but slavery I would have thought was a more exact description. I am far from saying that such friendships are entirely negative. There may be a great deal of affection on both sides, and a lot of enjoyment. Many so-called marriages I am convinced work to this pattern. Each loves the other, not for the other's sake, because they are alive lovable human beings; each loves the other for what the other provides. In other words each loves himself. The man loves the woman because she provides him with sex, absence from loneliness, and the companionship of joint interests; the woman loves the man for his money, social position, and the privilege of married status.
But human nature is not logical. Just as a human being needs society to help him grow up into an adult individual, and at the same time society does its best to make the person conform and be well adjusted, and so destroy what is best in the individual; so two human beings may well bring out what is best, and what is worst, in each other at the same time. It is seldom that it is entirely one, or entirely the other. And so one may say that when two friends respond to, and react upon each other, insofar as the actions of each are expressions of the confidence of each, the friends may well encourage, bring out, and confirm each other's confidence. Insofar as the actions of each are expressions of their mutual lack of confidence, they are almost certain to confirm this lack of confidence in each other, until a whole subject of conversation, or a whole field of human activity, is taboo.
And so one has a picture of two people, who are friends, responding to what is best in each other, reacting to what is worst, with sincerity mixed up with hypocrisy, sometimes being themselves, sometimes play-acting, with affection mingled with suspicion, and trust overshadowed by the threat of treachery, with intolerance mixed with impudent teasing laughter; and above all with the whole in a continuous state of flux from the birth of the friendship to…