After the heat of battle, Reich was better placed emotionally to qualify his views and to
take into account some of the criticisms of his opponents. Thus, after 1935 or so, Reich
stressed once again that adults could be destructively provocative as well as suppressive
in dealing with children.
Persons critical of permissive attitudes toward the sexual life of children and
adolescents often charged that such attitudes would undermine marriage and the family.
The reaction of many liberal sex reformers was to attempt to reassure these critics. Even
today, the American organization SIECUS (Sex Information and Educational Council of
the United States) argues that sexual enlightenment will improve marriage. Dr. Mary
Calderone, the leading spokesperson for the organization, makes a point of not advocat-
ing premarital intercourse^22.
Reich, of course, was scornful of such evasion. He agreed in part with his con-
servative critics; the affirmation of childhood and adolescent sexuality would indeed
undermine the institution of marriage in the sense of the traditional concept of marriage
or what he termed “life-long, compulsive monogamy.”^23 Conversely, the denial of sex-
uality in childhood and adolescence prepared the way for this kind of marriage precisely
because it helped to flatten the emotional vitality of people, thereby making them more
resigned to a dull relationship. At the same time, Reich emphasized—as his critics did
not—that such an upbringing also destroyed marriage, robbing it of its joys and con-
tributing to myriad marital problems.
What did Reich foresee as replacing the institution of “life-long, compulsive
monogamy”? He disagreed with many conservative critics of sex reform who claimed
that promiscuity in adulthood resulted from the relaxation of “proper” sexual standards
in childhood and adolescence. In his view, traditional marriage would be replaced by
something like what in fact seems to be happening today—serial monogamy. Reich
termed this kind of marriage “the lasting love relationship,” and saw the capacity for it
as the hallmark ofthe healthy adult^24 .The “lasting love relationship” also had a strong
component oftenderness, based in part on gratitude for sexual pleasure in the past and
anticipation ofpleasure in the future.Reich sharply distinguished this kind of tenderness
from the sticky, clinging affection often shown between spouses in compulsive
monogamy. In the latter instance, frequent “honeys” or “dears” cannot conceal an under-
lying sense offrustration and rage.
Why did the ties that make the healthy love relationship lasting not also make it
permanent and exclusive? For several reasons: first, the interests of the two partners
might diverge over time. The couple who entered a relationship in their twenties might
be quite different people in their thirties. More importantly, Reich coined the term “sex-
ual dulling”to describe what happened over time between even the most passionate cou-
ple.He viewed “sexual dulling” as the inevitable result of close physical proximity to one
partner, and the simultaneous exposure to new sexual stimuli emanating from others.
When the relationship between two people is at its height, the desire for others has little
effect.The healthier the individual, the more conscious is the attraction to others and
11 : The Application of Sex-economic Concepts on the Social Scene The Sex-pol: 1927-1930 137