more beautifial and morenexalting than the experience ofnlove between man and woman.nWhen a young man andnwoman are attracted to eachnother, their love arouses thendeepest emotions, the highestnexpectations, they have evernknown. For them, nothingnseems to matter but their love.nNothing seems impossible tontheir love. For each of them, thenother is “the only you there is.”nWhat sort of language is this for celibatengentlemen to indulge themselves in —nthe erotic sentimentalism of “TruenConfessions” magazines. Unfortunately,nthe entire letter is replete with suchnsweet nothings as “sexual union says Inlove you, in a very profound way.” Thenbishops might take up a profitable secondncareer in writing greeting-card messages.nIt is not only the sentimentality thatnmars Love Is for Life. There is annunbecoming trendiness about thenwhole production. Sex, they declare, isna “means of communication”; theynwelcome the more wholesome aspectsnof the sexual revolution like “a newnopenness in discussion about sexuality,nand an absence of unhealthy feelingsnof guilt or shame.” Worse, they endorsenthe aims of feminism and declarenwar on the idea of “male superiority.”nHomosexual acts are, of course, sinful,nbut they support the campaign to vindicatenthe rights of “homosexuallyorientednpersons,” etc., etc.nThere is a sense in which sexual actsnare a form of communication, andntalking dirty is always a great deal morenfun than feeling guilty. Women andnhomosexuals are sometimes mistreated,nof course, but the bishops appearnby their statements to endorse (a) ansocial science view of morality; (b) thenliberation of women from biblical andnCatholic “stereotypes”; and (c) specialnlegal status for self-declared deviants.n(Even in Ireland they don’t persecutensecret, much less inactive homosexuals.)nThe Pastoral is not all bad. Pornography,nsterilization, and abortion are allndeclared to be evil, and the bishopsneven come out against sin, but it is withna faltering voice. They are clearly uncomfortablenwith anything as apparentlynhard-and-fast as Genesis, which theynfear contains “colorful accounts of creation”nwhich “may seem naive to modernnears, and suitable only to thenmentality of a pastoral people”; but,nthe writers assure us, these tales “conveynprofound theological truths” like,nfor example, the equality of the sexes.nWhat is striking about the Irishnbishops is not just the severe limitationsnon their knowledge and methods, butntheir squeamishness in the face of thenfacts of life: They appear to believe thatntraditional sex roles are mere culturalnartifacts, and they are not in the leastndisturbed by the modern obsessionnwith sexual pleasure. Does every culturendevote such resources to eroticnpleasure? We used to be told thatnrepression was responsible for an unhealthyninterest in sex. Well, we havenhad a sexual revolution that has liberatednwomen from chastity and men fromnshame. We go openly to singles bars,nmassage parlors, and pornography theaters,nbut our sexual fervor may hardlynbe said to be subsiding.nIt is possible that sex is like the drugnhabit which William Burroughs oncensummed up memorably in the formula:n”The more you have, the more younwant.” One of sociobiology’s centralninsights is the genetic basis for thendifferent sexual strategies of males andnfemales. While women invest largenamounts of energy into producing ansingle egg per month and in bearingnand rearing a few children in a lifetime,nmales by contrast are capable of begettingna hundred, indeed, thousands ofnchildren with comparatively little effort.nIt is in women’s interest (or inntheir genes’ interest) to be coy. Fornmen, the advantages of fidelity are notnso obvious.nIn a primitive state, sexual opportunitiesnare comparatively limited. If a mannis to reproduce himself, he must benalert to sexual signals in the same waynthat he responds quickly to meat, sugar,nand salt—all of which are barennecessities. In civilized circumstancesnof plenty, we are still responding withnthe alacrity of impoverished savages.nWe destroy our teeth and digestionnwith soft drinks and potato chips, stuffnourselves with meat to the detriment ofnheart and blood vessels, and gaze longinglynat the parade of young women —ndraped and undraped—we meet onnthe street, in bars, or in the pages ofnmagazines. An impulse that is healthy.nnnso long as it is generally stifled, becomesna destructive poison as soon as itnis readily available. We have learnednthat much, at least, from the sexualnrevolution which the Irish bishops arenso reluctant to condemn. Perhaps wenmay also learn that even at the lowestnlevel of enlightened self-interest, “It isnbetter to marry than to burn.”nA Hatchery at ThenNationnby John C. ChalbergnFreda Kirchwey: A Woman of thenNation by Sara Alpern, Cambridge:nHarvard University Press;n$29.95.nIf Eleanor Roosevelt was the selfappointedngodmother of post-NewnDeal liberalism, then Freda Kirchweynwas its unelected recording (and traveling)nsecretary. Each woman understoodnher role and memorized her lines beforenassuming her part in her long andnstormy run on the political stage.nIn preparation for her grand entranceneach woman took a good hard look atnthe man’s worid that was liberal politics,nelbowed her way into those smoke-fillednrooms, and proceeded to make hernpresence known — and indispensablen— as a political woman. Not content tonorganize a ladies auxiliary of Americannliberalism, each realized that her successndepended upon her ability — andnwillingness—to perform womanly, ifnnot necessarily wifely, tasks.nMrs. FDR may never have wielded anmagic wand, but she was indefatigablenin her efforts to keep her worshipers onnthe (seldom) straight and (never) narrownpath of (her definition) New Dealnorthodoxy. Mrs. Evans Clark (neenFreda Kirchwey) may never have beenntrained to keep a boss cool and thencoffee hot, but she certainly knew hownto generate a paper flow and an officenhum.nFrom 1918 when a 2 5-year-oldnKirchwey arrived at The Nation to clipninternational stories, to 1937 when shenbought the journal from Oswald GarrisonnVillard, to 1955 when she sold herninterest to Carey McWilliams, Mrs.nClark had an almost uninterruptednreign as the woman emergent, thenJULY 19881 35n