By 357777_wd8vx3 
But in this case, -and this is the chief factor I want to say -it is important that men should understand and admit both outside and in marriage that the capability of being in love, and that psychological upheaval which takes place at the time, -is destined not for amusement, not for pleasure, not for creative creation (many assume so), not for the increase of power in God’s service, -as N- thinks; -but only for bodily conjugal union with one husband or one spouse for the production of children and mutual deliverance from lust. Marriage, of course is nice and essential for the continuation of the species, but when for the continuation of the species, then it is important that the dad and mom ought to feel that they’ve the strength to convey up the children, not as mother and father, but match to serve men and God. All this you recognize and have expressed, but I only wish to add one comment to what I wrote you in my final letter, about my agreeing with N- that the union between woman and man is sweet when it has for its object their united service of God and man; -not that conjugal physical union provides powers to this service, but that for certain individuals possessed by the restless inclination to fall in love it removes this unrest, which hinders the surrender of all one’s powers to service; and, subsequently, although chastity, if full, is probably the most advantageous situation for service, yet for sure individuals, marriage, by quieting them, by eradicating an obstacle, strengthens their capacity for service.
And, due to this fact, if you happen to ask my recommendation, my recommendation is to break off all relations together with her and to attempt to make use of all of your strength on cultivating love in your self, not for one person, however for all individuals, whereby lies the chief work of each man’s life. From the fabric relation flows the rule to not steal; in regard to the modes of making one’s living the rule for one to labor one’s self, and not to avail oneself of the labor of others; in regard to intercourse between men, the rule to not take revenge, to not retaliate in opposition to an offender, however to forbear and forgive; in regard to the sexes, for a man to maintain to at least one spouse, and for wife to keep to at least one husband. And due to this fact I perfectly agree with you that this can be a most harmful snare, in relation to which one cannot be sufficiently careful. One should quite communicate and assume about the extent of the perversion or stultification of the ethical college which has introduced males to this; and never argue with them, but treat them. And such love you’ll find in your spouse and this feeling will provide you with true bliss; the feeling for the other person, nonetheless, in case you give your self up to it, offers you nothing except a decreasing of your ethical stage and the suffering resulting from it.
One might take pleasure in it not recognizing any religious or moral legislation, however the recognition of the lawfulness of falling in love is incompatible with the recognition of love as the legislation of life. The religious teacher says that if one acts like that in all these relations will probably be well, and better than to act as its customary on the planet; that even if there may be instances wherein non-adherence to those guidelines would create no evil at all, it might still be better to comply with them, as a result of infringement of those guidelines has produced, and now produces, numberless calamities. To break off the connection by marriage, to separate, or to commit an act that might call forth illfeeling in the partner: chances are you’ll only do that when before God and your conscience, you can not act in any other case. Neither do I point out that between homicide, synthetic abortion, and this act of irritating conception, there isn’t a qualitative distinction.
I believe that a man who has entered upon bodily reference to a woman can not, and must not, forsake her, especially when there is or could also be a toddler. Just the reverse is required: only he could marry who can live and convey up a baby without having any means. We go by the bourgeois rule that you could be marry only while you sit quick upon the necks of the individuals, i.e., when you will have means. Sex tourists usually come from Western world nations however they may also come from different nations as nicely. You ask on what is based the rule: “A husband should have one spouse, and a wife one husband” and find that departure from this rule might not present something bad. I feel that a man’s deserting his spouse, who has a child by him, is a foul act, which cannot but have an impact in the shape of a path of grave penalties, and that are gravest not for the deserted wife, but for the husband who deserts her. Besides, this very rule is based upon the fact that man, by having one wife, and a lady by having one husband, draws nearer to the Christian very best of chastity than if this rule is violated.