Counseling, Therapy & Life Coaching
@ Sacred Practice

During the periods of World War I and World War II, a revolution occurred in the relationship between men and women. Women learned that they could do almost anything men could do-as well as, and in many instances better. It was realized that women live longer, are healthier, have a higher threshold of pain than men, and can successfully compete with men scholastically.

This realization offered to women a new spectrum of satisfactions and opportunities, based in large measure on an improved self-image, which had long been denied them. For them it indicated the end of the primarily male-dominated and male-structured society. The modem woman in the first half of the twentieth century desired equality in every way, beginning with sex and the vote.

At about the same time, contraceptive devices were perfected.

Now woman could be man’s equal not only in society, in business, and in scholarship, but also in sexual convenience; the sex act could be enjoyed by both without the woman’s having to fear an unwanted pregnancy.

In past centuries in Western society, it has been considered important for a bride to be a virgin, whereas this condition seldom was required of the male, or even considered desirable. Today, though people may pay lip service to the idea of the virgin bride, in practice it is not generally considered important. Evidence from Kinsey and other authorities indicates that during the past thirty years women have practiced premarital sexual relations at an increasing rate.

Probably promiscuity has always been common in certain lower socio-economic groups, but in the upper middle class it was considered relatively rare until twenty years ago; at least it was not as obvious. The desire for extramarital intercourse has been increased by the advent of mass-communication media, particularly television and advertising. These have tended to make sex both in and out of marriage-appear to be the most important thing in the lives of most Americans. The effect of the growing sex emphasis is shown, for example, in the fact that in the year 1962 in California 57,000 babies were born to "child mothers" twelve to eighteen years old.

Thousands of high-school students are being married annually.

In California, one third of these are in the ninth and tenth grades. A great many of these couples marry not because they wish to, but because the girl is pregnant. The frequency of premarital intercourse among these California high-school students has considerable Significance because it indicates a corresponding trend among adults-a trend less clearly reflected in statistics concerning adult women, despite their greater opportunities for sexual activity, because they have easy access to contraceptives and sexual information usually unavailable to their teen-age counterparts.

Two forces remain to be considered in this survey of the history of marriage. The first is religion: When the Holy Roman Empire was at its peak, the Church exerted control over all facets of human life in Western Europe by means of canonical law. The most stringent canonical laws concerned marriage. For many ages marriage laws and customs had been civil, but then the Church moved in and took control. The first step was to make marriage a Holy Sacrament, for in the New Testament there is no proviso for this.

The hold of the Church for many centuries was so complete throughout Western Europe that almost everyone believed and accepted anything (religious or nonreligious) which came from Rome. One breach occurred in the sixteenth century with the discoveries of Copernicus. His declaration that the planets, including the earth, revolve about the sun, that the earth is not the center of the universe, as the Church maintained, was heard throughout Europe. More and more, men of learning doubted some of the edicts which came from Rome. Also, with the emergence of the Protestant Churches, Roman Catholic control over many aspects of life was reduced. It became possible for the elite to divorce without having the Pope’s permission.

The growing disbelief in the Church’s infallibility also resulted in time in the rejection of the Church’s definition of male and female characteristics, including the evil nature of woman and the natural superiority of man.

Another force which influences marriage is economics. Until the nineteenth century, the European family was a unit of economic survival. Most people lived on the land or maintained family industries. The larger the family, the more hands there were to work at home. This arrangement may have been hard on the wife, but no one seemed to care about that in the male dominated society.

Countless are the problems which we have to meet in living together. Our whole lifetime is given over to overcoming obstacles. Marriage is of definite advantage, for it brings together two people for mutual help in the struggle for existence. But though marriage helps us to meet the tasks of life-it is also a task which must be met. In matrimony we encounter not only the general problems of life, but the special problems arising in marriage. We may consider problems as a test of our capacity to solve them. Our marital problems are a test of our ability to live closely together with another human being.

These considerations suggest that every problem is related to various levels of our personality and our life. It is on the superficial level that the actual content of a problem appears first. We are aware of uneasiness. This subjective feeling of calamity seems to be caused entirely by a definite concrete situation. Economic, social, professional, or sexual conflicts seem to demand special efforts. If these efforts do not resolve the problem, disappointment and discontent follow. Formerly assistance and advice were limited to specific regulations which had to be observed in order to maintain cooperation and harmony in life or marriage. The suggestions offered were technical, recommending specific procedures to be followed to meet specific evident circumstances. Written laws directed personal conduct.

The modern psychologist seeks behind any concrete problem a structure totally different from the evident problem itself, which can be regarded as merely a symptom. Each problem is related to the entirety of a given life situation, which is established by all forces converging on us from the outside and meeting our personal attitude deriving from our past-our style of life, our training, our preparation.

Any constructive discussion of the problems causing discontent and friction must disclose psychological errors which have provoked the problems or are hindering their satisfactory solution. Although it seems to us that our encounter with life results in real and concrete clashes which hurt, insult, and sometimes even kill, in reality the conflict is only within ourselves. The question, whether reality exists at all, or only in our conception of it, remained a mere philosophical issue-and a very confused and confusing one-until physicists revealed the "spiritual nature" of matter, discovering that any concrete substance, tangible as it is, consists entirely of abstract and utterly immaterial waves. The chair on which one sits is real, it consists of wood or metal. One might expect to find the same material no matter how far one analyzes the constituents of the chair, but that is wrong. If one goes far enough, one finds particles which consist only of electrons, neutrons, and other smallest bodies which, however, are actually only waves without what we generally consider substance. The speed and number of waves alone determine the material, wood or metal, the consistency, whether solid, liquid, or gaseous, and the color . We are living in an entirely different world when we look behind the surface of the "real thing." Great is the similarity between the conception and approach of modern physical science and psychology.’ The analysis of concrete problems discloses a similar fundamental difference between the appearance of a problem and the forces constituting it. Each problem is the expression of personal and social forces beneath the surface. Solution of conflicts demands an understanding of the underlying facts, of conditions and personalities involved.

The following example is characteristic of thousands of episodes and conflicts found in the history of almost every marriage. They could have been avoided or easily solved had both spouses understood the underlying motives and goals of each other, had they refrained from resenting and accusing each other and looked instead for their own chances to change the situation.

Mrs. M. came for advice in a matter that seemed to her thoroughly trivial and yet was threatening her whole marriage. Married about one year, she got along very well with her husband. Sexually and socially they had fun together and were devoted companions–except for one disagreement which lately had taken on such proportions that the harmony between them was gone, affecting almost every phase of their marital life.

She reported that despite all her efforts she was unable to make Mr. M. give her her weekly allowance for food and other housekeeping expenses on time. She had to ask for the money each week, several times; and, if she did not ask, he "forgot’" altogether to give her money until the week was over. She talked to him, pleaded with him, and threatened him-nothing helped. The more they quarreled, the less he obliged. What could she do? Now he had started to accuse her of spending too much; she should have saved something from last week. "From my fifteen dollars a week-when I try so hard to make ends meet since he simply refuses to give me more." She could not understand why he was so miserly in this regard, since he spent rather generously on her otherwise.

What could she do to avoid the fighting, quarreling and invariable final submission to the humiliating experience? We can well understand her predicament. It was impossible for her to plan her budget and even her meals. She had to borrow and to make debts, both of which she hated. What could she have done instead of talking, pleading-and threatening?

Here we reach the crucial point. Despite the fact that the majority of housewives probably would have acted as Mrs. M. did, they all miss the boat. A little understanding of the little guy who wants to play the big boss would have saved many sleepless nights, tortuous scenes, wasted hours, days, and weeks. It is obvious that the "unreasonable" behavior of Mr. M. appears only unreasonable when looked upon at the logical level. He certainly had neither the "right" nor any logical reason to behave as he did. But the situation looks different when regarded from the psychological point of view. He loved his wife dearly, was devoted to her to such a degree that she could wind him around her little finger. And she did so, except in this one field of action. The only point where he could exert his superiority was in his role as provider. And-without being aware of it-he wanted to make full use of this one advantage. He wanted to be asked, to be begged. If he had given her her allowance at the beginning of the week, without any ado, then even this sign of his authority would have been taken away from him. Instead of power he would have accepted just another duty. He could not explain that to her, because he was not aware of his psychological motivation. Therefore, when she accused him, he had to come back with rationalizations, with flimsy retaliations and unfounded reproaches, which made Mrs. M. only more furious. And so they became deadlocked in a battle which could result only in the break-up of their marriage.

Once Mrs. M. realized the situation, overcame her hurt pride and resentment, she found easily what she could do to solve the problem. First, she no longer resented asking him for what she knew was due her. She wanted him to be happy -and if that was what made him happy, why not give it to him. It was so easy, once her false pride was gone. Still, there remained some difficulty. She had to ask him several times for the money, of course, as he did not give it to her immediately. That sometimes involved hardships as bills had to be paid. What to do? But Mrs. M., clever as she was, found a simple answer. She discovered that she could as easily get from him a hundred dollars as fifteen dollars if she asked for it several times. He actually was very generous. So on several occasions she got a hundred dollars, which gave her a reserve to fall back on if he did not provide the weekly allowance on time. And reproaches and scenes were never necessary.

What she had learned from this experience went deeper than the successful handling of the allowance problem. She discovered that their real danger lay in their mutual competition, that he was afraid of being just a "sucker," that his love and devotion would make him her slave, and that she wanted, more than necessary, her queenly position, ambitious and pampered as she was. In the limelight of the one conflict, she learned to understand the deeper conflict endangering their entire relationship-and she found the way of solving the whole problem.

We can change our whole life and the attitude of people around us simply by changing ourselves. But we must be emphatic; such a statement is not theoretical, it has very practical implications. Change is not easy. Improvement is possible only when the necessity to start with oneself is recognized-and admitted. Too many persons try to educate and change the partner. How many even enter marriage with the idea of changing the other one! In living together we do influence and change each other but not by insisting upon a change of the partner. Only by our own behavior can we influence those with whom we live.

Whatever happens in a marital relationship expresses the interaction of both spouses. Instead of the general demand, "If only he would change, I’d be glad to act differently," we should recognize the truth that "If I change my behavior, he cannot continue his." Even the slightest changes in attitude of one are immediately reflected in the behavior of the other. Without realizing it, we possess uncanny sensibility and remarkable powers of coordination. Unfortunately, we know much better how to fight and how to hurt than how to please. Therefore, we are more efficient and successful in warfare and fighting. It generally takes more time and effort to provoke pleasant reactions, especially when warfare has already begun. In the marriage relationship, a certain amount of fight, of competition, of hostility and distrust, exists often from the beginning; and it takes deliberate effort to establish an atmosphere of genuine trust and kindness.

Not that most people are bad or malicious. All possibilities for good or bad exist in almost every human being. Husband and wife have the power of arousing the good or bad in each other. But what do they know of each other? They live together in one room, they eat at the same table, they share the same bed, their whole life is intimately fused by mutual activity-yet how little they understand one another! Each knows the other’s habits (mostly annoying), peculiarities, preferences, and irritabilities. What has all this to do with the deeper personality, with expectations and fears, with conceptions of life and of one’s self, with all that which makes people act and behave in a definite way? Husband and wife recognize symptoms, but not the forces behind them. And if they are disappointed, they wish to eliminate the symptoms without being willing to gratify the needs in each other.

Curiously enough, too often after two individuals have separated, they understand each other better than before. Friction, mutual fear, the fight for prestige, had blinded them. In blaming each other, they sought to excuse their own maladjustments. Ignoring or riding roughshod over the partner’s fundamental needs made it easier to continue fighting for one’s own ends. What each says about the other is generally right, although statements seem to contradict each other. But it is not important who is right and who is wrong. Each is right from his own point of view, and wrong from the other’s. The point is that if we love someone, we do not ask if he is right or wrong. That is why love is called blind. But love is not necessarily blind. Love says, "I love you, although you are not perfect. I love you and accept you as you are." But later, when our self-esteem and prestige are threatened, we do not take each other as we are. In fighting for our own superiority we find faults in our partner and use them as good reasons for stopping our own cooperation. For happiness, the question of rightness and wrongness is unimportant. But to accept the other’s faults and virtues-that is important.

We must start at this point when discord and disappointment threaten the very existence of a marriage–or, in minor degrees, just make it less comfortable and satisfactory. The first step, the first condition for any improvement, means accepting the situation, however unpleasant, as it is; it is futile to wish it were different. To face the problem squarely and courageously is the prerequisite for finding the ways and means out of a predicament. It is not always easy, as we are timid. But running away never pays; no problem is solved in that way. When we have decided to face the issue, when we muster our courage and try to think in terms of ‘What can I do to improve the situation?" -then we are on the right track. Having abandoned the illusion that we may succeed by fighting and forcing the issue, having overcome our feeling of inadequacy, having admitted that the other one suffers too, we discover solutions. Perhaps slowly, perhaps inadequately at first, but with growing courage as our insight increases and our growing self-confidence makes us less vulnerable and more effective.

We must recognize that human sex can be used for various purposes. First, it serves as a basis for procreation. Lust is the inducement of nature to lure every being into the service of maintaining and preserving the species. Religious and state laws regard this as the only permissible purpose of sex, any sexual activity outside of wedlock and any artificial prevention and interruption of pregnancy being prohibited or frowned on.

Second, sex can be used as a tool for personal gratification, mainly as a vehicle of pleasure. As man learned to escape nature’s compulsion, he made sex independent of the process of procreation. Today, the two functions, namely fertilization and sex experience as pleasure, are for most people completely unrelated, the percentage of sexual acts which lead to pregnancy being rather small. But pleasure implies many sensations, some of which have completely different and sometimes contradictory meanings and significance. Pleasure can imply superficial and rather incidental gratification or deep emotions which involve the whole personality. The kind of gratification sought determines the role sex plays in the lives of different persons. There are those who consider pleasure of any kind as the only reason for living; to such persons, sex is merely an inexhaustible source-perhaps the only source-of enjoyment. Their hedonism or "pleasure hunger" as Wexberg calls it, makes them grasp any opportunity for pleasure, with little or no regard to the price or consequences. Hedonists are usually disappointed and cynical people and, therefore, shortsighted in regard to life as a whole. They do not believe in their own future and happiness and, therefore, do not care what will happen later. For them, pleasure has to compensate for their feeling of being a failure. In the same category belong those who use sex for the purpose of gaining power, prestige, social status, or personal superiority.

Sex, however, can have a third function, that of unification. It is a tool which can unite two persons more closely than anything else. Through sex two may become one, physically and spiritually. This unifying function of sex also provides pleasure, of course. But it is a fundamentally different pleasure from the previously described pleasure. Its gratification is deeper and lasting. It implies giving oneself, while hedonism implies mainly taking advantage of another. While hedonistic excitement seeks variation and depends upon the spur of the moment, the desire for unification looks for stability and future happiness.

The subjective feeling of love may employ all three types of sexual functions. The first and the third, however, involve a long-range program, while the second, the tendency to seek mere gratification, is likely to neglect human and social values.

It seems that in our time sex has lost to a great extent its first, primary function, but people have not yet found the third, the fulfillment of unification. The concept of sex as being useful only for pleasure is prevalent and deprives people of deeper gratification, of lasting love, faithfulness, and devotion.

In marriage striving for being gratified is unfortunately very common, and is the source of much friction and disappointment. Few recognize the sexual satisfaction which lies in satisfying. Not that they do not intend to satisfy, but they do not live in each other-only in themselves. What matters is their own feeling, their own ability, their own being hurt or rejected. They do not get away from themselves. Gratifying love means experiencing and feeling the other lover, unreservedly, unconditionally. As soon as one experiences a feeling of demand, the mind withdraws from the other and centers around one’s self.

The same is true if the feeling of obligation or of threat to one’s prestige develops. Although one seems to be interested in fulfilling his duty, this feeling of obligation-this interest in whether one will be capable or not-is incompatible with fully sensing the partner. Any interest beside mutual enjoyment and gratification distracts and kills the emotion. Impotence and frigidity are the consequences of emotional withdrawal. They are neurotic mechanisms and conceal the true intentions, as any neurotic symptoms do. While one seems consciously concerned with gratifying and gratification, one is actually more interested in one’s own prestige or failure and other problems of defense. It is resentment toward their feminine role that makes many women hesitant to play their feminine part in the communion, and this resentment creates frigidity. Often women are not even aware that they are frigid, for they love their husbands and even feel sexually stimulated. But they lack the final emotional climax which indicates complete surrender. Others vainly expect certain stimulation because they don’t realize that they themselves hinder the development of their emotions to full capacity. Masculine impotency is similar. Impotence means either a desire to keep aloof, to keep distance, or it reflects a profound doubt of being a «real man." Lack of sexual stimulation or insufficient depth of emotion always mean withholding and desire for distance, often originated by marital discontent and disagreement in other spheres of life.

It is necessary to consider the physiological difference between masculine and feminine rhythm of sexual sensations, which has been discussed so much recently. What is generally overlooked is the fact that men and women must under any circumstances adjust themselves to each other, because no two persons have the same training. The danger in the sexual relationship is the tendency to make demands upon each other. He or she should act and respond differently, slowly or more quickly, gently or violently, adding or omitting certain actions. Unquestionably we educate each other, but never by demanding. A demand only irritates and creates discord and opposition.

If mutual gratification is not obtained automatically, one must start the process of adjustment by oneself. Women are more easily disappointed than men. It is a question whether their retarded reaction is of physiological origin or an expression of their general hesitant attitude toward sexual fulfillment, apparently demanded by social convention. This training of passivity makes women more inclined to demand and to be disappointed, expecting solutions from their partner. Then a vicious circle leads to resentment and profound disturbance of the sexual relationship.

Actually, men and women are more alike than materialistic physiologists are ready to believe. Two individuals united in wholehearted mutual acceptance have the remarkable ability to assimilate. Then, whatever occurs in one is shared by the other. It remains one of the human miracles how human beings are capable of transmitting feelings and even thoughts to each other through the barrier of their own confining bodies. As long as they do not interfere, with their fears and apprehensions, as long as they remain receptive in full relaxation, every emotional impulse of either one affects both alike. Under such conditions, any excitement and gratification occurs simultaneously, regardless of the act or its tempo. The extent of mutual adjustment is practically unlimited. It all depends on unqualified willingness to accept each other, without demand and resentment, without complaint and discomfort. Everything is right so long as both like it. If one-sided, sexual satisfaction is always a misuse of the partner, not much different from rape." Love is a mutual task; sex a mutual understanding.

Why are males and females different in their communication styles. Some reasons are obvious. Others are less apparent. To date, there is great controversy concerning these differences. Are they biological, environmental, or a combination of both? Are we different because of the way we are raised or because of our biology, neurochemistry, or hormones?

For centuries biologists, neurologists, anthropologists, sociologists, and psychologists have searched for one definitive answer. The only consensus is that a combination of all these variables contributes to differences between the sexes.

Several researchers have discovered that hormones are responsible for "masculinizing" or "feminizing" the developing brain in utero, which allows little boys and little girls to experience the world differently as they mature.

This may be why men and women do not handle such behaviors as stress or aggression in the same way. For instance, men may become more physically agitated than women during stressful situations because of an increase in their testosterone level.

Women, on the other hand, become more emotional and have more memory loss when there is a lack of the female hormone estrogen. According to Beverly Hills gynecologist and reproductive endocrinologist Dr. Gil Mileikowsky, an increase in estrogen leads to more water retention which thereby causes the irritability familiar in Premenstrual Syndrome (PMS).

Other aspects of behavior are not hormone related. A woman’s ability to nurture, for instance, has not been connected scientifically to estrogen levels. Studies show that "nurturing" behavior is mostly a learned phenomenon. After all, adoptive mothers do not have biological hormonal elevations as they haven’t physically birthed the child. Yet, they usually do a superb job nurturing their infants. Researcher Harry Harlow’s experiments with female monkeys at the University of Wisconsin also confirm that "nurturing" is a learned behavior instead of a hormonally influenced one. He found that those female monkeys raised in isolation were not very effective at nurturing their young, despite their increased hormonal component.

In essence, hormonal influences do seem to have some influence on the behavior of the different sexes, but it is not this influence alone which can affect male and female behavioral patterns.

One out of every two marriages ends in divorce.

Several studies have shown that the divorce rate in this country is high because people seem more willing to leave a relationship than to get to the root of the problem through "honest and open" communication. One of today’s biggest fears is the fear of intimate communication.

Extramarital affairs among married men and married women are at a peak.

Oftentimes couples will not leave a marriage but instead have extramarital affairs. As studies have shown, it is not the "sex-act" that couples are longing for, but rather the closeness of someone who will "listen" to them, who will understand them, and who will "talk" to them. If couples would learn how to better communicate with one another by using what I call the Sex Talk Rules-the do’s and don’ts of how to communicate with the opposite sex-there would be virtually no need to look for someone else.

Sexual dysfunction in on a dramatic rise.

The rate of sexual dysfunction for both men and women has increased dramatically over the last five years. Psychologists feel that poor communication skills are to blame for this.

Understanding and incorporating Sex Talk can enhance intimacy between couples.

Most marriage and sex counselors believe that the major cause of impotence in males and frigidity in women results from not knowing how to communicate desires openly and honestly. Oftentimes both words and tone of voice alienate people, causing emptiness, and sometimes hostility. By learning how to utilize talk sex, couples can sidestep or eliminate these problems.

The fact that many men and women continue to communicate in sexual stereotypes perpetuates these problems in our society today.

The way in which both men and women have been raised, conditioned, and socialized has created genuine and sometimes even insurmountable communication problems for both sexes. We take for granted that the opposite sex understands us, yet it has been clearly proven that men and women do not communicate in similar ways.

Psychiatrists, psychologists, and marriage counselors have recognized for some time that often the process of marital separation is relatively smooth, with due consideration shown by the spouses for the children and for each other, until attorneys enter the picture and the man and woman are forced to squabble over money. One of our acquaintances who were arranging to get a divorce attempted to be extremely fair to his wife and children, and was thoroughly rebuked by his attorney for being too generous. He had only recovered from this lecture when his wife’s attorney called to ask how he could be such a cold-hearted skinflint. In this case, the behavior of both attorneys was so untoward that the spouses finally came together to discuss their problems in person, and worked out their own settlement. Then they looked hard and long for a single attorney to represent them both.

In war, we encourage the bravery which leads men to get themselves killed, for example, by superb performance in the face of enemy fire, and then we go to fantastic lengths to save the lives of those who are wounded. This behavior is not paradoxical; we are saying, ‘We want you to be brave, and you may thereby die; but if you are brave and live, we will see that you receive all the rewards we can offer."

Marriage too, is encouraged by the culture, but there have been little compensation for the wounded; they are just told that they shouldn’t have been hurt in the first place and it’s their own fault if they were. Even the "cooling-off" period provided by the interlocutory decree is of little use; by the time it is obtained, the preceding legal maneuverings have so stirred up the roaring fires that it is often too late for cooling off.

The Australian system seems far more realistic. In Australia, divorce is not permitted until a marriage has been in existence at least three years (annulments may be granted sooner under certain unusual circumstances). Thus people are not able to rush in and out of marriage. Before a divorce is granted, conciliation is attempted and every resource which might help save the marriage is utilized. But if a divorce is obtained, it becomes effective immediately. Our system reminds one of capital punishment; we cling to it despite years of testimony that punishment does not serve as a deterrent.

When a divorce is necessary, the separation should be amicable.

This is particularly important if there are children, since they become cross monitors; that is, all unawares, they transmit messages from one parent to the other-is-often hateful messages.

The traditional practice among psychiatrists and marriage therapists has been neither to recommend divorce nor to stand in the way of a couple wishing a divorce. This canniness is desirable. There are so many complicated factors in any marital breakup that it is difficult to see the situation as a coherent whole. Often it is only after a person has been divorced that he can look at the marriage and decide realistically whether he is better or worse off than he was before it was dissolved. If a third person enters the picture, he is apt to be blamed for causing the divorce, even if, in fact, the couple had wished it but lacked the guts to go through with it until they were on the brink and called in the third party to act as a go-between.

In our opinion, there is one fact that stands out in most family breakdowns. The best reason for divorce is that the man and wife cannot function together without serious damage to one or both, physically or emotionally.

Individuals in need of help may come to family arbitration center for informal discussion of their problems. If reconciliation methods fail and it is found advisable to terminate the marriage, divorce, annulment or separate maintenance will be granted by the three members of the Family Arbitration Board in an equitable and just manner. The rulings would have the same force and effect as a court of law.

The sponsors of the bill feel that obtaining divorces will not be "easier" under their proposed setup, and no increase in the divorce rate is anticipated. They claim instead that a complete and thorough investigation will be required, and divorces will be granted only when it is determined that the marriage should not continue. Counseling prior to the initiation of divorce proceedings should, by all accounts, act as a deterrent to the irresponsible or impetuous divorce begun in an escalating breakdown of communication. The sponsors feel that the program will be geared to prevent family breakups, and that there will be savings in welfare costs, juvenile-crime costs, legal fees, and other related costs. Operating revenue will be obtained from fees charged by the department.

It is likely that the proposed bill will stimulate great opposition. It is also apparent that many of the bill’s proponents are males who have been burned by the financial inequities of the present legal system. Nevertheless, it is a healthy and important sign that people are looking critically at the divorce situation. Under a brilliant and facile attorney, Robert Furlong, the judicial committee of the state assembly in California recently held hearings on divorce procedures and accumulated a great deal of evidence about current methods, trends, and inequities.

There is little doubt that the present system in most states strongly favors the woman as far as financial matters are concerned. Consequently, a man may enter marriage already on the defensive, since no one gets married without at least thinking about the possibility of divorce. The legal situation thus encourages the battle of the sexes. The popular idea that making divorce financially punitive for the man will reduce its frequency is an ill-conceived notion, to say the least, and belongs in the same destructive social category as capital punishment. ‘"