hence the easier to control, so long as the original relationship is basically satisfying and
the desire for others not too strong.
Several factors ensue from this “sexual dulling,” which make it extremely diffi-
cult to deal with. The dulling may occur in one partner and not the other. If the partner
whose interest has flagged enters another relationship, the still attached partner may
experience acute jealousy. Reich did not agree with some extreme radicals who dismissed
all jealousy as a sign of neurosis, but. he did distinguish between normal jealousy and
possessiveness. In the presence of the former, the painful feelings created by one’s part-
ner having an affair with another can be worked through and mastered.
Reich made a point of characterizing the “love relationship” in terms of its qual-
ity rather than its length. It might last for months, a few years, or many years; but the
qualities of sharing, tenderness, and development over time distinguished it from a more
purely sensual temporary relationship. It was not monogamous in the sense that there
might be experimental affairs, especially during periods of sexual dulling with the origi-
nal partner.
Reich stressed that this kind of solution to the problem of dulling the experi-
mental affair, the openness of the ultimate solution—required personality structures and
social conditions that applied only to a minuscule minority ofthe population. Social-eco-
nomic factors also militated against the kind of solutions he proposed. The economic
dependence prevalent for so long often made it difficult for a woman to leave a relation-
ship. Throughout his adult life, Reich adamantly opposed such economic dependence for
women. He strongly believed that women should have their own careers and manage
their own finances. In this way, the link between love and economic need could be bro-
ken: people could stay together because they chose to, not because they were forced to
do so. If they separated and there were children from the relationship, each should con-
tribute to child support.
During the late 1920s,Reich was as concerned with the economic dependence
of women as he was with a variety of other “patriarchal” attitudes. In particular, he
inveighed against the sexual double standard that permitted male youth to sow wild oats
yet punished “bad girls” who did the same; against the notion that women were “natu-
rally”passive sexually; against “machismo” attitudes that regarded male infidelity as
something the woman should tolerate but female infidelity a terrible blow to the man’s
pride; and against education for the supremacy of man which makes fully mutual mental
companionship with the woman impossible^25.
Reich also called attention to the way in which traditional marriage, while pro-
viding support and protection for women and children, also exploited the woman. She
was not only the sexual object of the man but her unpaid work in the household indi-
rectly increased the profit of the employer. The man could work at low wages because
women did work in the home without pay. If the wife was also employed, she had to
work overtime, without pay, to keep her home in order.
Reich’s position on the raising of children varied. In the late 1920s and early
138 Myron SharafFury On Earth