Global Digital Store – Ebooks and Softwares

Tag: Young

  • New FAQs address healthcare workers questions on breastfeeding and COVID-19

    New FAQs address healthcare workers questions on breastfeeding and COVID-19

    Mothers and healthcare workers who support them have many questions and concerns about whether it is safe for mothers with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 to be close to and breastfeed their babies during the pandemic.

    To address their questions, WHO has released a list of Frequently asked questions: Breastfeeding and COVID-19. The FAQ complements the WHO interim guidance: Clinical management of severe acute respiratory infection when COVID-19 is suspected and draws upon other WHO recommendations on infant and young child feeding.

    The FAQs aim to provide information to healthcare workers supporting mothers and families in maternity services and community settings, and communicate how the interim guidance should be implemented. Additionally, the FAQs provide information about the protective effects of breastfeeding and skin-to-skin contact, and the harmful effects of inappropriate use of infant formula milk.

    Accompanying the FAQs is a decision tree which provides step-by-step guidance to health workers on how to support mothers with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 to breastfeed. It provides advice on what to do if mothers are not well enough to breastfeed, as well as appropriate hygiene measures for mothers, including wearing a medical mask if available, to reduce the possibility of the COVID-19 virus being spread to her infant.

    Benefits of breastfeeding outweigh potential risks

    The COVID-19 virus has not been detected in the breastmilk of any mother with confirmed and suspected COVID-19 and there is no evidence so far that the virus is transmitted through breastfeeding. Researchers continue to test breastmilk from mothers with the infection.

    WHO recommends that all mothers with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 continue to have skin-to-skin contact and to breastfeed. In all socio-economic settings, breastfeeding improves survival and provides lifelong health and development advantages to newborns and infants. Breastfeeding also reduces the risk of breast and ovarian cancer for the mother. Skin-to-skin contact, including kangaroo mother care, reduces neonatal mortality, especially for low birth weight newborns.

    While infants and children can contract COVID-19, they are at low risk of infection. The few confirmed cases of COVID-19 in young children to date have experienced only mild or asymptomatic illness.

    WHO’s recommendations on the care and feeding of infants whose mothers have confirmed or suspected COVID-19 aim to improve the immediate and lifelong survival, health and development of their newborns and infants. These recommendations consider the likelihood and potential risks of COVID-19 in infants and also the risks of serious illness and death when infants are not breastfed or when infant formula milk are used inappropriately.

    WHO’s Q&A on breastfeeding and COVID-19 also provides additional infection prevention advice to mothers with confirmed or suspected COVID-19.

    New FAQs address healthcare workers questions on breastfeeding and COVID-19
    Read More
    https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/28-04-2020-new-faqs-address-healthcare-workers-questions-on-breastfeeding-and-covid-19

    Views: 0

  • THE FOURTH STORY—BABY ANIMALS AND MAN

    As the days and months glided by, our little girls were greeted one autumn morning by the advent of a little baby brother. Wife had given consent, years gone by, for me to tell the foregoing stories of life; but, only a few months before the above event, she had requested the privilege of telling this last story, as the girls would naturally ask of her how the little fellow came. This she told them, in a way no doubt, better than I could have done.

    In lecturing to multiplied thousands of boys and many hundreds of girls, I have told the stories of life much as I did to my little girls, with this story added.

    Baby animals.—We will now study God’s plan of increase in the higher animals and man. We shall find many striking resemblances and interesting variations between the lower forms of life that we have studied and the higher forms that we shall now study. All along the ascending scale of life we have found male and female organs of sex, possessing male and female natures. We have found that the male organs of sex produce a fertilizing substance called pollen in plants and semen in animals; that the female organs of sex produce seeds in plants and eggs in animals. We have found that every new plant, fish, insect, and bird comes from the union of the pollen with the seed, or the semen with the eggs. This last fact is true of the higher animals and man. We found that the seed of the plants are fertilized in the ovaries of the mother organs; that eggs of fish are fertilized outside of the body of the mother; that the eggs of insects and birds are fertilized inside of the mother’s body. This last plan is also true of the higher animals and man. We found that the seed of plants were sown or planted in the soil; that the eggs of fish were deposited in water; that the eggs of insects and birds were laid in some specially arranged place for them, usually called nests. In the higher animals and man the young starts from a tiny fertilized egg and grows in an organ in the mother’s body, called the womb, until it is strong and old enough to be born.

    The earliest stage of plant life in the little seed is called an embryo. When the seed has been planted and the little embryo appears above ground, it is then a little baby plant. The earliest stage of animal life in the egg of the fish, insect or bird, is an embryo. The mother part of the plant stores up food in the seed and the growing embryo feeds upon this food, until its little roots have grown down into the soil where they can take up food from the soil and the blades or leaves are large enough to receive light and heat from the sun and food from the atmosphere. The mother fish, insect and bird store up food in their eggs for the little embryos to live upon until they are hatched. Among the higher animals and man, the embryo begins with the tiny fertilized egg in the mother’s womb and receives nourishment and life from the mother’s blood through a duct, called the placenta, which is connected with the mother’s womb at one end while the other end connects with the body of the embryo at a point called the navel. In this way the mother furnishes the young with all the air, food, water and life that it gets until it is born. Among the higher animals and man the young when born are very tender and helpless. For several weeks or months they are fed on milk from their mother’s breasts. In higher forms of life the birth of young is attended by greater sacrifice and suffering than in lower forms of life. For months, and in the case of man, for years, the parents must labor and sacrifice to feed, protect and educate them. Birth in the human family is attended by greater suffering and the little baby is more helpless and tender, and for this reason requires more tender care than the young of any other animal. You have observed that in the lower forms of life where the parents do not have to suffer to bring their young into{ the world or labor to provide for them food or shelter that they do not love their young. As we ascend the scale of life in our study, we find that love exists between the parents and young just in proportion as the parents suffer and labor for their young.

    One of the most impressive and effective ways of telling the story of life in man was told by a wise and queenly mother in the following true story. This mother introduces the story by telling how solicitous she became about her little boy when he was about seven or eight years old. He was in the public school where he was likely any day to hear the story of life from some wicked boy. She was anxious that her boy should hear this story first from his mother’s lips.

    How a mother told the story of life to her boy.—In telling the story, the mother said:

    One morning, the opportunity that I had been praying and watching for, came. I observed my little boy playing rather roughly, not cruelly, with the pet cat. Speaking kindly to him, I said, “Son, don’t be rough with the old cat; handle her gently.” “Why, mamma?” he replied. “Son, mamma cannot make the reason clear to you now, but you obey mamma and in about ten days, mamma will tell you a very beautiful story, and, then you will understand.” As those days glided by, with pride I observed the unusual attention and kindness he showed the old cat. One morning, about ten days later, he came running into my presence, perfectly delighted, wonderfully elated, and overflowing with joy, he invited me out the back way to see what he had found. I anticipated his discovery, but I wanted him to have all the pleasure. So, I offered him my hand while he proudly led the way. As we stepped from the back porch, turning he pointed his finger under the floor; I looked, and there was the old mother cat and by her side were four as beautiful little kittens, basking in the sunlight, as the human eye ever saw. He bragged about having found them; called my attention to their color and markings; and claimed two of them as his own.

    We sat down on a rustic seat where we could still see them. We admired their plumpness, color, eyes and playfulness and chatted together about them. At length I said, “Son, do you remember about ten days ago when you were playing rather roughly and I asked you to handle the old cat tenderly?” Promptly he replied; “Yes, mamma, and you promised me that in about ten days you would tell me a beautiful story that would explain why I should handle the old cat kindly. Can you tell me that story this morning?” “Yes, son, mamma is ready to tell you the sweetest and purest story that a mother can tell her son. When mamma asked you to be kind to the old cat, those fourlittle kittens were then in her body. That was why the old cat was larger than she is now. The little kittens were then much smaller and very tender, and, had you been rough with the old cat, you might have injured them; and, then, they might have been born crippled, deformed or dead. When they were born three or four days ago their little eyes were so tender that the full light of the sun would have put out their sight, so they were born with their eyelids closed and glued together. The old cat knew how tender their eyes would be, so three or four days ago she went away back under the dark floor and gave them birth. As they have grown older and their eyes have become stronger, every few hours the old cat has brought them a few feet nearer the light. Meanwhile, their eyelids have gradually opened until they can now look up at the sun as well as you can. If they had been born out in the open, the full light of the sun would have made their tender little eyes very sore or put them out.”

    By this time I saw that my boy was very anxious to ask me a question. I was just as eager for him to ask it. I believed that he was going to ask the very question that my mother heart longed for him to ask; the very question that I believed God wanted my little boy to ask. I paused and looked into his little upturned face. As his deep, true blue eyes met mine, spontaneously, naturally, seriously he enquired, “Mamma, was I once in your body, too?” “Yes, son, you were formed in mamma’s body, in a little nest or home underneath mamma’s heart. You started as a little cell. For two hundred and eighty long days, nine full months, nearly a whole year, you were growing in mamma’s body. Mamma knew that you were there and loved and prayed for you long before you were born. Mamma had to be careful not to meet with an accident lest you might be born crippled, deformed or dead. Mamma had to be cautious about the food she ate, the air she breathed, the water she drank, the exercise she took, all she thought and did; because you were united to mamma by a little cord filled with blood vessels, through which mamma was supplying you from her blood with all the materials necessary for your forming body, mind and soul. In this way you were being influenced by mamma. Mamma was anxious that you might have a healthy and perfect body and grow up to be a smart, good and great man. If mamma had been angry, untruthful or dishonest during these months that you were a part of her, you might have been born with an ugly disposition, tendency to steal or be untruthful. Mamma was very careful about all she thought, said and did during the months you were a part of her body.

    “Mamma knew about the day that you would leave your little home and come into this world. For hours mamma suffered great pain. The faithful doctor was present and did all he could to lessen mamma’s suffering. Papa stood at my side, held my hands in his, often stooped over and kissed my lips, cheeks and brow. As soon as you were born, the air rushed into your lungs and you cried, just as all little babies do when they are born alive. Mamma heard your baby cry and it thrilled her with joy known only to a mother, when she knows that her little baby is alive. But, son, when you were born and for many weeks and months, you were tiny, tender and helpless. No one in this world, and, God could not have found an angel in all of heaven who could have cared for you as well as mamma could. Mamma fed you at her breast, held you in her lap, fondled you in her arms and sung lullabies to you. When you were only a few weeks old you would have the colic. All night long your little body would be racked with pain and mamma would walk the floor with you, rub your little body and sing to you.” By this time my little boy was standing up close by my side, had both arms thrown around my neck, his little lips were kissing my cheek, and tears were rolling down his on to mine. Then he said, “Mamma, I am glad you have told me that story. I love you better now. I did not know that you loved and prayed for me before you ever saw me; that you were so careful that I might be well born; that you had to suffer so much when I was born; and that you cared for me so good when I was so small and when I was sick. This story will help me love you better and I will try never to disobey or tell you a falsehood.”

     

    Do you not see how much better it was for this boy to hear the story of his life from the pure lips of his loving mother, than to hear it first from the lips of some ignorant and wicked boy or man? Well this is the story of your life. You cannot understand now how much your mamma suffered in bringing you into this world. Then, both your father and mother have made many sacrifices for you and are deeply interested in your future. If you should make a shipwreck of life, I am sure that their old days would be spent in grief. How can you repay your parents for all their sacrifices? If you will keep your thoughts, words and actions pure, every time your parents see or think of you, they will be thrilled with joy and appreciation. Will you not now promise yourself and promise God that by His forgiveness of the past, grace and help now and in the future, that you will keep yourself pure? When you have done this will you not go and kiss mamma, and tell her that you love her better than ever before and that you are determined to live up to her prayers and wishes?

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

    Views: 0

  • THE THIRD STORY—BABY BIRDS

    When our little girls were seven and nine this talk was given. The previous stories were reviewed bringing out the resemblances and differences. They were permitted to ask questions. In this talk they were very alert to see and apply all the lessons learned from previous stories.

    The beginning of love.—In this review of the story of life, among the plants and fish, we found no love or personal feeling between the male and female. Among the insects and reptiles we found that the males and females choose each other, when led by instinct to bring their young into the world. From the fish to the birds we find the simplest form of love and interest on the part of the parents in their young. This is shown by the care the parents take in the protection and care of the eggs and the food prepared for the young before they are hatched. The male crawfish picks up the fertilized eggs with his feelers, that are arranged in a double row underneath his tail, and, by means of these feelers, he carries the eggs close to his body until they are nearly ready to hatch. The frogs and toads show great tenderness for their eggs. A great many books have been written about all these animals and when you are older you will be greatly interested in learning more of the detail of reproduction among these curious animals. Among all the animals we have studied the male and female separate as soon as the eggs are fertilized and laid, in other cases as soon as the eggs begin to hatch. The parent animals show no interest in their young after they are hatched and their children never know their parents or love them.

    The ant and the bee.—Two exceptions should be made to the above statement, the bee and the ant. They do not pair off and mate, as do other insects, but they live in colonies, or societies. They do not seem to have any special interest in their offspring or even a mate, but in the whole community of bees or ants. The perfect social organizations they form and the homes they build rival the skill and intelligence of man. There are some interesting books written about the bee and ant by persons who have spent years in studying them. When you are older you may be interested in reading such books.

    Baby birds.—We will study God’s plan among the birds. In studying the family life of the birds we find a higher form of instinct, more love and care for each other and their young than among the animals we have studied.

    We often feel disgusted at the ugly, slimy toads, lizards and serpents living in swamps and pools. But not so with the birds. Most of them are very interesting and beautiful and some are fine musicians. Among most of the wild birds of the fields and forests, in the spring time the male chooses among the females the one that most suits his fancy and they are mated or married. When they decide to raise them a family they build them a nest. This is their home. The partridge and lark build their nests on the ground, the swallow in chimneys, the pigeons in barns, the woodcocks and woodpeckers in hollow limbs, the wild ducks and geese on the ledges of rocky cliffs, or in the high grass and weeds on the edge of a lake, but most birds build their homes in bushes and trees. The cuckoo does not build a nest, but lays her eggs in the nest of other birds, to get rid of all labor and trouble of hatching, feeding and rearing her young. We feel a natural contempt for the cuckoo. In every female bird there are organs called ovaries where at certain seasons little eggs are formed.

    While small or soft they are fertilized by the male bird. As the egg grows in the body of the mother bird a hard thin shell is formed around them. When the eggs are fully formed and the nest is completed, the mother bird lays the eggs in the nest, usually one egg a day. For several days these eggs must have some extra heat or they will not hatch. Among most birds, the mother sits on her eggs so that the warmth of her body will cause the fertilized cell in each egg to form the little bird. While she sits on the eggs the father bird gathers fresh berries and worms and brings them to the mother bird to eat. When not bringing her water or food, he is usually found perched upon a nearby limb cheering his wife by talking and singing to her. When her little legs become tired, he will take her place, while she goes and finds fresh food or water. When the little birds are hatched, from sunrise to sunset the parents are busy catching worms and insects and feeding their young. As their children grow older and larger, in some mysterious way, they teach them the danger of men and guns, cats and snakes. When they are about grown they are taught to fly. From this time until the next spring they will live in flocks, when they will again mate and raise a family. In this way all the beautiful feathery songsters are brought into this world.

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

    Views: 0

  • THE SECOND STORY—BABY OYSTERS AND FISH

    The story of baby oysters.—Before telling this story to my little girls I reviewed the story of the plants. This refreshed in their minds certain very important laws that they had learned in the first talk. This talk was given when they were about six and eight years old.

    In studying the story of life among the plants, you will remember that we learned that in most plants the male and female organs of sex were in the same flower. Among the lower forms of animal life, we find both the male and female natures in the same animal. The oyster furnishes a good example. These little animals are surrounded with and fastened to a very hard and heavy shell. These animals live in great masses and their shells are cemented together. Growing in this way they cannot move about, or mix and mingle with each other. The mother parts of the oyster produce little eggs which are fertilized by a substance formed by other organs containing the father nature. The fertilized egg, when laid, floats off and becomes attached to the shell of some oyster on a nearby rock.{ Later, it hatches and the little baby oyster forms about its body a hard shell that is made larger as the little animal grows. In this way the little oysters come into the world. Among the oysters, we find the same laws that we found in the plants, i. e., each baby oyster must have a father and mother and the father and mother natures must unite. In the plants the father and mother natures unite in a little seed; in the oyster this union takes place in a little egg.

    When God made the fish, lizards, snakes, birds and higher animals, he gave to one a papa or male nature, with suitable sexual organs; to another animal of the same kind he gave a mamma or female nature, with suitable female or sexual organs. In the plants we find that the female sexual organs, the ovaries, produced little seed. We found that the male sexual organs, the stamens, produced a fine powdery substance called pollen. Among the animals, the sexual organs of the mother produces little eggs and the sexual organs of the father produces a fluid called semen.

    The story of baby fish.—Now we will study the fish. In the spring season of the year thousands of tiny eggs are formed in the ovaries of the mother fish. When these eggs are matured, the mother fishes swim in large crowds, called “schools,” from the deep water of a stream, river or sea to some shallow place that seems to them to be suitable for a nest or home for their young. The mother fishes lay their eggs in a mass of albuminous substance, like the white of an egg, that spreads out in a very thin sheet holding the little eggs one in a place and close together. The father fishes swim along sometimes a foot, a yard or more behind the mothers and expel from their bodies the semen that unites with and fertilizes the eggs. This special fluid of the male fish is formed by his sexual glands, called testes. In this way the father nature unites with the mother nature to produce every little fish that comes into this world.

    Why the mother fish lays so many eggs.—The female fish forms thousands of these little eggs in her body each year. The female codfish has been known to lay as many as 6,000,000 eggs in one season. You could not count as many in a lifetime. The reason why the mother fish produces so many eggs is, that not one fish egg in twenty-five, on an average, will ever hatch and not more than one out of twenty-five little fishes ever grow to be an inch long. They have little, or no, protection, and they have so many enemies. There are hogs, turtles, crocodiles and alligators; the ducks, geese and other water fowls; as well as most of the fish that feed upon fish eggs and small fish. That the streams, rivers and seas may be kept supplied with an abundance of fish, God has planned for the mother fish to lay thousands of eggs.{

    All baby fish are orphans.—Most kinds of fish leave their eggs as soon as they are laid and fertilized and never see or know their young. There are a few male fish, known as game fish, which swim over and around the eggs until they are hatched to keep other kinds of fish from eating the eggs. As soon as the eggs are hatched, he leaves. In this way all little fish grow up as orphans. They never know or enjoy the presence of their parents. The parent fish do not labor or sacrifice for their young, and, for this reason, they have no love for them. Should they ever meet their young in the river or sea they would have no way of knowing them or of feeling any sense of joy.

    Fish do not pair off.—We found in the study of the plants that the seed were fertilized while in the pod or ovary. In the fish we found that the eggs are fertilized outside of the mother’s body. In nearly all the animals above the fish the eggs or ova are fertilized while in the mother’s body. There is no love between the male and the female fish. They do not pair off and live in families. Among all the spiders, lizards, serpents, many of the insects, crawfish, frogs and toads there is a tendency, at certain seasons, for the male to choose a female with a view to a home and family. But among all the animals we have named, many of the male and female animals part or leave each other as soon as the eggs are fertilized, and all{ the others leave each other as soon as the eggs are hatched. The love of the male for the female lasts but for a little time; while there is no love for their young after they are hatched. Before the young are hatched some of their parents show interest in their eggs and make some provisions for their young when hatched. But this is all done before the young are hatched. The young all grow up as little orphans.

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

    Views: 0

  • 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

  • THE ESSENTIALS OF A HOME

    The basic incentive for marriage.—A completed home embraces a father, mother and one or more children, bound together by natural love for each other. The initial step in home building is taken when a man and woman decide to assume the duties, responsibilities and functions of marriage. Courtship and marriage may be prompted by a number of motives. There is but one natural and worthy motive—LOVE. This motive may be a little out of date in some circles, but it remains essential to a normal home, a happy productive home. This expression of love is awakened to conscious activity through acquaintance and friendship, becomes a joyful reality in courtship, is consummated in marriage and is perpetuated through life, because{16} of a chaste, pure, unselfish sex preference of one man for one woman and that one woman for that one man. If for any reason, this sex preference is ever broken, the bonds of love between husband and wife will be weakened, if not severed for all time. This bond of union may be broken in a number of ways. There may be other causes of domestic inharmony, all of which can be adjusted so long as sex preference, or love, binds the two as one. Under the guidance of unselfish sex selection, few mistakes would ever be made, in the choice of a companion.

    The tests of true love.—A man and woman bound by pure love for each other, may live in a shack or a humble rented cottage, they may have to toil late and hard to support a family of growing children, but they and the children will be happy and usually healthy and strong, bound together by mutual love. They will remain true to each other through adversity, sickness and death.

    Mismated.—If husband and wife are not bound to each other by a natural sex preference, or love, though they may hold in their possession broad acres of land, railroad bonds and heavy deposits in the bank, live in a mansion and move in the élite circles of society, they will not love each other, their children, or be able to build a REAL home.

    Other incentives for marriage.—It is quite customary,{17}


    A Good Argument for Pure Living
    A Good Argument for Pure Living

    in some grades of society, to choose a life companion for social or financial advantage. Such unions are not natural. They are cold business transactions. A man prompted by these motives sees in a woman the qualities of a good housekeeper, a social queen, or a financial gain. A woman prompted by unnatural motives sees in a man opportunities for social prestige, a life of luxury and ease. They drift apart instead of their personalities blending, through love, as one. Soon he spends his days in his daily vocation and his evenings in the lodges. She finds her only pleasure in following the latest fashions and devoting her time to various social functions. Each have their secrets and manage to avoid public disgrace.

    Should a child be born into such an unnatural home, it would receive an unfortunate heredity and a still more unfortunate environment. The initial of its life was accidental, its prenatal rights were not regarded, its advent was not welcomed, it is now turned over to a hired nurse. Such a child is more unfortunate than an orphan. In no true sense has it a father or mother. This child, when visitors are about, or when the family is making a public display, may be petted, pampered and spoiled by its parents and on all occasions lavishly supplied with dress and toys; thus egotism will be stimulated and propensities gratified and this child will be placed at a decided disadvantage in life. Compared{19} with this child, the little ragged street urchin is to be congratulated.

    When the natural, God-designed and God-honored, sex instinct is perverted and base desire supplants love, in the choice of a companion, the home instinct is degraded, love dethroned and inharmony prevails.

    The Romance, of Courtship and the Honeymoon, is Transitory. There is a certain amount of the glamour, mystery, novelty, romance and poetry connected with courtship and the honeymoon, while perhaps natural at the time, but in the very nature of the case cannot be permanent. The plain, practical, everyday experiences of life must become prominent in every successful home. The fairyland, of flowery visions, rippling streams of sentiment, poetic fancies of bliss and the lunar and stellar raptures of love, must yield, after a period of such experiences, to mundane realities where these beautiful dreams terminate and air castles are destroyed and life once more becomes real.

    When the termination of this romantic period comes to the young wife, whose vision of marriage was received from sensational novels, fashion journals, the theater and gay social gatherings, and to the young husband, kid-gloved, well-starched and much-cravatted, it will be unexpected and very disastrous to their imaginary love. Cruel and prudish are they, who are responsible for creating artificial social{20} visions in the minds of the youth. But when the termination of romance comes to the young husband and wife, whose courtship and marriage have been true to nature, this will be supplanted by the dawning consciousness of life’s real mission in marriage and they will discover that the truest, sweetest and most enduring pleasures and joys of life have only begun.

    The first born.—Fortunate and happy is that young couple, who, before the romance of marriage is over, becomes aware that preparations must be made for the first little stranger into their home. If the faint prophecies, of the approaching advent of their first-born, thrill their lives with hopeful and joyful anticipations, marriage will now have a deeper significance, the bonds of love and dependence become stronger and the pleasures of life more real. The supremest moment of marriage comes when the young husband, who for the first time, in the birth chamber, stands by his wife’s side, holding her hands in his; stoops and kisses her lips, cheeks and brow, as she bravely and beautifully endures the throes of parturition. Such an experience is enough to transform a brute into a man. When the first-born is placed to the young mother’s breast, a deep, profound, but quiet happiness knows no bounds in two hearts that beat as one. This is the primary purpose of marriage. A cooing baby is nature’s own sequel to the honeymoon.{21}
    God’s Richest Blessing to a Home.
    God’s Richest Blessing to a Home.

    Health, happiness and life worth living is made possible through parenthood.

    If a child was intelligently planned for and warmly welcomed into every home, the first year of married life, then one by one at reasonable intervals until the family consists of four to eight healthy, happy, well-cared-for children, most of the problems of marriage would be solved.

    The childless homes.—All efforts to evade the fiat of nature and God, “multiply and replenish the earth,” not justified by the authors of this law, will lead to health blighted, happiness destroyed, a home wrecked and two souls will be arrested in their endless progress. In homes, voluntarily childless, and in homes where one or two little intruders were accidentally and unwillingly admitted, can be found the most serious and perplexing social problems.

    Childless homes made happy.—The involuntarily childless homes, and the homes voluntarily childless, because of justifiable reasons, need not be unhappy. Their paternal and maternal natures may be developed by adopting homeless children. In this land there are many such happy homes. If the mother love, in childless homes, annually wasted on poodle dogs, was expended on homeless children, there would soon be no childless homes, orphan homes and homeless children, and more happiness in the world.{22}

    How shall family troubles be solved?—While natural sex preference and the birth of children solve almost all the domestic problems and make possible the solution of all family troubles, they do not render the husband and wife immune to all differences, disagreements, incompatibilities and perplexities. It is not possible for the husband to see everything from his wife’s view point, or the wife to see everything from the husband’s point of view. If they differ in taste, retain their personalities, have lofty ambitions, possess sensitive natures and have their individual ideals, they will often differ in their opinions, and, occasionally very good people will find themselves in disastrous disputes. Commendable ideals and virtues, as well as faults, may become the sources of domestic trouble. What should they do—separate? No. Secure a divorce? Certainly not. Let these steps be the last possible resort. Where a family of children are to be scattered and injured by the disgrace, perhaps a divorce should not be sought, on any grounds. The bleeding hearts and blasted hopes caused by one divorce is greater than that caused by a score of deaths. Divorce degrades morals, withers ideals and causes untold human suffering. What is the remedy? Agree to let past differences, disagreements and quarrels remain in the past. Don’t bring the dead yesterdays over into the living to-days. Each{23} morning, give each other a clean slate. Resolve each morning to please, rather than to displease your partner. By doing this, irreconcilable differences will gradually disappear. This does not mean that they should lose their individualities, or compromise with their convictions. This is not a radical or expensive remedy, but one that works in nearly every case.

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

    Views: 0

  • Introduction to the EBook of Self Knowledge and Guide to Sex Instruction, by T. W. Shannon

    The saddest thing in all this world is a human wreck,—a man or a woman, young or old, who is undone and who, in one or more walks of life, is a failure. There are so many of them! Mental wrecks, physical wrecks, nervous wrecks, social wrecks, business wrecks, character wrecks. The aspect of these derelicts is the more pitiable because of the possibilities before every well-born human being, who, with the endowment of intelligence and other gifts and powers bestowed upon him by a kind Creator, is capable of rising to heights of human perfection. Ample provision made for man’s every need and want by God, and yet we find misery where there ought to be happiness, poverty where there ought to be riches, darkness where there ought to be light, ignorance where there ought to be knowledge, vice where there ought to be virtue, and turmoil and strife where there ought to be peace. Only too accurately do the poet’s words apply:

    “Of all the sad words of tongue or pen,
    The saddest are these: ‘It might have been.’”

    This problem of human wreckage becomes more depressing when we consider that in the breast of every person there is an innate desire to live true, to win success. The day dreams of every boy and girl picture themselves as the hero or the heroine in the story which weaves into its plot their ideal men and women. Their ideals may be low, that is the fault of their environment and training, but their ideals always represent their own highest conceptions of manhood and womanhood. But sooner or later struggle comes, appetite craves, and passion cries out, and if they are unprepared for life’s real conflict, they go down, and another failure is recorded and another wreck left to float and endanger every other craft upon life’s seas, until human wreckage is becoming so enormous that it is a question in the minds of scientists and sociologists as to how long humanity can keep up its present pace and survive the centuries.

    The causes of human wrecks are many, far too many to be tabulated or enumerated. In a sentence they result from the principle that it is easier to coast than to climb; so much easier to float than to struggle against the current. Like the weeds that kill out the crops, just so is humanity beset by enumerable temptations at every turn, social and economic customs force downward a great many who would otherwise rise to higher things, and, it is suspected, that in the very nature of man there is a strong tendency to evil which can be overcome only by divine grace. Appetite and passion are the two forces to which man’s higher aspirations most often give way. Intemperance and impurity, in their broader meaning, are the two bars upon which most human wrecks have stranded. Social impurity, or the abuse of the sex function and nature, is by far the most insidious, and with respect to the number and degradation of its victims, the greatest evil in the world to-day.

    This book is one of the most valuable ever written because it treats fully and wisely this question of personal and social purity; it points out the reefs, the bars, the snags, the icebergs, the shallow and dangerous places where human wrecks are made; it guides those who accept it as their pilot into the deep waters of an unobstructed channel where the voyage of life will be ever safe, successful, glorious. Here will be found an incentive to climb rather than to coast, an inspiration to struggle even against the current if in the struggle may be won some of the more valuable prizes of life. Here is a book that holds high the single standard of morality, and demands that men shall be as pure as women; it stands boldly for the education of the young in sex hygiene, and proclaims a truth that ought long ago to have been universally known, that it is the right of every person to know every knowable fact pertaining to themselves, and that such knowledge ought to be imparted to them before the lack of it has brought injury to their lives. This is a book that will help to forever banish that false modesty and prurient thinking which has made the tremendous growth of public vice a reality, until every girl is in danger of enslavement and every boy threatened with its corruption.

    This is not a pioneer book on these questions. Other most excellent works have preceded it, for which we should all be grateful, and have paved the way for this latest volume. The excellence of this work consists largely in its completeness. It is a book for the home, for every home, and for every member of the home. It tells exactly what ought to be known concerning the sex nature and life of the individual, and the normal relations of the family and society, and best of all it teaches parents how to impart this saving knowledge to their children. Any and every home that takes this book as a friend and counselor, and faithfully studies its pages, will fortify every person within the portals of that home against the baneful influences of impurity and vice.

    The writer has known Prof. T. W. Shannon, the talented author of this book, for some years, and we have watched his efforts with interest and admiration. A voluminous writer, a wide traveler, he has probably reached more people with his uplifting message of purity through his books and upon the platform than any other living man of the same age. His methods are never sensational and he does not stoop to uncovering all the cesspools of sin and vice, but he leads people upward by directing their minds and hearts to the beauty and rewards of pure living and right thinking. Through the strength of his personality and the profound truth in his message, he has helped thousands of college students and other young men to avoid the pitfalls which have brought disaster to so many young lives. By education and experience Prof. Shannon is eminently fitted to prepare just such a book as this and his authorship should at once entitle it to a high place among the standard works of the day dealing with these problems.

    As the volume has received my own endorsement, even so I trust it may be most cordially received into the homes of America, that our sons and our daughters may be fortified through the truth, presented in an attractive and safe and sane manner, against the temptations which constantly meet them; that human wrecks may be fewer, and that every life may have a fair chance to attain all for which it was created.

    B. S. Steadwell.

    La Crosse, Wisconsin,
    December 18, 1912.

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

    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

  • 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