proper condemnation of one of the most popular forms of amusement
indulged in at the present day in this country, under the guise of
innocent association of the sexes. By the majority of people,
flirtation is looked upon as harmless, if not useful, as some even
consider, claiming that the experience gained by such associations is
valuable to young persons, by making them familiar with the customs
of society and the ways of the world. We have not the slightest
hesitation in pronouncing flirtation as pernicious in the extreme. It
exerts a malign influence alike upon the mental, the moral, and the
physical constitution of those who indulge it. The young lady who has
become infatuated with a passion for flirting, courting the society
of young men simply for the pleasure derived from their attentions,
is educating herself in a school which will totally unfit her for the
enjoyment of domestic peace and happiness should she have all the
conditions necessary for such enjoyment other than those which she
herself must furnish. More than this, she is very likely laying the
foundation for lifelong disease by the dissipation, late hours, late
suppers, evening exposures, fashionable dressing, etc., the almost
certain accompaniments of the vice we are considering. She is surely
sacrificing a life of real true happiness for the transient
fascinations of unreal enjoyment, pernicious excitement.
It may be true, and undoubtedly is the case, that the greater share
of the guilt of flirtation lies at the door of the female sex; but there
do exist such detestable creatures as male flirts. In general, the male
flirt is a much less worthy character than the young lady who makes
a pastime of flirtation. He is something more than a flirt. In nine
cases out of ten, he is a rake as well. His object in flirting is to
gratify a mean propensity at the expense of those who are pure and
unsophisticated. He is skilled in the arts of fascination and intrigue.
Slowly he winds his coils about his victim, and before she is aware
of his real character, she has lost her own.
Such wretches ought to be punished in a purgatory by themselves, made
seven times hotter than for ordinary criminals. Society is full of these
lecherous villains. They insinuate themselves into the drawing-rooms
of the most respectable families; they are always on hand at social
gatherings of every sort. They haunt the ball-room, the theater, and
the church, when they can forward their infamous plans by seeming to
be pious. Not infrequently they are well supplied with a stock of pious
cant, which they employ on occasion to make an impression. They are
the sharks of society, and often seize in their voracious maws the
fairest and brightest ornaments of a community. The male flirt is a
monster. Every man ought to despise him; and every woman ought to spurn
him as a loathsome social leper.
Youthful Flirtations.--Flirting is not confined to young men and women.
The contagion extends to little boys and girls, whose heads ought to
be as empty of all thoughts of sexual relations as the vacuum of an
air-pump of air. The intimate association of young boys and girls in
our common schools, and, indeed, in the majority of educational
institutions, gives abundant opportunity for the fostering of this kind
of a spirit, so prejudicial to healthful mental and moral development.
Every educator who is alive to the objects and interests of his
profession knows too well the baneful influence of these premature and
pernicious tendencies. Many times has the teacher watched with a sad
heart the withering of all his hopes for the intellectual progress of
a naturally gifted scholar by this blighting influence. The most
dangerous period for boys and girls exposed to temptations of this sort
is that just following puberty, or between the ages of twelve and
eighteen or twenty. This period, a prominent educator in one of our
Western States once denominated, not inappropriately, "the agonizing
period of human puppyhood." If this critical period is once safely
passed, the individual is comparatively safe; but how many fail to pass
through the ordeal unseared!
The most painful phase of this subject is the tacit--even, in many cases,
active--encouragement which too many parents give their children in
this very direction, seemingly in utter ignorance of the enormity of
the evil which they are winking at or fostering. Parents need
enlightenment on this subject, and need to be aroused to the fact that
it is one of the most momentous questions that can arise in the rearing
and training of children.
Polygamy.--One hundred years ago the discussion of the public propriety
or impropriety of a plurality of wives would have been impossible.
Polygamy had not obtained a foothold as an institution in any civilized
land. Being well known as not uncommon among certain heathenish and
barbarous tribes, it was looked upon as a heathenish and debasing
institution, the outgrowth of ignorance and gross sensuality, and a
relic of a sensual age. Now, this is no longer true. Even in this, the
most enlightened of all lands, where there are most ample facilities
for culture, for moral and mental development, polygamy holds up its
hideous head in defiance of all the laws of God and man. It is true
that the perpetrators of this foul crime against humanity and Heaven
have been driven by the indignation of outraged decency to seek a
lurking place in the far-off wilderness of the Western territories;
yet the foul odors from this festering sore are daily becoming more
and more putrescent, and in spite of the distance, are contaminating
the already not overstrict morals of the nation.
No better evidence of the blighting, searing effect of this gross social
crime could be found than the fact that not only is polygamy coming
to be winked at as something not so very bad after all, but men from
whom we have a right to expect something better are coming forward in
its defense.
We have just been perusing a work written for the express purpose of
justifying and advocating polygamy, which was written by an evangelical
clergyman. He was evidently not willing to own his work, however, since
his name is carefully excluded from the title-page, and his publisher
put under an oath of secrecy. The arguments which he makes in favor
of polygamy are chiefly the following:--
1. That it is approved by the Bible.
2. That a robust man requires more than one woman to satisfy his sexual
demands.
3. That there are more women than men; and since every woman has a right
to have a husband, the only way all can be supplied is to allow several
women, two or more, according to the capacity of the man, or as they
can agree, to form a marriage partnership with one man.
4. That the great men of all ages have been polygamists in fact, if
not by open profession.
5. That monogamy is a relic of the paganism of the ancient Greeks and
Romans, with whom it originated.
6. That it is the only proper and effective cure for the "social evil,"
and all its attendant vices and dire diseases.
As this work has had quite a circulation, bearing the imprint of a
well-known Boston publisher, and has not received any answer that we
are aware of, we deem it worth while to give these arguments, which
are very strongly presented, at least a brief passing notice. We will
consider them in the order in which we have stated them.
1. We deny most emphatically the assertion that polygamy is either
taught or approved by the Bible. It was tolerated in a people who had
long been in the darkness of Egyptian bondage, but never approved.
Indeed, the inspired writers have evidently taken pains to give
numerous examples of the evils growing out of that violation of the
law of God and Nature.
2. The second argument is based upon the asserted fact that man
naturally possesses stronger sexual demands than woman; that these
demands are imperative; and that it is not only impossible, but in the
highest degree injurious, to restrain them.
While it is true as a fact affirmed by constant observation that men
have stronger passions than women, in general, and that many men demand
of their wives a degree of sexual indulgence which is the cause of
serious injury to them, and even impossible for them to grant without
doing themselves the greatest wrong, it is by no means proven either
that these demands are imperative, that they are natural, or that they
are not injurious to the man as well as the woman, much less beneficial
to either. On the contrary, there is as great a weight of evidence as
could be required that restraint, self-control, and moderation in the
exercise of the sexual instinct is in the highest degree beneficial
to man, as well as to woman, and necessary for his highest development.
3. While it is true that there are a few more adult women than men,
the difference is not sufficiently great to require the introduction
of polygamy as a remedy for enforced celibacy. At any rate this would
be unnecessary until all bachelors had been provided with wives, when
there would be found no necessity for further provision, since there
are large numbers of women who are utterly unfit to marry, who would
be injured by so doing, and would only serve to degenerate the race,
besides making themselves more wretched than they already are.
Again, it is a well-known fact that more males than females are born,
the preponderance of adult females being caused by a greater mortality
among male children, together with the losses from accidents and war.
By a correct observance of the laws of health, together with the
abolition of wars, the disparity in relative numbers of the sexes would
disappear. Indeed, it might happen that men would be in the
preponderance.
Still again, it is only in a few very populous and long-settled
communities that there are more women than men, as in the States of
Massachusetts, Connecticut, and a few others of the Eastern States,
and a few countries of Europe. In all newly settled countries the
reverse is true. The inquiry naturally arises, What shall be done under
these circumstances? Shall a woman be allowed more than one husband,
as is actually the case in some countries? "Oh! no;" our polygamist
replies, "A woman is not capable of loving more than one man, and is
not even able to satisfy the sexual demands of a single husband; so,
of course, a plurality of husbands is out of the question. A man is
capable of loving any number of women, being differently constituted
from a woman; and so the same rule does not apply."
The writer evidently confounds love with lust. He will grant unstinted
reign to the lusts of man, but requires woman to be restrained, offering
as an apology for such a manifest unfair and unphilosophical
discrimination that "man is differently constituted from a woman,
sexually, requiring more active exercise of the sexual functions," a
conclusion which could be warranted only by the selection, as a typical
specimen of the male part of humanity, of a man with an abnormal
development of the animal propensities.
A correct understanding and application of the laws of sexual hygiene
would effectually sweep away every vestige of argument based on this
foundation.
4. In proof of the propriety of polygamy, as well as of its necessity,
the author referred to cites the well-known fact that Plato, Aristotle,
Bacon, Alexander, Caesar, Napoleon, Burns, Byron, Augustus, Webster,
and numerous others of the noted men of all ages have been incontinent
men. The fact that these men were guilty of crime does not in the least
degree detract from the enormity of the sin. It is equally true that
many great men have been addicted to intemperance and other crimes.
Alexander was a Sodomite as well as a lecherous rake. Does this fact
afford any proof that those crimes are virtues instead of vices? Such
argument is hardly worthy of serious refutal, since it stultifies
itself.
5. The fact that monogamy was practiced among the ancient Greeks and
Romans is in no way derogatory of it as an institution. Even if it could
be shown that it originated with those nations, still this would in
no way detract from its value or respectability. Do not we owe much
to those grand old pagans who laid the foundation for nearly all the
modern sciences, and established better systems of political economy,
and better schools for uniform culture of the whole individual, than
any the world has seen since? But monogamy did not originate with the
Greeks, neither was it invented by the Romans, nor by any other nation.
It originated with the great Originator of the human race. It is an
institution which has come down to us, not from Greece or Rome, but
from Paradise.
If it was so important that man should have more than one woman to supply
his sexual demands, why was the Creator so short-sighted as to make
but one Eve? It would have been as easy to remove two or three or half
a dozen ribs from Adam's side as one; and as the whole world had yet
to be populated, a plurality of wives would certainly have accelerated
the process. Surely, if polygamy was ever required or excusable, it
ought to have been allowed at the start.
Again, when Noah went into the ark, taking with him an assortment of
all species of animals, he took some kinds by pairs and some by sevens,
from which we might suspect, at least, that he observed the laws of
nature respecting polygamous and monogamous animals. But he took only
one wife for himself, and only one for each of his sons. Why not two
or half a dozen instead? Polygamy would certainly have accelerated the
repopulation of the earth most wonderfully; but Noah was monogamous.
To say, in view of such facts, that monogamy originated with the
paganism of ancient Greece and Rome, is blasphemy.
6. The argument that polygamy will cure the "social evil" is exactly
equivalent to the argument that the removal of all restraint from the
sale and manufacture of intoxicating drinks, thus making them cheap
and common, is the best remedy for intemperance. An equally good
argument might be made for the cure of theft, murder, and every other
vice and crime, by a similar plan. Such reasoning is the veriest
sophistry. None but a biased mind could produce such flimsy arguments.
But we forbear. We have already given this subject more attention than
it is worthy of, though we have failed to characterize the vice of
polygamy as it deserves. We leave this for the reader.
Polyandry.--Perhaps we should add a word or two respecting this custom,
which seems to be a still greater outrage against nature than that of
polygamy, being the possession of a plurality of husbands by one woman.
This practice is in vogue in several countries at the present time,
being very common in Thibet, where it is not an unusual thing for a
woman in marrying the eldest of a family of brothers to include in the
contract all of the other brothers as well. Polyandry was also common
among the ancient Medes. Indeed, the Medes practiced both polygamy and
polyandry. A man was not considered respectable unless he had at least
seven wives; neither were women considered worthy of general esteem
unless they had as many as five husbands. In that country, the fact
that a woman was already married was in no degree a barrier to subsequent
marriages, even while the husband was living, and without the trouble
of a divorce. Those who maintain the propriety of polygamy would do
well to consider the historic facts respecting the opposite practice.
There appear to be as good grounds for believing one to have a basis
in the human constitution as the other.
Divorce.--Another of the crying evils of the day, and one which menaces
in a most alarming manner the most sacred interests of society, is the
facility with which divorces may be obtained. In some States the laws
regulating divorce are so notoriously loose that scores and even
hundreds of people visit the States referred to every year with no other
object than to obtain a dissolution of the bonds of matrimony. The
effect of this looseness in the laws is to encourage hasty,
inconsiderate marriages, and to make escape from an uncongenial partner
so easy that the obligation to cultivate forbearance and to acquire
mutual adaptation which may not at first exist, is wholly overlooked.
The Bible rule for divorce, laid down by the Great Teacher, is little
regarded in these degenerate days. He made adultery the only legitimate
cause for divorce; yet we now see married people breaking asunder their
solemn marriage ties on the occurrence of the most trivial difficulties.
If a couple become tired of each other and desire a change, all they
have to do is to forward the fee to a New York or Chicago lawyer, and
they will receive back in a short time the legal papers duly signed,
granting them the desired annulment of their vows.
Although countenanced by human laws, there can be no doubt that this
shameless trifling with a divine institution is regarded by High Heaven
as the vilest abomination. In no direction is there greater need of
reformatory legislation than in this. The marriage contract should be
recognized in our laws as one which cannot be made and broken so lightly
as it now is. It should be annulled only for the most serious offenses.
The contrary course now pursued so frequently is most detrimental to
morals. Our divorce laws virtually offer a premium for unchastity.
Not infrequently we see among the advertisements in the newspapers
notices like the following: "The undersigned is prepared to furnish
divorces to parties desiring the same at moderate rates, in short time,
and without publicity. ---- ----."
The animus of these advertisements is fraud. The parties so engaged
are the vilest scoundrels; and that they are allowed to continue to
ply their nefarious vocation is a foul blot upon the enlightened
civilization of a so-called Christian country. A publisher who will
insert such a notice in his journal, would advertise a brothel if he
dared. While there is so much interest in the suppression of obscene
literature, we would suggest that the proper authorities should direct
their attention to the suppression of unlawful divorces, and the proper
punishment of the villains engaged in forwarding this nefarious
business.
Who May not Marry.--Many writers devote much space in laying down rules
which are to be implicitly followed by those seeking life partners.
We have attempted nothing of the sort, both from its impracticability,
and from the fact that such rules are never followed; and if the attempt
should be made to follow the prescribed rules, we are not sure that
more good than harm would be the result. Hence, we shall content
ourselves with calling attention to a few facts of great importance
respecting the conditions which imperatively forbid marriage, and
which cannot be violated without the certain entailment of great
suffering.
_1. Persons suffering with serious disease of a character communicable
to others by contagion or by hereditary transmission._
Many people wonder why it is that diseases are so much more numerous
and varied in modern times than in the earlier ages of the race. There
has been an evident increase within a few centuries. While there are,
undoubtedly, numerous influencing causes, one which cannot be
overlooked is the hereditary transmission of disease, which preserves
those disorders which already exist, and adds new ones which originate
from new exciting causes. By this means, the human race is undoubtedly
being weakened, human life shortened, and diseases multiplied. Compare
the average age of human beings of the present day, less than forty
years, with the longevity of the early members of the race, who lived
more than as many score of years. Some mighty deteriorating influence
has been at work; and we hazard nothing in the assertion that the
marriage of diseased persons and kindred violations of the laws of human
hygiene have been not unimportant factors in producing this most
appalling diminution in the length of human life.
Among the diseases which are most certain to be transmitted are
pulmonary tuberculosis, or consumption, syphilis, cancer, leprosy,
epilepsy, and some other nervous disorders, some forms of skin disease,
and insanity. The list might be extended; but these are the more common.
Persons suffering with these disorders have no right to marry, for at
least four reasons:--
(1) It is a sin against the offspring of such unions, who have a right
to be born well, but are forced to come into the world with weakly
constitutions, diseased frames, and the certainty of premature death.
The children of consumptive and syphilitic parents rarely survive
infancy. If they do, it is only to suffer later on, as they surely will,
and, perhaps, to communicate the same destructive diseases to other
human beings; but these diseases rarely extend beyond the third
generation, the line becoming extinct. The most heart-rending
spectacles we have ever met have been the children of parents suffering
with the diseases mentioned. Their appearance is characteristic; no
physician of experience can fail to detect the sins of a profligate
parent in a syphilitic child. Every feature indicates the presence of
a blighting curse.
There are those who assert that a man who has suffered with disease
of the character last mentioned may marry after the lapse of two or
three years from the disappearance of the active symptoms of the malady.
Such assertions we consider as most dangerous and pernicious. The
individuals who make them are well acquainted with the fact that of
all diseases this is the most difficult to eradicate when once the
system has become thoroughly infected by it. Not only three years but
thirty years may elapse after active symptoms disappear, yet the
disease may break out again in a new and still more serious and
complicated form. It may even lie entirely dormant or latent in the
system of the parent during his lifetime, but break out in all its
terrible destructiveness in his children. A man or woman who has once
suffered with this fell disease is contaminated for life; and it is
a crime for such an one to entail upon innocent, unoffending human
beings such a terrible legacy. Such a person has no right to marry;
or if married, has no right to perpetuate the results of his sins in
offspring. It is _never safe_ to say to a man who has once been infected
that he is cured. If a cure ever takes place, it is exceedingly rare.
(2) It is a crime against the race. One of the primary objects of
marriage is reproduction. As members of the human race, it is the duty
of parents to produce a high type of human beings, at least to do all
in their power to produce healthy offspring. If they cannot do this,
and are aware of the fact, they are guilty of abuse of the reproductive
function in bringing sickly offspring into the world to suffer.
(3) It is injurious to the contracting parties themselves. If a person
has a communicable disease, as syphilis, leprosy, and some bad forms
of skin disease, the disease will certainly be communicated to the wife
or husband, and so a double amount of suffering will be entailed. The
dread disease, consumption, rightly called the scourge of civilization,
is now well known to be communicable. A few years ago we were consulted
by an old gentleman, a native of Canada, who was suffering with
pulmonary disease. We inquired respecting the history of the malady.
Said he, "Doctor, it may seem strange, but I believe I _inherited_
consumption from my wife, who died of consumption a few years ago."
Excepting the wrong use of the term inherit, we were not prepared to
dispute the old gentleman's ideas respecting the origin of his disease.
Living in close association for years with his wife, who was slowly
dying with disease of the lungs, it was quite possible for him to have
received the disease from her. So many cases of this kind have been
reported that it is now generally believed by medical men that
consumption is communicable from one person to another by the reception
into the system of the well person of the exhalations from the lungs
of the person affected.
Another point worthy of mention here is the well-known fact that the
intimate association of married people modifies even the physical form
of both. Almost every one has noticed how much alike in appearance
married people who have lived many years together come to be. This
physical change undoubtedly extends further than to the features only.
The whole constitution is modified.
A remarkable illustration of this fact is found in the frequent
observation that the children of a woman by a second husband often
resemble in appearance the first husband much more than their own father.
It has been observed that the children of negro women, even by husbands
of pure negro blood, are much lighter in color than usual if she has
had a child by a white man previously.
The same fact is observed in lower animals. In England, some years ago,
a cross was effected between a male zebra and several young mares. Not
only the hybrid colts resulting from this union, but all the colts
afterward foaled by the same mares, from other horses, were striped
like the zebra.
In view of these facts, it is evident that the system of the woman,
at least, may be profoundly affected in a similar manner by
constitutional weaknesses, as well as by other individual
peculiarities possessed by her husband.