Tag: much

  • THE RIGHT OF A CHILD TO A KNOWLEDGE OF SEX

    Social conditions of childhood changed.—The social conditions of childhood have changed much in the last fifty years. Just as our children have opportunities and possibilities far greater than had we when we were children; so they are exposed to temptations and dangers greater than were we, when we were children. The suggestive, and oft-times positively obscene pictures on post cards, in books and on billboards; the viciously immoral literature; the cheap moving picture shows of to-day, were not social problems threatening the purity of our childhood.

    Knowledge of self important.—There were ethical, biological and vital truths that our parents, because of mock modesty and a false and inadequate education, failed to give us in our childhood. This was a serious defect in our early education. We met with temptations, were often overcome by them and we are not what we might have been had we been safeguarded by a better knowledge of ourselves. But, because of the better social conditions of our childhood, we were better able to grow up without this information and with less injury to ourselves, than our children can, without this information, under present social conditions. If we would safeguard the character of the children of to-day and the youths of to-morrow and the manhood and the womanhood of the succeeding day we must give our children a correct knowledge of themselves.

    The confidence of childhood.—When children are born, they have a capacity for learning how to stand alone, crawl, walk, love and hate, speak and read, to judge of what is right and wrong. All they may come to know in the future, true or false, good or evil, they must learn. Coming into our homes without knowledge and utterly helpless, they naturally come to recognize their parents as their rightful teachers and to have absolute confidence in them. Ask a child from three to ten years old who he thinks is the best man in the world. The reply will be, “my papa.” Ask him who he thinks is the best woman in the world. The instinctive reply will be, “my mamma.” The answer may be true or false, but we do not question the sincerity of the child. The greatest calamity that can come to that child, comes when he is compelled by convincing evidence to reverse in his judgment this sincereand implicit faith in the goodness of his parents. No greater misfortune than this, can come to the parents. This natural and complete confidence and dependence of the child gives the parents a very decided advantage over all other teachers in the future training of the child.

    Inquisitiveness of childhood.—It is because of this natural confidence that the child goes to the parents with his many questions. The almost ceaseless activity and playfulness of a child, are in response to nature’s call for exercise in the natural and healthful development of every organ of the body. The many questions of a child are in response to nature’s call for exercise in the development of every faculty of the mind. The unfolding, growing, developing mind of a child naturally asks questions. It is for this reason that a child is said to be an animated interrogation point. Some of the questions of a child may perplex a philosopher, tax the patience of a Job, or embarrass a brass monkey; but the naturalness and sincerity of the child demand honesty, frankness and wisdom on the part of parents.

    How did I get into this world?—At the age of three, four and five the child will begin to ask questions as, “Where does the rain come from? Where does the snow come from? Where do the clouds come from?” When kittens, pups, pigs, a calf, a colt are born, the child very naturally asks about their origin. The child is told repeatedly that he is four, five or six years old; that he has had that number of birthdays and has seen that number of Christmases. He remembers only half of them. He listens with interest to his parents as they relate some thrilling event of years gone by. A bright inquiring child will naturally ask, “Mamma, was I in the world at that time?” The mamma replies, “No, darling, that happened six months before you were born.” How very natural it was for the child to ask, “Well, mamma, where was I at that time? How did I get into the world?” An angel could not be more sincere, or ask a purer question. This was no evidence of the child’s depravity. When I find a child of seven or eight years old who has not asked about his origin, I know that one of three conditions will explain this unusual mental state of the child. (1) The parents have not encouraged the child’s mental development by permitting him to be free in asking questions. (2) The child has heard the story of life told by vicious companions, in half truths, clothed in vulgar language and is keeping his information a secret from his parents. (3) The child is not developing quite as fast as I would like for my child to develop.

    The unsatisfied mind.—When the inquiring mind of a child has once become interested in this question, it is not possible for him to be satisfied until a plausible answer has been received. The child’s future, physical, mental and moral life more largely depends upon the answer given to this question, than to any other question of his childhood.

    The most vital part of a child’s education neglected.—In the past, parents, teachers, reformers and ministers have very largely held to the old theory, that, if children are to be kept pure and innocent, they must be kept ignorant of all information pertaining to sex. We have them learn the physiology, anatomy and hygiene of their brain, heart, lungs, digestive and nervous systems as if their very lives depended upon a correct knowledge of these parts; but we have allowed them to grow up in total ignorance concerning the sacred sanctuary and function of human reproduction, upon which so much of health, happiness and success in life depends.

    Mistakes of the past.—In the past all faithful parents have loved their children as much as we have loved our children. They were as much interested in safeguarding the virtue of their children as are the parents of to-day. They endeavored to train their children in harmony with their ideals of right. Our parents, in their childhood, got the idea that all language and information concerning sex was essentially impure. All their information was received from vicious, ignorant sources. In matured life, they came to see that all the words and language they had heard pertaining to sex and all the mental and moral impressions they had received, had done them great harm. Their experience led them unwisely to conclude that all information of this kind is injurious to a child. They failed to see the difference between receiving only half-truths, expressed in vulgar words and phrases, taught by the vicious and ignorant; and in receiving the pure truth, in chaste language from the lips of a wise teacher, a noble father or a pure mother. A nugget of gold may be pure gold, whether found in a mud hole, a slop bucket, a tar bucket, or a clear stream of water. But, if you come in contact with the surroundings of the gold, your remaining clean, becoming cleaner, or becoming soiled, will depend on the place where you find the gold. The effects, good or bad, of sex knowledge, upon a child are largely determined by where and how he gets his information. If he gets this information from a careful and wise teacher no harm can come from it. If he gets the information from the misinformed and the impure, only harm will follow.

    To teach sex truths, two qualifications necessary.—You would not think of having your child taught mathematics by one, who, himself, was never properly taught, or who knew only half-truths about mathematics. You might not demand of him a moral qualification, if he possessed the intellectual equipment. But, in the teaching of sex, a moral qualification is even more necessary than the intellectual. But few adults are prepared to tell the story of life to a child, and fewer still are prepared to give additional instruction as the child grows older. For one to do this work successfully two qualifications are absolutely necessary. (1) Parents and teachers must have a moral qualification. They must regard the organs of sex and their functions as pure and sacred. If they have the taint of lasciviousness in their thoughts of the creative function, it would be a dangerous experiment for them to attempt to teach their children about the origin of life, or to give other instruction to those more advanced in years. The misinformation and false education they received in childhood and the consequent mock modesty, are the greatest difficulties in the way of their performing this sacred duty to their children. For this reason the adult classes are as much in need of correct instruction in sex as are the children. (2) Parents and teachers must have a mental qualification. One-fifth of the names referring to the organs of sex, their functions and their abuse, that adults are forced to use when they try to express their thoughts about sex, could not be found in the dictionary, and, one-half of those that could be found in the dictionary would not refer in their meaning, even remotely, to the sexual system. They picked up these words in childhood from ignorant schoolmates and companions whose minds were tainted with debasing thoughts of sex. The use of these vulgar words, in the presence of a boy who has heard them before, suggests to his mind that which is lascivious. Those who would teach these things, to the young or old, should be able to command a chaste, clean, plain, language.

    How a father failed.—During one of my courses of lectures, a cultured lawyer invited me to his office for an interview. He reproduced, in language and gesture as best he could, a speech he had made to his twelve-year old boy warning him of the dangers of the secret sin. I saw the lawyer was deeply interested in his boy. He loved him and was deeply concerned about his future. The language he used was the same he had learned when a boy and the same his boy had evidently heard on the playground. I question whether the father’s advice did his son much good. Here was a case where good service was neutralized by suggestive language.

    How a teacher failed.—A few months ago I lectured in a city where immorality was appalling. The superintendent of schools called into the chapel about six hundred boys, from ten to eighteen, and attempted to lecture them on social purity. He soon became embarrassed, used some street terms, excited lascivious thoughts, looks, smiles and laughter among the boys and utterly failed in his efforts. If this lawyer and teacher failed with the advantages and solicitude they must have had, would not the great mass of parents, teachers and ministers fail for the same reasons.

    Parents not wholly responsible.—A few editors, doctors and reformers have censured parents severely for not teaching their children the truth on these subjects. They should remember that ten years ago a very few parents had read a sane book or listened to an intelligent lecture on these subjects. Their only information had been gained from the playground and street on the sly. Courses of lectures, adapted to age and sex, should be given in every community. Ministers, teachers, physicians, merchants, parents, young and old, educated and uneducated, all should hear them. A few standard books on sex-hygiene and social purity should be put in every home. Jesus said, “Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.” More people are in physical, mental and moral slavery because of ignorance concerning the laws of sex, than all other causes combined. It follows that those who have learned the truth should impart it to those who have it not.

    How children have been treated in the past.—We have seen how parents have been led in the past to conclude that all information as to the origin of life is injurious to a child. For a child to inquire, “Where was I before I was born? How did I get into this world?” was a sure sign of his depravity. As a result of these traditionary ideas some parents have slapped a child for asking about his origin. Still, others have scolded and ordered the child from the room, commanding him never to ask such ugly questions again. What must be the feelings of a child treated in such an unappreciative and heartless way! Such treatment has never satisfied the inquiring mind of any child. Under such treatment a child will go off alone, pained and puzzled to know what was wrong in that simple, natural, honest question. In most cases the child’s question has been evaded by some one of a hundred falsehoods about “swamps,” “sinkholes,” “hollow logs and stumps,” “bird nests,” “storks,” “old women,” “doctor’s satchel,” and “under a cabbage head.” When only a small boy, I was called from my bed early one spring morning to see a beautiful colt the mare had found. For awhile I looked at the colt with admiration and wonder. Then I very naturally inquired, “Where did the mare find her colt?” I was told that she found it in a nearby brush pile. For the next six months no brush pile escaped my eager eyes.

    An example.—On my second lecture trip through Canada, a father told me how he answered his little girl’s question, “Papa, how did I get into this world?” His answer was as follows: “Daughter, God dropped you out of heaven one day while it was raining. Papa saw you falling from a cloud and ran out and caught you in his arms and brought you into the house.” That father was boasting of his tact and wisdom.

    Another example.—A mother in the South, in reply to a similar question asked by her five-year-old boy, said: “Son, God sent you into this town on the Cotton Belt train, about three o’clock one afternoon. The doctor was at the depot and saw you. He knew that we wanted a little boy, so he put you in his satchel and brought you to mamma.” When this mother related this to me, her boy was nine years old and had not asked her another word about his origin. At the close of my lecture, with tears in her eyes, she said: “Professor, do you suppose that my little boy has been hearing vulgar stories and is keeping his information a secret from mamma?” “Yes, nine times out of ten, if you have a bright boy,” was my reply. Upon investigation she found that her boy had been hearing vulgar talk for about three years. How long do you suppose it will take that boy to eradicate from his mind and heart the evil effects of such training? It is not a question whether your child and mine shall get this information or not. That question is settled. The child will get the information. The questions for us to settle are: When shall this information be given? Who shall give it? What shall be given? How shall it be given?

    Results of the old method.—I shall not call in question the love, sincerity and honesty of these parents. In most cases they were sincere and did the best they knew how. I am concerned about the results of this time-honored method. Did the old method of deception, misleading and false replies ever satisfy the inquiring mind of a child? Did the old method ever make a child wiser? Did it ever lead a child to regard human reproduction as delicate, sacred and pure? Did it ever lead a child to greater love and faith in its parents? Only negative answers can be given to all these questions.

    How the child finds out.—As a rule, it is not long after a child becomes interested in his origin until some older child, a playmate or servant will say, “I know something that you do not know. You would like to know it. It is how little children come into this world. I will tell you all about it, if you will not tell your mamma and papa about it.” I do not care how good the child may be, how well trained, or how obedient: such is the intense interest of a child in the mystery of his life that he will agree to keep the story a secret. Now the child listens eagerly to the half-truths, couched in impure language and gets a perverted vision of the origin of life.

    What are some of the results?—Five very sad misfortunes have come to the child. (1) The child has learned that his parents evaded his question; in most cases, he discovers the answer to have been a falsehood. (2) To the extent that the child comprehends the falsehood, does he lose confidence in his parents. (3) He has learned to keep these vital matters a secret from his parents. (4) The child cannot think of his parents’ relation to the initial of his life, except in terms of vulgarity. Early images do not easily leave the mind of a child. Ugly words, impure pictures, obscene language, with all their vile suggestiveness, ofttimes remain through life. (5) He regards the organs of sex and their functions as vile and sinful. God never planned that any human being should entertain any such degrading and demoralizing views of the divinely created organs and function of human reproduction. It is impossible to estimate the evil effects of this false training. Yet, there are many people, often very religious, who estimate their modesty, refinement and culture by the degree of conscious shame they have when questions of sex are referred to. Just to the extent that we fail to see that God is the author of sex, that sex is sacred and pure, our glory and not our shame, has a false training degraded us.

    Boys lose confidence in their parents.—You ask, does a child lose confidence in his parents when he has discovered that they have told him a falsehood about his origin? Certainly he does. In the past three years not fewer than seven hundred and fifty young men from eighteen to thirty-five have written me for advice in regard to their youthful indiscretions. One question I have invariably asked those young men, “Did your father ever warn you of your sexual dangers?” Only two have replied in the affirmative. Those young men were once as innocent and pure as your little boy. They first went to their parents for information about these delicate matters. They were treated as I have described. They received their information from sources and in a way that led to sexual abuse.

    Girls lose confidence in mother.—While on a seven thousand-mile lecture trip, in company with twenty other lecturers, conducting purity conventions in many of the large cities in the United States and Canada, after the evening sessions were over, in company with one or two detectives and other parties of our crowd, we visited the “red light” districts and saw several thousand erring girls from twelve to twenty years old. Those girls were once as innocent, pure and sweet as yours or mine. They first went to their mothers and asked about the origin of their lives. Those were golden opportunities for safeguarding the virtue of those girls. More easily than at any other time in life could those girls have been impressed with the sacredness of sex. At no other time in life is it so true that “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” Much more of Christian effort is put forth to rescue the fallen than to prevent the youths from falling. More churches are open to lectures on rescue work than on preventive work. More money can be raised for rescue work than can be raised to prevent youths from falling.

    Boys and girls want to know the real truth.—One morning a number of high school boys requested that I give them a lecture more advanced than the one I had given. While passing through the hall, at the close of this special lecture to the young men, I was approached by the lady principal with the request from the high school girls for a special lecture. She told me that fourteen had made the request and that several added: “We wish that Prof. Shannon was a lady lecturer. There are so many things we would like to know, but would hesitate to ask a gentleman lecturer.” Then the lady teacher added, “I said, girls, why do you not ask your mamma for such information?” With hands uplifted, a look of surprise, a gasp for breath, those girls replied: “I would not think of asking mamma such questions.” Why not? Let me tell you why. When they were little innocent girls they went to their mothers with their first questions of sex. They were treated as already indicated. Their inquiring minds and unsatisfied interests in the mysteries of life led them to go elsewhere for this information. It was at this point in their lives that a chasm started to form between themselves and their mothers. There is not one boy in twenty-five who will go voluntarily to his father for information or advice about his sex-nature. The same statement is almost as true about girls and their mothers.

    1,000,000 children adrift.—1,500,000 children are born annually in this Christian nation. One-third of this number die before they are ten years old. Annually one million children inquire, “How did I get into this world?” Not more than one in twenty receive a kind, truthful and intelligent reply. More than nine-tenths are treated in one of the following ways: (1) Told some one of fifty falsehoods. (2) A slap, with orders to clear out. (3) Some form of ridicule, such as “shame on you.” “Don’t let me hear you ask such an ugly question again.” “I am disgusted with you.” That settles it. The golden cords of confidence and influence are severed. Never again will those children go to their parents for information pertaining to sex. Elsewhere, they will find friends who will gladly give them the information. These children, one million strong, are now adrift on the storm-tossed sea of passion, without chart or compass; drifting, drifting, drifting for years toward ports, to them, unknown.
    Danger!

    Danger!

     

    The virtue of a quarter of a million of boys sacrificed.—Time passes. The boys are now sixteen to twenty-five. They have boon and base companions. Their imaginations are at fever heat with morbid interest and their ambitions are aflame with daring. One quarter of a million young men annually sacrifice the priceless gem of manhood’s virtue just here. Now, they are nearing the fearful rapids of vice where most of this number annually become diseased and many perish as sex-maniacs in the awful maelstrom of lust.

    60,000 girls annually.—With the passing of time, the girls from twelve to seventeen, many without the safeguard of knowledge, are associating freely, gayly with their boon male companions, exposed to all the temptations and dangers incident to young womanhood. Many, many thousand young women annually sacrifice the priceless gem of womanhood’s virtue just here. Owing to the double standard of morals, sixty thousand of this number are forced against their own wills into the public maelstroms of immorality.

    Who is to blame.—Thousands of poor prudish parents line the shores, and, with broken, bleeding hearts are crying out in anguish, “My God, my God, why has this awful blow fallen on us?” The poor, ignorant, diseased, exiled, passion-ridden children, in many cases beyond the reach of the home, society and the church, exclaim, “Oh, if I had only been told of these dangers!”

    All along the almost socially inaccessible rock-bound shores of this sea of human passion, the churches and philanthropists are building and maintaining rescue and foundling homes at an outlay of millions in money. They are not, and cannot, rescue one in twenty. The foundling homes are crowded to a dangerous, unsanitary overflowing with illegitimate children, whose mothers are out in the rapids of vice, or entirely lost in the maelstrom of immorality. Too long have the churches been satisfied with snatching, here and there, a piece of human wreckage from the waves of vice, instead of erecting a lighthouse system of properly warning and informing the childhood of the land.

    The new way.—We have seen the results of the old way of dealing with children in matters of sex. Is there a new and better way? We shall see. “Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.” The new and better way is to tell the truth to the child.

    How shall a child be told.—One day when our little girls were four and six, wife said, “Husband, I am in trouble about our little girls. They are asking where they were before they were born and how they got into this world. How am I to answer them?” “Tell them the truth,” was my reply. “But, they are not old enough to be told the whole truth,” was her reply. We talked over the problem and arrived at the following solution of the problem: Since I had been a teacher of biology for years, and it was presumed that I was familiar with the stories of life among the plants and animals, it was agreed that I should at once tell them a nice little story about God’s beautiful plan of bringing all the little plants into the world. Six months later I was to tell them the story of life about the oysters and fish. Every six months to a year I was to tell them a more advanced story. As they were girls, wife reserved the right to tell them the last story to be told when they were nine and ten.

    These stories were all told in the order given. Our girls are now twelve and fourteen. We have never had an occasion to regret that we have followed this natural method of instructing them. They seem to have no morbid curiosity about questions of sex. They look upon the facts as being natural, sacred and pure. Wife and I can approach them on these subjects without embarrassment to them or us.

    When should a child be told?—The average boy should be told all these stories by the time he is eight, not later than nine. The average girl should be told all these stories by the time she is nine, not later than ten. The developing mind of the average child and the social influences to which he is exposed, demand that he be safeguarded by the whole truth, this early in life. While the girl and boy develop alike until they are ten or eleven, the boy being exposed to vicious companions more than is his sister, he should be told the story of life earlier than she. At the age of seven, boys know more about these things than the girls do at ten and twelve. You had better tell the child the truth at six, than to have him told by the vicious at the age of seven. If a child could understand the story of life at three, and was properly trained afterward, this information could not do him one particle of harm. This statement is either absolutely true, or God is the author of a plan of human increase, the knowledge of which is essentially sinful. Personally, I decline to believe the latter.

    If the child has been informed by vicious playmates or servants and his mind has been tainted, the only sane and safe method is to tell him the full truth as quickly as possible, regardless of his age.

    If the child has been allowed to grow up to the age of nine or ten, ignorant of the story of life, I would tell him all the stories, beginning with the first story, telling them only a few days apart. Where parents are not prepared to do this, I would advise them to place a suitable book, presenting these stories in a clear, chaste and interesting way, in the hands of the child, saying, “Here is a very interesting little book telling you just what you will be interested in knowing and what I would like for you to understand.”

    The ideal way.—The ideal way would be to start with the child when he first inquires about his origin, telling him the first story about the plants. Promise to tell him other stories about the oysters, fish, insects, birds, animals and man as he grows older and can understand them. Where a child is naturally very inquisitive and insists on knowing more, I would not hold him off too long for the next story.

    How to introduce each new story.—I would introduce each new story by reviewing the story of the plants and flowers. There are at least three reasons for this. (1) You can go into all the details of reproduction in the flower without danger of awakening the sex consciousness of the child. (2) It saves going into the detail when you have come to the higher animals and man. The child’s mind usually comprehends more than we give it credit for. If he understands the details of reproduction in the flower, his innocent fancy will fill in the details when he hears the other stories. (3) If he has been so unfortunate as to fall in with bad company at any time and his mind has been tainted with their stories, there is no means you can use in ridding his mind of impurity, quite so effectively, as by telling him the story of life in the flower.

    Teaching these truths in the public schools.—The violation of the laws of sex is the chief cause of physical, mental and moral degeneracy. The degenerate classes are increasing at an appalling rate. Correct sex-instruction in childhood is the most important and effective step in the solution of this problem. There is a growing conviction among the students of sociology that sex-hygiene should be taught in the public schools. There are some teachers in all departments of school work, who, in morals at least, are not fitted for this delicate work. At present, an extremely few have the educational qualification for this delicate work. When teachers are required to take a course of training in these subjects, there will still be but few who are possessed of the natural talent for effectively and wisely presenting these subjects to children of the different grades.

    Already colleges and universities and even a few high schools have begun to teach sex hygiene in a limited scientific way. This work will first be introduced into the high school work and later, gradually be introduced into the lower grades. Definite instruction will not be given, for many years at least, and possibly never, to boys under eight, and girls under ten or eleven. If this statement is true, it will be seen that the schools will have left the first and most important part of this training to be done in the home. The teaching of morals in the public school can never be substituted for the teaching of morals in the home. The present great awakening on these subjects will shortly result in three-fourths of the parents teaching these truths in their homes. Since one-fourth of the children do not get any moral instruction in the home and they do not go to Sunday school or church, the public school is the only place where they can be given moral training for citizenship.

    How this can be done.—In my opinion, the safest and most effective method of dealing with these questions in the public schools, for the present at least, would be for the school boards in two or three counties to select and employ a gentleman and a lady lecturer, having natural gifts, moral and educational qualifications, whose duty it shall be to lecture to all the boys and girls; the male lecturer, lecturing to the boys and the lady lecturer, lecturing to the girls. All other teachers should be required to be sufficiently versed in these matters to enable them to solve any individual problems that may arise in their social relations to the pupils in school.

    Extract from EBook of Self Knowledge and Guide to Sex Instruction, by T. W. Shannon

    Views: 0

  • TRAINING AND GOVERNMENT IN THE HOME

    Home a unit of government.—As already observed, the home is a partnership. It is a unit of government. In an ideal unit of home government, every member is governed by and through an intelligent understanding of the customs, rules and laws, a conscientious recognition of what is right and wrong and the golden rule of love. Each have equal rights. What is wrong for one is equally wrong for each and all. What is right for one is equally right for each and all. Such a home is a unit of government where parents and children are organized under a constitution of intellect, conscience and love; for the purpose of building character, fitting themselves for larger citizenship in this life and the life that is to be the sequence to this one.

    The home is the biggest institution in the world. Home building is the noblest and highest vocation in life. Its responsibilities are stupendous, its possibilities are limitless and its rewards are infinite. Home builders should be the best qualified and the most skillful of architects.

    The training of a child.—Solomon said, “train up a child in the way he should go and when he is old he will not depart from it.” The thoughts, actions and habits of childhood have much to do with a child’s future character and possibilities. When a child’s training is commenced in early childhood, was it begun soon enough? After a noted surgeon had examined a patient, turning to a friend he said, “If I could have had this patient two generations ago, I could have saved his life.” When Oliver Wendell Holmes was asked when a child’s training should begin, he replied, “At least one hundred years before he is born.” Sometimes it happens that good children are made bad and bad children are made worse by the company they keep before they are born. The little boy was not far wrong, who, when he found his mother lamenting the choice she had made of a life companion, said, “Mamma, we made a bad choice when we chose papa, didn’t we?” Some children have made an equally bad choice of their mammas and some appear to have made a doubly bad choice of both parents.

    Each child must be studied.—A child is not easily understood. No two children are alike. Each child has a very complex nature. He is the product of the ages. The complex nature of his parents are blended into his being, producing a more complex being. He is not a duplicate of either. He has received from his parents a blending of their natures; in a limited way, what they inherited from his grandparents and their grandparents back to Adam. Parents and teachers should try to discover his latent forces, his slumbering passions, his genius, his inherent propensities and native goodness. They should wisely use nature’s laws and God’s gifts, in constraining, controlling and eradicating the inherited and acquainted tendencies that are pernicious; also in drawing out, giving direction to and developing the inherited and acquired good in his life.

    Importance of early training.—Children in the home are to be trained. Their prenatal culture, the most important part of a child’s education, may have been respected or neglected. This cannot be altered now. The next agency to be utilized in the child’s training is environment. This can be applied from its birth. The child is more susceptible to external influences in babyhood than in childhood, in childhood than in youth, in youth than in maturity. The child becomes more fixed in disposition and character and more difficult to change as he grows older.

    The training of parents.—If I were a perfect sage, philosopher or Christian, or all three combined into a perfect teacher, I would much prefer the task of training one hundred little children than the task of training ten parents (including the author) how to train their children. Most parents need to devote three hours, to a careful analysis and study of their inherited and acquired weaknesses, to one devoted to a similar study of a child.

    A study of disposition.—Such peculiarities of mind and disposition as cruelty, ambition, firmness, conscientiousness and affection may be so pronounced in one’s life as to bias his judgment and unfit him for the training of children. When one of these characteristics is very dominant in a father or mother, it will most likely appear in an exaggerated form in one or more of the children. Like excites like, is a law that should be thoroughly understood by parents. Where firmness is very pronounced in both parents and child, there will be a constant clash unless one or both exercise full self-control. Such a child should be controlled largely by love. A severe or cruel parent will make a coward of a timid child and a criminal of a self-willed child. The over-conscientious parent will disgust one child and make a fanatic of another. The over-affectionate parent will appeal alone to the affections and leave the will of a child undeveloped. Appealing alone to the ambition of a very proud, ambitious child is likely to make him conceited and egotistical. For a parent to quarrel, have a fit of anger or to use violence is degrading and demonstrates his weakness and incapacity to be at the head of a family. At the same time, these mental states tend to awaken similar feelings in the child, which usually result in a clash. If the child had first displayed anger, this could have been overcome by self-control, kindness and love on the part of the parent.

    The law of influence.—If you want to arouse a desirable feeling, sentiment, emotion or conviction in another, you must be controlled by that mental and moral state and allow it to emanate from you. If you are controlled, by an undesirable thought or feeling, others must have self-control enough to resist your influence, or soon they will be controlled by a similar mental state. Thus, we see that unless parents exercise judgment and self-control, they will often use methods that are unwise and harmful.

    Defects in our homes and schools.—One of the saddest defects in our home training and our system of education is, that when a child reaches maturity in the home or graduates from the high school or college, he knows more about other things than he does about himself and the essentials of building a home. How to analyze, study, know and control one’s self; how to understand, train and govern children would be of far greater value in the education of young men and women than many departments of study we now emphasize.

    The function of the home.—The children are in the home for the primary purpose of being developed into ideal men and women. To accomplish this end is the mission of parents. To do this effectively parents must possess high ideals. These ideals include such training and education as will lead to a strong and healthy body, a keen and well-trained intellect, a moral and religious character and an abiding faith in God.

    Physical training.—The physical, mental and moral natures are intimately and vitally related. One influences each of the other two. The physical health and strength of a child hinders or helps the mental and moral life. The proper time to overcome the weakness of any physical function, or inherited physical weakness, is in childhood. This is done by proper dieting, hygienic living, bathing, exercise and sexual chastity. Improperly prepared and unwholesome food are the chief causes of death among infants and a leading cause of impaired indigestion in childhood. The kind of food used, effects the mind and character of the child. Too much candy, rich pastries and meat are not good for a child, or grown people either.

    Use of medicine.—One hundred million dollars ($100,000,000) are spent annually on patent medicine and fully that much or more on mineral drugs. We are not animals. We do not know how to live. Few men would be willing to give a lawyer ten dollars to tell him how to keep out of trouble, but he will give him all he has to get him out of trouble. Few would give ten dollars to a doctor for preventive advice, but they will pay a doctor all they possess, for a cure. Oliver Wendell Holmes had a custom of saying, “If all the drugs of the world were thrown into the sea, it would be a blessing to humanity, but a curse to the fish.” Children should be kept healthy by hygienic living.

    Use of condiments, coffee, tobacco, etc.—Condiments, tea, coffee and tobacco are not foods—they stimulate—they do not strengthen; they create unnatural appetites and inflame the passions. No one would drink tea or coffee were it not for the tannin and caffeine contained in them. If these drugs were removed, these drinks would be no more tempting than a cup of warm water. Most people, who use these drinks would consider it a sin to go to a drug store, buy some pure tannin or caffeine, dilute it with water, sweeten it with sugar and drink it.

    The tobacco habit is an enormous evil.—It creates a demand for something stronger. It paves the way for the whisky habit. Drunkenness is largely due to a pathological physical condition. Remove the causes, coffee, tobacco and sensuality and it will do more to check drunkenness than all the legislation that can be secured in the next century.

    Mental training.—The mental training of children is very largely committed to school and college teachers. Parents should take a very intense interest in the child’s education. They should study the talents and discover and strengthen the weaker faculties of the child. Most children get their minds “stuffed” with unassimilated facts. Nothing is clear to them. They do not remember what they have learned. They cannot reason logically. They have had their minds “stuffed.” Parents as well as teachers, can largely prevent this. From the earliest mental training of the child, he should be trained to take a personal interest in knowing things. He should be taught to think. Encourage a child to ask questions. If he asks questions which he should understand, have him answer them and give his reasons for the answer. In some cases ask him questions that will suggest an answer. Getting a child started right is the more important half of his education. He will look after the other half.

    Moral training.—The object of all moral training of a child is self-government or self-control. Before a child is capable of self-government, he must be taught to distinguish between right and wrong. This is largely the work of the intellect. His conscience must be awakened and quickened. Conscience is a natural instinct through which God’s spirit and man’s conception, of right and wrong, prompts him to moral action, and which condemns the action he conceives to be wrong and approves the action he conceives to be right. The will must be so trained and developed that a childis able to will to do what he knows to be right and his conscience approves. He is now a perfectly free agent, a law to himself. He is governed from within and need not to be governed from without. This moral training requires years and should begin in infancy.

    Let the baby alone.—Good babies are made bad by receiving too much attention. The baby should not be lifted from the cradle, fondled and coddled, kissed and talked to, simply because it gurgles or makes an innocent attempt to be noticed. This is needless attention. At first it is disagreeable to the child. Later a demand is created and the child is spoiled. If left alone babies would entertain themselves much of the time.

    When a baby is learning to crawl and walk, observe the “let alone” policy as much as possible. Keep an eye on the child to see that it does not get hurt. What you do not want it to have, put out of its reach. It should be safeguarded from places of danger. If these precautions are taken, you will be saved the excuse for that endless round of “don’t get hurt,” “don’t touch that,” “don’t do that,” etc. By these endless “don’ts” children are taught disobedience. If the child falls, unless it is hurt, do not run and pick it up. Let it alone, it will get up. In this way you teach it to be independent and self-reliant. If you run and pick it up, the child gets the idea that you were to blame. Later, when it falls, it screams, cries and gets angry. Perhaps you hit the object and teach the child that the object over which it fell was at fault. This is deception and has a bad effect.

    Give the child something to do.—Teach it to dress itself, to take off and put on its shoes and stockings. It should have a special place to put these, on retiring. It should have a drawer or a room where it can put its individual belongings. This teaches the child the idea of responsibility.

    The first idea of wrongdoing.—When a child eats some forbidden thing, or does some forbidden act, from which it suffers, it can be led to see that it has violated the laws of nature. If possible, alleviate the pain, but the lesson which nature would teach, through pain, should be emphasized. The child should see that the pain came as a result of violating the laws of nature. A little later in life, the child can be taught that all desires, thoughts, words and acts that are helpful to self and others are right and those that injure self and others are wrong. These principles can be applied gradually to the laws of the home, of society and God.

    Parents should agree.—There should be a perfect agreement between parents, with respect to the government in the home. Where parents disagree, children lose all respect for parental authority. Differences should be discussed by parents, only when the children are not present.

    Punishment in the home.—Whipping, slapping and cuffing are relics of savagery. Whipping should never be resorted to except in extreme cases. It is not the natural consequence of disobedience. It never appeals to a child’s sense of justice. Punishment should always be natural and consistent with justice. Some examples will illustrate these principles, as follows: A child is called to breakfast—it does not come. Stubbornness or disobedience is the cause. What should be a natural punishment? Scolding, slapping, jerking the child up and forcing it to the table? No—there is no logical connection. The punishment should consist in the child’s doing without its breakfast. This should be explained to the child: A boy loses his toy. Should he be pitied and another bought for him? Certainly not. Should he be whipped? This would not be natural. He simply goes without his toy until he finds it: A boy steals some object. Should he be whipped? No. His attention should be called to the nature of his sin. He should be compelled, if necessary, to return the stolen object and confess his wrong. The deep sense of humiliation is the natural punishment. Let him feel the full force of it: A boy uses tobacco. Should he be whipped? Certainly not, as long as his teacher, the family doctor, the minister and the father use it. No child on earth could see any connection between the wrong and the punishment. What should be done? Nine times out of ten, under present conditions, the boy will use tobacco, in spite of all that a mother can do. So long as doctors, teachers, ministers and fathers use tobacco, legislation against the cigarette will increase our youthful criminals. If a father has a moral right to use tobacco, so has his boy. If the boy can be led to see clearly that the use of tobacco is wrong, if his conscience can be awakened and if his personal will can be brought to constantly oppose the use of it, then he can be saved. THIS IS THE ONLY REMEDY.

    Study the offense.—Find the natural consequence. Become an example of obedience to every law, for your child. Show the child the results of wrong living and the benefits of right living. This will usually obviate all punishment, aside from what nature inflicts.

    Corporal punishment.—If corporal punishment be unavoidable, it should not be administered when either parent or child is angry. This would only increase the cause that made the punishment necessary. In most cases it would be best to postpone the punishment until the next day. Only a very rebellious child can be helped by this method.

    Scolding and threatening.—From a hotel window I heard a mother say to her twelve-year-old girl, “I will gouge your eyes out.” “I will slap your head off, you little hussy.” A child treated in this way becomes willful or spiteful, loses self-respect or respect for the parent. Scolding and threatening children are sins against their finer natures.

    Three good rules.—The author’s father would not employ men on his farm without the understanding that they were not to swear, speak vulgarly about a woman, or tell a “ghost” or “bugaboo” story in the presence of his children. A servant, man or woman, about your business or home, can undo or counteract in a few hours or days, in a single statement or story, picture or book, act or habit, the life efforts of a noble father and a pure mother. One of the purest men recently said to me, “When I was only fifteen years of age I heard a servant utter one sentence that required a score of years to get its effects eradicated.” Men have told me of the pernicious effects of servants, dating back to when they were two and three years old. Frightful stories and startling statements, of impending dangers, destroy the natural freedom, independence and courage of many children for life. Once I sat by the side of a nervous mother holding a nervous four-year-old girl in her lap, as our train sped forward at the rate of fifty miles an hour, over one of those magnificent stretches on a western prairie. We had discussed heredity, child training and other interesting and vital subjects, when she referred to her nervous little girl and told me how at night she would notice her little body twitching, jerking, floundering and all at once she would awake with a scream having dreamed that she was falling from some dizzy height toward jagged rocks and certain death beneath; or that some huge angry beast, poised on tiptoes and in the act of pouncing upon her and tearing her body into shreds—a horrible nightmare. About the time she had finished describing one of those fearful experiences and was in the act of asking me for advice, we were passing an object on the outside that interested the little girl; quickly she turned and began peering through the window. She was in no danger. Her head was not projected beyond the window. The nervous mother grabbed the little girl by the body and cried, “You are falling! You are falling!” My reply to her request for advice was, “My! if you should handle me that way, I would have a half dozen nightmares here in open daylight.” I told that mother that her daughter’s nervousness was due to bad heredity and bad environment and that she was responsible for both.

    Personal purity.—As soon as a child begins to enquire about its origin, it is old enough to be told the truth in the right way. Some children become interested when they are three and four, all normal children by the time they are seven. Since the inquiring mind will not rest satisfied until a plausible answer has been received, and since the ignorant and vicious youth is ever alert and anxious to give this information in a pernicious way, it behooves the thoughtful parents to safeguard their children with the truth told in the right way. No normal boy should reach the age of eight, or girl the age of ten, before they have been told the story of life.

    Children often discover, or are taught, the secret vice at a very early age. Sex consciousness and pleasure may be early developed because of some unnatural conditions of the sex organs. For this reason, parents should know that these parts are normal in their children. When children are observed to frequently handle, or scratch these organs, unnatural conditions should be suspected. The child should not be slapped or scolded, rather call in the family physician. Trying to keep a child ignorant concerning this vice is impossible, therefore unwise. There is not one boy in fifty who does not know of the vice, and understands the language used to describe it. Trying to keep a child from vicious companions is good as far as it goes, but the facts are that the child is most likely to discover the vice himself, while it is hardly possible to keep a child entirely away from the vicious. The only sane method is to teach the child the laws of personal purity. If the secret vice is to be prevented, some children should receive council when they are six, others at eight, all by the time they are ten or twelve. Children have inherited lustful tendencies. Their troubles are more largely from within than from without. Hence the children that have been most carefully guarded from bad company and kept in ignorance are usually the ones who are most injured by the secret sin. A single talk to a child is not sufficient. We frequently instruct and appeal to the child to be obedient, truthful and honest; in like manner we should at reasonable periods instruct and encourage him to keep his thoughts and desires pure.

    Extract from EBook of Self Knowledge and Guide to Sex Instruction, by T. W. Shannon

    Views: 0

  • WHAT BIRTH CONTROL IS, AND IS NOT

    WHAT BIRTH CONTROL IS, AND IS NOT

    The student of the progress of human affairs, or even the average person whose knowledge of the doings of mankind is derived from a hasty and casual reading of the daily newspapers and the popular magazines, cannot plead ignorance of the growing interest in the general subject which is embraced within the content of the term “Birth Control.”

    But while the general meaning of the term is at least vaguely grasped by the average member of the human crowd—the individual to whom we refer as “the man on the street”—we find a startling condition of mental confusion and often positive misconception concerning the essence and spirit of the general idea expressed by the term in question.

    While the fact is a reflection upon the average intelligence of the general public, it must be admitted that to the average person, or “the man on the street,” Birth Control means simply the teaching and practice of certain methods whereby men and women may indulge their sexual appetites, in or out of marriage, without incurring the liability or risk of conception and child-bearing. The average person does not stop to consider that such teachings and practices do not constitute “Birth Control” at all, but are, rather, merely the theory and practice of Birth Prevention, desirable only to those who seek sexual indulgences without being called upon to shoulder the responsibilities attached by Nature to the physical sexual union of men and women.

    The term “control” does not mean “prohibition,” or “prevention”; but, on the contrary, means “governing, regulating, or managing influence.” Birth Control, in the true meaning of the term, does not mean the prevention or prohibition of the birth of children, but rather the encouragement of the birth of children under the best possible conditions and the discouragement of the birth of children under improper or unfavorable conditions.

    Birth Control, in the true meaning of the term, does not mean theories and practices which would tend to reduce the population of the civilized countries of the world, but rather theories and practice which would inevitably result in the production of an adequate ratio of increase in the population of such countries, not only by reason of a normal birth-rate, but also by reason of a diminishing death-rate among infants—by the production of healthier children, accompanied by the raising of the standard of the average child born in such countries.

    Birth Control, in the true meaning of the term, therefore, is seen to consist not of the prohibition or prevention of human offspring, but rather of the governing, regulating, and managing of the production of human offspring, under the inspiration of the highest ideals and under the direction of the highest reason, for the purpose of the advancement and welfare of the race and that of the individuals composing the race. Instead of being an anti-social and anti-moral propaganda, Birth Control when rightly understood is perceived to be in accordance with the highest social aims and aspirations, and in accordance with the highest and purest morality of the race.

    Much of the opposition toward the general movement of Birth Control which has been manifested by many well-meaning, though misinformed, persons, has arisen by reason of the erroneous conception and understanding of the term itself, and of misleading information concerning the true nature of the best teachings on the subject. This prejudice has been heightened by certain zealous but ill-balanced advocates of the general movement who have overemphasized the incidental feature of the limitation of offspring under certain conditions, and who have appealed to the attention and interest merely of those who wished to escape the responsibilities of parenthood. This has caused much sorrow and distress to the many persons who have the highest ideals and results in view, and who deplore this unbalanced propaganda under the name, and apparently under the cloak of the general movement. Such persons have felt inclined to cry aloud “Good Lord, deliver us from our so-called friends!”

    One of the most distressing features of the popular prejudice against Birth Control, arising from a total misconception of the subject, has been the widely spread and popularly accepted notion that Birth Control is practically analogous to abortion—or, at the best, but a more refined and less repulsive and less dangerous form of abortion. In view of the fact that one of the important results sought to be obtained by a scientific knowledge of Birth Control actually is the prevention and avoidance of the crime of abortion which has wrought such terrible havoc among the women of civilized countries, it is most distressing and discouraging to the conscientious and high-minded advocates of Birth Control to have it said and believed that their teachings encourage and justify abortion.

    A reference to any standard dictionary or textbook will reveal the fact that “Abortion” means: “the premature expulsion of the human embryo or foetus; miscarriage voluntarily induced or produced,” etc. It is seen at a glance that the essence and meaning of abortion consists in the destruction of the human embryo which has resulted from conception. The embryo human child must already exist in its elemental form, before it can be destroyed by abortion. Therefore, if no such embryo form exists, it cannot be destroyed, and therefore there can be no abortion in such a case. And, it may positively be stated, no true advocate of Birth Control can possibly justify, much less advocate, the destruction of the human embryo or foetus, which act constitutes abortion. The difference between true Birth Control teachings and methods, and that of the advocates of abortion, is as great as the difference between the two poles. Instead of the two being identical or similar, they are diametrically opposed one to the other—they are logical “opposites,” each the antithesis of the other.

    Even in those forms or phases of the Birth Control propaganda in which the use of “contraceptives,” or “preventatives” is considered justified in certain cases—and these forms and phases are far from being the most important, as all students of the subject know—even in these exceptional forms and phases of the general subject the idea of abortion is combatted, and never justified or encouraged. A “contraceptive” agency merely tends to prevent or obviate undesirable conception; it never acts to destroy the result of previous and accomplished conception. A “contraceptive” merely prevents the union of the male and female elements of reproduction, and consequently the process from which evolves the foetus or embryo. A leading medical authority has said regarding this distinction: “In inducing abortion, one destroys something already formed—a foetus or an embryo, a fertilized ovum, a potential human being. In prevention, however, one merely prevents chemically or mechanically the spermatozoa from coming in contact with the ovum. There is no greater sin or crime in this than there is in simple abstinence, in refraining from sexual intercourse.”

    What then must we say when we consider the higher and more advanced forms and phases of Birth Control, those phases and forms which may be said to be mental or emotional “contraceptives,” rather than physical? Surely these cannot be considered as identical with or similar to abortion. And when we consider those phases and forms of Birth Control which are concerned with Pre-Natal Culture—the culture of the child before its birth—can one, even though he be intensely prejudiced against Birth Control, assert that there is to be found here anything which in any way whatsoever can be considered as relating to the theory or practice of abortion? And what must we say of the still higher phases in which the teachings are concerned with the mental and physical preparation of the parents prior to the conception of the child, to the end that the child may have the best possible physiological and psychological basis for its future well-being? Is not this the very antithesis and opposite of all that concerns abortion or abortive methods?

    The trouble about all great movements designed for the benefit of the human race is that at the beginning there is attracted to the movement, by reason of its novelty and “newness,” certain elements which seize upon certain incidental features of the general idea, make them their own while excluding or ignoring the more important things, and then exploit these incidental features in a sensational way, thereby attracting public attention and gaining much undesirable notoriety, and as a consequence bringing discredit and disfavor, prejudice and misunderstanding, to the general movement.

    Birth Control has passed through this apparently inevitable experience, and has suffered greatly thereby. But the Light is being thrown on the Dark Places, and the more intelligent portion of the public is beginning to realize that there is another side to the shield of Birth Control. And, as a consequence, much of the original prejudice is disappearing, and a new understanding of the subject is arising in the minds of many of the best individuals of the race. It is the purpose of this book to help to dispel the ignorance and misconception concerning this great subject of Birth Control, and to aid in presenting the higher and nobler aspects of the general movement to the attention of those who are concerned with the advance and progress of the race as a whole, and of the individual members thereof.

    The student of the subject of Birth Control will fall into grievous error if he begins his consideration of the subject under the impression that the questions concerned therein are new to the world of living things. If the process of Birth Control were something which had suddenly sprung into existence in the consciousness of man, without having an antecedent activity in the history of the race, and of living creatures in general, we might well hesitate to go further in the matter without the most serious and prolonged consideration of the entire principle by the careful thought of the wisest of the race. But while such consideration is advisable, as in the case of any and all important problems presenting themselves for solution and judgment, it is found that those so considering the subject have a sound and firm foundation upon which to base their thought and to test their conclusions.

    As many thoughtful students of the subject have pointed out to us, the question of Birth Control has been with the race practically since the beginning of human history; and it has its correspondences in the instinctive actions of the lower forms of life. The chief difference is that we are now seeking to deal with these problems consciously, voluntarily, and deliberately, whereas in the past the race has dealt with them more or less unconsciously, by methods of trial and error, through perpetual experiment which has often proved costly but which has all the more clearly brought out the real course of natural processes.

    We cannot hope to solve problems so ancient and so deeply rooted as these by merely the rational methods of yesterday and today. To be of value our rational methods must be the revelation in deliberate consciousness of unconscious methods which go far back into the remote past. Our deliberate methods will not be sound except in so far as they are a continuation of those methods which, in the slow evolution of life, have been found sound and progressive on the plane of instinct. This is particularly true in the case of those among us who desire their own line of conduct in the matter to be so closely in accord with natural law, or the law of creation, that to question it would be impious.

    It may be accepted without an extended argument or presentation of evidence that at the outset the prime object of Nature seems to have been that of Reproduction. There is evident, without doubt, an effort on the part of Nature to secure economy of method in the attainment of ever greater perfection in the process of reproduction, but we cannot deny that the primary motive seems to be that of reproduction pure and simple. The tendency toward reproduction is indeed so fundamental in Nature that it is impressed with the greatest emphasis upon every living thing. And, as careful thinkers have told us “the course of evolution seems to have been more of an effort to slow down reproduction than to furnish it with new facilities.”

    Reproduction appears in the history of life even before sex manifests itself. The lower forms of animal and plant life oftener produce themselves without the aid of sex, and some authorities have argued that the presence of sex differentiation serves rather to check active propagation rather than to increase it. If quantity, without regard to quality or variation, be the object of Nature, then that purpose would have been better served by withholding sex-differentiation than by evolving it. As Professor Coulter, a leading American botanist, has well said: “The impression one gains of sexuality is that it represents reproduction under peculiar difficulties.”

    To those who find it difficult to assimilate this somewhat startling idea, we now present a brief statement of the infinitely greater facility toward reproduction manifested by living creatures lacking in sex-differentiation as compared with those possessing it. It is seen that bacteria among primitive plants, and protozoa among primitive animals, are patterns of very rapid and prolific reproduction, though sex begins to appear in a rudimentary form in very lowly forms of life. A single infusorian becomes in a week the ancestor of millions, that is to say, of far more individuals than could proceed under the most favorable conditions from a pair of elephants in five centuries; and Huxley has calculated that the progeny of a single parthenogenetic aphis, under favorable circumstances, would in a few months outweigh the whole population of China. It must be noted, however, that this proviso “under favorable circumstances” reveals the weak point of Nature’s early method of reproduction by enormously rapid multiplication. Creatures so easily produced are easily destroyed; and Nature, apparently in consequence, wastes no time in imparting to them the qualities needed for a high form of life and living.

    And, even after sex differentiation had attained a considerable degree of development, Nature seemed slow to abandon her original plan of rapid multiplication of individuals. Among insects so far advanced as the white ants, the queen lays eggs at the enormous rate of 80,000 a day during her period of active life. Higher in the scale, we find the female herring laying 70,000 eggs at one period of delivery. But in both of these cases we find the manifestation of that apparently invariable rule of Nature, viz., that a high birth-rate is accompanied by a heavy death-rate, whether that high death-rate be caused by natural enemies, wars, or disease.

    At a certain stage of the evolutionary process, Nature seems to have awakened to a realization of the fact that it was better, from every point of view, to produce a fewsuperior beings rather than a vast number of inferior ones. Here, at last, Nature discloses a heretofore hidden aim, namely, the production of quality rather than quantity; and once she has started on this new path, she has pursued it with even greater eagerness than that of reproduction pure and simple. And here we pause to note a principle laid down by the students of Evolution, viz., that advancing evolution is accompanied by declining fertility.

    This new stage of Nature’s processes is marked by a constant and invariable manifestation of diminished number of offspring, accompanied by an increased amount of time and care in the creation and breeding of each of the young creatures. Accompanying this, we find that the reproductive life of the creature is shortened, and confined to more or less special periods; these periods beginning much later, and ending much earlier, and even during their continuance tending to operate in cycles of activity. Here, we see, Nature, grown wiser by experience, herself began to exercise her power in the direction of Birth Control—the use of preventive checks on reproduction.

    A writer has said along these lines: “As reproduction slackened, evolution was greatly accelerated. A highly important and essential aspect of this greater individuation is a higher survival value. The more complex and better equipped creature can meet and subdue difficulties and dangers to which the more lowly organized creature that came before—produced wholesale in a way which Nature seems to look back on as cheap and nasty—succumbed helplessly without an effort. The idea of economy began to assert itself in the world. It became clear in the course of evolution that it is better to produce really good and highly efficient organisms, at whatever cost, than to be content with cheap production on a wholesale scale. They allowed greater developmental progress to be made, and they lasted better. Even before man began it was proved in the animal world that the death-rate falls as the birth-rate falls.”

    Let us compare the lowly herring with the highly evolved elephant. The herring multiplies with enormous rapidity and on a vast scale, and it possesses a very small brain, and is almost totally unequipped to grapple with the special difficulties of its life, to which it succumbs on a wholesale scale. A single elephant is carried for about two years in its mother’s womb, and is carefully guarded by her for many years after birth; it possesses a large brain, and its muscular system is as remarkable for its delicacy as for its power, and is guided by the most sensitive perceptions. It is fully equipped for all the dangers of life, save for those which have been introduced by the subtle ingenuity of modern man. Though a single pair of elephants produces so few offspring, yet their high cost is justified, for each of them has a reasonable chance of surviving to old age. This contrast, from the point of view of reproduction, of the herring and the elephant, well illustrates the principle of evolution previously referred to. It brings clearly into view the difference between Nature’s earlier and her later methods—the ever increasing preference for quality over quantity. Unless we grasp this underlying principle of Nature in its wider aspects we may fail to perceive its operations in the case of man, which latter we may now consider.

    It is, of course, impossible to speak positively regarding the birth-rate and death-rate of the pre-historic primitive races of mankind, for there is not data upon which to base such a report. But reasoning upon the basis of conditions existing among the primitive tribes of the present time we are justified in holding that in the early stages of the evolution of the race there was manifested a high birth-rate and a correspondingly high death-rate. Upon the basis of conditions now existing among savage tribes it would appear that primitive man has a higher birth-rate than the average of mankind today, and likewise a higher death-rate. The rapidly increasing number of children born to the tribe was counteracted by deaths among children caused by neglect, poverty, and disease. In some cases the population was prevented from becoming larger than the means of subsistence justified by the practice of infanticide.

    As to the condition of the race in the early stages of “modern” civilization, we have modern Russia as a surviving instance of this stage. In modern Russia we find, side by side with the progress in neighboring nations, conditions which a few centuries ago existed all over Europe. Here we have an enormous birth-rate, and a terrible death-rate caused by ignorance, superstition, insanitation, filth, bad food, impure water, plagues, famines, and other accompaniments of overcrowding and misery. We find a mortality among young children which sometimes destroys more than half of the children born before they have attained the age of five years. As high as is the Russian birth-rate, it is a matter of record that at times the death-rate has actually exceeded it. And among the survivors there is found a startlingly large percentage of chronic and incurable diseases, with a large number of cases of blindness and other defects.

    Similar results follow in China, where the birth-rate is exceptionally high, and the death-rate correspondingly large; and where there is a large percentage of inferior physical development and pathological defects, the evil conditions which produce death also tending to produce deterioration in the survivors. In both of these countries we have an example of the result of unrestricted reproduction, and unrestricted destruction—as among herrings, so among men. And yet this condition of unrestricted reproduction is the logical goal of certain persons who, inspired by the best possible intentions, in their ignorance and criminal rashness would dare to arrest that fall in the birth-rate which is now beginning to spread its influence in every civilized land.

    In Western Europe before the nineteenth century the population increased very slowly. The enormous birth-rate was nearly equalled by the exceedingly heavy death-rate caused by plagues, pestilences, and famine, and by the frequent wars large and small. The mortality among young children was particularly heavy. Writers have pointed out that the old family records show frequently two or three children of the same Christian name, the first child having died and its name given to a successor.

    During the last quarter of the eighteenth century, when machinery was introduced and a new industrial era opened, the birth-rate rose rapidly. Factories springing up gave increased support to many, and as children were employed as “hands” in the mills at an early age, the richest family was the one with most children. The population began to increase rapidly. But soon disease, misery, and poverty arose from filth and insanitation, immorality and crime, overcrowding and child-labor, drink and lack of sane courses of conduct.

    In time, however, progress set in, and social reformers began the great movement for the betterment of the environment, sanitation, shorter hours of labor, and restriction of child-labor, factory regulation, etc. And when the environment is bettered, the death-rate drops, and the birth-rate accompanies it on its downward progress. As Leroy-Beaulieu says: “The first degree of prosperity in a rude population with few needs tends toward prolificness of reproduction; a later degree of prosperity, accompanied by all the feelings and ideas stimulated by the reduction of such prolificness.”

    The law of the reduction of reproduction in response to the improvement of environment is a natural law, arising from fixed biological principles. This is because when we improve the environment we improve the individual situated in that environment; and the improvement of the individual has always resulted in a check upon reproduction. We must remember, however, that this change is not the result of conscious or voluntary action; instead it is the result of unconscious activities and instinctive urge. As Sir Shirley Murphy has said: “Birth Control is a natural process, and though in civilized men, endowed with high intelligence, it necessarily works in some measure voluntarily and deliberately, it is probable that it also works, as in the evolution of the lower animals, to some extent automatically.”

    Science shows us that even among the most primitive micro-organisms; when placed under unfavorable conditions as to food and environment, they tend to pass into a reproductive phase and by sporulation or otherwise begin to produce new individuals rapidly. This, of course, because of the fact that their death-rate is increased, and an increased birth-rate must be manifested in order to maintain a balance. If the environment be improved, the death-rate decreases, and this is followed by a fall in the birth-rate, according to the constant laws of Nature manifesting in such cases.

    The same law is seen to be manifested in the case of Man. Improve his environment, and his death-rate drops, which is accompanied by a falling birth-rate. Here, once more we see the application of the scientific axiom “Improve the environment and reproduction is checked.” As Leroy-Beaulieu has said: “The tendency of civilization is to reduce the birth-rate.” And as Professor Benjamin Moore has said: “Decreased reproduction is the simple biological reply to good economic conditions.” And as Havelock Ellis has said: “Those who desire a higher birth-rate are desiring, whether they know it or not, the increase of poverty, ignorance, and wretchedness.”

    Among men, Birth Control has now evolved from the unconscious and instinctive phase, and is now unfolding and manifesting on the plane of conscious and voluntary activity. The influence of deliberate intention and conscious design is now one of the important factors in the process. Here at this point we reach a totally new aspect of reproduction. In the past stages of evolution the original impetus toward reproduction has been checked and directed by Nature, working along instinctive and unconscious lines; and the result has been an extreme diminution of the number of off-spring; a prolongation of the time devoted to the breeding and care of each new member of the family, in harmony with its greatly prolonged life; a spacing out of the intervals between the offspring; and, as a result, a vastly greater development of each individual, and an ever better equipment for the task of living. All this was slowly attained automatically, without any conscious volition on the part of the individuals, even when they were human beings, who were the agents.

    Now, however, we are confronted with a change which we may regard as, in some respects, the most momentous sudden advance in the whole history of reproduction, namely, the process of reproductive progress now become conscious and deliberately volitional. Birth control, no longer automatic, is now being directed by human mind and will precisely to the attainment of ends which Nature has been struggling after for millions of years; and, being consciously and deliberately directed, it is now enabled to avoid many of the pitfalls into which the unconscious method fell.

    Havelock Ellis says: “The control and limitation of reproductive activity by conscious and volitional effort is an attempt by open-eyed intelligence and foresight to attain those ends which Nature through untold generations has been painfully yet tirelessly struggling for. The deliberate co-operation of Man in the natural task of Birth Control represents an identification of the human will with what we may, if we choose, regard as the divinely appointed law of the world. We can well believe that the great pioneers, who, a century ago, acted in the spirit of this faith may have echoed the thought of Kepler when, on discovering his great planetary law, he exclaimed in rapture: ‘O God! I think Thy thoughts after Thee!’”

    The following brief general history of the modern Birth Control movement is quoted from Havelock Ellis, and will be of interest to students of the subject: “The pioneers of modern Birth Control were English. Among them Malthus occupies the first place. That distinguished man, in his great and influential work, ‘The Principles of Population,’ in 1798, emphasized the immense importance of foresight and self-control in procreation, and the profound significance of birth limitation for human welfare. Malthus, however, relied on ascetic self-restraint, a method which could only appeal to the few; he had nothing to say for the regulation of conception in intercourse. That was suggested twenty years later, very cautiously by James Mill, the father of John Stuart Mill, in the ‘Encyclopaedia Britannica.’ Four years afterwards, Mill’s friend, the Radical reformer, Francis Place, advocated this method more clearly. Finally, in 1831, Robert Dale Owen, the son of the great Robert Owen, published his ‘Moral Physiology,’ in which he set forth the ways of preventing conception; while a little later the Drysdale brothers, ardent and unwearying philanthropists, devoted their energies to a propaganda which has been spreading ever since and has now conquered the whole civilized world.

    “It was not, however, in England but in France, so often at the head of an advance in civilization, that Birth Control first firmly became established, and that the extravagantly high birth rate of earlier times began to fall; this happened in the first half of the nineteenth century, whether or not it was mainly due to voluntary control. In England the movement came later, and the steady decline in the English birth-rate, which is still proceeding, began in 1877. In the previous year there had been a famous prosecution of Bradlaugh and Mrs. Besant for disseminating pamphlets describing the methods of preventing conception; the charge was described by the Lord Chief Justice, who tried the case, as one of the most ill-advised and injudicious ever made in a court of justice. But it served an undesigned end by giving enormous publicity to the subject and advertising the methods it sought to suppress. There can be no doubt, however, that even apart from this trial the movement would have proceeded on the same lines. The times were ripe, the great industrial expansion had passed its first feverish phase, social conditions were improving, education was spreading. The inevitable character of the movement is indicated by the fact that at the very same time it began to be manifested all over Europe, indeed in every civilized country of the world.

    “At the present time the birth-rate (as well as usually the death-rate) is falling in every country of the world sufficiently civilized to possess statistics of its own vital movement. The fall varies in rapidity. It has been considerable in the more progressive countries; it has lingered in the more backward countries. If we examine the latest statistics for Europe, we find that every country, without exception, with a progressive and educated population, and a fairly high state of social well-being, presents a birth-rate below 30 per 1,000. We also find that every country in Europe in which the mass of the people are primitive, ignorant, or in a socially unsatisfactory condition (even although the governing classes may be progressive or ambitious) shows a birth-rate of above 30 per 1,000. France, Great Britain, Belgium, Holland, the Scandinavian countries, and Switzerland are in the first group. Russia, Austro-Hungary, Italy, Spain, and the Balkan countries are in the second group. The German Empire was formerly in the second group, but now comes within the first group, and has carried on the movement so energetically that the birth-rate of Berlin is already below that of London, and that at the present rate of decline the birth-rate of the German Empire will before long sink to that of France. Outside Europe, in the United States just as much as in Australia and New Zealand, the same progressive movement is proceeding with equal activity.”

    The same authority sums up the present attitude of the advocates of scientific and rational Birth Control, as follows: “The wide survey of the question of birth limitation has settled the question of the desirability of the adoption of preventing conception, and finally settled those who would waste out time with their fears that it is not right to control conception. We know now on whose side are the laws of God and Nature. We realize that in exercising control over the entrance gate of life we are not fully performing, consciously and deliberately, a great human duty, but carrying on rationally a beneficial process which has, more blindly and wastefully, been carried on since the beginning of the world. There are still a few persons ignorant enough or foolish enough to fight against the advance of civilization in this matter; we can well afford to leave them severely alone, knowing that in a few years all of them will have passed away. It is not our business to defend the control of birth, but simply discuss how we may most wisely exercise that control.”

    PRIVATE Sex Advice to Women By R. B. Armitage, M. D.

    For Young Wives and those who Expect to be Married.

    Views: 0

  • EUGENICS AND CHARACTER

    EUGENICS AND CHARACTER

    The rapidly growing interest in Eugenics, and the scientific consideration of the world-wide decline in the birth-rate have drawn attention to the study of the eugenic factors which determine the production of high ability in offspring. Many distinguished investigators have conducted long and exhaustive investigations for the purpose of ascertaining and summarizing all possible biological data concerning the parentage and birth of the most notable persons born in European countries, and to a lesser extent in America.

    The investigations are now acquiring a fresh importance, because, while it is becoming recognized that we are gaining a control over the conditions of birth, the production of children has itself gained an importance. The world is no longer to be bombarded by an exuberant stream of babies, good, bad, and indifferent in quality, with mankind to look on calmly at the struggle for existence among them. Whether we like it or not, the quantity is steadily diminishing, and the question of quality is beginning to assume a supreme significance. The question then is being anxiously asked: “What are the conditions which assure the finest quality in our children?”

    A German scientist, Dr. Vaerting, of Berlin, published just before the War a treatise on the subject of the most favorable age in parents for the production of offspring of ability. He treated the question in an entirely new spirit, not merely as a matter of academic discussion, but rather as a practical matter of vital importance to the welfare of modern society. He starts by asserting that “our century has been called the century of the child,” and that for the child all manner of rights are now being claimed. But, he wisely adds, there is seldom considered the prime right of all the child’s rights, i. e., the right of the child to the best ability and capacity for efficiency that his parents are able to transmit to him. The good doctor adds that this right is the root of all children’s rights; and that when the mysteries of procreation have been so far revealed as to enable this right to be won, we shall, at the same time renew the spiritual aspect of the nations.

    The writer referred to decided that the most easily ascertainable and measurable factor in the production of ability, and efficiency in offspring, and a factor of the greatest significance, is the age of the parents at the child’s birth. He investigated a number of cases of men of ability and efficiency, along these lines, and made a careful summary of his results. Some of his results are somewhat startling, and may possibly require the corroboration of other investigators before they can be accepted as authoritative; but they are worthy of being carefully considered at the present time, pending such further investigation.

    Vaerting found that the fathers who were themselves not notably intellectual have a decidedly more prolonged power of procreating distinguished children than is possessed by distinguished fathers. The former may become the fathers of eminent children from the period of sexual maturity up to the age of forty-three or beyond. When, however, the father is himself of high intellectual distinction, the records show that he was nearly always under thirty, and usually under twenty-five years of age at the time of the birth of his distinguished son, although the proportion of youthful fathers in the general population is relatively small. The eleven youngest fathers on Vaerting’s list, from twenty-one to twenty-five years of age, were with one exception themselves more or less distinguished; while the fifteen oldest, from thirty-nine to sixty years of age, were all without exception undistinguished.

    Among the sons on the latter list are to be found much greater names (such as Goethe, Bach, Kant, Bismarck, Wagner, etc.) than are to be found among the sons of young and more distinguished fathers, for here is only one name (Frederick the Great) of the same caliber. The elderly fathers belonged to the large cities, and were mostly married to wives very much younger than themselves. Vaerting notes that the most eminent men have frequently been the sons of fathers who were not engaged in intellectual avocations at all, but earned their living as humble craftsmen. He draws the conclusion from these data that strenuous intellectual energy is much more unfavorable than hard physical labor to the production of marked ability in the offspring. Intellectual workers, therefore, he argues, must have their children when young, and we must so modify our social ideals and economic conditions as to render this possible.

    Vaerting, however, holds that the mother need not be equally young; he finds some superiority, indeed, provided the father is young, in somewhat elderly mothers, and there were no mothers under twenty-three on the list. The rarity of genius among the offspring of distinguished parents he attributes to the unfortunate tendency to marry too late; and he finds that the distinguished men who marry late rarely have any children at all. Speaking generally, and apart from the production of genius, he holds that women have children too early, before their psychic development is completed, while men have children too late, when they have already “in the years of their highest psychic generative fitness planted their most precious seed in the mud of the street.”

    The eldest child was found to have by far the best chance of turning out distinguished, and in this fact Vaerting finds further proof of his argument. The third son has the next best chance, and then the second, the comparatively bad position of the second being attributed to the too brief interval which often follows the birth of the first child. He also notes that of all the professions the clergy come beyond comparison first as the parents of distinguished sons (who are, however, rarely of the highest degree of eminence), lawyers following, while officers in the army and physicians scarcely figure at all. Vaerting is inclined to see in this order, especially in the predominance of the clergy, the favorable influence of an unexhausted reserve of energy and a habit of chastity on intellectual procreativeness.

    It should be remembered, however, that Vaerting’s cases on his list were all those of Germans, and, therefore, the influence of the characteristic social customs and conditions of the German people must be taken into account in the consideration.

    Havelock Ellis in his well known work “Study of British Genius” dealt on a still larger scale, and with a somewhat more precise method, with many of the same questions as illustrated by British cases. After the publication of Vaerting’s work, Ellis re-examined his cases, and rearranged his data. His results, like those of the German authority, showed a special tendency for genius to appear in the eldest child, though there was no indication of notably early marriage in the parents. He also found a similar predominance of the clergy among the fathers, and a similar deficiency of army officers and physicians.

    Ellis found that the most frequent age of the father was thirty-two years, but that the average age of the father at the distinguished child’s birth was 36.6 years; and that when the fathers were themselves distinguished their age was not, as Vaerting found in Germany, notably low at the birth of their distinguished sons, but higher than the general average, being 37.5 years. He found fifteen distinguished sons of distinguished British fathers, but instead of being nearly always under thirty and usually under twenty-five, as Vaerting found it in Germany, the British distinguished father has only five times been under thirty, and among these only twice under twenty-five. Moreover, precisely the most distinguished of the sons (Francis Bacon and William Pitt) had the oldest fathers, and the least distinguished sons the youngest fathers.

    Ellis says of his general conclusions resulting from this investigation: “I made some attempts to ascertain whether different kinds of genius tend to be produced by fathers who were at different periods of life. I refrained from publishing the results as I doubted whether the numbers dealt with were sufficiently large to carry any weight. It may, however, be worth while to record them, as possibly they are significant. I made four classes of men of genius: (1) Men of Religion, (2) Poets, (3) Practical Men, (4) Scientific Men and Sceptics. (It must not, of course, be supposed that in this last group all the scientific men were sceptics, or all the sceptics scientific.) The average age of the fathers at the distinguished son’s birth was, in the first group, 35 years; in the second and third group, 37 years; and in the last group, 40 years. (It may be noted, however, that the youngest father of all the history of British genius, aged sixteen, produced Napier, who introduced logarithms.)

    “It is difficult not to believe that as regards, at all events, the two most discrepant groups, the first and last, we come upon a significant indication. It is not unreasonable to suppose that in the production of men of religion in whose activity emotion is so potent a factor, the youthful age of the father should prove favorable; while for the production of genius of a more coldly intellectual and analytic type more elderly fathers are demanded. If that should prove to be so, it would become a source of happiness to religious parents to have their children early, while irreligious parents should be advised to delay parentage.

    “It is scarcely necessary to remark that the age of the mothers is probably quite as influential as that of the fathers. Concerning the mothers, however, we always have less precise information. My records, so far as they go, agree with Vaerting’s for German genius, in indicating that an elderly mother is more likely to produce a child of genius than a very youthful mother. There were only fifteen mothers recorded under twenty-five years of age, while thirteen were over thirty-nine years; the most important age for mothers was twenty-seven.

    “On all these points we certainly need controlling evidence from other countries. Thus, before we insist with Vaerting that an elderly mother is a factor in the production of genius, we may recall that even in Germany the mothers of Goethe and Nietzsche were both eighteen at their distinguished son’s birth. A rule which permits of such tremendous exceptions scarcely seems to bear the strain of emphasis.”

    The student, however, must always remember that while the study of genius and exceptionable talent is highly interesting, and even, as is quite probable, not without significance for the general laws of heredity, still we must beware of too hastily drawing conclusions from it to bear on the practical questions of eugenics. Genius is rare—and, in a certain sense, abnormal. Laws meant for application to the general population must be based on a study of the general population. Vaerting, himself, realized how inadequate it was to confine our study to cases of genius.

    Another investigator, Marro, an Italian scientist, in his well-known book on puberty which was published several years ago, brought forth some interesting data showing the result of the age of the parents on the moral and intellectual characters of school-children in Northern Italy. He found that children with fathers below twenty-six at their birth showed the maximum of bad conduct and the minimum of good; they also yielded the greatest proportion of children of irregular, troublesome, or lazy character, but not of really perverse children—the latter being equally distributed among fathers of all ages. The largest number of cheerful children belonged to the young fathers, while the children tended to become more melancholy with ascending age of the fathers. Young fathers produced the largest number of intelligent, as well as of troublesome children; but when the very exceptional intelligent children were considered separately, they were found to be more usually the offspring of elderly fathers.

    As regarded the mothers, Marro found that the children of young mothers (under twenty-one) are superior, both as regards conduct and intelligence, though the more exceptionally intelligent children tended to belong to more mature mothers. When the parents were both in the same age-groups, the immature and the elderly groups tended to produce more children who were unsatisfactory, both as regards conduct and intelligence—the intermediate group yielding the most satisfactory results of this kind.

    Havelock Ellis makes the following plea for further investigations along these lines, in the interest of the well-being of the race: “But we have need of inquiries made on a more wholesale and systematic scale. They are no longer of a merely speculative character. We no longer regard children as the ‘gifts of God’ flung into our helpless hands; we are beginning to realize that the responsibility is ours to see that they come into the world under the best conditions, and at the moments when their parents are best fitted to produce them. Vaerting proposes that it should be the business of all school authorities to register the ages of the pupils’ parents. This is scarcely a provision to which even the most susceptible parent could reasonably object, though there is no cause to make the declaration compulsory where a ‘conscientious’ objection existed, and in any case the declaration would not be public.

    “It would be an advantage—although this might be more difficult to obtain—to have the date of the children’s marriage, and of the birth of previous children, as well as some record of the father’s standing in his occupation. But even the ages of the parents alone would teach us much when correlated with the school position of the pupil in intelligence and conduct. It is quite true that there are unavoidable fallacies. We are not, as in the case of genius, dealing with people whose life-work is complete and open to the whole world’s examination.

    “The good and clever child is not necessarily the forerunner of the first-class man or woman; and many capable and successful men have been careless in attendance at lectures, and rebellious to discipline. Moreover, the prejudice and limitations of the teachers have to be recognized. Yet when we are dealing with millions most of these fallacies would be smoothed out. We should be, once for all, in a position to determine authoritatively the exact bearing of one of the simplest and most vital factors of the betterment of the race. We should be in possession of a new clue to guide us in the creation of the man in the coming world. Why not begin today?”

    Considerable attention on the part of the American thinking public has been directed toward the investigations and researches of Casper L. Redfield. Mr. Redfield combats the orthodox scientific position that the acquired qualities are not transmitted to offspring; and he most positively states that such characteristics are transmitted to offspring, and are really the causes which have tended toward the evolution and progress of the race. But he insists upon this vital point, namely, that the parent must already have acquired improved quality before he can transmit improvement to the offspring—and that before he can have acquired this improved quality, he must have lived sufficiently long to have experienced the causes which have developed improvement in himself. Consequently, he holds that delayed parentage produces great men.

    Mr. Redfield several years ago offered a prize of two hundred dollars to anyone who could show that a single one of the great men of history was the product of a succession of young parents, or was produced by a line of ancestry represented by more than three generations to a century. But no one ever claimed the prize money. According to Mr. Redfield’s doctrine, race improvement is and will be accomplished as the result of effort, physical and mental, upon the part of prospective parents, particularly if the period of effort is sustained over a considerable number of years previous to reproduction.

    The following quotations from Mr. Redfield’s writing will give a general idea of his lines of thought and his theories. He says:

    “At some time in the past there was a common ancestor for man and the ape. At that time the mental ability of the man was the same as that of the ape, because at that time man and the ape were the same person. From that common ancestor there have been derived two main lines of descent, one leading to man and the other to the ape of today. In the line leading to man, mental ability has increased little by little so that today the mental ability of the man is far above that of the ape. While it may not be literally true for each and every generation between that common ancestor and man of the present time, still we will commit no error if we divide the total increase in mental ability by the number of intervening generations and say that each generation in turn was a little superior to that which produced it. Now it happens that mental ability is something which is inherited—is transmitted from parent to offspring. Take that fact with the fact that there has been a regular (or irregular) increase in mental ability in the generations leading to man, and it will be seen that each generation in succession transmitted to its offspring more than it inherited from its parents. But a parent cannot transmit something which he did not have. Where and how did those generations get that ability which they transmitted but did not inherit?”

    Mr. Redfield in his writings shows that what is true of the human race is true of high-bred domesticated animals, namely, the cow of high milk producing breeds; the fast running and trotting horses; and the highly developed hunting dogs. To each case he applies his question: “Where and how did those generations of animals get that power which they transmitted but did not inherit?” In his investigations he claims to have discovered the secret, namely, that the ancestors, throughout several generations, had each acquired the power which it transmitted, which added to the inherited power raised the general power of the stock. This arose from careful breeding, and directly from the fact that the average age of the parent was much higher in the highly-bred stock than in the “scrub” or ordinary run of stock. In other words, delayed parentage produced better offspring.

    Mr. Redfield proceeds to argue from these facts as follows: “At one time man and ape reproduced at the same average age, whereas now they reproduce at widely different ages. Going back to the time when man and ape separated, our ancestors survived by physical and mental activity in securing food and escaping from enemies. As time went on man reproduced at later and later average age until now he reproduces at about thirty years from birth of parent to birth of offspring. When time between generations stretched out in the man line more than it did in the ape line, the man acquired more mental development before he reproduced than did the ape, and he did this because he was mentally active more years before reproducing. The successive generations leading to modern man transmitted to offspring more than they inherited from their parents, and the generations which did this are the same generations which acquired, before reproducing, the identical thing which they transmitted in excess of inheriting.

    “Coming now to those rare men of whom we have only a few in a century, how were they produced? It should be noted that each one had two parents, four grandparents, and eight great-grandparents. Also that they are certainly improvements over their great-grandparents. If they were not such improvements, then there would be many ‘rare’ cases in a century. In looking into the pedigrees of these great men it is found that they were sons of parents of nearly all ages, but were predominantly sons of elderly parents. While we sometimes find comparatively young parents in the pedigree of a great man, we never find a succession of young parents. Neither do we find an intellectually great man produced by a pedigree extending over three generations. The great man is produced only when the average for three generations is on the elderly side of what is normal. The average age of one thousand fathers, grandfathers, and great-grandfathers in the pedigrees of eminent men was found to be over forty years. Great men rise from ordinary stock only when several generations in succession acquire mental efforts in excess amounts before reproducing.”

    It is the opinion of the present writer that the theories of Mr. Redfield are in the main true, and that in the future much valuable information will be obtained along the same lines, which will tend to corroborate his general conclusions. One’s attention needs but to be plainly directed to the matter, and then he will see that it is absurd to think of a creature transmitting to his offspring qualities which neither he or his mate had inherited or acquired. If there were no transmission of acquired qualities there would be no improvement—and in fact, we know that the bulk of inherited qualities were at some time in the history of the race “acquired.” And, reasoning along the same line, we may see that the young parents who have not had as yet an opportunity to acquire mental power cannot expect to transmit it to their offspring—all that they can do is to transmit the inherited stock qualities plus the small acquired power which they have gained in their limited experience. And, finally, it is seen that offspring produced at a riper age of parenthood, continued over several generations, tend toward unusual ability and powers. Consequently, the people or nation with a higher average age of parenthood may logically expect to attain greater mental powers than the peoples lacking that quality. And what is true of a people or nation is of course true of a particular family.

    The subject touched upon in this part of our book is one of the greatest interest to careful students of Eugenics; and is one which calls for careful and unprejudiced consideration from all persons having the interest of the race at heart.

    PRIVATE Sex Advice to Women By R. B. Armitage, M. D.

    For Young Wives and those who Expect to be Married.

    Views: 0

  • PRE-NATAL INFLUENCES

    PRE-NATAL INFLUENCES

    The term “Pre-Natal” of course means “before birth,” and Pre-Natal Influences are those influences exerted upon the child before its birth into the world. The students of Eugenics are vitally interested in the subject of Pre-Natal Influences, as they recognize that therein is to be found the secret of much which will work along the line of “better offspring,” and general race-betterment.

    Pre-Natal Influences (as the term is used in the present consideration of the subject) may be considered as manifesting in three phases, as follows:

    (1) The influence of the physical, mental, and moral “family characteristics” of the parents, transmitted to the child along the lines of heredity.

    (2) The influence of the acquired personal characteristics of the parents (particularly the acquired characteristics which are especially active at and just previous to the time of actual conception), transmitted to the child along the lines of heredity.

    (3) The influence of “maternal impressions” (after conception, and during the period of gestation or pregnancy) transmitted to the child physiologically and psychologically.

    I shall now ask you to proceed with me to a consideration of the various phases of Pre-Natal Influences coming under the above name three general classes, and the principal factors involved therein.

    Heredity in General.

    By “heredity” is meant “the tendency which there is in each animal or plant, in all essential characters, to resemble its parents”; or “the hereditary transmission of physical or psychical characteristics of parents to their offspring.”

    There is a great disagreement among the authorities as to how far the principle of heredity really extends, and the real causes of heredity are in dispute. In the present consideration we shall, of course, pass over the technical phases of the subject, and shall touch only upon the general features and principles involved.

    Shute, in his work entitled “Organic Evolution,” says: “That an offspring always inherits from its parents many of their characteristics is well known; that it always varies, more or less, from them, is also equally well known. Heredity and variation are twin forces that play upon every creature, holding it rigidly true to the parental type or compelling more or less divergence therefrom, according to the strength of the one or other power; so that every creature is the resultant of the activities of these two great parallel forces. Variation is co-extensive with heredity, and every living creature gives evidence of the existence of variations.

    “Mental heredity can be illustrated by studying the genealogies of such persons as Aristotle, Goethe, Darwin, Coleridge, Milton, etc. Probably the Bach family, of Germany, supply one of the best illustrations of the inheritance of intellectual character that we know of. The record of this family begins in 1550, lasting through eight generations to 1800. For about two centuries it gave to the world musicians and singers of high rank. The founder was Weit Bach, a baker of Presburg, who sought recreation from his routine work in song and music. For nearly two hundred years his descendants, who were very numerous in Franconia, Thuringia, and Saxony, retained a musical talent, being all church singers and organists. When the members of the family had become very numerous and widely separated from one another, they decided to meet at a stated place once a year. Often more than a hundred persons—men, women, and children—bearing the name of Bach were thus brought together. This family reunion continued until nearly the middle of the eighteenth century. In this family of musicians, twenty-nine became eminent.

    “Inheritance of moral character is well known. Heredity, in its relation to crime and pauperism, has been thoroughly investigated by Mr. Dugdale in his most instructive little work entitled “The Jukes.” In this work the descendants of one vicious and neglected girl are traced through a large number of generations. It reveals that a large proportion of the descendants of this woman became licentious, for, in the course of six generations, fifty-two percent of the children were illegitimate. It shows also that there were seven times more paupers among the women than among the average women of the state, and nine times more paupers among the male descendants than among the average men of the state. The inheritance of physical peculiarities is so obvious as to need no illustration. Among the ancients the Romans stereotyped its truth by the use of such expressions as ‘the labiones’ or thick-lipped; ‘the nasones,’ or big-nosed; ‘the capitones,’ or big-headed, and ‘the buccones,’ or swollen-cheeked, etc. In more recent times we read of the Austrian lip and the Bourbon nose.”

    But in all considerations of the subject of heredity, one must always remember that the inheritance of physical, mental, and moral characteristics is not alone from the immediate parents, but rather from many ancestors further removed in order and time. Back of each person there is a long line of paternal and maternal ancestors, extending back to the beginning of the race. And in that line there are influences for good and evil, awaiting favorable environment for awakening into new life unless restrained by the will of the individual.

    As Shute says: “There will come a time when the fertilized ovum will have a highly complex nucleus composed of many different ancestral groups of hereditary units. One often hears the expression that a child is a chip of the old block; but this is only a very partial truth, for the child is pre-eminently a composite chip of many old blocks.” And Luther Burbank has well said: “Heredity means much; but what is heredity? Not some hideous ancestral spectre, forever crossing the path of a human being. Heredity is simply the sum of all the environments of all past generations on the responsive ever-moving life-forces.”

    Transmission of Acquired Characteristics.

    One of the great disputes of biology is that concerning the question of whether or not parents may transmit to their offspring their personal “acquired characteristics” as well as those inherited from their line of ancestors. One side of the controversy points to the observed cases of children and grandchildren resembling each other, physically, mentally, and morally, in acquired characteristics; but the other side explains these facts as due to environment rather than to heredity.

    The best authorities seem to favor a middle-view, holding that acquired characteristics may be and are transmitted as “tendencies” in the offspring. Thus as each succeeding generation manifests the acquired tendency, it adds a cumulative force to the family heredity. At the same time they hold that “environment” is needed to “draw out” the inherited “tendency.” For instance, a child born with evil tendencies, and placed in an evil environment, will most likely manifest evil conduct. The same child, if placed in a good environment, will not have the evil tendencies “drawn out” by the environment, and will probably not manifest evil conduct. The same rule applies to the child drawn with good “tendencies.” In short, it is held that heredity and environment tend to balance each other—the “something within” is called out (or not called out) by the “something without.” The life of the individual is held to be a continuous action and reaction between heredity and environment, and both of these elements must be taken into consideration when we think of the subject.

    Shute says: “As influencing a man’s life and character, which is the strongest factor, heredity or environment?” In our opinion, as the result of long study and reading, where we have an average man of a sound mind in a sound body, there environment will be the strongest factor whether for good or evil—that is, in men in general, who have no organic defect, such as insanity or idiocy, and allied affections, the stronger force is environment; but in those having such defect, heredity is the controlling power, and we may add, the destroying power.

    The Eugenic Rule Regarding Heredity.

    It is one of the cardinal principles of Eugenics that those with a bad family history should not become parents. By this it is not meant that the manifestation of undesirable tendencies, physical, mental, and moral, on the part of certain individuals of a family necessarily constitutes a “bad family history.” On the contrary, many of the best families have, from time to time, individuals who manifest undesirable tendencies, and who are in general out of harmony with the general family standard. It is an old axiom that “there is a black sheep in every flock”; and the flock must be measured by its general standard, and not by its exceptional black sheep.

    A “bad family history” is one in which the family has clearly manifested certain undesirable physical, mental, and moral traits in a marked degree, and in a sufficientnumber of instances to establish a standard. Some families have a “bad family history” for inebriety; others for epilepsy; others for licentiousness; others for dishonesty—the history extending over several generations, and including a marked number of individuals in each generation. Individuals of such a family should refrain from bearing children; and if children be born to such the greatest care should be exercised by the parents in the matter of surrounding the child with the environment least calculated to “draw out” the undesirable characteristic. The child has a right to be well born, and to be protected from being brought into the world subjected to the handicap of a “bad family history.” If individuals cannot endow their children with a good family history, they should refrain from bearing children—such is the Eugenic advice on the subject.

    The same rule applies to the question of “acquired characteristics” of the parents—especially those acquired characteristics which are especially active at or just before the time of the contemplated conception. Though the family history of both husband and wife be ever so good, it is held that if one or both of the parents have acquired undesirable and transmissible characteristics, physical, mental, or moral, then the question of bringing children into the world should be carefully considered, and conscientiously decided, after competent authorities have been consulted concerning the case. The prospective child should always be given the benefit of the doubt in such cases. To bring children into the world merely to gratify personal pleasure or pride, regardless of the welfare of the child, is something utterly unworthy of an intelligent and moral human being.

    Fitness for Parenthood.

    In determining the “fitness” for parenthood, on the part of husband and wife, the mental, physical, and moral qualities should all be taken into consideration. Weak or abnormal mentality; chronic immorality or perverted moral sense; or diseased or abnormal physical conditions—these should always be regarded as bars to parenthood. To violate this principle is to deliberately violate the fundamental laws of Nature, as well as those principles which are accepted as representing the best thought and customs of the race. A mental, moral, or physical “pervert” or “defective” is manifestly an “unfit,” considered as a prospective parent. Parenthood on the part of such individuals is not only a crime against society, but always a base injustice perpetrated upon the offspring.

    A very interesting phase of the general subject now before us for consideration is that which touches upon the effect of those particular acquired characteristics which are especially active at the time, or just before the time of conception. The best authorities hold that the influences manifest and active in the prospective father and mother during the period immediately preceding conception will have a marked effect upon the character of the child. The following quotations from authorities on the subject will serve to illustrate this idea.

    Riddell says: “The transient physical, mental and moral conditions of the parents, prior to the initial of life, at the time of inception, do affect offspring.” Dr. Cowan says: “Through the rightly directed wills of the mother and father, preceding and during ante-natal life, the child’s form of body, character of mind, and purity of soul are formed and established. That in its plastic shape, during ante-natal life, like clay in the hand of the potter, it can be molded into absolutely any form of body and soul the parents may knowingly desire.” Newton says: “Numerous facts indicate that offspring may be affected and their tendencies shaped by a great variety of influences, among which moods and influences more or less permanent may be included.”

    Riddell says: “The influence of environmental conditions and pre-natal training are ever evident. Colts from dams that have been under regular training are faster than those from the same mother foaled before she had been trained. The puppies of the trained shepherd dog learn much more rapidly than do those from the untrained animal. No sportsman would think of paying a high price for a puppy, the mother of which was stupid and untrained. The same law applies, only with greater effect, to the human family.” Greer says: “No married couple will desire, design and love a babe into existence without the first requisite—good physical health.” Grant Allen says: “To prepare ourselves for the duties of maternity and paternity by making ourselves as vigorous and healthful as we can be, is a duty we owe to children unborn.” Holbrook says: “It is essential, therefore, that if children are to be well-born, the parents should be careful that at the moment of procreation they are fitted for the performance of so serious an act.” Another authority says: “Generation should be preceded by regeneration.”

    Cowan says: “In the conception of a new life, the mass of mankind observes no law unless it be the law of chance. Out of the licentious or incontinent actions of a husband’s nature, conception after a time is discovered to take place. No preparation of body, mind, or soul is made by either parent. Not more than one child in perhaps ten thousand is brought into the world with the consent and loving desire of its parents. The other nine thousand, nine hundred, and ninety nine children are endowed with the accumulated sins of the parents. Is it any wonder that there is so much sin, sickness, drunkenness, suffering, licentiousness, murder, suicide, and prematuredeath, and so little of purity, chastity, success, goodness, happiness and long life in the world?”

    Preparation for Parenthood.

    The ancient Greeks attached great importance to the mental, moral and physical condition of the parents at the moment of conception, and for a period preceding the same. The Investigations of modern scientists have tended to corroborate the facts upon which the ancient theories were based. Modern science teaches that the life-cells of each parent are impressed with the condition of the respective parents, and retain this impression until they meet and finally coalesce and combine, the combined cell then receiving the result of the original impressions.

    The best authorities on the subject claim that a reasonable time of self-restraint and continence should be observed by the prospective parents before the conception of the child. This contention is borne out by the experience of the breeders of fine horses and cattle, who have discovered that the best offspring are produced when the animals have been restrained from sexual intercourse for a reasonable time; this precaution being particularly observed in the case of the male parent animal. Writers on the subject cite a number of instances to prove that this law maintains in human as well is in animal life. It is claimed that Sir Isaac Newton was conceived after a period of over a year of total sexual abstinence on the part of his parents. Many other celebrated men are said to have been conceived after an absence from home on the part of the father, or a temporary absence from home on the part of the mother. Many physicians are able to cite many similar cases observed in the course of their own experience.

    The prospective parents should endeavor to bring themselves up to a high degree of physical health and well-being. The blood of the mother should be enriched byproper nutrition, and the organs of the body should be brought to a state of normal functioning along the lines of digestion, assimilation, and elimination.

    The minds of both parents should be exercised by reading the right kind of books, and by paying attention to natural objects of interest. A little change of scene will tend to awaken the powers of observation and attention. Riddell says: “If the prospective parents will habitually exercise the reasoning faculties and inventive powers, usually the offspring will have a fair degree of inventive talent and originality, even where these qualities are originally deficient in the parents. When there is a considerable natural talent or where there are latent inventive powers, constant training on the part of the parents will usually give the offspring exceptional powers in this direction.”

    The prospective parents should also develop and exercise their moral faculties in the period preceding conception. This course will tend to reproduce the same quality in the child. The reverse of this, alas, is also true. A case is cited of a man who procreated a child while plotting a nefarious crime; and the child in after life manifested a tendency toward theft, roguery and rascality, even at a very early age. The lack of moral fibre so often noticed in the sons of rich men who have attained their success through questionable methods is perhaps as much attributable to these pre-conceptual influences as to the “spoiling” environment of the child after birth.

    In the period of physical, mental, and moral preparation for parenthood the leading thought of both parents should be: “Do we wish our child to be like this?” This thought, if carried as an ideal, will act both in the direction of self-restraint and self-development.

    The actual time of the conception of the new life should be carefully chosen, so that it may occur under the best circumstances and conditions. The suggestions embodied in the preceding paragraphs should have been carefully observed; and the time chosen should be one in which a peaceful and happy state of mind is possessed by both parents. The ovum of the woman is believed to have its greatest vitality about the time of the close of each menstrual period, and many good authorities hold that this is not only the natural period for sexual intercourse, but is also the exact period in which the life-forces in the ovum are strongest; and that, consequently, the child conceived at this period is likely to be stronger and more vigorous than the one conceived at a later time between the menstrual periods.

    Dr. Stall says: “Medical authorities attach great importance to the mental condition at the moment of conjunction and conception. It is quite universally believed that this is a moment of unparalleled importance to the welfare of the future being. It is an awful crime to beget life carelessly, and when in improper and unworthy mental states. Some people seem to think that the matter of begetting a child, like the matter of selecting a wife, should be left wholly to blind chance. Neither of these two important events can be too much safeguarded by wise and thoughtful consideration. If conception is permitted to take place when either one or both of the parents are in bad health; if the wife is an unwilling mother, and the embryo is developed by her while her whole nature rebels against the admission into the family of a child who is not wanted, the children begotten and born under such circumstances can never be other than sickly, nervous and fretful during their entire childhood, and cross and uncompanionable throughout their whole lives.

    “Much of the differences which exist between children of the same parents may be easily attributed to the different bodily and mental conditions of the parents at theperiod of conjunction, the changed physical, intellectual and emotional states of the parents at the different periods of conception producing the corresponding differences in their offspring. The results of purposed and prepared parenthood are so great and so desirable that a husband and wife should consider these matters carefully, making preparations, and approach the period when they would beget offspring and bring immortal beings into the world with the greatest thoughtfulness, consideration, and also with prayer.”

    Dr. Hufeland says: “In my opinion, it is of the utmost importance that the moment of conception should be confined to a period when the sensation of collected powers, ardent passion, and a mind cheerful and free from care, invite to it on both sides.” Riddell says: “The law of initial impressions is well established. It has been understood and applied by stock-raisers for centuries. Experiments prove that the qualities most highly excited in animals prior to their union are most fully transmitted. The speed of horses and the acquired characters of the dog have been improved by the applications of the law. History and classic literature contain many references that recognize its importance, like Shakespeare’s ‘Come on, ye cowards; ye were got in fear.’ Ancient laws forbade union while parents were intoxicated, because such unions resulted in the production of drunkards and monstrosities. The asylums for the feeble-minded contain hundreds of unfortunate ones that are the product of such unions. The law of initial impressions, like the other laws of heredity, is traced most easily where morbid conditions are transmitted; but fortunately it is quite as potential in the production of desirable qualities. Unusual excitement to the social, intellectual or religious powers on the parents just prior to the inception of the new life frequently produce in the child corresponding tendencies.”

    Dr. Stockham says: “Many a drunkard owes his lifelong appetite for alcohol to the fact that the inception of his life could be traced to a night of dissipation on the part of his father.” Fleming says: “Not only do drunkards transmit to their descendants tendency toward insanity and crime, but even habitually sober parents who at the moment of conception are in a temporary state of drunkenness beget children who are epileptic or paralytic, idiotic or insane, very often microcephalic, or with remarkable weakness of mind, which is transformed at the first favorable occasion into insanity.”

    The time of conception should undoubtedly be chosen to correspond to a time in which the sex-powers of both parents are at their maximum. This is arrived at by a reasonable period of previous continence and abstinence from sexual relations between the married couple, and by an observance of the natural law which renders the woman most strong sexually at the close of the menstrual period. The husband, as well as the wife, is most strong sexually at this period, as under normal conditions his sex-power is most actively called forth by that of the woman at this period. At this period the wave of sex-power is at its height, and this is the best time for the beginning of the new life. As Riddell says: “Strong, vigorous, chaste sexuality at the time of conception is of supreme importance; it is indispensable to good results. No number of other conditions or factors can be so favorable as to justify the creation of a new life when the vitality of either parent is low. Parents transmit their physical constitution, intellect and morals only to the extent of the sex-power at the time of inception.”

    It is needless to say that there should exist between the prospective parents a strong bond of affection and attraction. By an irony of civilized life, the term “love child” is applied only to the offspring of unmarried lovers—men and women whose affection or passion have run away with their judgment, and who have “loved not wisely, but too well.” Some of the world’s greatest men and women have been “love children” of this kind; and in such cases it is probably true that their physical and mental strength has been the result of the ardent feeling animating the parents at the moment of conception. Such children seldom result from the “tired bed” or worn-out passion, love killed by sexual excesses, indifference on the part of one of the participants of the union, “duty” intercourse without affection or passion, or forced sexual relations. Every child should be a “love child” in the true sense of the term. The term should be one of respect, not of reproach. There should be no children but “love children.” The fruit of the perfect mating and marriage should be the perfect “love child”—and it would always be so if husbands and wives would but observe the laws of the normal, natural, sex-life.

    And, last of all—and perhaps more important than all—is the fact that at the moment of conception the minds and hearts of both of the prospective parents should be united in a strong love and desire for the hoped-for child. At that moment their best natures should blend into each other, and their love for each other fuse into a new love—the love of the child of the union. Under such circumstances, in such act the Cosmic Forces flow unhindered through the beings of the parents, and the new life is begun under the approving smile of Nature.

    Maternal Impressions.

    One of the oldest and most firmly-rooted beliefs of the race is that which holds that the pregnant mother may, and often does, consciously or unconsciously, impress upon her unborn child certain mental, moral, or physical traits. The majority of persons accept this idea as self-evident, and are able to cite cases within their own personal experience which go to prove the correctness of the popular belief. But certain modern authorities have sought to tear down this belief, and to discredit the general idea. Let us briefly consider both sides of this question.

    On the side of the generally accepted belief, Riddell says: “The more I study the influence of maternal impressions upon the life, mentality and character of men, the more I am led to believe that the education and moral training that a child receives before it sees the light of day are the most influential, and, therefore, the most important part of its education.” Newton says: “A mother may, during the period of gestation, exercise some influence, by her own voluntary mental and physical action, either unwittingly or purposely, in determining the traits and tendencies of her offspring. This is now a common belief among intelligent people. Every observant teacher could doubtless bear witness to the same general facts, and it would be easy to fill a volume with testimonials from various sources illustrative and confirmatory of the law under discussion. Such facts establish beyond question the conviction that the mother has it largely in her power to confer on her child such a tendency of mind and conformation of brain as shall not only facilitate the acquisition of knowledge in any specific direction, but make it certain that such knowledge will be sought and acquired.”

    Dr. Fordyce Baker says: “The weight of authority must be conceded to be in favor of the idea that maternal impressions may effect the growth, form and character of a forming child.” Dr. Rokitansky says: “The question whether mental emotions do influence the development of the child must be answered ‘Yes!’” Dr. Brittain says: “The singular effects produced on the unborn child by the sudden mental emotions of the mother are remarkable examples of a kind of electrotyping on the sensitive surface of living forms. It is doubtless true that the mind’s action in such cases may increase or diminish the molecular deposits in the several portions of the system. The precise place which each separate particle assumes may be determined by the influence of thought or feeling. If, for example, there exists in the mother any unusual tendency of the vital forces to the brain at the critical period, there will be a similar cerebral development and activity in the offspring.”

    Newton says: “The human embryo is formed and developed in all its parts, even to the minutest detail, by and through the action of the vital, mental, and spiritual forces of the mother, which forces act in and through the corresponding portions of her own organism. And while this process may go on unconsciously, or without the mother’s voluntary participation or direction, yet she may consciously and purposely so direct her activities as, with a good degree of certainty, to accomplish specifically desired ends in determining the traits and qualities of her offspring.” Professor Bayer says: “The influence of the mind of a prospective mother upon her child, before its birth, is of tremendous importance to its active existence as a member of society, from the fact that it lies in the mother’s power to shape its mentality, that it may be a power for good or for evil.”

    The views of that school of thought which is opposed to this old and generally accepted idea of material impressions, are ably presented by Dr. Saleeby, as follows: “Consider the case. The baby is at this time already a baby, though rather small and uncanny, floating in a fluid of its own manufacture. Its sole connection with the mother is by means of its umbilical cord—that is to say, blood-vessels, arterial and venous. There is no nervous connection whatever; absolutely nothing but the blood-stream, carried along a system of tubes. This blood is the child’s blood, which it sends forth from itself along the umbillical cord to a special organ, the placenta or afterbirth, half made by itself and half made by the mother, in which the child’s blood travels in thin vessels so close to the mother’s blood that their contents can be interchanged. Yet the two streams never mix. The child’s blood, having disposed of its carbonic acid and waste products to the mother’s blood, and having received therefrom oxygen and food, returns so laden to the child. Pray how is the mother’s reading of history to make the child a historian? We see now how the learning of geometry on the part of the mother before its birth will not set her baby upon that royal road to geometry of which Euclid rightly denied the existence—any more than after its birth. Such a thing does not happen—unless we are to call in Telepathy.”

    All this argument may seem quite convincing—at first. But when we begin to consider the matter carefully, we begin to perceive the weak places in the argument as above presented. In the first place, it is known that emotions powerfully affect the condition, quality, and “life” of the blood. We know that cheerful emotions impart certain uplifting qualities to the blood, while depressing emotions correspondingly react upon it. Fear, worry, fright, jealousy, etc., are actual poisons to the blood, and have brought on diseased conditions to the persons manifesting these emotions. Moreover, it is known that impaired quality of the blood reacts upon the brain. Is it so unreasonable, then, to hold that emotional states in the mother may react upon the mental and physical condition of the unborn child, through the blood? Does not something similar occur in the case of the babe, after its birth, when it is affected by the conditions of its mother’s milk brought on by her depressing emotions, fright, etc.? This would seem to explain at least the matter of emotional reactions between mother and unborn babe.

    But the case is not closed with the presentation of the evidence of physiology, important though that may be. There is an entirely different field of science to be drawn upon before the case is closed. The orthodox physiologist makes the mistake of supposing that all mental impulses and transmission of psychic energy require the service of nerves as channels of transmission. While such channels are usually required, we have good reasons for believing that there are exceptions to the rule. There have been found tiny creatures, possessing life and energy, performing the functions of nourishment, elimination, and even of reproduction—and yet without a nervous system. In one well-known instance, that of the moneron, we find not only an absence of a nervous system but also the lack of organs of any kind—and yet the creature lives, acts, moves, eats, thinks, and reproduces itself.

    Then, again, consider the moving cells of the blood, unconnected with the brain, unattached to the nervous system, and yet rushing to the work of repairing a wound, or of repelling an intruding germ, in obedience to a mental command from the controlling subconscious mental regions of the living creature. How does the mental impulse reach these cells and others of similar nature in the system? If we were not so sure of the facts, might we not feel inclined to say with Dr. Saleeby, in the above quoted sentence: “Such a thing does not happen—unless we are to call in telepathy.”

    Moreover, examining Dr. Saleeby’s statement, we see mention made of the placenta at being “half made by the embryo, and half made by the mother.” How does this co-operation and co-ordination of effort and subconscious will arise? How does the subconscious mentality of the embryo know that the subconscious mentality of the mother is making its half of the placenta, or vice versa? Again, how is the subconscious mentality of the mother affected by the presence and development of the child—how do her mammary glands respond to the growth and development of the child? In short, how is the manifest co-operation and co-ordination between the “nature” of the mother and the “nature” of the child possible, unless there exists some psychical, as well as some physical, relation between the two beings.

    The person conscientiously considering this subject must include in his thought the discoveries of modern psychology concerning what is known as the “subconscious mind,” which controls the unconscious and instinctive functions of the physical body, and also receives impressions and suggestions from the surface consciousness of its owner. This factor being admitted to our thought on the subject, we may find it possible to accept the idea of material impressions from mother to child operating from the subconscious mind of the mother to that of the child. In other words, that there is a subconscious mental connection, as well as the physical connection, between the mother and her unborn child.

    Many careful thinkers (and observers) find it just as easy to accept the fact of this strange “sympathetic co-ordination” between a mother and her unborn child as it is to accept the very frequent “sympathetic sickness” of the husband during the pregnancy of his wife—or of the “sympathetic labor pains” so often experienced by the husband during the confinement of his wife. Both of the latter two cases occur too often to permit the phenomenon to be denied off hand by those who would set aside all facts not agreeing with their particular personal theories. There is no nervous system connecting husband and wife, and of such cases the critic like Dr. Saleeby might say: “Such a thing does not happen—unless we call in telepathy!” The fact remains that many things actually happen which according to the orthodox physiological theories “cannot happen.” But they DO happen, nevertheless, whether we call it “telepathy” or merely label it “certain facts, the exact causes of which Science in the present state of its knowledge (or ignorance) cannot definitely determine.” One irrefutable fact outweighs a ton of mere general denials of possibility.

    It is recorded that the mother of Charles Kingsley believed in maternal impressions, and during her period of pregnancy exercised her imagination and emotions in the direction of wishing, and imagining, that the coming child should have the same love of Devonshire scenery that so delighted her. The result proved her theory, for though Kingsley never saw Devonshire until he was a man of thirty years of age, every Devonshire scene had a mysterious charm for him throughout his entire life. It is said that Robert Burns was so strongly impressed parentally by the old Scotch songs and ballads that his mother sung during her pregnancy, that his whole nature longed to express itself in like measure and substance. He always believed that his poetic spirit was kindled by this tendency on the part of his mother during the period preceding his birth.

    The mother of Napoleon Bonaparte during several months of her pregnancy, accompanied her husband during his military campaigns in Corsica, and during the entire term she lived in an atmosphere of battles, military strategy, and troops. When the boy was very young he manifested an unusual interest in war and conquest, and his whole mind had the military bent, although his brothers were in no wise remarkable in this direction. The artist, Flaxman, stated that his mother had related to him how for several months prior to his birth she had spent many hours each day studying drawings and engravings, and endeavoring to visualize by memory the beautiful figures of the human body drawn by the masters. The result was that from early childhood Flaxman manifested an intense delight in drawing; and in after life his drawings were regarded as masterpieces. He, and his mother, always attributed his talent to the parental impressions above mentioned.

    “Buffalo Bill” was believed to owe his characteristics to the mental states of his mother, the family living in Missouri during the days of frontier fights and disturbances, the mother being called upon several times to exercise resourceful courage and fortitude. A well-known worker along the lines of liberal Christianity is said to have attributed his tendencies in that direction to the prayers of his mother, during her pregnancy, that the child might be true to the teachings of the Christ, and should be a laborer in the cause of human brotherhood. This man, relating the fact, said: “I may have been converted before I was born.” A well-known writer along the lines of moral philosophy is believed by friends to owe his talent to the earnest thoughts and hopes of his mother during pregnancy—she is said to have pictured the child as a son destined to become a great moral philosopher, her mind being so firmly fixed on this fact that she felt it was already an assured fact.

    The Greeks were wont to surround the pregnant women with beautiful statuary, and it is recorded that in many cases the children afterward born closely resembled these works of art and beauty. It is claimed that many Italian women closely resemble the face shown in Raphael’s “Madonna,” copies of this celebrated picture being quite common in Italian households. Frances Willard, the temperance worker, is said to have very closely resembled a young woman of whom her mother was very fond. Many family resemblances are believed to have arisen in this way, rather than by heredity. Zerah Colburn, the mathematical prodigy whose feats astounded the scientific world in the early part of the last century, is said to have derived his wonderful faculty from maternal impressions of this kind; his mother is said to have occupied much of her time during her pregnancy in studying arithmetic and working problems, the study being quite new to her and proving very interesting.

    Cases similar to those above quoted might be duplicated almost indefinitely. The story is practically the same in each and every case. The principle involved is always that the pregnant mother took a decided interest in certain subjects, studies, and work, and that the child when born manifested at an early age similar tastes and inclinations. But far more important to the average prospective parent is the fact that many authorities positively claim that any pregnant mother may consciously and deliberately influence and shape the character, physical, mental, and moral of her unborn child.

    Newton well says, on this subject: “In the cases usually given to the public bearing on this topic, the moulding power appears to have been exercised merely by accident or chance; that is, without any intelligent purpose on the part of mothers to produce the results. Can there be any doubt that similar means, if purposely and wisely adopted, and applied with the greater care and precision which enlightened intention secure, would produce under the same law even more perfect results. Is it not altogether probable that an intentional direction of the vital or mental forces to any particular portion of the brain will cause a development and activity in the corresponding portion of the brain of the offspring? There seems to be no reasonable ground on which these propositions can be denied. The brain is made up of a congeries of organs which are the organs of distinct faculties of the mind or soul. It follows, then, that if the mother during gestation maintains a special activity of any one brain organ, or group of organs, in her brain, she thereby causes more development of the corresponding organ or group in the brain of the fetus. She thus determines a tendency in the child to special activity of the faculties, of which such organs are the instruments. It is plain, furthermore, that if any one organ or faculty may thus be cultivated before birth, and its activity enhanced for life, so may any other—and so may all. It would seem, then, clearly within the bounds of possibility that a mother, by pursuing a systematic and comprehensive method, may give a well-rounded and harmoniously developed organism to her child—notwithstanding her own defects, which, under the unguided operation of hereditary law, are likely to be repeated in her offspring. Or it is within her power to impart a leading tendency in any specific direction that she may deem desirable, for a life of the highest usefulness. In this way ancestral defects and undesirable hereditary traits, of whatever nature or however strong, may be overcome, or in a good degree counterbalanced by giving greater activity to counteracting tendencies; and, in this way, too, it would appear the coveted gifts of genius may be conferred. In other words, it would seem to be within the mother’s power, by the voluntary and intelligent direction of her own forces, in orderly and systematic methods, both to mold the physical form to lines of beauty, and shape the mental, moral, and spiritual features of her child to an extent to which no limit can be assigned.”

    I think that in the pages of this particular part of the book the prospective parent may find hints and general directions toward a clearly defined ideal, which is carefully studied, and as carefully put into practice will produce results far beyond the dreams of the average man and woman. The hope is a magnificent one, and the best testimony is in favor of the possibility of its actual realization.

    PRIVATE Sex Advice to Women By R. B. Armitage, M. D.

    For Young Wives and those who Expect to be Married.

    Views: 0

  • THE SCIENCE OF EUGENICS

    THE SCIENCE OF EUGENICS

    No one who keeps in even only fair touch with the affairs of the world of today can have failed to notice the frequent mention of the term “Eugenics” in the newspapers, magazine, and books of the hour. And yet, many persons seem to be in doubt as to the meaning and use of the term; some thinking that it refers to some new “ism” or “ology,” or perhaps to some new and strange doctrine concerning the relations of the sexes. In view of this fact, the writer has thought it well to give the readers of this book a brief, though somewhat comprehensive, view of the general subject of Eugenics.

    Eugenics, sometimes known as the Science of Parenthood, has well been styled “the New Science,” for it has forced itself into public notice within the past ten or fifteen years, whereas before that time it was practically unknown to the general public. At the present time some of the world’s greatest thinkers have spoken or written on the subject, and many regard it as one of the most vital branches of human research, endeavor, and study, for the future of the race is involved in the solution of its problems. In its general phase of race-betterment, Eugenics is receiving the attention of statesmen, sociologists and patriots; in its particular phases, the earnest attention, interest and study of men and women who wish offspring of the best quality obtainable.

    The spirit of Eugenics may be expressed in the words of Dr. G. Stanley Hall, president of Clark University, who has said: “Our duty of all duties is to transmit the sacred torch of life undiminished, and, if possible, a little brightened, to our children.{66} This is the chief end of men and women. All posterity slumbers in our bodies, as we did in our ancestors. The basis of the new biological ethics of today, and of the future, is that everything is right that makes for the welfare of the yet unborn, and all is wrong that injures them, and to do so is the unpardonable sin—the only one nature knows.”

    That phase of Eugenics which has brought the new science more prominently before the public mind, and which has enrolled on its roster the names of some of the world’s most eminent scientists, sociologists, and writers—the phase of race-betterment from the standpoint of sociology—has led many to believe that Eugenics is confined to that phase, and is but a movement toward “the successful breeding of the human race” on a universal scale. To many, such a movement while deemed commendable and desirable nevertheless lacks the appeal of the heart and affections—it seems to be of the head alone. But when such persons are brought to their realization that Eugenics is also a movement to promote the bearing of children—to enable each mated couple to bring forth perfect offspring—then the heart is enlisted as a co-worker with the head.

    The sociological phase of Eugenics—the phase of Race Culture in general—is being vigorously advanced by societies and organizations in various parts of the world, the parent organization being the Eugenics Education Society, of London, England. Dr. C. W. Saleeby, one of those prominent in the work of the said Society, has the following to say concerning the work of that organization:

    “The Eugenics Education Society exists to uphold the ideal of Parenthood as the highest and most responsible of human powers; to proclaim that the racial instinct is therefore supremely sacred, and its exercise{67} through marriage, for the service of the future, the loftiest of all privileges. It stands for a transfigured sentiment of parenthood which regards with solicitude not child and grandchild only, but the generations to come hereafter—fathers of the future creating and providing for the remote children. That which too many schools of thought and practice have derided or defiled, it seeks to elevate and ennoble. Parenthood on the part of the diseased, the insane, the alcoholic—where these conditions promise to be transmitted—must be denounced as a crime against the future. In these directions the Society stands for active legislation, and for the formation of that public opinion which legislation, if it is to be effective, must express. Parenthood on the part of the worthy must be buttressed, guided, and extolled. The Society stands for the education of the young regarding the responsibility and holiness of the racial function of parenthood.”

    The Eugenists hold that in the near future our children, looking back upon the present and the past state of indifference and neglect concerning the important subject of bearing and rearing of children, will experience the same horror that we now feel when we look back upon the indifference to the horrors of human slavery, imprisonment for debt, cruelty toward prisoners, treatment of the insane, executions for trivial offences, etc., on the part of our ancestors. Our descendants will deem it almost inconceivable that we, their ancestors, could have been so blind and criminally negligent.

    But, as leading Eugenists have pointed out, the new science does not confine its attention to the subject of preventive measures, important as they are—it also directs its attention to the constructive phase of the subject, i. e., the production of better children. While Eugenics strives to prevent the unfit from flooding the race with unfit progeny, it at the same time strives to{68} educate the race so that the fit may bear and rear better offsprings. It is not sufficient merely to eliminate the unfit—we must also improve, and still further render fit, the fit members of the race. The fit must not be allowed to remain merely the fit—we must evolve a fitter—and ever move onward toward the realization of the ideal of the fittest. We must not only strive to eliminate the beast in the race of men—we must also aid the race to unfold in the direction of the super-man.

    The Eugenists know that much of the talk concerning Race Suicide is not only futile and uncalled for, but is also in a sense misleading and actually dangerous. The real danger of Race Suicide comes not from the decreasing birth-rate, but from the excessive, ignorant, and unscientific bearing and rearing of children by unfit parents. It is not so much a matter of how many children are born, as of how they are born, what kind of children they are, and how they are reared physically, mentally and morally, and how many survive. It is not so much that the lower death-rate be avoided, says the Eugenist, as it is that the higher death-rate be overcome. The intelligent stockbreeder grasps this scientific law of the Eugenists when he endeavors to produce the best young, and then to take care of them that they survive and reach a healthy maturity. To the Eugenist, it is not so much a question of “more,” but of “better”—not so much a question of quantity as of quality—not so much a question of production, but of conservation and preservation.

    Dr. Saleeby refers to the death-rate of London, which is but 16 to the 1000, as compared to that of Bombay, which is 79 to the 1000. He adds: “It is asserted that in many large Indian cities the infant mortality approaches one-half of all the children born. What it amounts to in such cities as Canton and Pekin we can only surmise with{69} horror. * * * * Unless it be supposed by bishops and others, then, that a peculiar value attaches to the production of a baby shortly to be buried, the suggestion evidently is the same as that to which every humanitarian and social and patriotic impulse guides us, namely, the reduction of the death-rate, and especially of infant mortality. * * * * Hence the Eugenists and the Episcopal Bench may join hands so far as the reduction of the death-rate is concerned, and the only persons with whom a practical quarrel remains are those who applaud the mother who boasts that she has buried twelve.”

    The Eugenists urge that if the principles applied to plant-life by that master of his science, Luther Burbank, were applied to the production and rearing of young human life, in a few generations we should have a race so far advanced beyond the present average as to be almost god-like by comparison. But this means a far different thing from the ideal of merely “more children”—it requires the manifestation of the ideal of “better children,” well born, carefully reared, well nourished, and scientifically educated. And this rearing, nourishing, and education must not be confined to the physical part of the child’s nature—it must proceed along the three-fold line of physical, mental, and moral culture.

    The Eugenists have been actively concerned with the question of the prevention of the transmission of undesirable qualities to offspring. They have held that while crime is more frequently rather the result of evil environment than of criminal heredity, nevertheless there is a large class of children who are “born criminals”—that is, born with such a decided tendency toward criminal acts that the slightest influence of environment may, and often does, serve to kindle into a blaze the undesirable and criminal characteristics.

    Dr. Saleeby says of this: “In the face of the work of{70} Lombroso and his school, exaggerated though some of their conclusions may be, we cannot dispute the existence of born criminals and the criminal type. There are undoubtedly many such persons in modern society. There is an abundance of crime which no education, practiced or imaginable, would eliminate. Present day psychology and medicine and, for the matter of that, ordinary common-sense, can readily distinguish cases at both extremes—the mattoid or semi-insane criminal at one end, and the decent citizen who yields to exceptional temptation at the other end.”

    The Eugenists quote as an instance of the above contention the celebrated case of Max Jukes, a notorious criminal and drunkard, who as the records show us was the ancestor of a foul brood of descendants which cost the State of New York over a million dollars in seventy-five years. Among these descendants were 200 thieves and murderers; 285 subject to idiocy, blindness or deafness; 90 prostitutes; and 300 children born prematurely. It is possible that a portion of this evil result was caused not alone by bad heredity but, at least in part, by the suggestion of the environment, and the influence of example of the parents; but even so, the primal cause was that Max Jukes, the notoriously unfit ancestor, was allowed to propagate this evil brood, destined to be born and reared under the most adverse conditions and environment.

    The Eugenists also place great importance upon the prevention of insane persons becoming parents. To those who consider that this is but an exceptional and rare occurrence, the Eugenists reply that a large percentage of insane patients in asylums have a family history showing insanity in one or both parents; that reports show that there are thousands of feeble-minded women in every large city allowed to (yes, often actually compelled to) bear children to their husbands or male companions.

    Ribot says: “Every work on insanity is a plea for heredity.” Maudsley says: “More than one-fourth and less than one-half of all insanity is heredity.” Riddell says: “Of the great causes of insanity, alcoholism is perhaps the greatest, while morbid heredity ranks next. Insanity is largely the result of degeneracy. Most persons who become mentally deranged are the offspring of neurotic, drunken, insane or feeble-minded parents.” While it by no means follows that one must manifest traits of insanity or mental disturbance simply because one of his parents suffered from a like trouble—and we believe that many a one has frightened himself into those conditions by pure auto-suggestion inspired by a one-sided belief in heredity—still it is unquestionably true that a fair mind must concede that wisdom and a proper sense of right and justice would require that parents of unsound mental tendencies should not be permitted to bring into the world children who might inherit a tendency toward a like, or worse, condition.

    The Eugenists also have called the attention of the thinking public to the danger of deaf-and-dumb persons transmitting their condition to their offspring. Of this Dr. Saleeby says: “The condition known as deaf-mutism is congenital or due to innate defect in about one-half of all the cases in Great Britain.” Dr. Love says: “In every institution, examples may be found of deaf-mute children who have had one or two deaf parents or grandparents, and of two or more deaf-mute children belonging to one family.” A case is noted in England where a deaf-and-dumb man having been killed by an accident, his relatives could not identify the body, as the wife and sister were blind, deaf-and-dumb, and the four children were deaf-and-dumb. The man and his wife were both deaf-and-dumb when they were married, the wife being also blind.

    Perhaps no subject has aroused the active Eugenists{72} to a greater pitch of indignation than the ascertained results of the effect upon offspring of parents addicted to the over-indulgence in alcohol. It is known by the records that a large number of cases of feeble-mindedness and actual insanity are due to inebriety of parents, and often of grandparents, or ancestors for several generations. Epilepsy, idiocy, and criminality are also traceable in many cases to drunkenness of parents. Dr. Saleeby, moved by indignation by the ascertained results of the investigations of the Eugenists, has said: “Parenthood must be forbidden to the dipsomaniac, the chronic inebriate, or the drunkard, whether male or female.”

    Professor Grenier, writing on the subject of alcoholic degeneration, has said: “Alcohol is one of the most active agents in the degeneracy of the race. The indelible effects produced by heredity are not to be remedied. Alcoholic descendants are often inferior beings, a notable proportion coming under the categories of idiots, imbeciles, and the debilitated. The morbid influence of parents is maximum when conception has taken place at the time of drunkenness of one or both parties. Those with hereditary alcoholism show a tendency to excess; half of them become alcoholics; a large number of cases of neurosis have their principal cause in alcoholic antecedents. The larger portion of the sons of alcoholics have convulsions in early infancy. Epilepsy is almost characteristic of the alcoholism of parents, when it is not an index of a nervous disposition of the whole family. The alcoholic delirium is more frequent in the descendants of alcoholics than in their parents, which indicates their intellectual degeneration.”

    What has been said of alcoholism of course applies to the use of narcotics and other drugs. Galton cites a case in which “a man who had had two healthy children acquired the cocaine habit, and while suffering from the{73} symptoms of chronic poisoning engendered two idiots.” And yet had anyone publicly instructed the wife of this man regarding the use of contraceptives, such person would have been liable to imprisonment!

    Another subject engaging the active attention of the Eugenists, and which is discussed to considerable extent in the privacy of their meetings, but which must be voiced only very carefully in the public prints owing to the “murderous silence” which society prefers to maintain on the subject, is of the influence of venereal diseases as racial poisons transmissible to offspring. Dr. Saleeby has well said: “No other disease can rival syphilis in its hideous influence upon parenthood and the future. But it is no crime for a man to marry, infect his innocent bride and their children; no crime against the laws of our lawgivers, but a heinous outrage against nature’s decrees. When at last our laws are based on nature’s laws, criminal marriages of this kind may be put an end to.”

    The above stated facts are not pleasant reading for most persons, and many pass over them hurriedly, thereby hoping to escape the mental discomfort which the hearing and learning of unpleasant truths so often produce. But the subject will not down—it is forcing itself to the attention of the thinking members of society today in a manner which will admit of no escape. These facts must be faced, and steps must be taken by society to protect the race from degeneration and actual Race Suicide. And the Science of Eugenics is pointing the way.

    Dr. Saleeby says of this phase of Eugenics: “Negative Eugenics will seek to define the diseases and defects which are really hereditary; to name those the transmission of which is already known to occur, and to raise the average of the race by interfering as far as may be with the parenthood of persons suffering from these{74} transmissible disorders. Only thus can certain of the gravest evils of society, as, for instance, feeble-mindedness, insanity, and crime due to inherited degeneracy, be suppressed; and if Race-Culture were absolutely incapable of effecting anything whatever in the way of increasing the fertility of the worthiest classes and individuals, its services in the negative direction here briefly outlined would be of incalculable value. To this policy we shall most certainly come; but here, as in other cases, I trust far more to the influence of an educated public opinion than in legislation; though there are certain forms of transmissible disease, interfering in no way with the responsibility of the individual, the transmission of which should be visited with the utmost rigor of the law, and regarded as utterly criminal, no less than sheer murder.”

    But the Science of Eugenics is concerned not only with telling society what “not to do”—it is equally concerned with telling it “what to do.” It has its Positive as well as its Negative side. After pointing out the evils of procreation on the part of the unfit, it then proceeds to tell the fit how to best serve the interests of the unborn. Eugenics is not satisfied with merely plucking out the foul weeds which have encumbered the fair garden of life—it seeks also to furnish to the real flowers better soil, and improved conditions, and to give them the benefit of the best selection, breeding and conditions, that they may evolve and improve into still more glorious products of nature’s power.

    The Eugenists earnestly advocate laws and public opinion tending to protect mothers and expectant mothers. They recognize the supremacy of motherhood, and aim to encourage and protect it. They decry the common indifference toward this function which is all important in the preservation and evolution of the race, and which neglect is well expressed in the complaint of{75} Bouchacourt, who said: “The dregs of the human species—the blind, the deaf-mute, the degenerate, the imbecile, the epileptic—are better protected than are pregnant women.”

    The Eugenists believe in educating women for motherhood, and in protecting them from conditions which interfere with that important function of their life. They are not fully agreed upon the methods to be pursued in cases of expectant mothers whose lack of proper support prevents them from obtaining the proper nourishment, etc., but in a general way it may be said that they agree in holding that the expectant mother should be looked upon as the honored ward of the State, and should be properly provided for from the public funds.

    The Eugenists also believe in educating the father, or prospective father. They hold that every man should be made acquainted with the duties and responsibilities of fatherhood, and should so conduct and order his life that the production and rearing of a family should result as a consummation of a long cherished ideal. The man should be taught to prepare himself, physically, mentally, and morally, for his coming responsibility to the race. He should also be taught to respect and regard motherhood, and to make it his business to secure and preserve the best possible conditions for the mother of his own children, and the mothers of other men’s children, not as an act of mere sentiment, but as a public duty, a patriotic service, a racial obligation.

    The Eugenists believe in teaching young men and young women on the subject of sexual physiology and psychology. They hold that the race is now criminally negligent in such matters, and that young men and women, by the thousands, enter into the state of marriage and parenthood with no knowledge regarding the sacred functions which they are to bring into activity. They{76} believe that the first requisite of scientific parenthood is and must be a sane knowledge of the physiology of sex, and the psychology of sex. There must be sane education concerning the sexual organism, its laws, its functions, its normal and healthy condition, its anatomy, physiology and hygiene.

    The average physician of several years’ experience can tell tales of almost incredible ignorance on the part of persons who have recently entered into the relationship of marriage. In some cases the ignorance is more than a mere absence of knowledge, for it consists of an array of false-knowledge, untruthful ideas, of often serious importance. It is sad enough to think how the ignorance and false-knowledge may work results hurtful to the young couple themselves, but it is even sadder to realize that these same ignorant or wrongly-informed young persons must gain their real knowledge through sad experience which is to be paid for not only by themselves but also by their children. It is a hard saying, but true that “the knowledge of the majority of young parents is gained by experience paid for by their unborn children.”

    The Eugenists look forward to the coming of the day when it will be regarded as reprehensible to allow young persons to enter into the relationship of marriage without a sane, practical knowledge of their own reproductive organism and functions, and of their physiological duties to themselves, their companions in marriage, and to their children born or to be born. We may, in due time, see a practical realization of the ideal set forth by Dr. Newell Dwight Hillis, who said: “The State that makes a man study two years before a license as druggist is given; that makes a young lawyer or doctor study three years before being permitted to practice, ought to ask the young man or young woman to pass an equally rigid examination {77}before license is given to found an American home, and set up an American family.”

    This idea of the scientific preparation for parenthood is a new one for many, but the coming generations will recognize its importance to the individual and to the race. Many who recognize the influence of pre-natal culture in so far as is concerned the physical, mental, and moral condition of the mother during pregnancy, have failed to perceive that an equally important influence is exerted by the physical, mental and moral condition of both parents before the conception of the child. These conditions are reflected, often very markedly, in the child, and an avoidance of consideration in this respect is often almost criminal negligence.

    Eugenists deplore the haphazard way in which children are so often conceived. More care is often bestowed upon the conditions precedent to the conception of the domestic animals than is given by their owners to the conditions preceding the conception of their own offspring. Too often, while in the case of the domestic animals the utmost care is exercised regarding the arrangement for the breeding of valuable stock, the human offspring are mere “accidents,” conceived without intention, forethought, or preparation; and too often is such conception undesired, regretted and unwelcome.

    This state of affairs is utterly unworthy of civilized man with the knowledge of science at his command, and the intellect and will with which to carry out the plain dictates of reason and duty. Nature does her part unhindered in the case of the lower animals, and man should use her principles as a foundation upon which to build a structure which reason and intelligence should supply the materials. Instead of this, man too often discards Nature’s plain rules entirely, and also refuses to use his reason, and, instead, allows himself to be ruled by selfish{78} inclinations and desires, and ignoble motives.

    To those who may ask: “But why should we give all this time, care and trouble to the young of the race—what is their claim upon us that demands so much of us in return for so little on their part?” the answer is plain. We should do this not alone because of the natural feeling of love for our own offspring which is innate in all normal human beings, but we should also do this because we owe a duty to the race in and which we are units—a duty which demands that we supply to the race the best material, and only the best, for its preservation, continuance, and betterment.

    The spirit of the age is pointing out the direction indicated by Eugenics and scientific Birth Control. And it is a spirit in which the best mental and spiritual powers of man are called into action. A new consciousness—the “race consciousness”—is awakening within the best of the race, and accompanying it is a new conscience—a “race conscience”—is manifesting within us, and is giving the individual a sense of right and wrong toward future generations, just as his earlier-awakened social conscience has opened his eyes to his duties toward his neighbors.

    Man is beginning to feel that all men are his brothers, and that the future generations of men are in a sense his children. The new ideal of “Let us build posterity worthily” has begun to supplant the old narrow idea humorously expressed in the famous bull of Sir Boyce Roche, who said, “Why should we do anything for posterity—what has posterity ever done for us?”

    As Dr. Saleeby has well said: “If the struggle toward individual perfection be religious, so assuredly is the struggle, less egoistic indeed, toward racial perfection. * * * And they that shall be of us shall build up the old waste places; for we shall raise up the foundations of many generations.”

    And in all this, also, we find ever present the distinctive note of modern thought, viz., “Not more children, but better ones; not more births, but less deaths and more survivals; not numerical birth values, but qualitative birth values and numerical survival values.”

    PRIVATE Sex Advice to Women By R. B. Armitage, M. D.

    For Young Wives and those who Expect to be Married.

    Views: 0

  • PRIVATE Sex Advice to Women By R. B. Armitage, M. D.

    PRIVATE Sex Advice to Women By R. B. Armitage, M. D.

    Sex Advice to Women

    In this book the writer thereof seeks to convey to women—particularly to young wives and women expecting to be married—certain important facts of knowledge, certain necessary information, which all such women should possess, but which few are given the opportunity to acquire.

    It would seem to require no argument to convince a rational individual that before a woman is capable of intelligent motherhood she should be made acquainted with the physiological processes which are involved in the sexual functions leading to the state of motherhood; but we are confronted by the fact that few young women are given such instruction.

    It is a strange thing that while even the ordinary school child is made acquainted with the physiological processes concerned with the processes of digestion, respiration, circulation, elimination, etc., and while such education is highly commended, yet at the same time not only are the young of both sexes reared as if there was no such thing as sexual functions in existence, but even full-grown adults are left to pick up their instruction on sexual subjects from chance sources—often polluted sources.

    Even those about to enter into the important offices of matrimony and parenthood are permitted to assume those duties and responsibilities without intelligent and scientific information or knowledge being given them. What would we think of expecting a woman to cook, without previous experience and without even the most elementary instruction on the subject? What would we think of expecting any person to undertake any important task or duty without experience or instruction regarding the same? And yet we seem content to allow young women to enter into the important relationship of marriage, and to undertake the important office of motherhood, often in absolute ignorance of the physiological processes involved, and the physical laws governing the same.

    All this absurd practice and custom results simply from the antiquated notion that it is “not nice” to speak or think of the subject of the sex functions. The subject has been considered “taboo” by our particular section of the human race since the Middle Ages, because the ascetic ideals of that dark period of human history brought forward a totally false and unnatural conception of sex as fundamentally impure. If the results were not so deplorable and often tragic, this condition of affairs would be a fit subject for laughter and scornful ridicule. But, alas! on the part of the thoughtful observer of this state of things there is rather great wonder and amazement accompanied by the feeling of deep sorrow.

    It cannot be honestly denied that in our present age, and period of modern civilization, and particularly among the Anglo-Saxon branch of the race, the question of the sex functions is associated with impurity, at least so far as the popular mind is concerned. In previous civilizations the subject was accorded its proper place, and was discussed sanely and thoughtfully, without any sense of shame or impurity. The Middle Age ideals of celibacy and asceticism brought about the public conception of the human body as a thing impure—something to be modified, tortured, subdued and reviled; and a corresponding conception of sex as a vile, impure thing above which the pure in heart rose entirely and completely, and which those of a lesser spiritual ideal were permitted to indulge with a due sense of their degradation and weakness. It was considered a most worthy thing to lead an ascetic life with its accompaniment of disdain and punishment of the body. It was considered most pious and spiritual to forego the ordinary human relations of sex, marriage and parenthood. From these distorted conceptions naturally evolved the idea that sex, and all connected with it, was a subject unclean and impure in itself, and to be avoided in thought, conversation and writing. Not only the ordinary sex relations of human life were placed under this taboo, but also the phenomena of birth and parenthood. Not only did these incidents of life grow to be considered impure, but they became that which to many was still worse, that is to say, they became to be regarded as “not respectable.”

    Ignorance regarding the plain elementary facts of sexual physiology is undoubtedly the cause not only of much immorality among young people of both sexes, but also of many unhappy and inharmonious marriages. The intelligent portion of our race is now beginning to realize very keenly the fact that the first requisite of sane marital relations and intelligent parenthood is a practical and clear knowledge of the physiology of sex; education concerning the sexual organism, its laws, its functions, its normal and healthy conditions, its anatomy, its physiology and hygiene.

    The average physician of experience in general or special practice can tell tales of almost incredible ignorance on the part of young women who have recently entered into the relationship of marriage. In some cases the ignorance is more than a mere absence of knowledge—it consists too often of false-knowledge, untruthful ideas concerning matters of the most serious import. It is sad enough to think how such persons may work results harmful to themselves, but it is even sadder still to realize that these same ignorant young women must eventually gain their real knowledge through sad experience—experience paid for not only by themselves but also by their children. It is a hard saying, but a true one, that the knowledge of many young wives and mothers is to be gained by experience paid for by their (as yet) unborn children.

    The writer of the present work is one of the rapidly growing number of thinking persons who believe that the time has come to educate the race concerning the importance of sane instruction concerning the functions of sex. He, and those who think as he does, believe that the time has come to “Turn on the Light!” They believe that the importance of the subject will be realized by all intelligent persons, once that their attention is directed to the subject, and once they have considered it apart from the old prejudices and distorted customs. When public opinion on this subject is reformed, then will the taboo fall away from the body of truth; then will the subject take its place among the “respectable” topics which may be considered, discussed, and taught, without loss of caste or prestige.

    In a few decades, perhaps even much sooner, it will be regarded as quite reprehensible to permit young persons to enter into the relationship of marriage without a sane, practical knowledge of their own reproductive organism and the functions thereof, and of their physiological duties to themselves, to their companions in marriage, and to their children born or to be born. We may even see the practical application of the somewhat startling prophecy of Newell Dwight Hillis, D. D., who said: “The State that makes a man study two years before a license as druggist is given; that makes a young lawyer or doctor study three years before being permitted to practice; ought to ask the young man or young woman to pass an equally rigid examination before license is given to found an American home, and set up an American family.”

    While the information above alluded to should be given alike to the young husband and the young wife, it cannot be doubted that the latter is the one of the pair who is most in need of this kind of instruction. While both the young man and the young woman require this instruction, the need is the greater in the case of the young woman, by the very nature of the case. The sex functions and processes play a much more important part in the life of the woman than in that of the man, the protests of some of the modern feminists to the contrary notwithstanding. The careful student of the sex life of men and women frankly confesses that in both the physical and the psychical realm the sex offices make a greater demand upon the time and attention of the woman than of the man.

    The love-life of the woman is far fuller and more absorbing than is that of the man. Unhappiness concerning her love-life renders the remainder of the life of the average woman of comparatively little account; while, with a happy love-life she will put up cheerfully with the absence of many other things which are usually regarded as necessities for happiness. As a writer has said: “Essentially, a woman is made for love—not exclusively, but essentially; and a woman who has had no love in her life has been a failure.”

    The same rule operates on the physical plane. As the same writer has said: “Physically, the woman is also much more cognizant of her sex and much more hampered by the manifestation of her sex nature than man is.” The manifestation of the incidents of menstruation is a constant reminder to the woman that she is a creature of sex. The phenomenon of pregnancy is, likewise, something from which the man is free. And, finally, the menopause, or “change of life,” with its incidents greatly influencing the physical, mental, and emotional well-being of the woman, is Nature’s final word to the woman that she is the active pole of sex-life. As the above-quoted writer has said: “Altogether it cannot be denied that woman is much more a slave of her sex-nature than man is of his. Nature has handicapped woman much more heavily than she has man.”

    And so, in this book, the young woman—the young wife—is directly addressed, her companion and mate being referred to only indirectly.

    PRIVATE Sex Advice to Women By R. B. Armitage, M. D.

    For Young Wives and those who Expect to be Married.

    Views: 0

  • Living with pets during MCO

    Living with pets during MCO

    Living with pets during MCO 1

    KUALA LUMPUR: Working from home (WFH) is not as easy as many people think, especially when you have young children and pets.

    Yes, even pets. To others, it might seem easy having pets in the house. After all, don’t you just let them be and you do not have to give much attention to them?

    In reality however, looking after pets is just as much a responsibility as looking after young children. A look at the postings on Facebook and Twitter will show that many see the responsibility as similar, for to them, pets are as much a member of the family as children.

    Going into 24 days of the Movement Control Order (MCO) period, which means 24 days of WFH, the stories on the social media abound of the struggles that pet owners, especially those with cats, face juggling the responsibilities of work and looking after their pets.

    Interior decorate Intan Suhaiza Razak, 35, found that there were many secrets her cats kept from her which she only found out after she started to work from home from March 18.

    “It is only now that I am really getting to know my three cats. I did not spend much time with them before but now that I am with them all day, I am slowly learning their behaviour.

    “For instance, I was shocked to find out that they could turn the tap in the kitchen sink and would play with the water,” she told Bernama.

    Auditor Amirul Iqbal Razali, 30, has found that working from home can be quite challenging when you have cats.

    “I have three, and the minute I turn on the computer, they come around demanding my attention.

    “That would be the time they want to sit on my lap and play, and ask for food, even though I had prepared everything for them. And my work-station has become their bed,” he said.

    Media practitioner Muhamad Saufee Rosman thinks his cat Ethan loves the fact that he and his housemates now have to work from home during the MCO period.

    “He is extra demanding now, maybe because he enjoys the fact that we are home now, whereas previously, he was always left alone in the house. Now, he keeps snuggling up to us all the time,” he said.

    Muhamad Saufee and his housemates do not find Ethan’s demand for attention troublesome, and in fact, he is a stress-buster to them.

    “Life is less boring with him around. Sometimes, he does get in the way, but it would be lonely without him,” he said.

    To these animal-lovers, the Health Ministry’s announcement that pets do not carry the COVID-19 virus was good news.

    “In the beginning, it was a bit worrying, so it was a relief when the ministry said that pet-owners did not have to worry and do not have to take their pets for Covid-19 screenings.

    Nurana Mukhriz, 29, who works in information technology said she cannot imagine being separated from her two cats which she had bred since five years ago.

    “I live alone, so my cats ‘Adik’ and ‘Che Yam’ are my companions. Talking to them reduces my stress level and I don’t feel so lonely during the MCO period,” she said. – Bernama

    Living with pets during MCO
    Read More
    https://www.thesundaily.my/local/living-with-pets-during-mco-EF2241413

    Views: 0

  • Will the MCO be extended? You’ll get the answer today

    Will the MCO be extended? You’ll get the answer today

    Will the MCO be extended? You’ll get the answer today 2

    KUALA LUMPUR: The question that is on everyone’s mind – whether the Movement Control Order (MCO) which ends on April 14 is extended – will be answered today.

    According to a statement by Health Director-General Datuk Dr Noor Hisham Abdullah in a press conference yesterday, Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin is expected to make an announcement today on further measures to curb the spread of the Covid-19 outbreak.

    He is also expected to make the much-awaited announcement on the status of the MCO which has been enforced since March 18.

    The first phase of the MCO which was introduced to break the chain of Covid-19 infections was from March 18 to 31, followed by the second phase from April 1 to 14.

    As of yesterday, the situation has been encouraging, with 121 patients cured, exceeding the number of 109 recorded positive cases which brings the total of positive cases to 4,228, with 67 deaths.

    Meanwhile, as of yesterday, the compliance rate of the MCO was 97%, and the Royal Malaysia Police has issued 95 compound notices of RM1,000 each to the errant individuals.

    Also, there are currently 24 red zone areas in the country which are the places where the number of Covid-19 positive cases exceeded 41.

    To date, the locations where the Enhanced Movement Control Order (EMCO) has been enforced are Simpang Renggam (Johor), Hulu Langat (Selangor), and three buildings in Kuala Lumpur, namely Menara City One, and the Selangor Mansion and Malayan Mansion buildings.

    Simpang Renggam was the first location where the EMCO was enforced on March 27 after 61 residents were found to be positive for Covid-19, and the order has now been extended to April 14.

    Up till yesterday (April 9), three states have recorded the highest number of positive Covid-19 cases, namely Selangor (1,118), Kuala Lumpur (699) and Johor (503).

    The responsibility now lies with the public to comply with the MCO in order to break the chain of Covid-19 infections. – Bernama

    Will the MCO be extended? You’ll get the answer today
    Read More
    https://www.thesundaily.my/local/will-the-mco-be-extended-you-ll-get-the-answer-today-IF2241129

    Views: 0

  • Glossary of Youth: Its Education, Regimen, and Hygiene, by G. Stanley Hall

    Glossary of Youth: Its Education, Regimen, and Hygiene, by G. Stanley Hall

    GLOSSARY

    AGAMIC. Unmarried; unmarriageable, sometimes non-sexed.

    AGENIC. Lacking in reproductive power; sterile.

    AMPHIMIXIS. That form of reproduction which involves the mingling of substance from two individuals so as to effect a mixture of hereditary characteristics. It includes the phenomena of conjugation and fertilization among both unicellular and multicellular organisms.

    ANABOLISM. See METABOLISM.

    ANAMNESIC. Pertaining to or aiding recollection.

    ANEMIC. Deficient in blood; bloodless.

    ANTHROPOMORPHISM. The attributing of human characteristics to natural, supernatural, or divine beings.

    ANTHROPOMETRY. Science of measurement of the human body.

    ARTIFACT. Any artificial product.

    APHASIA. Impairment or lose of the ability to understand or use speech.

    ASSOCIATIONISM. The psychological theory which regards the laws of association as the fundamental laws of mental action and development.

    ATAVISTIC. Pertaining to reversion through the influence of heredity to remote ancestral characteristics.

    ATAXIC. Pertaining to inability to coördinate voluntary movements; irregular.

    CALAMO-PAPYRUS. Reed papyrus or pen-paper.

    CATABOLISM. See METABOLISM.

    CATHARSIS. Purgation or cleansing. Aristotle’s esthetic theory that little renders immune for much.

    CEREBRATION. Brain action, conscious or unconscious.

    CHOREA. St. Vitus’s dance; a nervous disease marked by irregular and involuntary movements of the limbs and face.

    CHRESTOMATHY. A collection of extracts and choice pieces.

    CHRISTENTHUM. The Christian belief; the spirit of Christianity.

    COMMANDO EXERCISES. Gymnastic exercises whose order is dependent upon the spoken command of the director.

    CORTEX. The gray matter of the brain, mostly on its surface.

    CORTICAL. Pertaining to the cortex.

    CRANIOMETRY. The measurement of skulls.

    CRYPTOGAMOUS. Having an obscure mode of fertilization; or, of plants that do not blossom.

    CULTUS. A system of religious belief and worship.

    DEUTSCHENTHUM. The spirit of the German people.

    DIATHESIS. A constitutional predisposition.

    EPHEBIC. Pertaining to the Greek system of instruction given to young men to fit them for citizenship; adolescent.

    EPIGONI. Successors; followers who only follow.

    EPISTEMOLOGY. The theory of knowledge; that branch of logic which undertakes to explain how knowledge is possible and to define its limitations, meaning, and worth.

    EUPEPTIC. Having good digestion.

    EUPHORIA. The sense of well-being; of fullness of life.

    EVIRATION. Emasculation; loss of manly characteristics.

    FERAL. Wild by nature; untamed; undomesticated.

    FORMICARY. An artificial ants’ nest.

    GEMÜTH. Disposition; the entire affective soul and its habitual state.

    HEBETUDE. Dullness; stupidity.

    HEDONISTIC. Relating to hedonism, that form of Greek philosophy which taught that pleasure is the chief end of existence.

    HETAERA. A Greek courtesan. This class was often highly trained in music and social art, and represented the highest grade of culture among Greek women.

    HETEROGENY. (1) The spontaneous generation of animals and vegetables, low in the scale of organization, from inorganic elements. (2) That kind of generation in which the parent, whether plant or animal, produces offspring differing in structure or habit from itself, but in which after one or more generations the original form reappears.

    HETERONOMOUS. Having a different name.

    HOROLOGY. The science of measuring time and of constructing instruments for that purpose.

    HYGEIA. The Greek goddess of health; health.

    HYPERMETHODIC. Methodic to excess; overmethodic.

    HYPERTROPHY. Excessive growth.

    INDISCERPTIBLE. Incapable of being destroyed by separation of parts.

    INHIBITION. Interference with the normal result of a nervous excitement by an opposing force.

    IRRADIATION. The diffusion of nervous stimuli out of the path of normal discharge which, as a result of the excitation of a peripheral end organ may excite other central organs than those directly connected with it.

    KINESOLOGICAL. Pertaining to the science of tests and measurements of bodily strength.

    KINESOMETER. An instrument for measuring muscular strength.

    MEDULLATION. The investment of nerve fibers with a protective covering or medullary sheath, consisting of white, fat-like matter.

    MERISTIC. Pertaining to the levels or spinal and cerebral segments of the body.

    METABOLISM. The act or process by which, on the one hand, dead food is built up into living matter—anabolism, and by which, on the other, the living matter is broken down into simpler products within a cell or organism—catabolism.

    METAMORPHOSIS. Change of form or structure; transformation.

    METEMPSYCHOSIS. The doctrine of the transmigration of the soul from one body to another.

    MONOPHRASTIC. Pertaining to or consisting of a single phrase.

    MONOTECHNIC. Pertaining to a single art or craft.

    MORPHOLOGY. The science of form and structure of plants and animals without regard to function.

    MYOLOGY. The scientific knowledge of the muscular system.

    MYTHOPOEIC. Producing or having a tendency to produce myths.

    NOETIC. Of, pertaining to, or conceived by, mind.

    NUANCE. Slight shade; difference; distinction; degree.

    ORTHOGENIC. Pertaining to right beginning and development.

    ORTHOPEDIC. Relating to the art of curing deformities.

    OSSUARY. A depository of dry bones.

    PALEOPSYCHIC. Pertaining to the antiquity of the soul.

    PANTHEISTIC. Relating to that doctrine which holds that the entire phenomenal universe, including man and nature, is the ever-changing manifestation of God, who rises to self-consciousness and personality only in man.

    PATRISTICS. That department of study occupied with the doctrines and writings of the fathers of the Christian Church.

    PHOBIA. Excessive or morbid fear of anything.

    PHYLETICALLY. In accordance with the phylum or race; racially.

    PHYLETIC. Pertaining to a race or clan.

    PHYLOGENY. The history of the evolution of a species or group; tribal history; ancestral development as opposed to ontogeny or the development of the individual.

    PHYLUM. A term introduced by Haeckel to designate the great branches of the animal and vegetable kingdoms. Each phylum may include several classes.

    PICKELHAUBE. The spiked helmet of the German army.

    PLANKTON. Sea animals and plants collectively; distinguished from coast or bottom forms and floating in a great mass.

    POLYGAMIC (LOVE). Pertaining to the habit of having more than one mate of the opposite sex.

    POLYPHRASTIC. Having many phrases; pertaining to rambling, incoherent speech.

    POST-SIMIAN. Pertaining to an age later than that in which simian or monkey-like forms prevailed.

    PRENUBILE. Pertaining to the age before sexual maturity or marriageability is reached.

    PRIE DIEU. A praying desk.

    PROPEDEUTIC. Preliminary; introductory.

    PROPHYLACTIC. Any medicine or measure efficacious in preventing disease.

    PSEUDOPHOBIAC. Pertaining to a morbid condition in which the subject is continually in fear of having said something not strictly true.

    PSYCHOGENESIS. The origin and development of soul.

    PSYCHONOMIC. Pertaining to the laws of mind.

    PSYCHOSIS. Mental constitution or condition; any change in consciousness, especially if abnormal.

    PUBERTY. The age of sexual maturity.

    PUBESCENT. Relating to the dawning of puberty.

    PYGMOID. Of pygmy size and form.

    RABULIST. A chronic wrangler; one who argues about everything.

    SCHEMA. A synopsis; a summary. In the Kantian sense, a general type.

    SCHEMATISM. An outline of any systematic arrangement; an outline.

    SUPERFOETATION. A second conception some time after a prior one, by which two foetuses of different age exist together in the same female. Often used figuratively.

    TEMIBILITY. (From Italian temibile, to be feared.) The principle of adjustment of penalty to crime in just that degree necessary to prevent a repetition of the criminal act.

    TIC. A nervous affection of the muscles; a twitching.

    TRANSCENDENTAL. In the Kantian system having an a priori character, transcending experience, presupposed in and necessary to experience.

    TRAUMATA. Wounds.

    TRAUMATISM. A wound; any morbid condition produced by wounds or other external violence.

    VERBIGERATION. The continual utterance of certain words or phrases at short intervals, without reference to their meaning, as seen in insane Gedankenflucht or rapid flight of thought.

    Extract from Youth: Its Education, Regimen, and Hygiene, by G. Stanley Hall

    Views: 0