Somewhere between Geneva and Paris

For John Locke, marriage is contractual and practical; Two individuals come together in order to fill their own needs by means of another. Rousseau picks up where Locke leaves off and moves on with a focus on a more desirable kind of marriage. Progressing past simply conjugal love, Rousseau speaks of a Romantic Love. Scott Yenor writes that "from the intense perspective of romantic love, conjugal love may appear to be nothing at all" (43). Rousseau's Romantic Love is "intense;" it moves past the basic needs of Locke's nature and has a deeper need. Rousseau writes that "I do not conceive how someone who needs nothing can love anything. I do not conceive how someone who loves nothing can be happy" (Rousseau, Emile, 221). For Rousseau, in order to be happy and truly so, not just Locke's contractual needs being met, people must need something. Perfect self sufficiency, without love, is boring and un-erotic. Rousseau wants more than tax evasion as a benefit of marriage; Rousseau wants Romance in marriage.

In Scott Yenor's chapter on Rousseau, he puts a big focus on the romance of Rousseau. However, this does not mean that joys of romance should should be excessive erotic joy, but rather a happiness in marriage, based on love, resulting in romance. On this balance of contractual marriage and romantic love, Rousseau looks at two examples. One is a excess and the other is an absence; "Paris is the locus of this cosmopolitan vice; Calvinist Geneva the locus of an opposite, restrictive vice" (Yenor 49).

Geneva paints a picture of indifference. Rousseau writes that "so much has been done to prevent women from being lovable that husbands have become indifferent" (Rousseau, Emile, 347). The characteristics of marriage that are attractive to people is gone. The Romantic connection between the married couple is non existent. Instead of spending time with each other, within the married couple, "Men gather to 'gamble, chat, read, drink and smoke'; women chat and engage in 'inexhaustible gossip'" (Yenor 49). These marriages are surely not happy, as that they look outside of their marriage to fill that gap. Geneva is not ridden with excessive vice, but rather that of restrictiveness that kills the joy of Romantic Love.

Paris paints a picture of excess. Where as Geneva restricts pleasure, Paris goes overboard. In an attempt at equality, Parisians seek a more gender-neutral society, a kind of sameness. In this sameness, they attempt to kill modesty as an" unnecessary refinement that inhibits sexual pleasure" (Yenor 52). For Rousseau, Modesty is what keeps men interested in women, physically speaking. By removing this modesty, "men will no longer esteem [women]" (Yenor 53). Rousseau argues that this will degrade the commitment of men and make love only "skin deep". Similarly to Locke, Rousseau roots the need for men's commitment in providing for the women as the more able. However, Rousseau limits this need by women only to the time of childbearing, however notes that "'this straw is enough to tip' rule to the man" (Yenor 48).

In his critique of these two cities, Rousseau notes some hits and misses. While Geneva separates men and women, they go to far and 'sap' love from marriage, which Rousseau argues is a necessary a happy marriage. And while Paris understands the need and presence of Love, they get carried away in the risqué and do not have the babies necessary for continuity. Here is where Rousseau discusses England as a well balanced mix of Geneva and Paris. Scott Yenor writes that "English couples as Rousseau depicts enjoy separate lives that heighten the differences between the sexes, and yet have similar tastes" (55).