illegitimate child do it a wrong. Further, even though law and custom
should alter, it would still be true that a child without both its own
parents is seriously handicapped in life. Which leads on to my next
point; for, secondly, if two lovers really love, they want to give
their whole selves to one another, including their whole futures. No
man truly and loyally loves a woman who wants to keep open a loophole
of escape from her. It would be well if women would always apply this
test to the passionate protestations of men. Real love is love
without reserve. True sexual intimacy in itself means taking each other
for better or for worse, and when lovers unite themselves though still
unwilling for such permanent unions, their love is not perfect. They
are not really united by love. They are letting mere present desire
carry them away. I hear of many men, and even of some women, who ask
why they should not have many lovers if they have many friends. The
answer is that no man gives his whole self to a friend, but that love,
when it is real, does mean the giving of your whole self. And that,
plainly, a man can only do to one woman and a woman to one man.

It is generally in defense of temporary unions that people question the
necessity for marriage vows. But temporary unions cannot be ended
happily. If they were entered on without love, they are gross things,
as I have already said; and if they were the creation of real love,
there is no happy way out of them. The two have been too close to one
another to part without tearing apart--leaving ragged and it may be
bleeding edges on their personalities. Then again, as I have tried to
show already, love is only made perfect when it is allowed to issue in
responsibilities and labors. Divorced from them it is a selfish thing.
There is a wild and lawless element in passion, which is part of its
glory. But that glory is only sweetened and justified for those who let
their passion carry them through the whole career of experience to