(discusses the question, to what extent one person may hold another to the pledge of love.)

once upon a time i knew an anarchist shoemaker, the same who had me sent to jail for playing tennis on sunday, as i have narrated in "the brass check." i remember arguing with him concerning his ideas of sex, which were of the freest. i can hear the very tones of his voice as he put the great unanswerable question: "what are you going to do about the problem of jealousy?" and i had no response at hand; for jealousy is truly a most cruel and devastating and unlovely emotion; and yet, how can you escape it, if you are going to preserve monogamy?

the anarchist shoemaker's solution was to break down all the prejudices against sexual promiscuity. free and unlimited license was every person's right, and for any other person to interfere was enslavement, for any other person to criticize was superstition. but the power of superstition is strong in the world, and the shoemaker found men resentful of his teachings, and disposed to confiscate the rights of their wives and daughters. hence the shoemaker's disapproval of jealousy.

other men, less purely physiological in their attitude to sex, have wrestled with this same problem of jealousy. h. g. wells has a novel, "in the days of the comet," in which he portrays two men, both nobly and truly in love with the same woman. one in a passion of jealousy is about to murder the other, when a great social transformation is magically brought about, and the would-be murderer wakes up to universal love, and the two men nobly and lovingly share the same woman. shelley also dreamed this dream, inviting two women to share him. i have known others who tried it, but never permanently. i do not say that it never has succeeded, or that it never can succeed. in this book i am renouncing the future—i am trying to give practical advice to people, for the conduct of their lives here and now, and my advice on this point is that polygamous and polyandrous experiments in modern capitalist society cost more than they are worth.

i once knew a certain high school teacher, who believed religiously in every kind of freedom. when she married, she and her husband, an artist, made a vow against jealousy; but as it worked out, this vow meant that the wife had a steady job and took care of the husband, while he loafed and loved other women. when finally she grew tired of it, he accused her of being jealous; also, she had brought it down to the matter of money! i know another woman, an anarchist, widely known as a lecturer on sex freedom. she laid down the general principle of unlimited personal freedom for all, and she tried to live up to her faith. she entered into a "free union" with a certain man, and when she discovered that he was making love to another woman, in the presence of a friend of mine she threw a vase of flowers at his head. you see, her general principles had clashed with another general principle, to the effect that a person who feels deep and strong love inevitably desires that love to endure, and cannot but suffer to see it preyed upon and destroyed.

let us first consider the question, just what are the true and proper implications of monogamous love? the roman catholic church advocates "monogamy," and understands thereby that a man and woman pledge themselves "till death do us part," and if either of them cancels this arrangement it is adultery and mortal sin. i hope that none of my readers understands by "monogamy" any such system of spiritual strangulation. my own idea is rather what some churchman has sarcastically described by the term "progressive polygamy." i believe that a man and woman should pledge their faith in love, and should keep that faith, and endeavor with all their best energies to make a success of it; they should strive each to understand the other's needs, and unselfishly to fulfill them, within the limits of fair play. but if, after such an effort has been truly made, it becomes clear that the union does not mean health and happiness for one of the parties, that party has a right to withdraw from it, and for any government or church or other power to deny that right is both folly and cruelty.

now, on the basis of this definition of monogamy—or, if you prefer, of progressive polygamy—we are in position to say what we think about jealousy. if two people pledge their faith, and one breaks it, and the other complains, we do not call that jealousy, but just common decency. neither do we call it jealousy if one expects the other to avoid the appearance of guilt; for love is a serious thing, not to be played with, and i think that a person who truly loves will do everything possible to make clear to the beloved that he is keeping and means to keep the plighted faith.

you may say that i am using words arbitrarily, in endeavoring thus to distinguish between justifiable and unjustifiable jealousy, and calling the former by some other name. it does not make much difference about words, provided i make clear my meaning. i could point out a whole string of words which have good meanings and bad meanings, and cannot be discussed without preliminary explanations and distinctions; religion, for example, and morality, and aristocracy, and justice, to name only a few. most people's thinking about marriage and love has been made like soup in a cheap restaurant, by dumping in all kinds of scraps and notions from such opposite poles of human thought as christian monkery and renaissance license, absurdly called "romance." so before you can do any thinking about a problem like jealousy, you have to agree to use the word to mean something definite, whether good or bad.

we shall take jealousy as a "bad" word, and use it to mean the setting up, by a man or woman, of some claim to the love of another person, which claim cannot be justified in the court of reason and fair play. this includes, in the first place, all claims based upon a courtship, not ratified by marriage. it is to the interest of society and the race that men and women should be free to investigate persons of the other sex, and to experiment with the affections before pledges of marriage are made. if sensible customs of love and just laws of marriage were made, there would be no excuse for a woman's giving herself to a man before marriage; she should be taught not to do it, and then if she does it, the risk is her own, and the disgusting perversion of venality and greed known as the "breach of promise suit" should be unknown in our law. the young should be taught that it is the other person's right to change his mind and withdraw at any time before marriage; whatever pains and pangs this may cause must be borne in silence.

the second kind of jealousy is that which seeks to keep in the marriage bond a person who is not happy in it and has asked to be released. the law sanctions this kind of cowardly selfishness, which manifests itself every day on the front pages of our newspapers—a spectacle of monstrous and loathsome passions unleashed and even glorified. husbands set the bloodhounds of the law after wives who have fled with some other man, and send the man to a cell, and drag the woman back to a loveless home. wives engage private detectives, and trail their husbands to some "love nest," and then ensue long public wrangles, with washing of filthy linen, and the matter is settled by a "separation." the virtuous wife, who may have driven the man away by neglect or vanity or stupidity, is granted a share of his earnings for the balance of her life; and two more people are added to the millions who are denied sexual happiness under the law, and are thereby impelled to live as law violators.

for this there is only one remedy conceivable. we have banned cannibalism and slavery and piracy and duelling, and we must ban one more ancient and cruel form of human oppression, the effort to hold people in the bonds of sex by any other power save that of love. i am aware that the reactionaries who read this book will take this sentence out of its context and quote it to prove that i am a "free lover." i shall be sorry to have that done, but even so, i was not willing to live in slavery myself, and i am not willing to advocate it for others. i am aware that there are degenerate and defective individuals, and that we have to make special provision for them, as i shall presently set forth; but the average, normal human being must be free to decide what is love for him, and what is happiness for him. every person in the world will have to deny himself the right to demand love where love is not freely given, and all lovers in the world will have to hold themselves ready to let the loved one go if and when the loved one demands it. i am aware that this is a hard saying, and a hard duty, but it is one that life lays upon us, and one that there is no escaping.