 |
Anemia
Anemia is a poor condition of the blood. The blood may contain an insufficient number of red blood cells or an insufficient percentage of the coloring matter of the blood, that is, hemoglobin. A special kind of anemia affecting young girls is called chlorosis.
Anemia and chlorosis cannot be considered contra-indications to marriage, because they are usually amenable to treatment. In fact, some cases of anemia and chlorosis are due to the lack of normal sexual relations, and the subjects get well very soon after marriage. But it is best and safest to subject anemic patients to a course of treatment and to improve their condition before they marry.
Epilepsy
While epilepsy—known commonly as fits or falling sickness—is not as hereditary as it was one time thought to be, its hereditary character being ascertainable in only about 5 per cent. of cases, nevertheless, it is a decidedly dysgenic agent, and marriage with an epileptic is distinctly advised against. Where both parents are epileptics, the children are almost sure to be epileptic, and such a marriage should be prohibited by law. Under no circumstances should parents who are both epileptic bring children into the world. It should be the duty of the State to instruct them in methods of preventing conception.
Hysteria
Hysteria is a disease the chief characteristics of which are a lack of control over one's emotions and acts, the imitation of the symptoms of various diseases, and an exaggerated self-consciousness. The patient may have extreme pain in the region of the head, ovaries, spine; in some parts of the skin there is extreme hypersensitiveness (hyperesthesia), so that the least touch causes great pain; in others, there is complete anesthesia—that is, absence of sensation—so that when you stick the patient with a needle she will not feel it. A very frequent symptom is a choking sensation, as if a ball came up the throat and stuck there (globus hystericus). Then there may be spasms, convulsions, retention of urine, paralysis, aphonia (loss of voice), blindness, and a lot more. There is hardly a functional or organic nervous disorder that hysteria may not simulate.
Of late years our ideas about hysteria have undergone a radical change, and we now know that most, if not all, cases of hysteria are due to a repression or non-satisfaction of the sexual instinct or to some shock of a sexual character in childhood. Only too often a girl who was very hysterical before marriage loses her hysteria as if by magic upon contracting a satisfactory marriage. On the other hand, a healthy girl can become quickly hysterical if she marries a man who is sexually impotent or who is disagreeable to her and incapable of satisfying her sexually.
While hysteria, in itself, is not hereditary, it, nevertheless, is a question whether a strongly hysterical woman would make a satisfactory mother. The entire family history should be investigated. If the hysteria is found to be an isolated instance in the given girl, it may be disregarded, if not extreme; but if the entire family or several members of it are neuropathic, the condition is a dysgenic one. Marriage may be contracted, provided no children are brought into the world until several years have elapsed and the mother's organization seems to have become more stable. In some cases, a child acts as a good medicine against hysteria. In short, every case must be examined individually on its merits, and the counsel of a good psychologist or psychoanalyst may prove very valuable.
Alcoholism
A good deal depends upon what we understand by alcoholism. The fanatics consider a person an alcoholic who drinks a glass of beer or wine with his meals. This is nonsense. This is not alcoholism, and cannot be considered a dysgenic factor. But, where there is a distinct habit, so that the individual must have his alcohol daily, or if he goes on an occasional drunken "spree," marriage must be advised against. And where the man (or woman) is what we call a real drunkard, marriage not only should be advised against, but most decidedly should be prohibited by law.
Alcoholism, as a habit, is one of the worst dysgenic factors to reckon with. First, the offspring is liable to be affected, which is sufficient in itself to condemn marriage with an alcoholic. Second, the earning powers of an alcoholic are generally diminished, and are likely gradually to diminish more and more. Third, an alcoholic is irritable, quarrelsome, and is liable to do bodily injury to his wife. Fourth an alcoholic often develops sexual weakness or complete sexual impotence. Fifth, alcoholics are likely to develop extreme jealousy, which may become pathological, even to the extent of a psychosis.
If both the husband and wife are alcoholics, then marriage between them which results in children is not merely a sin, but a crime.
We do not now come across cases so often as we used to of women marrying drunkards in the hope or with the hope of reforming them. But such cases still happen. This is a very foolish procedure. Let the man reform first, let him stay reformed for two or three years, and then the woman may take the chance, if she wants to.
Feeblemindedness
Feeblemindedness, in all its gradations—including idiocy, imbecility, moronism, and so on—is strongly hereditary and is one of the most dysgenic factors we have to deal with. It is the most dysgenic of all factors. It is more dysgenic than insanity. Marriage with a feebleminded person not only should be advised against, but should be prohibited by law. A feebleminded man has much fewer chances for marriage than has a feebleminded woman. Feebleminded girls, even to the extent of being morons, if pretty (as they often are) have very good chances of getting married, not infrequently getting for husbands young men of good families who themselves of course are not very strong mentally, but still are far from being considered feebleminded.
There are many cases of brilliant men—more than the public has any idea of—who married pretty, shy, demure, but withal feebleminded, girls, and the result has been in the largest percentage of cases very disastrous. In many cases all the children are feebleminded, or if not feebleminded, so weak mentally that it is impossible to make them go through any college or school. All the private tutoring is often in vain. And the brilliant father's heart breaks. It must be borne in mind that feeblemindedness or weak mentality is much more difficult to detect in a woman than it is in a man. Weakmindedness in a woman often passes for "cuteness," and as among the conservatives a woman is not expected to be able to discuss current topics, her intellectual caliber is often not discovered by the blinded husband until some weeks after the marriage ceremony.
As any instruction in the use of contraceptives would be wasted on the feebleminded, the only way to guard the race against pollution with feebleminded stock is either to segregate or to sterilize them. Society could have no objection against the feebleminded marrying or indulging in sexual relations, provided it could be assured that they will not bring any feebleminded stock into the world. After the man and the woman have been sterilized there is no objection to their getting married.
Where a normal, able or brilliant husband finds out too late that his wife's mentality is of rather a low order he is certainly justified in using contraceptives; and if he is determined to have children he will be obliged to divorce his wife. Of course this applies also to the wife of a weak minded husband.
Insanity
Insanity may be briefly defined as a disease of the mind. We will not here go into a discussion as to what constitutes real insanity, as to what is understood by insanity in the legal sense of the term, and so on, except to note that we have two divisions.
One is functional insanity. This may be temporary, or periodical, and is due to some external cause, is curable, and is not hereditary. For instance, a person may get insane from a severe shock, from trouble, from anxiety, from a severe accident (such as a shipwreck), from a sudden and total loss of his fortune, of his wife and children (by fire, earthquake, shipwreck or railroad accident). Such insanities are curable and are not transmissible. Another example is what is known as puerperal insanity. Some women during childbirth, due probably to some toxic infection, become insane. This insanity may be extreme and maniacal in character. Still, it often passes away in a few days without leaving any trace and may never return again, or, if it does return, it may return only during another childbirth. This kind of insanity is not transmissible.
The second division is what we call organic insanity. This expresses itself in mania and melancholy, so-called manic-depressive insanity. This is due to a degeneration of the brain-and nerve-tissue and is hereditary.
But, our entire conception as to the hereditary transmissibility of insanity has undergone a radical change. There is hardly another disease the fear of whose hereditary character is responsible for so much anguish and torture. In former years, when there was an insane uncle or aunt or grandparent that fact weighed like a veritable incubus on the entire family. Every member of the family was tortured by the secret anguish that maybe he or she would be next to be affected by this most horrible of all diseases—disease of the mind. If an ancestral member of the family became insane at a certain age, every member of that family was living in fear and trembling until several years had passed after that critical age, and only then would they begin to breathe freely. Indeed, many people became insane from the very fear of becoming insane. It cannot be subject to any doubt that many people do become mentally unbalanced from the fear that they will become unbalanced. Fear has a tremendous influence on the purely bodily functions, but its influence on the mental functions is incomparably greater, and a person will often get that which he fears he is going to get.
Now the hereditary character of insanity is not taken in the same absolute sense in which it was formerly. While we still consider it a dysgenic factor, yet we recognize the paramount importance of environment; and we know that by proper bringing-up, using the expression bringing-up in its broadest sense—including a proper mental and physical discipline—any hereditary taint can be counteracted. In connection with this subject, the following very recent statistics will prove of interest.
The families of 558 insane persons cared for in the London county asylums were investigated, and, according to reports received from the educational authorities, only 15 of these (less than 3 per cent) had mentally defective children. As to the time of the birth of the children, whether before or after the attack of the insanity, we find the following figures: 56 out of 573 parents had children after their first attack of insanity, and 106 children were born after the onset of insanity in the parent; while the remaining 1259 children were born before the parent became insane.
Altogether, as will be seen from a discussion of the various factors rendering marriage permissible or nonpermissible, I am inclined to consider environment a more important factor than heredity. The purely physical characteristics bear the indelible impress of heredity. But the moral and cultural characteristics, which in the modern civilized man are much more important than the physical, are almost exclusively the results of environment.
Neuroses—Neurasthenia—Psychasthenia—Neuropathy—Psychopathy
I will not attempt either exhaustive or concise definitions of the terms named in the caption, for the simple reason that it is impossible to give satisfactory definitions of them. The conditions which these terms designate do not constitute definite disease-entities, and many different things are understood by different people when these terms are mentioned. Only brief indications of the meaning will be given.
Neurosis is a functional disease of the nervous system.
Neurasthenia is a condition of nervous exhaustion, brought about by various causes, such as overwork, worry, fright, sexual excesses, sexual abstinence, and so on. The basis of neurasthenia, however, is often or even generally a hereditary taint, a nervous weakness inherited from the parents.
Psychasthenia is a neurosis or psychoneurosis similar to neurasthenia, characterized by an exhaustion of the nervous system, also by weakness of the will, overscrupulousness, fear, and a feeling of the unreality of things.
Neuropathy is a disease or disorder of the nervous system. Psychopathy is a disease or disorder of the mind.
Of late years we often hear people referred to as neurotics, neurasthenics, psychasthenics, neuropaths or psychopaths. These are undoubtedly abnormal conditions, and, taken as a general thing, they are dysgenic factors.
But a dysgenic factor in an animal is a dysgenic factor, and that is all there is to it. There are no two sides to the question. But if anything goes to show the difference between animals and human beings, and to demonstrate why principles of eugenics, as derived from a study of animals, can never be fully applicable to human beings, it is these considerations which we now have under discussion. To repeat, neuroses, neurasthenia, psychasthenia, and the various forms of neuropathy and psychopathy are dysgenic factors. But people suffering from these conditions often are among the world's greatest geniuses, have done some of the world's greatest work, and, if we prevented or discouraged marriage among people who are somewhat "abnormal" or "queer," we should deprive the world of some of its greatest men and women. For insanity is allied to genius, and if we were to exterminate all mentally or nervously abnormal people we should at the same time exterminate some of the men and women that have made life worth living.
And what is true of mentally abnormal is also true of physically inferior people. An inferior horse or dog is inferior. There is no compensation for the inferiority. But a man may be physically inferior, he may be, for instance, a consumptive, but still he may have given to the world some of the sweetest and most wonderful poems. A man may be lame, or deaf, or strabismic, he may be a hunchback or a cripple and altogether physically repulsive, and yet he may be one of the world's greatest philosophers or mathematicians. A man may be sexually impotent and absolutely useless for race purposes, yet may be one of the world's greatest singers or greatest discoverers.
In short, the eugenic problem in the human is not, and never will be, as simple as it is in the animal and vegetable kingdoms. If we want to strive after healthy, normal mediocrity, then the principles of animal eugenics become applicable to the human race. If, on the other hand, we want talent, if we want genius, if we want benefactors of the human race, then we must go very slow with our eugenic applications.
Drug Addiction or Narcotism
Addiction to drugs, whether it be opium, morphine, heroin or cocaine, is a strongly dysgenic factor. The addiction to the drug is of itself not transmissible, but the weakened constitution or degeneracy which is generally responsible for the development of the drug addiction is inheritable.
A few cases of drug addiction are external; that is, the patient may have a good healthy constitution, no hereditary taint, and still because during some sickness he was given morphine a number of times he may have developed an addiction to the drug. But those cases are rare. And such cases, if they are cured and if the addiction is completely overcome, may marry.
But in most cases it isn't the drug addiction that causes the degeneracy; it is the degeneracy or the neuropathic or psychopathic constitution that causes the drug addiction. And such cases are bad matrimonial risks.
And it is a very risky thing for a woman to marry an addict with the idea of reforming him. As I said about the alcoholic: Let him reform first, let him stay reformed for a few years, and then the rest is not so great.
Consanguineous Marriages
Consanguinity means blood relationship, and consanguineous marriages are marriages between near blood relatives. The physician is frequently consulted as to the permissibility or danger of marriages between near relations. The question generally concerns first cousins, second cousins, uncle and niece, and nephew and aunt.
The popular idea is that consanguineous marriages are bad per se. The children of near relatives, such as first cousins, are apt to be defective, deaf and dumb, blind, or feebleminded, and what not. This popular idea, as so many popular ideas are, is wrong. And still there is of course, as there always is, some foundation for it. The matter, however, is quite simple.
We know that many traits, good and bad, are transmitted by heredity. And naturally when traits are possessed by both father and mother they stand a much greater chance of being transmitted to the offspring than if possessed by one of the parents alone. Now then, if a certain bad trait, such as epilepsy or insanity, is present in a family that trait is present in both cousins, and the likelihood of children from such a marriage inheriting that trait is much greater than when the parents are strangers, the taint being present in the family of only one of the parents. But if there be no hereditary taint in the cousins' family, and, still more, if the family is an intelligent one, if there are geniuses in the family, then there cannot be the slightest objection to marriage between cousins, and the children of such marriages are apt to inherit in a strong degree the talents or genius of their ancestors. In short, if the family is a bad one, one below par, then marriage between cousins or between uncle and niece should be forbidden. If the family is a good one, above par, then marriage between relatives of that family should be encouraged.
The idea that the children from consanguineous marriages are apt to be deaf and dumb has no foundation in fact. Recent statistics from various asylums in Germany, for instance, have shown that only about five per cent. of the deaf and dumb children were the offspring of consanguineous marriages. If 95 per cent, of the deaf and dumb had non-consanguineous parents, how could one say that even in the other five per cent, the consanguinity was the cause? If it were the other way around, then of course we could blame consanguinity. As it is, we can assume even in this five per cent, a mere coincidence, and we have no right to say that consanguinity and deaf and dumbness stand in the relation to each other of cause and effect.
It is interesting to know that among the Egyptians, Persians, and Incas of Peru close consanguineous marriages were very common. The Egyptian kings generally married their sisters. This was common custom and if the children born of such unions were defectives or monstrosities the fact would have become quickly apparent and the custom would have been abolished. Evidently the offspring of very close consanguinity was normal, or even above normal, or the practice would not have been continued such a long time.
It is perhaps worth while noting that one of the world's greatest scientists, Charles Darwin, was the child of parents who were first cousins.
Homosexuality
Homosexuality (homos—the same) is a perversion in which a person is attracted not to persons of the opposite but to persons of the same sex. Thus a homosexual man does not care for women, but is attracted to men. A homosexual woman is not attracted to men; she only cares for women and may even loathe men. A homosexual, man or woman, has no right to marry. The wrong committed by a homosexual marrying is a double one: it is wrong to the partner, wrong to the children. The normal partner is bound to discover the abnormality, and if he (or she) does, then the married life is a very unhappy one. Even if the abnormal partner uses the utmost efforts to conceal the abnormality, he cannot afford any pleasure to the normal partner, because the sexual act committed under loathing cannot be satisfactory. The other wrong is committed on the offspring. Homosexuality is hereditary, and nobody has a right to bring homosexuals into the world, for there is no unhappier being than a homosexual. I know a homosexual woman, who, knowing her abnormality, married for the sake of a comfortable home. She has been successful in hiding from her husband her abnormality, he simply considering her frigid. But each sexual act costs her tortures. So far she has succeeded in avoiding pregnancy. I also know a highly refined and educated homosexual gentleman, who married before understanding his condition. Many homosexuals, not knowing that such a thing as homosexuality even exists, do not understand their own condition; they feel a little strange, a little puzzled, but they don't know that they ought not to marry. Soon after marrying his condition became clear to him, but in the meantime his wife conceived, and he is now the father of a healthy, good-looking boy. It is possible that with proper bringing up the development of any homosexual traits will be prevented. It should be borne in mind that long sexual repression is favorable to the development of homosexuality.
But to emphasize: homosexuality is a dysgenic factor, and no homosexual should marry.
Sadism
Sadism is a sexual perversion in which the person derives pleasure only when beating, biting, striking, or otherwise inflicting pain on the person of the opposite sex. The degree of cruelty varies, but all sadists should be shunned. Unfortunately the fact that a man is a sadist is often not found out until after marriage, but as soon as the wife has found it out she should leave the man and demand a divorce. Sadism is a sufficient ground for a separation or divorce. No person with any moral feeling in him or her should be responsible for bringing children into the world with a possible sadistic heredity.
Sadistic cruelty is often of the gross, brutal, repulsive kind, but sometimes the sadist inflicts on his "beloved" object refined tortures of which only a cunning "demon" is capable. The sufferings which the wives of some sadists have to undergo are known only to themselves and to a few—very few—physicians.
Masochism
Masochism is a sexual perversion in which the person, man or woman, likes to suffer pain, beatings, insults and other cruelties at the hands of the beloved object. It is a dysgenic factor but much less important than sadism.
Sexual Impotence
Sexual impotence is not hereditary, but impotence in the male either so complete that he cannot perform the act or consisting only in premature ejaculations (relative impotence or sexual insufficiency) should constitute a bar to marriage. This impotence may not interfere with impregnation; the wife may have children and the children will not be in any way defective, but the wife herself, unless she is completely frigid, will suffer the tortures of hell, and may quickly become a sexual neurasthenic, a nervous wreck, or she may even develop a psychosis. Any man suffering with impotence should have himself treated before marriage until he is cured; if his impotence is incurable, then for his own sake and for the sake of the girl or woman he is supposed to love he should give up the idea of marriage. The only permissible exception is in cases in which the prospective wife knows the nature of her prospective husband's trouble, and claims that she does not care for gross sexual relations and therefore does not mind the impotence. In case the wife is absolutely frigid, the marriage may turn out satisfactory. But I would always have my misgivings, and should the wife's apparently absent but in reality only dormant libido suddenly awaken there would be trouble for both husband and wife. It is therefore necessary to emphasize: in all cases of impotence—caution!
Frigidity
Frigidity, as we have explained in a previous chapter, is a term applied to lack of sexual desire or sexual enjoyment in women. Of course many women before marriage are themselves ignorant of their sexual condition. Having learned to restrain their impulses, to repress any sexual stir, they themselves are often unable to say whether they have a strong or weak libido, or any at all. And whether or no a given woman would derive any pleasure from the sexual act can only be found out after marriage. Many girls, however, know very well whether they are "passionate" or not, but they wouldn't tell. They are afraid to confess to a complete lack of passion—they fear they might lose a husband.
Frigidity as an agent in marriage may be considered from two points of view: the offspring and the husband. The offspring is not affected by the mother's frigidity. A very frigid woman, if the frigidity is not due to serious organic causes, may have very healthy children and make an excellent mother. As far as the husband is concerned, it will depend a good deal on the degree of frigidity. If the woman is merely cold, and, while herself not enjoying the act, raises no objection to it, then it cannot be considered a bar to marriage. In fact many men, themselves not overstrong sexually, are praying for somewhat frigid wives. (It must be stated, however, that to some husbands relations with frigid and non-participating wives are extremely distasteful.) But when the frigidity is of such a degree that it amounts to a strong physical aversion to the act, it should be considered a bar to marriage. Such frigidity is often the cause of a disrupted home, often leads to divorce and is legally considered a sufficient cause for divorce or for the annulment of marriage, the same as impotence in the man is.
Excessive Libido in Men
We have seen that sexual impotence is a dysgenic factor and if complete and incurable should constitute a barrier to marriage. The opposite condition is that of excessive libido. Libido is the desire for the opposite sex. A proper amount of libido is normal and desirable. A lack of libido is abnormal. And an excess of libido is also abnormal. But a good many men are possessed of an excess of libido; it is either congenital or acquired. Some men torture their wives "to death," not literally but figuratively. Harboring the prevailing idea that a wife has no rights in this respect, that her body is not her own, that she must always hold herself ready to satisfy his abnormal desires, such a husband exercises his marital rights without consideration for the physical condition or the mental feelings of his partner. Some husbands demand that their wives satisfy them daily from one to five or more times a day. Some wives who happen to be possessed of an equally strong libido do not mind these excessive demands (though in time they are almost sure to feel the evil effects), but if the wife possesses only a moderate amount of sexuality and if she is too weak in body and in will-power to resist her lord and master's demands, her health is often ruined and she becomes a wreck. (Complete abstinence and excessive indulgence often have the same evil end-results.) Some men "kill" four or five women before the fury of their libido is at last moderated. Of course, it is hard to find out a man's libido beforehand. But if a delicate girl or a woman of moderate sexuality has reasons to suspect that a man is possessed of an abnormally excessive libido, she would do well to think twice before taking the often irretrievable step.
I have spoken so far of excessive libido in normal men, that is, in men who are otherwise normal, sane and can whenever necessary control their desires. There is a form of excessive libido in men called satyriasis, which reaches such a degree that the men are often not able to control their desires, and they will satisfy their passion even if they know that the result is sure to be a venereal infection or several years in prison. Of course, satyriasis is a dysgenic factor; those suffering with that disorder are not normal; they are on the borderland of insanity, and not only should they not be permitted to marry, but they should be confined to institutions where they can be subjected to the proper treatment.
Excessive Libido in Women
Just as we have impotent and excessively libidinous men, so we have frigid and excessively libidinous women. A wife possessed of excessive libido is a terrible calamity for a husband of a normal or moderate sexuality. Many a libidinous wife has driven her husband, especially if she is young and he is old, to a premature grave. And "grave" is used in the literal, not figurative, sense of the word. It would be a good thing if a man could find out the character of his future wife's libido before marriage. Unfortunately, it is impossible. At best, it can only be guessed at. But a really excessive libido on the part of either husband or wife should constitute a valid ground for divorce. When the libido in woman is so excessive that she cannot control her passion, and forgetting religion, morality, modesty, custom and possible social consequences, she offers herself to every man she meets, we use the term nymphomania. It is a disease which corresponds to satyriasis in men, and what I said of satyriasis applies with equal force to nymphomania. Nymphomaniac women should not be permitted to marry or to run around loose, but should be confined to institutions in which they can be subjected to proper treatment.
Harelip
This is a congenital defect consisting in a notch or split in the upper lip. It is due to defective development of the embryo and is as a rule found in association with cleft palate. Probably hereditary, but is not common and is not of much importance.
Myopia
Myopia means nearsightedness. This defect is undoubtedly hereditary to a certain degree, but it is doubtful if, other conditions being favorable, any man would give up a girl because she is myopic or vice versa. Still, if the condition is extreme, as it sometimes is, it should be taken into consideration. And where both the man and the woman are strongly myopic some hesitation should be felt in contracting a marriage. If the husband alone is myopic, then the defect may be transmitted to the sons but not to the daughters, and these daughters may in their turn transmit the defect to their sons but not to their daughters. In other words, the defect is more or less sex-limited.
Astigmatism
This is a defect of the eye, depending upon some irregularity of the cornea or the lens, in which light rays in different meridians are not brought to the same focus. It is to a certain extent hereditary, but plays an insignificant role. It is an undesirable trait, but cannot be considered a dysgenic factor.
Baldness
Premature baldness is a decidedly inheritable trait. And so is premature grayness of the hair. But it is doubtful if any woman would permit these factors to play any role in her choice of a husband.
Criminality
Almost a complete change has taken place in our ideas of criminality, and there are but very few criminologists now who believe in the Lombrosian nonsense of most criminality being inherited and being accompanied by physical stigmata of degeneration. The idea that the criminal is born and not made is now held only by an insignificant number of thinkers. We know now that by far the greatest percentage of crime is the result of environment, of poverty, with all that that word implies, of bad bringing up, of bad companions. We know that the child of the criminal, properly brought up, will develop into a model citizen, and vice versa, the child of the saint, brought into the slums, might develop into a criminal.
Then we must remember that there are many crimes which are not crimes, per se, but which are merely infractions of man-made laws, or representing rebellious acts against an unjust and cruel social order. Thus, for instance, a man or a woman who defying the law, would give information about birth control, and be convicted for the offence, would be legally a criminal. Morally he or she would be a high-minded humanitarian. A man who would throw a bomb at the Russian Czar or at a murderous pogrom-inciting Russian Governor would be considered an assassin, and if caught would be hanged; and in making up the pedigree of such a family, a narrow-minded eugenist would be apt to say that there was criminality in that family. But as a matter of fact, that "assassin" may have belonged to the noblest-minded heroes in history.
The eugenists will therefore pay little attention to criminality in the ancestry as a dysgenic factor. As long as the matrimonial candidate himself is not a criminal, the ancestral criminality should constitute no bar to the marriage. It is not likely to show itself atavistically in the children. Altogether a good deal of nonsense has been written about atavism. And people forget that the same rules of heredity that are applied to physical conditions cannot be applied to spiritual and moral qualities, the latter being much more dependent upon environment than the former. Of course the various circumstances must be taken into consideration, and each case must be decided upon its merits. No generalizations can be permitted. The kind of crime must always be considered.
And, furthermore, it should be borne in mind that not only is a criminal ancestry per se no bar to marriage, the marriage candidate himself may be an ex-criminal, may have served time in prison, and still be a very desirable father or mother from the eugenic viewpoint. A man who in a fit of passion or during a quarrel, perhaps under the slight influence of liquor, struck or killed a man is not, therefore, a real criminal. After serving his time in prison he may never again commit the slightest antisocial act, may make a moral citizen and an ideal husband and father.
This is not a plea for the under dog. For in this case, where the future of the race is at stake, all other considerations must be put into the background. I simply plead for an intelligent consideration of the subject. Many honored citizens are worse criminals and worse fathers than many people who have served prison sentences.
Pauperism
It may seem strange to discuss pauperism in relation to marriage and to speak of it as a hereditary factor, but it is necessary to discuss it, because considerable ignorance prevails on the subject, it being generally confused with poverty. There is a radical difference between pauperism and poverty. People may be poor for generations and generations, even very poor, and still not be considered or classed with paupers. Pauperism generally implies a lack of physical and mental stamina, loss of self-respect and unconquerable laziness. Of course we know now that laziness often rests upon a physical basis, being due to imperfect working of the internal glands. But whatever the cause of the laziness may be, the fact is that it is one of the characteristics of the pauper. And while we cannot speak of pauperism being hereditary, the qualities that go to make up the pauper are transmissible. No normal woman would marry a pauper, and the woman who would marry a pauper is not amenable to any advice or to any book knowledge. But men are sometimes tempted to marry daughters of paupers if they happen to be pretty. They should consider the matter very carefully, for some of the ancestral traits may become manifest in the children.
CHAPTER THIRTY-TWO
BIRTH CONTROL OR THE LIMITATION OF OFFSPRING
Knowledge of Prevention of Conception Essential—Misapprehensions Concerning Birth-control Propaganda—Modern Contraceptives Not Injurious to Health—Imperfection of Contraceptive Measures Due to Secrecy—Prevention of Conception and Abortion Radically Different—More Marriages Consummated if Birth-control Information were Legally Obtainable—Demand for Prostitution Would be Curtailed—Venereal Disease Due to Lack of Knowledge—Another Phase of the Birth-control Problem—Knowledge of Contraceptive Methods Where There Was a Taint of Insanity, and the Happy Results.
No girl, and no man for that matter, should enter the bonds of matrimony without learning the latest means of preventing conception, of regulating the number of offspring. With people who consider any attempt at regulating the number of children a sin, we have nothing to argue, though we believe that there are very few people except among the lowest dregs of society who do not use some measures of regulation. Otherwise we would see most families with ten to twenty children instead of two or three. Nor do I intend to devote this chapter to a detailed presentation of the arguments in favor of the rational regulation of offspring. It would have to be merely a repetition of the arguments that I have presented elsewhere.[8] But a few points may well be touched upon here.
In spite of the fact that the subject of birth control is much better known now than it was when we first started to propagate it, still it cannot be mentioned too often, for the misapprehensions concerning it almost keep pace with the propaganda. First, there is a foolish notion that we would try to regulate the number of children forcibly, that we would compel people to have a small number of children. Nothing could apparently be more absurd, and still many people sincerely believe it. Nothing is further from the truth. On the contrary, much as we are in favor of birth control, we advise limitation of offspring only to those who for various reasons, financial, hereditary or hygienic, are unable to have many children. We emphatically believe that couples who are in excellent health, who are of untainted heredity, who are fit to bring up children, and have the means to do so, should have at least half a dozen children. If they should have one dozen, they would deserve the thanks of the community. All we claim is that in such an important matter as bringing children into the world, the parents who have to carry the full burden of bringing up these children should have the right to decide. They should have the means of control. They should be able to say whether they will have two or six or one dozen children.
Contraceptive Measures
And the argument that contraceptives are injurious to the health of the woman, of the man, or of both, may be curtly dismissed. It is not true of any of the modern contraceptives. But even if it were true, the amount of injury that can be done by contraceptives would be like a drop of water in comparison with the injuries resulting from excessive pregnancies and childbirths. Some of the contraceptive measures require some trouble to use, some are unesthetic, but these are trifles and constitute a small price to pay for the privilege of being able to regulate the number of one's offspring according to one's intelligent desires.
The commonest argument now made against contraceptives is that they are not absolutely safe, that is, absolutely to be relied upon, that they will not prevent in absolutely every case. This is true; but there are three answers which render this objection invalid. First, many of the cases of failure are to be ascribed not to the contraceptives themselves, but to their improper, careless and unintelligent use. The best methods in the world will fail if used improperly. Second, if the measures are efficient in 98 or 99 per cent, and fail in one or two per cent., then they are a blessing. Some women would be the happiest women in the world if they could render 98 per cent. of their conjugal relations unfruitful. Third, the imperfections of our contraceptive measures are due to the secrecy with which the entire subject must necessarily be surrounded. If the subject of birth control could be fully discussed in medical books there is no doubt that in a short time we would have measures that would be absolutely certain and would leave nothing to be desired. But even such as they are, the measures are better than none, and as said in the beginning of this chapter, it is the duty of every young woman to acquire as one of the items of her sex education the knowledge of how to avoid too frequent pregnancies. In fact, I consider this the most important item in a woman's sex education, and if she has learned nothing else she should learn this. For this information is absolutely necessary to her future health and happiness.
A Few Everyday Cases
In my twenty years' work for the cause of rational birth control I have come in contact with thousands and thousands of cases which demonstrate in the most convincing manner possible the tragic results of forced or undesired motherhood, and of the fear of forced or undesired motherhood.
Some of the cases were in my own practice, some were related to me by brother physicians, some were described to me by the victims living in all parts of this vast country. Were I to collect and report all the cases that came to my notice during those twenty years, they would without exaggeration make a volume the size of the latest edition of the Standard Dictionary, printed in the same small type. Some of them are positively heartbreaking. They make you sick at the stupidity of the human race, at the stupidity and brutality of the lawgivers. But I do not wish to appeal to your emotions. I do not wish to take extreme and unique cases. I will therefore briefly relate a few everyday cases, which will demonstrate to you the beneficence of contraceptive knowledge and the tragedy and misery caused by the lack of such knowledge.
Case 1. This class of case is so common that I almost feel like apologizing for referring to it. She, whom I will call by the forbearing name of Mrs. Smith, had been married a little over nine years, and had given birth to five children. She was an excellent mother, nursed them herself, took good care of them, and all the five were living and healthy. But in caring for them and for the household all alone, for they could not afford a servant or a nurse-girl, all her vitality had been sapped, all her originally superb energy had dwindled down to nothing; her nerves were worn to a frazzle and she became but a shadow of her former self. And the fear of another pregnancy became an obsession with her. She dreamed of it at night, and it poisoned her waking hours in the day. She felt that she simply could not go through another pregnancy, another childbirth, with its sleepless nights and its weary toilsome days. She asked her doctor who brought her children into the world to give her some preventive, but he laughed the matter off. "Just be careful," was all the advice she got from him. And when in spite of being careful, she, horror of horrors, became pregnant again, she gathered up courage, went to the same doctor, and asked him to perform an abortion on her. But he was a highly respectable physician, a Christian gentleman, and he became highly indignant at her impudence in coming to him and asking him to commit "murder." Her tears and pleadings were in vain. He remained adamant.
Whether he would have remained as adamant if instead of Mrs. Smith, who could only pay twenty-five dollars for the abortion, the patient had been one of his society clientele, who could pay two hundred and fifty dollars, is a question which I will not answer in the affirmative or negative. I will leave it open. I will merely remark that in the question of abortion in certain specific cases the moral indignation of some physicians is in inverse proportion to the size of the fee expected. A doctor who will become terribly insulted when a poor woman who can only pay ten or fifteen dollars asks to be relieved of the fruit of her womb, will usually discover that the woman who can afford to pay one hundred dollars is badly in need of a curettement. Oh, no. He does not perform an abortion. He merely curets the uterus.
But to come back to Mrs. Smith. She went away from the indignant adamant doctor. But she was determined not to give birth to another child. She confided her trouble to a neighbor, who sent her to a midwife. The midwife was neither very expert, nor very clean. Mrs. Smith had to go to her two or three times. After bleeding for about ten days she developed blood poisoning, from which she died a few days later, at the early age of twenty-nine, leaving a disconsolate father, who in time to come will probably find consolation with another woman, and five motherless children, who will never find consolation. One may find a substitute for a wife, there is no substitute for a mother.
And such tragedies are of daily occurrence. May the Lord have mercy on the souls of those who are responsible for them.
Before I proceed further I wish to say that it is the terrible prevalence of the abortion evil, with its concomitant evils of infection, ill health, chronic invalidism and death, that more than any other single factor urges us in our birth control propaganda. And those who want to forbid the dissemination of any information about the prevention of conception are playing directly into the hands of the professional abortionists. They could not act any more zealously if they were in league with the latter and were paid by them. And having mentioned the subject of abortion, I wish to utter a note of warning. In our birth control propaganda, we must be very careful to keep the question of the prevention of conception and of abortion separate and apart. The stupid law puts the two in the same paragraph, some ignorant laymen and equally ignorant physicians treat the two as if they were the same thing, but we, in our speeches and our writings, must keep the two separate, we must show the people the essential difference between prevention and abortion, between refraining from creating life and destroying life already created; we must show the viciousness of meting out the same punishment for two things which are fundamentally different, different not only in degree but in kind—and it is only by thus keeping the two things apart, by showing that we stand for one thing—prevention—and not for the other—abortion, that we can ever gain the general sympathy of the public and the co-operation of the legislators. I do not say that there are not many cases in which the induction of abortion is not only justifiable, but imperative; but that is a different question, and the two issues must not be confused. And we would and should resent any attempt on the part of either enemy or friend to so confuse them.
Case 2. Mr. A. and Miss B. are in love with each other. But they cannot get married, for his salary is too small. They might risk getting married, if the specter of an indefinite number of children did not stretch out its restraining hand. She comes from a good family, she was brought up, if not in the lap of luxury, in the lap of comfort and coziness, and it is the ambition of every good American to furnish his wife at least as good a home as her father gave her. Her father, by the way, died prematurely from overwork in trying to give all possible comforts and advantages to a bevy of six unmarried and marriageable daughters.
As I said, the fear of children kept them back. Each year the hope revived that in another year their union in matrimony would be consummated. But the years passed. Mr. A.'s hair became thin and grayish, Miss B began to look haggard and pinched—and still the marriage could not take place. Miss B was very religious and very proper, and would not do anything that was improper. A was not quite so proper; he paid occasional visits elsewhere, and as instruction in venereal prophylaxis was not included in his college course, he acquired a gonorrhea, which it took him about six months to get rid of. To shorten the story, A was thirty-nine and Miss B was thirty-five when the many times postponed marriage was consummated, but Cupid seemed to be busy elsewhere when the ceremony took place, and there is very little romance in their married life. The marriage has remained childless, as I told Mr. A it would be.
I consider this a ruined life—and all for the lack of a little knowledge.
If the anti-preventionists, those who are opposed to any information about the prevention of conception, were not so hopelessly stupid, they would see that from their own point of view it would be better if such information were legally obtainable. For it would be instrumental in causing more marriages which otherwise remain unconsummated, and by favoring early marriages, it would be instrumental in curtailing the demand for prostitution, in diminishing venereal disease. And as is well known, venereal disease is one of the great factors in race suicide.
Case 3. A young woman was married to a man who besides being a brutal drunkard was subject to periodic fits of insanity. Every year or two he would be taken to the lunatic asylum for a few weeks or months, and then discharged. And every time on his discharge he would celebrate his liberty by impregnating his wife. She hated and loathed him, but could not protect herself against his "embraces." And she had to see herself giving birth to one abnormal child after another. She begged her doctor to give her some means of prevention, but that boob claimed ignorance, and the illegality of the thing. The woman finally committed suicide, but not before she had given birth to six abnormal children, who will probably grow up drunkards, criminals or insane.
And because we object to such kind of breeding, we are accused of being enemies of the human race, of advocating race suicide, of violating the laws of God and man. Oh, for a mighty Sampson to strike the imbeciles with the jaw of an ass, for a mental Hercules to loosen the fontanelles of their petrified skulls and put some sense into them!
Case 4. This observation concerns a couple both of whom had a very bad heredity. The blood of each was badly tainted. The doctor who had treated the husband cautioned them and told them that they had no right to have children. But here the tables were turned. The doctor wanted to give them the means for prevention, but the husband and wife, pious Roman Catholics, would not go against their religion and God (as if God wanted a world full of imbeciles), and refused to employ any precautions. They have had four children so far. One of them seems fairly normal, except that he is silly, in which respect he is merely like his parents; two are deaf and blind in one eye; the fourth is a cretin, practically an idiot.
This case brings us face to face with another phase of the problem. What should we do when the parents, stupid and ignorant, refuse to stop breeding worthless material? Eugenic agitation, education, will bring about such a strong public opinion that none but idiots, who will be vasectomized or segregated, will dare to bring into the world children that are physically and mentally handicapped.
Case 5. This couple had been married eight years, and had five children And the wife said she could not stand it any more. Another child—no, she preferred death. They practiced coitus interruptus for a while, with mutual disgust, but when the wife was caught again, she said: "No more!" And she would not let her husband come near her. He could do what he pleased—she did not care. After a few months he began to go elsewhere—contracted syphilis, had to give up his position, the home was broken up, the wife went out to work, the children are scattered—in short, a home, which we are told is the foundation of our society, is broken up, and there is misery and wretchedness all around—and all for the lack of a little timely information.
Case 6. Mr. A and Miss B, twenty-eight and twenty-five years old respectively, have known one another for several years, and in spite of their occupation, which is supposed to make people blase and cynical—he being a reporter and she a special story writer—are quite in love with each other. But their occupation and income are such that they cannot possibly afford to have and to bring up any children. They would love to get married, but the specter of a child—or rather of children—frightens them; and they remain single, to the great physical and mental injury of both. Accidentally they learn of appropriate means of regulating conception, get married and live happily—ever after, that is, until they find themselves in a position to have children and to bring them up properly.
In what way was society injured by this young couple acquiring contraceptive information?
Case 7. Mr. C and Miss D are in love with each other. Unfortunately there is a strong hereditary taint of insanity on both sides. They are too high-minded to think of giving birth to children. They might be all right, but with insanity one does not take any chances. The thing is too terrible. They are condemned to a life of celibacy, which to them means a life of loneliness and misery. But like an angel from heaven comes to them the knowledge that one can live a love-life without any penalties attached to it. They get married and there is not a happier couple living.
In what way has society been injured by this couple obtaining the contraceptive knowledge?
Case 8. Mr. and Mrs. E have been married five years. They have a child four years old which shows unmistakable symptoms of epilepsy. They are horrified and an investigation discloses the fact that on her side in the preceding generation there was a good deal of epilepsy. Of course, the next child may not be epileptic. But then again it may. No parents with any sense of responsibility would take such chances. They decide to give up conjugal relations. They keep it up for about thirteen or fourteen months; then one night an accident happens and very soon she finds herself pregnant. She declares she would rather die than to give birth to and have to take care of another epileptic child. She goes to a friendly physician who performs an abortion on her, and now the couple, not secure against future accidents, if they live together, decide to separate, and a tragedy is in sight. Fortunately they learn that conception can be prevented, and they continue to live together with benefit to themselves and harm to none.
In what way has society been injured by those people acquiring contraceptive information?
Case 9. Mr. and Mrs. F have been married six years, and in these six years they have been blessed with four children. When he married he was getting twenty-two dollars a week, and that is exactly what he is getting now. In the meantime the cost of living has gone up twenty-five per cent., and there are four extra mouths to feed and four extra bodies to clothe. What difference this has made in that little household can better be imagined than stated. The little mother has aged sixteen years in those six years, and there is not a trace left of her girlishness and youthfulness. She loves her children, and does not want to get rid of them. She would not take a million dollars for one of them, but she would not give five cents for another. But this is just what terrifies them; the possibility of another. And that possibility makes her irritable, makes her repel her husband's slightest advances, makes her move his bed to another room. She even tells him to satisfy his sexual desires elsewhere—and at the same time she is in fear and trembling that he might follow her advice. In short, a nice young home is about to be disrupted. Fortunately he reads somewhere an article on the subject of voluntary limitation of offspring, he begins to investigate; his physician pleads ignorance, but he is persistent, the physician investigates and obtains the desired information, which he shares with the patient. Harmony is restored and a happy home is re-established.
Who was injured by the couple obtaining this information? And if nobody was injured, and everybody concerned was benefited, then why should the imparting of such information be considered a felony, punishable like the most atrocious of crimes?
Case 10. Mr. and Mrs. G have been married fifteen years. They were the parents of seven children, a large enough number for any family. Those seven children were born during the first eleven years of their married life. During the past five years, afraid of having any more, they first abstained and then adopted a method which every modern sexologist knows is injurious to the nervous system of both the man and the woman. The man became a wreck; first neurasthenic, then impotent, cranky and grouchy, unable to get along in the office, constantly squabbling with his wife, who became just as bad a wreck. Their economic condition plus too many small children prevented the parents' separation. They remained living together, but they lived like a cat and a dog tied in a bag. Each silently prayed to be rid of the other. But a conversation overheard at a Turkish baths establishment put him on the right trail, and one year later we find the couple reconciled, both in good health and living a peaceful and fairly harmonious life. And those who have benefited most by the change are the children. In what way was society injured? And still if the doctor who gave Mr. G the information should have been caught and convicted, he would have been sent to prison for a year or two or five. Would he have deserved it? Here we have several plain, simple, unvarnished and unembellished cases which are typical of millions of similar cases and which prove conclusively that the law against imparting information about preventing conception is brutal, vicious, antisocial. Should not such a law be repealed, wiped off the statute books?
FOOTNOTES:
[8] The Limitation of Offspring by the Prevention of Conception.
CHAPTER THIRTY-THREE
ADVICE TO GIRLS APPROACHING THE THRESHOLD OF WOMANHOOD
The Irresistible Attraction of the Young Girl for the Male—The Unprotected Girl's Temptations—Some Men Who Will Pester the Young Girl—Risk of Venereal Infection—Danger of Impregnation—Use of Contraceptives by the Unmarried Woman May Not Always Be Relied Upon—Nature of Men who Seduce Girls—Exceptions—Illegitimate Motherhood—Difficulties in the Way of Illegitimate Mother Who Must Earn Her Living—The Child of the Foundling Asylum—Social Attitude Towards Illegitimacy Responsible for Abortion Evil—Dangers of Abortion—The Girl Who Has Lost Her Virginity.
When a girl has passed the transition period of puberty and is entering upon young womanhood she exerts an irresistible attraction on the male sex. Whether she give the impression of a luscious red rose or of a delicate white lily, the charms of a beautiful, healthy, bright girl of seventeen or eighteen are undeniable and their appeal to the esthetic and sexual sense of every normal male is a normal, natural phenomenon. Whether it is a good thing or a bad thing that it is so, we will not stop to discuss here. But it is a natural phenomenon, a natural law, if you will, and one does not quarrel with natural phenomena. It is useless. But the attraction which the girl exercises on the male is fraught with danger to her, and therefore a few words of advice and of warning are not out of place.
* * * * *
Temptations. Fortunate are you, my young girl friend, if you come from a well-sheltered home, if you have been properly brought up, if you have a good and wise mother who knows how to take care of you. A mother's wise counsel given at the proper time, and her comradeship all the time, are more invulnerable than an armor of bronze and more secure than locked doors and barred windows. But if you have lost your mother at an early age, or if your mother is not of the right sort—it is no use hiding the fact that some mothers are not what they should be—if you have to shift for yourself, if you have to work in a shop, in an office, and particularly if you live alone and not with your parents, then temptations in the shape of men, young and old, will encounter you at every step; they will swarm about you like flies about a lump of sugar; they will stick to you like bees to a bunch of honeysuckle.
I do not want you to get the false idea that all men or most men are bad and mean, and are constantly on the lookout to ruin young girls. No. Most men are good and honorable and too conscientious to ruin a young life. But there are some men, young and old, who are devoid of any conscience, who are so egotistic that their personal pleasure is their only guide of conduct. They will pester you. Some will lyingly claim that they are in love with you; some perhaps will sincerely believe that they are in love with you, mistaking a temporary passion for the sacred feeling of love. Some will even promise to marry you—some making the promise in sincerity, others with the deliberate intent to deceive. Still others will try to convince you that chastity is an old superstition, and that there is nothing wrong in sexual relations. In short, all ways and means will be employed by those men to induce you to enter into sexual relations with them.
Don't you do it!
I am not preaching or sermonizing to you. I am not appealing to your religion or your morals. For if you have strong religious or moral ideas against illicit sexual relations, you are not in need of mine or anybody else's advice. But I assume that you are a more or less modern girl, with little or no religious bringing-up, or perhaps a radical girl, who has shaken off the shackles of religion and tradition. And to you I say: Don't you do it. Why? Because your welfare, your future happiness, is at stake. I am speaking from the point of view of your own good, and from that point of view I say: Resist all attempts which men make exclusively for the purpose of satisfying their sexual desire, their lust.
You will ask again, why? For several reasons. First, you run the risk of venereal infection. The danger is not so great now as in former times, but is great enough. There are still plenty of men dishonest enough to indulge in sexual relations with a woman when they know they are not radically cured. The same man who will not get married unless he is sure that he is perfectly cured will not hesitate to subject a transient girl or woman to the risk of venereal infection. I know personally, because I have treated them; yes, I treated several intelligent and radical young men who infected young girls. And some of these girls in their turn, through ignorance and innocence, infected other men. So then, the first danger is the danger of venereal infection.
The second danger, still greater and more certain than the first, is the danger of impregnation. And pregnancy for a girl under our present moral and social-economic conditions is a terrible calamity. She is ostracized everywhere, and it means, if discovered, her social death. But you will say: "Aren't there any remedies that can be used to prevent conception? Aren't you yourself among the world's chief birth-controllers; one of the world's chief advocates of the use of contraceptives?" Yes, my dear young lady, but I never made the claim that the contraceptives were absolutely infallible, I never claimed that they were 100 per cent. effective in 100 per cent. of all cases. But if they are effective 999 times or even 990 times in every 1000 they are a blessing. And thousands of families so consider them. And if a married woman gets caught once in a while, the misfortune is not so great. But if the accident happens to a non-married woman, the misfortune is great. Then again, you want to bear in mind that accidents are less likely to happen to married than to non-married women. The married woman has no fear, needs no secrecy, and she can go about the method of preparation carefully, with deliberation. The unmarried girl, as a rule, has not the proper conveniences, more or less secrecy must be maintained, hurry is not infrequently necessary, and that is why accidents are more apt to occur in spite of the use of contraceptives. So then, the second danger, even more sinister than the first, is the danger of pregnancy. "But if a misfortune happens, can I not have an abortion produced?" No, not always. Physicians willing to induce an abortion are not found on every corner. But this is not the principal point. What I have to say on the subject, I will say later on in this chapter.
Then it is well for you to bear in mind that those very men who use their utmost efforts, who strain every fibre and every nerve to get you, will despise you and detest you as soon as they have succeeded in making you yield to their wishes. This is one of the worst blots on the male man's character, a blot from which the female character is entirely free. And some men—fortunately their number is not very large—are such moral skunks that they take morbid pleasure in boasting publicly of their sexual conquests, and unscrupulously peddle about the name of the girl whom, by cunning false promises or other means, they succeeded in seducing. And of course such a girl finds it difficult or impossible to get married, and must end her days in solitude, without the hope of a home of her own.
For the above reasons I advise you earnestly and sincerely not to yield to the solicitations of thoughtless or unscrupulous men, who think of nothing but their coarse sensual pleasures. It is advice dictated by common sense, by your own deeper interest, aside from any religious or moral considerations.
The above advice, or call it sermon if you will, is meant principally for young girls, girls between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five. If a girl has reached the age of twenty-eight or thirty and is willing to enter upon illicit sexual relations with her eyes open, with a full knowledge of the possible consequences, then it is her affair, and nobody shall say her nay. Nobody has a right to interfere.
Nor should my advice be understood as directed to cases where there is sincere reciprocal affection and a mutual understanding. This is an entirely different matter, and has nothing to do with cases where the man is the pursuer or seducer and the woman an unwilling or reluctant victim.
But whatever the relations between the man and the girl may be, whether she yielded in a fit of passion, or was seduced by false promises, by "moral" suasion, by hypnotic influence or by the vulgar method of being made drunk, what is she to do if she finds herself, to her horror, in a pregnant condition? There are two ways open to her: either let the pregnancy go to term or to have an abortion brought on.
If she lets the pregnancy go to term she has the alternative of bringing up the child herself openly or of placing it secretly in a foundling asylum. In the first case, the necessity of publicly acknowledging illegitimate motherhood requires so much moral courage that not one woman in a thousand is equal to it. It is not moral courage alone that is required; the social ostracism could be borne with stoicism and even with equanimity, if with it were not frequently associated the fear or the real danger of starvation. For under our present system the illegitimate mother finds many avenues of activity closed to her. A school teacher would lose her position instantly, and so would a woman in any public position. It is feared that her example might have a contaminating influence on the children or on her fellow workers. Nor could she be a social worker—I know of more than one woman who lost her position with social or philanthropic institutions as soon as it was discovered that she did not live up strictly to the conventional code of sex morality. Nor could she be a private governess.
It is thus seen that to acknowledge one's self an illegitimate mother requires so much courage, so much sacrifice, that very, very few mothers are now found that are equal to the task. Especially so when it is taken into consideration that the humiliations and indignities to which the child is subjected and the later reproaches of the child itself make the mother's life a veritable hell. So this alternative is generally out of the question.
To give the child to a foundling asylum or to a "baby farm" means generally to condemn it to a slow death—and not such a slow one, either. For as statistics show about ninety to ninety-five per cent. of all babies in those institutions die within a few months. And the very few who survive and grow up have not a happy life. Life is hard enough for anybody; for children who come into the world handicapped by the disgrace of illegitimacy, life is torture indeed. It is with a breaking heart generally and because there is no other way out of the dilemma that a mother puts her baby away in a foundling asylum. She hopes and prays for its speedy death.
Taking into consideration the pitifully unhappy lot of the illegitimate mother and illegitimate child, it is no wonder that every unmarried woman, as soon as she finds herself pregnant, is frantically determined to get rid of the child in the womb as soon as possible. And abortion thrives in every civilized country. Thousands and thousands of doctors and semi-doctors and midwives are making a rich living in this country from practicing abortion. The greater the disgrace with which illegitimacy is considered in a country, the stricter the prohibition against the use of measures for the prevention of conception, the greater the number of abortions in that country. But abortion is not a trifle, to be undertaken with a light heart. It is true that if performed by a thoroughly competent physician, with all aseptic precautions, it is practically free from danger. But when performed by a careless physician or an ignorant midwife, trouble is apt to happen. Blood poisoning may set in, and the patient may be very sick for a time, and may on recovery from the acute illness remain a chronic invalid for life. And occasionally the patient dies. Whether or not abortion is justifiable under special circumstances is a separate question, which I have discussed in another place. But leaving aside the ethics of the question, if you have determined to have an abortion produced, be sure to go to a conscientious physician, and avoid the quacks and midwives. An unexpected and undesired pregnancy is punishment enough and there is no reason why you should be further punished by becoming a chronic invalid or by paying with your life. There is no sense in it. Nobody will profit by your invalidism or your death.
I do not wish to leave this topic without re-emphasizing the fact that abortion is not a trifle, to be undertaken or even to be spoken of lightly. Too many women, not only in the radical ranks, but in the conservative ranks as well, are in the habit of considering abortion as a joke, a trifling annoyance, something like a cold in the head, which, while disagreeable, is sure to pass away in a day or two. They know Mrs. A and Mrs. B and perhaps Miss C who had abortions produced on them and in two or three days they were as good as ever. Yes. But they do not know Miss D who is resting in her grave, nor do they know why Miss E and Mrs. F are invalids for life. The women who get over their abortion experiences easily are apt to talk of their good luck; the women who have become chronic invalids or who are resting in their graves as a result of an abortion are not apt to talk of the matter.
And therefore, once more, remember, an abortion is no trifling matter.
One other piece of advice and I am through. Some men of a low moral and mental caliber are under the influence of the pernicious idea that if a girl has lost her virginity—no matter under what circumstances—she no longer amounts to much and is free prey for everybody who may want her. And, like beasts of prey, these wretched specimens of humanity pester such a girl with much more impudence, more brazenness than they dare to employ in the case of a girl who is still considered a virgin. And, what is more, the girls themselves become poisoned with this pernicious idea and dare not offer the same resistance that the virgin does. And they often yield with resignation, though against their will, and though they may experience a feeling of disgust against the man.
Now again, don't you do it. Do not nurse the medieval idea that because you are not a virgin in the physical sense, you are "ruined," "no good," and an outcast. You are nothing of the kind. If through some cause or other you are no longer in possession of an intact hymen, it is your affair or misfortune, and nobody else's. Do not on that account cast your eyes down and avoid meeting people. Carry your head high, do not fear to meet people, and treat with contempt the jeers of the stupid and ignorant. A person's entire character does not depend upon the presence or absence of the hymen, and one misstep should not ruin a person's whole life. A boy is not "ruined," is not an outcast, because he has had sexual relations before marriage, and while the boy's and girl's cases are not exactly identical, still the poor girl should not be made to expiate one error all her life long.
It isn't fair.
CHAPTER THIRTY-FOUR
ADVICE TO PARENTS OF UNFORTUNATE GIRLS
Attitude of Parents Towards Unfortunate Girl—The Case of Edith and What Her Father Did—The Pitiful Cases of Mary B. and Bridget C.
Suppose you are the parents of a girl to whom a misfortune has happened. I admit it is a misfortune, a catastrophe. Probably the greatest catastrophe that, under our present social system, can happen to an unmarried young woman. What are you going to do? Are you going to disgrace her—incidentally disgracing yourselves—are you going to kick her out of the house, condemning her to a suicide's grave, or to a life that is often worse than death? Or are you going to stand by her in her dark hours, to shield her, to surround her with a wall of protection against a cruel and wantonly inquisitive world, and thus earn her eternal gratitude, and put her on the path of self-improvement and useful social work? Which shall it be? But before you decide, kindly bear in mind that your girl is not entirely to blame; that some of the blame lies with you. If she had been properly brought up, this would not have happened. I know such a thing could never have happened in my household. But I know how I would have acted if such a thing had happened. And I will tell you how one father and mother did act under the circumstances.
They were far from rich; just fairly comfortable; they had a well-paying store. Edith was their treasure, because she was so pretty and so full of life. Unfortunately, she was too pretty and too full of life. She was only seventeen, but was fully developed, and had many empty-headed young admirers, who showered upon her silly compliments and cloying sweets. She became frivolous and flirtatious and was beginning to do poorly in high school. She failed in her last year, and refused to take the year over again. Now, all the time being her own, and having nobody to give any account to, she began to go out a good deal, and more than ever indulged in flirtations. One night she stayed out later than usual, her parents were worried, and when she came home about two in the morning there was a quarrel, and the father, who was a strict, impulsive man, gave her a pretty good beating. After that she went out very little, kept to herself, became rather melancholy, lost her appetite, and did not sleep well. To all inquiries she answered that there was nothing the matter with her, that she just felt a little indisposed. Four or five months thus passed.
But finally the condition could no longer be concealed. The mother was the first one to discover it. When the fact dawned upon her consciousness that her beautiful, not quite eighteen-year-old Edith was pregnant she promptly fell in a faint and it took Edith and the maid quite some time to restore her to consciousness. She became distracted. She floundered about pitifully, not knowing what to do, what decision to reach. She tried to conceal the matter from the father, but he saw that there was something wrong and it didn't take him long to worm the truth out of her. As the mother on learning the tragic truth had taken refuge in a dead faint, so he took refuge in a Berserker rage. He fumed and stormed and was in danger of an apoplectic stroke. He wanted to strike the daughter, but the mother interfered. He then ordered Edith to get out of the house and never to cross his threshold again. Edith looked at him to see if he meant it; the mother tried to intercede; but he was inflexible, and demanded that she leave at once. Edith began to gather a few of her belongings, the tears silently rolling down her face.
And here a sudden change came over the father. Some men (and women) are crushed by small misfortunes; real catastrophes awaken their finer qualities, which lay dormant within them and which might have remained dormant within them forever. In these few minutes he seems to have undergone a complete metamorphosis. He went up to Edith, took her in his arms, kissed her, told her to stay, to calm down and they would see what could be done. In a few days she was taken over to a physician who performed an abortion. She was a pretty sick girl for about six weeks, and at one time there was danger of blood poisoning setting in. But she recovered. And she was a different girl. She had shed her frivolity and lightheartedness like an old garment. She took her last year in high school over again, entered Barnard, from which she was graduated among the very first, and soon began to teach in that very high school in which she had been a pupil. One of the teachers fell in love with her and she fell in love with him. He asked her to marry him. She wanted no skeleton from the past coming down rattling its bones and marring their married life, and she told him of the unfortunate incident. A good test, by the way, to find out a man's real love and breadth of character. Fortunately the man's love was a true love, not merely passion, and he was truly broadminded, which is not a very common thing among school-teachers. Their married life is an uncloudedly happy one. And the relation between the daughter and the parents is one of sincere love and deep mutual respect.
Isn't it better so?
Didn't Edith's parents act more decently, more kindly, more humanely, more wisely than the parents, say, of Mary B, who, when they found out her condition, put her out of the house, into which she was brought back two days later a corpse, fished out from the East River? Didn't Edith's father act more nobly, more wisely even from a purely selfish point of view than the father of Bridget C, who kicked his daughter out penniless into the street, where he had to see her afterwards powdered and painted soliciting men and boys? The mother died of a broken heart, and the father, unable to bear the constant, daily repeated disgrace, became an incorrigible drunkard.
Fathers and mothers! So bring up your daughters, so guard them and protect them, that the misfortune of an illegitimate pregnancy may not befall them. But if the misfortune has befallen them, then stand by them! Do not desert them then in these dark hours, the darkest hours in a girl's life. Do not kick them—they are down enough. Stand by them, and they will become good women and you will have their eternal gratitude. If you do not stand by them, you are worse than the beasts of the jungle and deserve their eternal curse. You are unworthy to be, or to be called, parents, for you are devoid of the least spark of that sacred feeling called Parental Love, a feeling which unfortunately in only too many parents is replaced by nothing but the most sordid, most brutal egotism.
CHAPTER THIRTY-FIVE
SEXUAL RELATIONS DURING MENSTRUATION
Heightened Sexual Appetite of Many Women During Menstruation—Sexual Intercourse During Menstrual Period—When Intercourse May be Permitted—Injection Before Coitus During Menstruation—Fallacy of Ancient Idea of Injuriousness.
This may seem to some a strange and superfluous question, a question which would never present itself. Still the laity would be surprised if it learned how frequently nowadays that question is presented to the physician who specializes in sex matters. Some husbands come to the physician complaining that the menses are the only period during which their wives demand sex relations, and ask if something cannot be done to cure them of what they consider an abnormal desire.
Biologically considered, the desire on the woman's part for sex relations during the menses should not seem strange or abnormal, for we must bear in mind that menstruation bears a certain analogy to the rut in animals. And animals permit intercourse at no time except during the rut.
Recent investigations have disclosed to fact that the number of women whose sexual appetite is heightened during the time immediately preceding, during, and following the menses, is quite considerable. And there is also a smaller percentage of women who experience the desire at no other time except during the menses.
Speaking generally, relations during the menses should be discouraged. There are several reasons for it. The first reason, which need not be gone into in detail, is an esthetic one. The second reason is that intercourse during menstruation may in some cases lead to congestion of the uterus and ovaries. Third, the menstrual discharge, which as we know does not consist of pure blood but is a mixture of blood, mucus, and degenerated lining membrane of the uterus, may give rise to a catarrh of the urethra in the man. Fourth, and this is a point to be borne in mind, any discharge that a woman may be suffering from is always aggravated during menstruation. For these reasons relations during the menses are undesirable.
But where the woman has strong libido during that time and has no libido at any other time, relations may be indulged in during the last day or two of the menses. Any unpleasantness may be obviated and any discharge may be removed by the woman taking a mild, warm, antiseptic injection before coitus. The ancient idea of the injuriousness of the relations during menstruation and the disastrous results likely to follow them have only a very slender foundation. They rest on no scientific basis and though it may be sad to state facts, there are many couples who do indulge in such relations as a regular thing and without any injury to either husband or wife.
CHAPTER THIRTY-SIX
SEXUAL INTERCOURSE DURING PREGNANCY
Complete Abstinence During-Pregnancy—Bad Results of Complete Abstinence—Intensity of Relations During First Four Months—Intercourse During Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Months—Intercourse During Eighth and Ninth Months—Abstinence After Birth of Child.
The question whether sexual intercourse is permissible during pregnancy is often put to the physician. Some extremists and theorists demand complete abstinence during the entire duration of pregnancy. Such abstinence is not only not feasible, but is unnecessary and may prove a disrupting factor; it may create not only dissension, it may wreck the love-life of husband and wife. I know of cases where the wife, influenced by the wrong teachings about the necessity of complete abstinence during pregnancy, about the possible injury to the child from intercourse, persisted in keeping the husband away; and the result was that the husband began to go to other women, and he got in the habit to such an extent that he refused to give up entirely, even after the child was born. It cannot be expected from a married man, who is used to more or less regular sexual relations, to abstain entirely for nine or ten months. Such a demand is unreasonable and uncalled for. All claims about the injurious effects of intercourse on the mother and child lack proof and foundation. During the first four months of pregnancy no change need be made in the usual sex relations. Their "intensity" should be moderated, their frequency need not. During the fifth, sixth and seventh months intercourse should be indulged in at rarer intervals—once in two or three weeks—the act should be performed without any violence or intensity, and the usual position should be reversed or changed to a lateral one. During the eighth and ninth months relations had best be given up altogether. |
|
