Some thoughts on the traditional context of romance, marriage, and sexuality (Part Four)
By Mark Wegierski
web posted December 15, 2025
In terms of the relations between men and women in marriage there are number of things which should be taken into consideration. First of all, there is in nearly every marriage a kind of constant interplay between the man and the woman. However, it so much better if it is viewed as a game of love rather than of power. Indeed, the feminist deconstruction of marriage tends to have horrible marital consequences. Secondly, it is undoubtedly true that the arrival of children in the marriage may often turn into a crisis for the romantic engagement of the couple. However, in nearly all cases, the crisis can be successfully worked through, and an intensification of the romantic engagement should usually happen. Thirdly, it is usually the case that, if a husband sincerely loves his wife, virtually anything the wife strongly enough wants to happen, will in the end happen. Fourthly, as Camille Paglia has pointed out, capable women often have an arrangement where they give their husband the illusion that he is in charge, by deferring to him on some issues the wife considers trivial, while mostly doing whatever she wants in those areas that the wife thinks truly important. This arrangement, however, is entirely different from that of today's craven "Mr. Mom" – as the former has probably been going on for thousands of years.
The recognition that the woman really usually holds all the cards in marriage is one of the sociological reasons for the persistence in law (until comparatively recent times), of the provision (seen with such horror today) that a wife could not normally be allowed to charge her husband with rape. In a social environment where men were certainly far, far more self-restrained and socially well-conditioned than today, the risks of the careless deployment of such a charge were seen as too potentially socially-disruptive. It was seen that, setting aside what could be called his polygamistic inclinations, a man would undertake a vast struggle and sacrifice to obtain that one desired woman. So, society was patently unwilling to introduce potentially troubling ambiguities into the institution of marriage.
The putative defense of "familialism" today should probably focus on three main issues – which are interwoven below.
First of all, there is the opposition to neopuritanism, to quasi-arranged marriages, to excessive practicality in male-female sexual relations. Although the Catholic Church has now semi-officially recognized the importance of female pleasure in marriage (in the writings of John Paul II), the various outlooks being discussed in this article are not necessarily tied to Christianity or any other traditional religion.
Secondly, there is the opposition to the general feminist deconstruction of male-female sexual relations, and especially the deconstruction of marriage. One must dare to make some especially pointed criticisms of the radical feminist agenda.
Thirdly, there is an opposition to generalized sexual decadence and debauchery. The one man-one woman, basically monogamous ideal need not at all be necessarily tied to received religion.
Let it be said at the beginning, that the thought of marriage as a strictly "practical arrangement" is repellent to a romantically-minded person. If one does not feel any passion, there is probably no love either, and without love, how can any marriage begin? (Later on, undoubtedly, habituation becomes the main factor holding the two persons together, but that's five, ten, twenty years on.)
One might note here the possible opposition between romance and marriage -- at one extreme, the notion that "romance and marriage don't mix", and at the other, that old cliché, "love and marriage go together like a horse-and-carriage". Many traditional societies sometimes have, in effect, different women fulfilling the roles of mistress and wife for one man. Some cynics might argue that romantic love comes to an end several months or maybe years after marriage. It is a pointed question whether the idea of "the beloved" (to use the poet's language), or of a wife, sounds more intriguing. One of the major issues of medieval "courtly love" was in fact whether the consummation of the love was a good or necessary thing. The beloved was usually (if not preferably) a woman already married to someone else. Is there not a general feeling that romance is "fun", while marriage is "boring"? It should be noted however, that romance in the high Romantic sense does not mean unrestricted copulation, a point often forgotten. The "common-sense" traditional view is as follows: marriage as a "practical arrangement", romance mostly superfluous, the woman's main role is as the children's mother. The Romantic view is as follows: marriage only for love, romance is the point of the relationship, the woman's main role is as the man's lover. Although the two outlooks are somewhat reconcilable, it is also possible to see a very clear tension between the first view and the second. Perhaps true, genuine romance exists only for those rarefied men and women who are capable of experiencing it. Is "romance" a nice word for an agenda of unlimited sex? Although some might see it that way, romance has its own strict rules, conventions, and disciplines, e.g., possessiveness, total commitment to the other person, etc. -- which are sometimes not easy to follow, and in fact, can probably be fully achieved only by a comparatively small number of persons. Possessiveness is a critical aspect of romance -- i.e., I want that person, to the exclusion of all others (hence a link to marriage).
Marriage, it might be argued, is in its primeval essence the ritual of a woman's symbolic submission to a man, in exchange for protection from other males, and his commitment to long-term help in raising their children. The feeling of romance which typically leads to marriage must be linked to love and the desire for the abolition of the narrow self. Kissing, for example, expresses a desire to "encompass" the other person, "where two become one". Deep kissing is arguably more intimate in some ways than sexual intercourse. Today, of course, terms such as "love" and "romance" have been greatly devalued, meaning just "sex" in whatever shape or form -- the term "sex" functioning as a great devaluer. Some have made the point about the impact of a single technology, the birth control pill (whose importance is attested to by the fact that some simply term it "the Pill"), and of other methods of birth control that arose at about the same time. In the past, most acts of sexual intercourse could end in pregnancy. Hence, human sexuality was almost automatically more traditional. Another single technology, antibiotics, made most venereal diseases curable -- and hence reduced the need for self-limitation. (Although AIDS is said to have made many persons more sexually cautious, there are also simple preventative measures available.) As seen from the vantage point of traditional societies, the valuing of chastity is arguably an evolutionary survival mechanism. One could indeed make the argument for "fecund chasteness" or "fecund virtue" vs. "sterile promiscuity". For example, the pop-star Madonna, renowned for her engorged sexuality, only carried her first child to term past her mid-30s, as a result of a very casual relationship with a "stud-male", whom she had no intention of marrying or staying with for any great length of time. Her second child, however, did domesticate her a bit, as she has consented to enter a longer-term relationship with a man.
To be continued. 
Mark Wegierski is a Canadian writer and historical researcher.
