Philanderers are Attractive—

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 672, 25 May 1929, Page 18

Philanderers are Attractive —

But Only In Books and Plays, Says Ranee of Sarawak

BHERE are those who fear the present-day vogue for the philanderer. But whether one fears or is merely indifferent, one cannot deny the current interest in those who love and run away. Think for a moment of the greater part of modern fiction. Does it deal with men and women whose love for each other is of lifelong duration, or is it rather concerned with those whose search for love is reminiscent of the bee’s hunt from flower to flower for honey? Decidedly the latter. A novel in which one man were actually satisfied to devote himself to one woman might conceivably be damned with faint praise. One can almost see the reviewer sharpening his pencil and starting off . . . “A charming old-world study . . . with a decidedly Victorian flavour.” And plays. The fashionable play has a heroine with a past, which is ruthlessly dug up for the edification of an audience who would probably think they were not getting value for money unless she had at least two contemporary lovers in the offing! Films reflect the same tendency; an insistence that the love affairs of the philanderer, male or female, are more interesting than the unruffled wooing and marriage of the average man and woman. In real life, of course, the proportion of philanderers to the faithful is extremely small. But in certain quarters there are suggestions that the great public admiration of the foraner may in time lead to a. diminution in the number of the latter—by making converts. Philanderer-worship, say some, is a dangerous business. But what exactly is it that induces

Probably the children have been j more than usually worrying, or the | laundryman did not call, or housework | seems particularly humdrum and | monotonous. Therefore she enjoys witnessing the easy, carefree existence of people In another world; people who | know nothing of troubles such as hers. But, not for one moment does it ever enter her head to identify her- | self with these people who seem to | enjoy all the sweets of life without i the b:itters. Not for one moment does j she dream of such a state of affairs | being possible in real life. She is j not so foolish, j Nor is her husband, i In moments of irritation, when his | pockets bulge with income tax i demands and bills for school fees, it lis a fascination for him to see in a j play, or read about in a novel, a man j or woman lightly and gaily playing I the game of love without incurring | any responsibilities; knowing what it |is to love and be loved without its | inevitable aftermath —a family to proj vide for, bills and worries! ! Here, then, is the secret of the fascination of the philanderer, the | irresponsible who leaves a trail of broken hearts behind him, or the coquette who draws the best out of/ a man and then leaves him stranded dry and high. j For the harassed taxpayer and his wife, they represent a holiday from life. When he or she is seized with a sudden petulant revolt against the monotony of things, they represent a swift escape from the humdrum into an exciting illusionary world where pains and penalties are unknown. They are an occasional tonic, to be taken in moderate doses as required. It is one thing to enjoy the exploits of an imaginary philanderer, but quite another to envy his real life prototype. Very few men or women, do the latter, for they know sufficient of the reality of things to realise that in the long run the philanderer is to be pitied rather than envied. Sooner or later he pays .the price. Philandering, after all, is far more enjoyable for the looker-on than for the performer! He, poor fellow, may have a bright and kaleidoscopic career, glittering with the evanescent glitter of cheap tinsel, but it is short and not so very merry. He flits from woman to woman, skirmishing warily with each, always skimming the surface of emotion, perpetually afraid of going too far and committing himself to more than he intends to fulfil. His one fear is to fish in deep waters. He dreads finality or sincerity. “I believe,’! wrote Robert Louis Stevenson, “in the ultimate decency of things.” The world is full of decent husbands and wives leading decent lives, and the philanderer intrigues because he his rare. If the world were full of faithless philanderers, who would want to read about them or watch their exploits on stage or screen? They are amusing because they are “different.” Their prominence in present day entertainment is not at all dangerous. Those who applaud the philanderer loudest in play or film realise quite well that in marriage society has evolved the most likelv road to happiness—marriage in this connection inferring the ideal of faithfulness to one person. And apart from the “ultimate decency” of the average ’man and woman, no one believes that philandering is the road to the sort of happiness which everyone seeks.

a perfectly respectable suburban wife to visit a cinema and rave over the exploits of some disreputable rake who breaks women’s hearts as carelessly as she sometimes breaks break-fast-cups?

Her critics, having completely misunderstood the latest teachings of psychology, suggest that she, too, has a secret passion to break a few hearts! Nothing could be more absurd. They have completely misread her motive in enjoying such a film.