Woman by William J. Robinson (ebook reader 7 inch .TXT) 📖
- Author: William J. Robinson
- Performer: -
Book online «Woman by William J. Robinson (ebook reader 7 inch .TXT) 📖». Author William J. Robinson
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Comments (0)