the persistence of the utopian marriage union?

there are two lines of reasoning that go to establish a longer duration for marriage. the first of these rests upon the general necessity for a home and for individual attention in the case of children. children are the results of a choice between individuals; they grow well, as a rule, only in relation to sympathetic and kindred individualities, and no wholesale character-ignoring method of dealing with them has ever had a shadow of the success of the individualised home. neither plato nor socrates, who repudiated the home, seems ever to have had to do with anything younger than a young man. procreation is only the beginning of parentage, and even where the mother is not the direct nurse and teacher of her child, even where she delegates these duties, her supervision is, in the common case, essential to its welfare. moreover, though the utopian state will pay the mother, and the mother only, for the being and welfare of her legitimate children, there will be a clear advantage in fostering the natural disposition of the father to associate his child’s welfare with his individual egotism, and to dispense some of his energies and earnings in supplementing the common provision of the state. it is an absurd disregard of a natural economy to leave the innate philoprogenitiveness of either sex uncultivated. unless the parents continue in close relationship, if each is passing through a series of marriages, the dangers of a conflict of rights, and of the frittering away of emotions, become very grave. the family will lose homogeneity, and its individuals will have for the mother varied and perhaps incompatible emotional associations. the balance of social advantage is certainly on the side of much more permanent unions, on the side of an arrangement that, subject to ample provisions for a formal divorce without disgrace in cases of incompatibility, would bind, or at least enforce ideals that would tend to bind, a man and woman together for the whole term of her maternal activity, until, that is, the last born of her children was no longer in need of her help.

the second system of considerations arises out of the artificiality of woman’s position. it is a less conclusive series than the first, and it opens a number of interesting side vistas.

a great deal of nonsense is talked about the natural equality or inferiority of women to men. but it is only the same quality that can be measured by degrees and ranged in ascending and descending series, and the things that are essentially feminine are different qualitatively from and incommensurable with the distinctly masculine things. the relationship is in the region of ideals and conventions, and a state is perfectly free to determine that men and women shall come to intercourse on a footing of conventional equality or with either the man or woman treated as the predominating individual. aristotle’s criticism of plato in this matter, his insistence upon the natural inferiority of slaves and women, is just the sort of confusion between inherent and imposed qualities that was his most characteristic weakness. the spirit of the european people, of almost all the peoples now in the ascendant, is towards a convention of equality; the spirit of the mahometan world is towards the intensification of a convention that the man alone is a citizen and that the woman is very largely his property. there can be no doubt that the latter of these two convenient fictions is the more primitive way of regarding this relationship. it is quite unfruitful to argue between these ideals as if there were a demonstrable conclusion, the adoption of either is an arbitrary act, and we shall simply follow our age and time if we display a certain bias for the former.

if one looks closely into the various practical expansions of these ideas, we find their inherent falsity works itself out in a very natural way so soon as reality is touched. those who insist upon equality work in effect for assimilation, for a similar treatment of the sexes. plato’s women of the governing class, for example, were to strip for gymnastics like men, to bear arms and go to war, and follow most of the masculine occupations of their class. they were to have the same education and to be assimilated to men at every doubtful point. the aristotelian attitude, on the other hand, insists upon specialisation. the men are to rule and fight and toil; the women are to support motherhood in a state of natural inferiority. the trend of evolutionary forces through long centuries of human development has been on the whole in this second direction, has been towards differentiation. [footnote: see havelock ellis’s man and woman.] an adult white woman differs far more from a white man than a negress or pigmy woman from her equivalent male. the education, the mental disposition, of a white or asiatic woman, reeks of sex; her modesty, her decorum is not to ignore sex but to refine and put a point to it; her costume is clamorous with the distinctive elements of her form. the white woman in the materially prosperous nations is more of a sexual specialist than her sister of the poor and austere peoples, of the prosperous classes more so than the peasant woman. the contemporary woman of fashion who sets the tone of occidental intercourse is a stimulant rather than a companion for a man. too commonly she is an unwholesome stimulant turning a man from wisdom to appearance, from beauty to beautiful pleasures, from form to colour, from persistent aims to belief and stirring triumphs. arrayed in what she calls distinctly “dress,” scented, adorned, displayed, she achieves by artifice a sexual differentiation profounder than that of any other vertebrated animal. she outshines the peacock’s excess above his mate, one must probe among the domestic secrets of the insects and crustacea to find her living parallel. and it is a question by no means easy and yet of the utmost importance, to determine how far the wide and widening differences between the human sexes is inherent and inevitable, and how far it is an accident of social development that may be converted and reduced under a different social regimen. are we going to recognise and accentuate this difference and to arrange our utopian organisation to play upon it, are we to have two primary classes of human being, harmonising indeed and reacting, but following essentially different lives, or are we going to minimise this difference in every possible way?

the former alternative leads either to a romantic organisation of society in which men will live and fight and die for wonderful, beautiful, exaggerated creatures, or it leads to the hareem. it would probably lead through one phase to the other. women would be enigmas and mysteries and maternal dignitaries that one would approach in a state of emotional excitement and seclude piously when serious work was in hand. a girl would blossom from the totally negligible to the mystically desirable at adolescence, and boys would be removed from their mother’s educational influence at as early an age as possible. whenever men and women met together, the men would be in a state of inflamed competition towards one another, and the women likewise, and the intercourse of ideas would be in suspense. under the latter alternative the sexual relation would be subordinated to friendship and companionship; boys and girls would be co-educated — very largely under maternal direction, and women, disarmed of their distinctive barbaric adornments, the feathers, beads, lace, and trimmings that enhance their clamorous claim to a directly personal attention would mingle, according to their quality, in the counsels and intellectual development of men. such women would be fit to educate boys even up to adolescence. it is obvious that a marriage law embodying a decision between these two sets of ideas would be very different according to the alternative adopted. in the former case a man would be expected to earn and maintain in an adequate manner the dear delight that had favoured him. he would tell her beautiful lies about her wonderful moral effect upon him, and keep her sedulously from all responsibility and knowledge. and, since there is an undeniably greater imaginative appeal to men in the first bloom of a woman’s youth, she would have a distinct claim upon his energies for the rest of her life. in the latter case a man would no more pay for and support his wife than she would do so for him. they would be two friends, differing in kind no doubt but differing reciprocally, who had linked themselves in a matrimonial relationship. our utopian marriage so far as we have discussed it, is indeterminate between these alternatives.

we have laid it down as a general principle that the private morals of an adult citizen are no concern for the state. but that involves a decision to disregard certain types of bargain. a sanely contrived state will refuse to sustain bargains wherein there is no plausibly fair exchange, and if private morality is really to be outside the scope of the state then the affections and endearments most certainly must not be regarded as negotiable commodities. the state, therefore, will absolutely ignore the distribution of these favours unless children, or at least the possibility of children, is involved. it follows that it will refuse to recognise any debts or transfers of property that are based on such considerations. it will be only consistent, therefore, to refuse recognition in the marriage contract to any financial obligation between husband and wife, or any settlements qualifying that contract, except when they are in the nature of accessory provision for the prospective children. [footnote: unqualified gifts for love by solvent people will, of course, be quite possible and permissible, unsalaried services and the like, provided the standard of life is maintained and the joint income of the couple between whom the services hold does not sink below twice the minimum wage.] so far the utopian state will throw its weight upon the side of those who advocate the independence of women and their conventional equality with men.

but to any further definition of the marriage relation the world state of utopia will not commit itself. the wide range of relationships that are left possible, within and without the marriage code, are entirely a matter for the individual choice and imagination. whether a man treat his wife in private as a goddess to be propitiated, as a “mystery” to be adored, as an agreeable auxiliary, as a particularly intimate friend, or as the wholesome mother of his children, is entirely a matter for their private intercourse: whether he keep her in oriental idleness or active co-operation, or leave her to live her independent life, rests with the couple alone, and all the possible friendship and intimacies outside marriage also lie quite beyond the organisation of the modern state. religious teaching and literature may affect these; customs may arise; certain types of relationship may involve social isolation; the justice of the statesman is blind to such things. it may be urged that according to atkinson’s illuminating analysis [footnote: see lang and atkinson’s social origins and primal law.] the control of love-making was the very origin of the human community. in utopia, nevertheless, love-making is no concern of the state’s beyond the province that the protection of children covers. [footnote: it cannot be made too clear that though the control of morality is outside the law the state must maintain a general decorum, a systematic suppression of powerful and moving examples, and of incitations and temptations of the young and inexperienced, and to that extent it will, of course, in a sense, exercise a control over morals. but this will be only part of a wider law to safeguard the tender mind. for example, lying advertisements, and the like, when they lean towards adolescent interests, will encounter a specially disagreeable disposition in the law, over and above the treatment of their general dishonesty.] change of function is one of the ruling facts in life, the sac that was in our remotest ancestors a swimming bladder is now a lung, and the state which was once, perhaps, no more than the jealous and tyrannous will of the strongest male in the herd, the instrument of justice and equality. the state intervenes now only where there is want of harmony between individuals — individuals who exist or who may presently come into existence.