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 rôle. 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 rôle 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 blasé 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?