ITS EVILS AND DANGERS.
The evil considered in the preceding section is by far the greatest cause of those which will be dwelt upon in this. Excesses are habitually practiced through ignorance or carelessness of their direct results, and then to prevent the legitimate result of the reproductive act, innumerable devices are employed to render it fruitless. To even mention all of these would be too great a breach of propriety, even in this plain-spoken work; but accurate description is unnecessary, since those who need this warning are perfectly familiar with all the foul accessories of evil thus employed. We cannot do better than to quote from the writings of several of the most eminent authors upon this subject. The following paragraphs are from the distinguished Mayer, who has already been frequently quoted:—
"The numerous stratagems invented by debauch to annihilate the natural consequences of coition, have all the same end in view."
Conjugal Onanism.—"The soiling of the conjugal bed by the shameful maneuvers to which we have made allusion, is mentioned for the first time in Gen. 38:6, and following verses: 'And it came to pass, when he [Onan] went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. And the thing which he did displeased the Lord; wherefore he slew him.'
"Hence the name of conjugal onanism.
"One cannot tell to what great extent this vice is practiced, except by observing its consequences, even among people who fear to commit the slightest sin, to such a degree is the public conscience perverted upon this point. Still, many husbands know that nature often succeeds in rendering nugatory the most subtle calculations, and reconquers the rights which they have striven to frustrate. No matter; they persevere, none the less, and by the force of habit they poison the most blissful moments of life, with no surety of averting the result that they fear. So, who knows if the infants, too often feeble and weazen, are not the fruit of these in themselves incomplete procreations, and disturbed by preoccupations foreign to the generic act? Is it not reasonable to suppose that the creative power, not meeting in its disturbed functions the conditions necessary for the elaboration of a normal product, the conception might be from its origin imperfect, and the being which proceeded therefrom, one of those monsters which are described in treatises on teratology?"
"Let us see, now, what are the consequences to those given to this practice of conjugal onanism.
"We have at our disposition numerous facts which rigorously prove the disastrous influence of abnormal coitus to the woman, but we think it useless to publish them. All practitioners have more or less observed them, and it will only be necessary for them to call upon their memories to supply what our silence leaves. 'However, it is not difficult to conceive,' says Dr. Francis Devay, 'the degree of perturbation that a like practice should exert upon the genital system of woman by provoking desires which are not gratified. A profound stimulation is felt through the entire apparatus; the uterus, fallopian tubes, and ovaries enter into a state of orgasm, a storm which is not appeased by the natural crisis; a nervous super-excitation persists. There occurs, then, what would take place if, presenting food to a famished man, one should snatch it from his mouth after having thus violently excited his appetite. The sensibilities of the womb and the entire reproductive system are teased for no purpose. It is to this cause, too often repeated, that we should attribute the multiple neuroses, those strange affections which originate in the genital system of woman. Our conviction respecting them is based upon a great number of observations. Furthermore, the normal relations existing between the married couple undergo unfortunate changes; this affection, founded upon reciprocal esteem, is little by little effaced by the repetition of an act which pollutes the marriage bed; from thence proceed certain hard feelings, certain deep impressions which, gradually growing, eventuate in the scandalous ruptures of which the community rarely know the real motive.'
"If the good harmony of families and their reciprocal relations are seriously menaced by the invasion of these detestable practices, the health of women, as we have already intimated, is fearfully injured. A great number of neuralgias appear to us to have no other cause. Many women that we have interrogated on this matter have fortified this opinion. But that which to us has passed to the condition of incontestable proof, is the prevalence of uterine troubles, of enervation among the married, hysterical symptoms which are met with in the conjugal relation as often as among young virgins, arising from the vicious habits of the husbands in their conjugal intercourse.... Still more, there is a graver affection, which is daily increasing, and which, if nothing arrests its invasion, will soon have attained the proportions of a scourge; we speak of the degeneration of the womb. We do not hesitate to place in the foremost rank, among the causes of this redoubtable disease, the refinements of civilization, and especially the artifices introduced in our day in the generic act. When there is no procreation, although the procreative faculties are excited, we see these pseudo-morphoses arise. Thus it is noticed that polypi and schirrus [cancer] of the womb are common among prostitutes. And it is easy to account for the manner of action of this pathogenetic cause, if we consider how probable it is that the ejaculation and contact of the sperm with the uterine neck, constitutes, for the woman, the crisis of the genital function, by appeasing the venereal orgasm and calming the voluptuous emotions under the action of which the entire economy is convulsed."
"We may, we trust, be pardoned for remarking upon the artifices imagined to prevent fecundation that there is in them an immense danger, of incalculable limits. We do not fear to be contradicted or taxed with exaggeration in elevating them into the proportions of a true calamity."
The following is from an eminent physician[25] who for many years devoted his whole attention to the diseases of women and lectured upon the subject in a prominent medical college:—
"It is undeniable that all the methods employed to prevent pregnancy are physically injurious. Some of these have been characterized with sufficient explicitness, and the injury resulting from incomplete coitus to both parties has been made evident to all who are willing to be convinced. It should require but a moment's consideration to convince any one of the harmfulness of the common use of cold ablutions and astringent infusions and various medicated washes. Simple and often wonderfully salutary as is cold water to a diseased limb, festering with inflammation, yet few are rash enough to cover a gouty toe, rheumatic knee, or erysipelatous head with cold water.... Yet, when in the general state of nervous and physical excitement attendant upon coitus, when the organs principally engaged in this act are congested and turgid with blood, do you think you can with impunity throw a flood of cold or even lukewarm water far into the vitals in a continual stream? Often, too, women add strong medicinal agents, intended to destroy by dissolution the spermatic germs, ere they have time to fulfill their natural destiny. These powerful astringents suddenly corrugate and close the glandular structure of the parts, and this is followed, necessarily, by a corresponding reaction, and the final result is debility and exhaustion, signalized by leucorrhoea, prolapsus, and other diseases.
"Finally, of the use of intermediate tegumentary coverings, made of thin rubber or gold-beater's skin, and so often relied upon as absolute preventives, Madame de Stael is reputed to have said, 'They are cobwebs for protection, and bulwarks against love.' Their employment certainly must produce a feeling of shame and disgust utterly destructive of the true delight of pure hearts and refined sensibilities. They are suggestive of licentiousness and the brothel, and their employment degrades to bestiality the true feelings of manhood and the holy state of matrimony. Neither do they give, except in a very limited degree, the protection desired. Furthermore, they produce (as alleged by the best modern French writers, who are more familiar with the effect of their use than we are in the United States) certain physical lesions from their irritating presence as foreign bodies, and also, from the chemicals employed in their fabrication, and other effects inseparable from their employment, ofttimes of a really serious nature.
"I will not further enlarge upon these instrumentalities. Sufficient has been said to convince any one that to trifle with the grand functions of our organism, to attempt to deceive and thwart nature in her highly ordained prerogatives—no matter how simple seem to be the means employed—is to incur a heavy responsibility and run a fearful risk. It matters little whether a railroad train is thrown from the track by a frozen drop of rain or a huge bowlder lying in the way, the result is the same, the injuries as great. Moral degradation, physical disability, premature exhaustion and decrepitude are the result of these physical frauds, and force upon our conviction the adage, which the history of every day confirms, that 'honesty is the best policy.'"
25 Dr. Gardner.
Within the last ten years we have had under treatment many hundred cases of ladies suffering from ailments of a character peculiar to the sex; and in becoming acquainted with the history of individual cases we have, in many instances, found that the real cause of the disease which had sapped the vitality and undermined the constitution slowly but surely until cheerful health and freshness had given place to suffering, debility, and, in many cases, most deplorable melancholy, was the very crime against nature mentioned in the preceding paragraphs. The effects of these sins against nature are frequently not felt for years after the cause has been at work, and even then are seldom attributed to the true cause. In some instances we have known persons to suffer on for many years without having once suspected that the cause of their sufferings was a palpable violation of nature's laws. Uterine diseases thus induced are among the most obstinate of diseases of this class, being often of long standing, and hence of a very serious character. Dr. Wm. Goodell of Philadelphia has recently called attention to the fact that the prevention of conception is one of the most common causes of prolapsus of the ovaries, a very common and painful disease. Not infrequently, too, other organs, particularly the bladder, become affected, either through sympathy or in consequence of the congested condition of the contiguous parts.
A difficulty which we have often met with has been the inability to convince those who have been guilty of the practices referred to, of the enormity of the sin against both soul and body. In spite of all warnings, perhaps supplemented by sufferings, the practice will often be continued, producing in the end the most lamentable results. Too often it is the case that this reluctance to obey the dictates of Nature's laws is the result of the unfeeling and unreasonable demands of a selfish husband.
Shaker Views.—The Shakers do not, as many suppose, believe wholly in celibacy. They believe in marriage and reproduction regulated by the natural law. They, also, would limit population, but not by interfering with nature; rather, by following nature's indications to the very letter. They believe "that no animals should use their reproductive powers and organs for any other than the simple purpose of procreation." Recognizing the fact that this is the law among lower animals, they insist upon applying it to man. Thus they find no necessity for the employment of those abominable contrivances so common among those who disregard the laws of nature. Who will not respect the purity which must characterize sexual relations so governed? Such a method for regulating the number of offspring is in immense contrast with that of the Oneida Community, which opens the door to the unstinted gratification of lust, separates the reproductive act entirely from its original purpose, and makes it the means of mere selfish, sensual, beastly—worse than brutish—gratification.
Those who are acquainted with the history of the founder of this community are obliged to look upon him as a scheming sensualist who well knows the truth, but deliberately chooses a course of evil, and beguiles into his snares others as sensual as himself. The abominations practiced among the members of the community which he has founded are represented by those who have had an inside view of its workings as too foul to mention. It seems almost wonderful that Providence does not lay upon this gigantic brothel his hand of vengeance as in ancient times he did upon Sodom, which could hardly have been more sunken in infamy than is this den of licentiousness. It is, indeed, astonishing that it should be tolerated in the midst of a country which professes to regard virtue and respect the marriage institution. We are glad to note that popular opinion is calling loudly for the eradication of this foul ulcer. Only a short time ago a convention of more than fifty ministers met at Syracuse, N. Y., for the express purpose of considering ways and means for the removal of this blot "by legal measures or otherwise." We sincerely wish them success; and it appears to us that the people in that vicinity would be justified should they rise en masse and purge their community of an evil so heinous, in case no civil authority can be induced to do the work of expurgation.[26]
26 Just as this edition is going to press we receive the gratifying information that the younger members of the Community have become disgusted with their sensual life and announced that their former vile practices will be discontinued. Mr. Noyes with a few followers has sought refuge in Canada.—J. H. K.
Moral Bearings of the Question.—Most of the considerations presented thus far have been of a physical character, though occasional references to the moral aspect of the question have been made. In a certain sense—and a true one—the question is wholly a moral one; for what moral right have men or women to do that which will injure the integrity of the physical organism given them, and for which they are accountable to their Creator? Surely none; for the man who destroys himself by degrees, is no less a murderer than he who cuts his throat or puts a bullet through his brain. The crime is the same—being the shortening of human life—whether the injury is done to one's self or to another. In this matter, there are at least three sufferers; the husband, the wife, and the offspring, though in most cases, doubtless, the husband is the one to whom the sin almost exclusively belongs.
Unconsidered Murders.—But there is a more startling phase of this moral question. It is not impossible to show that actual violence is done to a human life.
It has been previously shown that in the two elements, the ovum of the female, and the spermatozoÖn of the male, are, in rudimentary form, all the elements which go to make up the "human form divine." Alone, neither of these elements can become anything more than it already is; but the instant that the two elements come in contact, fecundation takes place, and the individual life begins. From that moment until maturity is reached, years subsequently, the whole process is only one of development. Nothing absolutely new is added at any subsequent moment. In view of these facts, it is evident that at the very instant of conception the embryonic human being possesses all the right to life it ever can possess. It is just as much an individual, a distinct human being, possessed of soul and body, as it ever is, though in a very immature form. That conception may take place during the reproductive act cannot be denied. If, then, means are employed with a view to prevent conception immediately after the accomplishment of the act, or at any subsequent time, if successful, it would be by destroying the delicate product of the conception which had already occurred, and which, as before observed, is as truly a distinct individual as it can ever become—certainly as independent as at any time previous to birth.
Is it immoral to take human life? Is it a sin to kill a child? Is it a crime to strangle an infant at birth? Is it a murderous act to destroy a half-formed human being in its mother's womb? Who will dare to answer "No," to one of these questions? Then, who can refuse assent to the plain truth that it is equally a murder to deprive of life the most recent product of the generative act?
Who can number the myriads of murders that have been perpetrated at this early period of existence? Who can estimate the load of guilt that weighs upon some human souls? and who knows how many brilliant lights have been thus early extinguished? how many promising human plantlets thus ruthlessly destroyed in the very act of germinating? It is to be hoped that in the final account the extenuating influence of ignorance may weigh heavily in the scale of justice against the damning testimony of these "unconsidered murders."
The Charge Disputed.—It will be urged that these early destructions are not murders. Murder is an awful word. The act itself is a terrible crime. No wonder that its personal application should be studiously avoided; the human being who would not shrink from such a charge would be unworthy of the name of human—a very brute. Nevertheless, it is necessary to look the plain facts squarely in the face, and shrink not from the decision of an enlightened conscience. We quote the following portions of an extract which we give in full elsewhere; it is from the same distinguished authority[27] whom we have frequently quoted:—
"There is, in fact, no moment after conception when it can be said that the child has not life, and the crime of destroying human life is as heinous and as sure before the period of 'quickening' has been attained, as afterward. But you still defend your horrible deed by saying: 'Well, if there be, as you say, this mere animal life, equivalent at the most to simple vitality, there is no mind, no soul destroyed, and, therefore, there is no crime committed.' Just so surely as one would destroy and root out of existence all the fowls in the world by destroying all the eggs in existence, so certain is it that you do by your act destroy the animal man in the egg and the soul which animates it.... Murder is always sinful, and murder is the willful destruction of a human being at any period of its existence, from its earliest germinal embryo to its final, simple, animal existence in aged decrepitude and complete mental imbecility."
27 Gardner.
Difficulties.—Married people will exclaim, "What shall we do?" Delicate mothers who have already more children on their hands than they can care for, whose health is insufficient to longer endure the pains and burdens of pregnancy, but whose sensual husbands continue to demand indulgence, will echo in despairing tones, while acknowledging the truth, "What shall we do?" We will answer the question for the latter first.
Mr. Mill, the distinguished English logician, in his work on "The Subjection of Woman," thus represents the erroneous view which is popularly held of the sexual relations of the wife to the husband: "The wife, however brutal a tyrant she may be chained to—though she may know that he hates her, though it may be his daily pleasure to torture her, and though she may feel it impossible not to loathe him—he can claim from her and enforce the lowest degradation of a human being, that of being made the instrument of an animal function contrary to her inclinations."
Woman's Rights.—A woman does not, upon the performance of the marriage ceremony, surrender all her personal rights. The law recognizes this fact if her husband beats her, or in any way injures her by physical force, or even by neglect. Why may she not claim protection from other maltreatment as well? or, at least, why may she not refuse to lend herself to beastly lust? She remains the proprietor of her own body, though married; and who is so lost to all sense of justice, equity, and even morality, as to claim that she is under any moral obligation to allow her body to be abused?
Since the first edition of this work was published, we have many times been appealed to by suffering wives in the most pathetic terms. In many instances the poor wife was suffering with local disease of a serious character, making sexual approaches in the highest degree painful as well as repugnant; yet notwithstanding this, the demands of the husband for the gratification of his bestial passions were, in many instances, in no degree lessened by a knowledge of the facts in the case.
In cases like these it is often a very delicate and exceedingly difficult task to point out the duty of the suffering wife and mother. The duty of the husband is very plain, and to him the wise physician will appeal in a manner which cannot fail to arouse him to a sense of his duty if there is yet left unconsumed by the fires of lust even a vestige of genuine manhood.
What to Do.—Now to the question as asked by the first parties—married people who together seek for a solution of the difficulties arising from an abandonment of all protectives against fecundation. The true remedy, and the natural one, is doubtless to be found in the suggestion made under the heads of "Continence" and "Marital Excesses." By a course of life in accordance with the principles there indicated, all of these evils and a thousand more would be avoided. There would be less sensual enjoyment, but more elevated joy. There would be less animal love, but more spiritual communion; less grossness, more purity; less development of the animal, and a more fruitful soil for the culture of virtue, holiness, and all the Christian graces.
"But such a life would be impossible this side of Heaven." A few who claim to have tried the experiment think not. The Shakers claim to practice, as well as teach, such principles; and with the potent aids to continence previously specified, it might be found less difficult in realization than in thought.
A Compromise.—There will be many, the vast majority, perhaps, who will not bring their minds to accept the truth which nature seems to teach, which would confine sexual acts to reproduction wholly. Others, acknowledging the truth, declare "the spirit willing" though "the flesh is weak." Such will inquire, "Is there not some compromise by means of which we may escape the greater evils of our present mode of life?" Such may find in the following facts suggestions for a "better way," if not the best way, though it cannot be recommended as wholly free from dangers, and though it cannot be said of it that it is not an unnatural way:—
"Menstruation in woman indicates an aptitude for impregnation, and this condition remains for a period of six or eight days after the entire completion of the flow. During this time only can most women conceive. Allow twelve days for the onset of the menses to pass by, and the probabilities of impregnation are very slight. This act of continence is healthful, moral, and irreproachable."[28]
28 Gardner.
It should be added to the above that the plan suggested is not absolutely certain to secure immunity from conception. The period of abstinence should certainly extend from the beginning of menstruation to the fourteenth day. To secure even reasonable safety, it is necessary to practice further abstinence for three or four days previous to the beginning of the flow.
Many writers make another suggestion which would certainly be beneficial to individual health; viz., that the husband and wife should habitually occupy separate beds. Such a practice would undoubtedly serve to keep the sexual instincts in abeyance. Separate apartments, or at least the separation of the beds by a curtain, are recommended by some estimable physicians, who suggest that such a plan would enable both parties to conduct their morning ablutions with proper thoroughness and without sacrificing that natural modesty which operates so powerfully as a check upon the excessive indulgence of the passions. Many will think the suggestion a good one and will make a practical application of it. Sleeping in single beds is reputed to be a European custom of long standing among the higher classes.
This subject cannot be concluded better than by the following quotations from an excellent and able work entitled, "The Ten Laws of Health"[29]:—
"The obvious design of the sexual desire is the reproduction of the species.... The gratification of this passion, or indeed of any other, beyond its legitimate end, is an undoubted violation of natural law, as may be determined by the light of nature, and by the resulting moral and physical evils."
"Those creatures not gifted with erring reason, but with unerring instinct, and that have not the liberty of choice between good and evil, cohabit only at stated periods, when pleasure and reproduction are alike possible. It is so ordered among them that the means and the end are never separated; and as it was the all-wise Being who endowed them with this instinct, without the responsibility resulting from the power to act otherwise, it follows that it is HIS LAW, and must, therefore, be the true copy for all beings to follow having the same functions to perform, and for the same end. The mere fact that men and women have the power and liberty of conforming or not conforming to this copy does not set them free from obedience to a right course, nor from the consequences of disobedience."
"The end of sexual pleasure being to reproduce the species, it follows, from the considerations just advanced, that when the sexual function is diverted from its end, reproduction, or if the means be used when the end is impossible, harm or injury should ensue."
"Perhaps the number is not small of those who think there is nothing wrong in an unlimited indulgence of the sexual propensity during married life. The marriage vow seems to be taken as equivalent to the freest license, about which there need be no restraint. Yet, if there is any truth in the law in reference to the enjoyment of the means only when the end is possible, the necessity of the limitation of this indulgence during married life is clearly as great as for that of any other sensual pleasure.
"A great majority of those constituting the most highly civilized communities, act upon the belief that anything not forbidden by sacred or civil law is neither sinful nor wrong. They have not found cohabitation during pregnancy forbidden; nor have they ever had their attention drawn to the injury to health and organic development, which such a practice inflicts. Hence, a habitual yielding to inclination in this matter has determined their life-long behavior.
"The infringement of this law in the married state does not produce in the husband any very serious disorder. Debility, aches, cramps, and a tendency to epileptic seizures, are sometimes seen as the effects of great excess. An evil of no small account is the steady growth of the sexual passion by habitual unrestraint. It is in this way that what is known as libidinous blood is nursed as well among those who are strictly virtuous, in the ordinary meaning of the term, as among those who are promiscuous in their intercourse.
"The wife and the offspring are the chief sufferers by the violation of this law among the married. Why this is so, may in part be accounted for by the following consideration: Among the animal kind it is the female which decides when the approaches of the male are allowable. When these are untimely, her instinctive prompting leads her to resist and protect herself with ferocious zeal. No one at all acquainted with the remarkable wisdom nature invariably displays in all her operations, will doubt that the prohibition of all sexual intercourse among animals during the period of pregnancy must be for a wise and good purpose. And, if it serves a wise and good purpose with them, why should an opposite course not serve an unwise and bad purpose with us? Our bodies are very much like theirs in structure and in function; and in the mode and laws that govern reproduction there is absolutely no difference. The mere fact that we possess the power to act otherwise than they do during that period, does not make it right.
"Human beings having no instinctive prompting as to what is right and what is wrong, cohabitation, like many other points of the behavior, is left for reason or the will to determine; or, rather, as things now are to unreason; for reason is neither consulted nor enlightened as to what is proper and allowable in the matter. Nature's rule, by instinct, makes it devolve upon the female to determine when the approaches of the male are allowable.
"But some may say that she is helpless in the matter. No one dare to approach her without consent before marriage; and why should man not be educated up to the point of doing the same after marriage? She is neither his slave, nor his property; nor does the tie of marriage bind her to carry out any unnatural requirement."
29 J. R. Black, M.D.