right to communicate the same to another. Indeed, it is the moral duty
of every person so affected to do all in his power for the protection
of others from the same cause of suffering.
_2. Persons having a marked hereditary tendency to disease must not
marry those having a similar tendency._
Every physician knows only too well the powerful influence of
hereditary causes in determining the length of human life. Persons,
one or both of whose parents have died of consumption, are very likely
to die of the same disease, and frequently at about the same age. The
children of such parents are commonly feeble and puny, and die early
if they survive infancy. When both parents possess the consumptive
tendency, the chance for life in the offspring is very poor indeed.
The same may be said of those suffering with cancer, epilepsy, insanity,
etc. Persons with a strong tendency to any one of the diseases mentioned
should in no case marry. If there is but a slight morbid tendency,
marriage may be admissible, but only with a partner possessing robust
health.
_3. Should cousins marry?_
Writers have devoted a good deal of attention to this subject, and we
have been shown statistics, reports of imbecile asylums, etc., for the
purpose of proving that the marriage of cousins results in the
production of idiots, and other defectives; but the results of more
careful examinations of the subject invalidate the views heretofore
held, and it must be acknowledged that when both parties are healthy
there is no more liability of mental incompetency in the children of
cousins, than in the offspring of persons more remotely related. It
must be added, however, that there are other reasons why the marriage
of cousins is not to be generally recommended. Besides the fact that
the feeling existing between cousins is often only that which is felt
by brothers and sisters for each other, there is the still more
important fact that on account of the blood relation, unions of this
kind are more apt than others to bring together persons having similar
morbid tendencies.
_4. Persons having serious congenital deformities should not marry._
The reason for this rule is obvious. Persons suffering with serious
congenital defects, as natural blindness, deafness, deformity of the
limbs, or defective development of any part, will be more or less likely
to transmit the same deformities or deficiencies to their children.
There are, of course, cases of natural blindness, as well as of
disability in other respects, to which this rule does not apply, the
natural process of development not being seriously defective. It has
even been observed that there is a slight tendency to the reproduction
in the offspring, of deformity which has been artificially produced
in the parents, and has existed for a long time.
Many ancient nations observed this rule. Infants born cripples were
strangled at birth or left to die. A Spartan king was once required
by his people to pay a heavy fine for taking a wife who was inferior
in size.
_5. Criminals should not marry._
It has been satisfactorily shown by thorough and scientific
investigation that criminals often receive their evil proclivities
from their parents. What are known as the criminal classes, which are
responsible for the greater part of the crime committed, are constantly
and greatly on the increase. There is no doubt but that inheritance
is largely responsible for the continued increase of crime and
criminals. A drunkard begets in his child a thirst for liquor, which
is augmented by the mother's use of ale or lager during gestation and
nursing, and the child enters the world with a natural taste for
intoxicants. A thief transmits to his offspring a secretive, dishonest,
sneaking disposition; and the child comes into the world ticketed for
the State prison by the nearest route. So with other evil tendencies.
By legislation or by some other means, measures should be speedily
adopted for the prevention of this rapid increase of criminals, if there
is any feasible plan which can be adopted. We offer no suggestion on
this point, but it is one well worthy of the consideration of
philanthropic statesmen.
_6. Persons who are greatly disproportionate in size should not marry._
While good taste would suggest the propriety of this rule, there are
important physiological reasons for its observance. While the lack of
physical adaptitude may be the occasion of much suffering and
unhappiness in such unions, especially on the part of the wife, being
even productive of most serious local disease, and sometimes of
sterility, it is in childbirth that the greatest risk and suffering
is incurred. More might be said on this point, but this is sufficient
for those who are willing to profit by a useful hint.
_7. Persons between whom there is great disparity of age should not
marry._
The reasons for this have already been given at length, and we will
not repeat. In general, the husband should be older than the wife, from
two to five years. The husband may often be ten or twelve years the
senior of the wife; but when more than that, the union is not likely
to be a profitable or happy one, if it is not absolutely productive
of suffering and unhappiness. The ancient Greeks required that the
husband should be twenty years older than the wife; but this custom
was no more reasonable than that of another nation which required that
only old and young should marry, so that the sobriety of the old might
restrain the frivolity of the young.
_8. Persons who are extremely unlike in temperament should not marry._
Persons who are so unlike in temperament and tastes as to have no mutual
enjoyments, no congeniality of feeling, will be incompatible as husband
and wife, and the union of such persons will be anything but felicitous.
No definite rule can be laid down; but those seeking a companion for
life would do well to bear this caution in mind, at the same time
remembering that too great similarity of character, especially when
there are prominent defects, is equally undesirable.
_9. Marriage between widely different races is unadvisable._
While there is no moral precept directly involved in marriage between
widely different nations, as between whites and blacks or Indians,
experience shows that such marriages are not only not conducive to
happiness, but are detrimental to the offspring. It has been proven
beyond room for question that mulattoes are not so long-lived as either
blacks or whites.
_10. Persons who are unable to sustain themselves or a family should
not marry._
Both moral and social obligations--if the two obligations may exist
independently--forbid marriage to a young man who is scarcely able to
provide for himself, much less to support a wife and a family. The theory
advocated by some that two can live almost as cheaply as one, so that
a saving will be made by a union of two in marriage, is a most fallacious
one. There may be occasional exceptions, but in general, young people
who marry with this idea in their heads find that they have reasoned
not wisely. It will not be disputed that a married couple may live upon
what is often spent foolishly by a young man; but a young man can be
economical if he will; and if he does not learn economy before marriage,
it is likely that he never will learn it.
The marriage of paupers, to beget pauper children and foist them upon
the community for support, is an outrage against society. We believe
it is not improper to speak out plainly upon this subject, and in no
uncertain tone, notwithstanding the popular prejudice which cries,
"Hush, be quiet; don't interfere with individual rights, don't disturb
the peace of society," whenever anything is said which has a bearing
on a regard for propriety in matters relating to one of the most ancient,
the most sacred, and the most abused of all divinely appointed human
institutions. We have never been able to account for this strange
averseness to the consideration of this phase of the matrimonial
question, and the determined effort often made to ignore it whenever
it is broached. We purpose to speak out, notwithstanding the feeling
referred to, since we believe this to be a crying evil; and we have
no fears but that we shall have the hearty indorsement of every
individual who can so far lay aside his prejudices as to allow his native
common sense a fair chance to influence his judgment.
In the country of Iceland, a land which is scarcely more than
semi-civilized, if a young man wishes to marry, the first thing to be
considered is his pecuniary situation. Before he can take to himself
a wife, he must appear before the proper authority and present evidence
that he is able to support a wife and family in addition to providing
for himself. Even the barbarous natives of Patagonia show an equal
degree of good sense, the chief of each tribe requiring that every young
man who wishes to marry shall first prove himself competent to provide
for a family, having attained the requisite degree of proficiency in
hunting and fishing, and having possessed himself of at least two horses
and the necessary equipments.
In this country,--a civilized, so-called Christian country, blessed
with all the enlightenment of the nineteenth century, what do we see?
Instead of any regulation of the sort, the utmost indifference to such
clearly important considerations. If young people profess to love each
other and wish to marry, no one of their friends thinks of asking, "How
are they going to live after they are married? Has the young man a trade?
Has the young lady been so educated as to be self-sustaining if
necessary? Has the young man a home or the wherewithal to obtain one?
Has he a good situation, with prospects of being able to support his
wife comfortably and provide for a family?" These, or similar questions
are sometimes asked, but little respect is paid to them by any one,
least of all by the young people themselves, who ought to be most
interested. The minister never inquires respecting the propriety of
the wedding at which he is to officiate, and invokes the blessings of
Heaven upon a union which, for aught he knows, may be the grossest
violation of immutable laws, Heaven-implanted in the constitution of
the human race. The friends tender their congratulations and wishes
of "much joy," when in three cases out of four the conditions are such
that a preponderance of grief is an inevitable certainty, and "much
joy" an utter impossibility.
There are exceptions to all general rules; but it is a fact of which
almost any one may convince himself that a man or a woman seldom rises
much higher than the level reached at marriage. If a young man has no
trade then, it is more than probable that he will never be master of
one. If he has not fitted himself for a profession, he will most likely
never attain to such a rank in society. He will, in all probability,
be a common laborer, living "from hand to mouth," with nothing laid
by for a rainy day.
A wag says that a young couple just married, and for the first time
awakened to the full consciousness of the fact that they must provide
for themselves or starve, held the following dialogue: Husband. "Well,
wife, what are we going to do? How shall we live?" Wife. "Oh, my dear,
we shall get along very well, I am sure; you love me, don't you?" H.
"Certainly, dear, but we cannot live on love." W. "We can live on bread
and water; so long as we have each other, it doesn't matter much what
we have to eat." "That's so, my dear; well, you furnish the bread, and
I will skirmish around after the water." This exact dialogue may never
have taken place; but the circumstances which might have called it out
have occurred thousands of times. How many times has a dependent woman
who had hastily married an improvident husband awakened at the end of
a short honeymoon to find that she had only a limber stick or a broken
reed to lean upon, instead of a self-reliant, independent,
self-sustaining man, able to provide for her the comforts of a home
and to protect her from the rudeness and suffering of privation and
want.
In our estimation it is as much a sin for a man to assume the obligation
of caring for a wife and family when he has no reasonable grounds for
believing himself able to do so, as for a man to go in debt a few hundreds
or thousands of dollars, and agree to pay the same when required, though
perfectly well aware that he will probably be unable to do so. Hence
we say again, with emphasis, the improvident should not marry; and we
shall insist upon urging this truth, notwithstanding the fact that the
very class of persons referred to are usually of all classes the most
anxious to enter the matrimonial state at the earliest possible moment,
and the most certain to bring into the world large families of children
still more improvident than themselves.
_11. Do not marry a person whose moral character will not bear the
closest scrutiny._
By this we do not mean that absolute perfection should be required,
as this would interdict marriage altogether; but we wish to warn every
young man against marrying a young woman who treats lightly or
contemptuously matters which should be treated with profound respect;
who uses the name of Deity flippantly or rudely; who treats her parents
disrespectfully; who never cares to talk of subjects of a spiritual
nature; who is giddy, gay, dressy, thoughtless, fickle. Such a young
woman will never make a loving, patient, faithful, helpful wife.
We wish also to warn every young woman against choosing for a husband
a man who has a strong leaning toward infidelity; who does not believe
in human responsibility; who makes a mock of religion; who is addicted
to profanity; who is either grossly intemperate or given to moderate
tippling, be it ever so little, so long as he does not believe in and
practice total abstinence; who uses tobacco; who is a jockey, a fop,
a loafer, a scheming dreamer, or a speculator; who is known to be
unchaste, or who has led a licentious life.
The man who has no love for his Maker will be likely to have little
for his wife and children. He who does not acknowledge his
responsibility to a higher power will soon forget his obligations to
the wife he has promised to love and cherish. The man who is not willing
to sacrifice the gratification afforded by such pernicious habits as
dram-drinking and tobacco-using to insure the comfort and happiness
of his wife and children, is too selfish to make any woman a kind
husband.
There is no greater error abroad than that held by not a few that "a
reformed rake makes the best husband." The man whose affections have
been consumed in the fires of unhallowed lust is incapable of giving
to a pure-minded woman the love that she expects and deserves. A person
cannot pass through the fire unscathed. The scars burned into the
character by the flames of concupiscence are as deep and lasting as
those inflicted upon the body, and even more so. Only "in the
regeneration" will the marks and scars of the reformed reprobate be
wholly effaced.
We willingly grant that there have been numerous instances in which
noble women have by years of patient effort reformed their erring
husbands, restoring them to the paths of virtue and sobriety from which
they had wandered. We do not deny that it can be done again; but we
do not hesitate to say that the experiment is a most perilous one for
any woman to undertake, and one which not more than one woman in a
hundred can bring to a successful termination. The hazard is terrible.
Perhaps it is on this very account that many young women run the risk;
but they rarely understand what they are doing. The woman who marries
a drunkard will, ten chances to one, die a heart-broken drunkard's wife,
or follow her husband to a drunkard's grave. It is never safe for a
woman to marry a man who has been for years an habitual drunkard, since
he may relapse at any time; and the man who has only indulged moderately
should be thoroughly reformed and tested before the chances are taken
"for better or worse." Let him prove himself well first. A proposition
to reform on condition of marriage should be dismissed with disdain.
If a young man will not determine to do right because it is right, his
motives are sordid; and the probability is very great that so soon as
some stronger incentive appeals to his selfishness, he will forget his
vows and promises and relapse into his former vices.
Do Not Be in a Hurry.--In conclusion, perhaps we could give no more
important advice than this: _Do not be in a hurry to marry._ There is
little danger that this advice will do harm, for ten illustrations of
the evil results of hasty marriage are seen to one in which the opposite
mistake is made. It rarely happens that a marriage made without
consideration and due deliberation on the part of both parties is a
happy one in its results. There are exceptional cases in which this
kind of matrimonial alliances result very satisfactorily; but these
cases are quite exceptional. The business of selecting a partner for
life, one who is expected to sustain the closest relation possible
between human beings, who must be prepared to share in another's sorrows
as well as joys, to sympathize with another's aspirations and
appreciate another's motives and sentiments,--such a task is certainly
one of the most serious of an individual's life and ought to be entered
upon with calmness, deliberation, and unbiased judgment and entire
self-control. When making a decision which must affect seriously an
individual's whole life-time, passion, caprice, and all motives
calculated to bias the judgment, should be laid aside. The happiness
and usefulness of a whole life-time may be marred by a word. There is
too much pending to be in a hurry.
A certain philosopher once "compared a man about to marry to one who
was about to put his hand into a sack in which were ninety-nine serpents
and one eel; the moral of which is that there are ninety-nine chances
to one against a fortunate selection." If this is true of a man about
to marry, it is probably equally true that a woman under the same
circumstances has nine hundred and ninety-nine chances against, for
one in favor of, a fortunate selection.
CHASTITY.
"Thou shalt not commit adultery." "Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust
after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."
In these two scriptures we have a complete definition of unchastity.
The seventh commandment, with the Saviour's commentary upon it, places
clearly before us the fact that chastity requires purity of thought
as well as of outward acts. Impure thoughts and unchaste acts are alike
violations of the seventh commandment. As we shall see, also,
unchastity of the mind is a violation of natural law as well as of moral
law, and is visited with physical punishment commensurate to the
transgression.
Mental Unchastity.--It is vain for a man to suppose himself chaste who
allows his imagination to run riot amid scenes of amorous associations.
The man whose lips delight in tales of licentiousness, whose eyes feast
upon obscene pictures, who is ever ready to pervert the meaning of a
harmless word or act into uncleanness, who finds delight in reading
vivid portrayals of acts of lewdness,--such a one is not a virtuous
man. Though he may never have committed an overt act of unchastity,
if he cannot pass a handsome female in the street without, in
imagination, approaching the secrets of her person, he is but one grade
above the open libertine, and is as truly unchaste as the veriest
debauchee.
Man may not see these mental adulteries, he may not perceive these
filthy imaginings; but One sees and notes them. They leave their hideous
scars upon the soul. They soil and mar the mind; and as the record of
each day of life is photographed upon the books in Heaven, they each
appear in bold relief, in all their innate hideousness.
O purity! how rare a virtue! How rare to find a face which shows no
trace of sensuality! One turns with sadness from the thought that human
"forms divine" have sunk so low. The standard of virtue is trailing
in the dust. Men laugh at vice, and sneer at purity. The bawdy laugh,
the ribald jest, the sensual glance, the obscene song, the filthy tale,
salute the eyes and ears at every street corner, in the horse-car, on
the railroad train, in the bar-room, the lecture hall, the workshop.
In short, the works and signs of vice are omnipresent.
Foul thoughts, once allowed to enter the mind, stick like the leprosy.
They corrode, contaminate, and infect like the pestilence; naught but
Almighty power can deliver from the bondage of concupiscence a soul
once infected by this foul blight, this moral contagium.
Mental Uncleanness.--It is a wide-spread and deadly error, that only
outward acts are harmful; that only physical transgression of the laws
of chastity will produce disease. We have seen all the effects of
beastly abuse result from mental sin alone.
"I have traced serious affections and very great suffering to this cause.
The cases may occur at any period of life. We meet with them frequently
among such as are usually called, or think themselves, continent young
men. There are large classes of persons who seem to think that they
may, without moral guilt, excite their own feelings or those of others
by loose or libidinous conversation in society, provided such impure
thoughts or acts are not followed by masturbation or fornication. I
have almost daily to tell such persons that physically, and in a
sanitary point of view, they are ruining their constitutions. There
are young men who almost pass their lives in making carnal acquaintances
in the street, but just stop short of seducing girls; there are others
who haunt the lower classes of places of public amusement for the
purpose of sexual excitement, and live, in fact, a thoroughly immoral
life in all respects except actually going home with prostitutes. When
these men come to me, laboring under the various forms of impotence,
they are surprised at my suggesting to them the possibility of the
impairment of their powers being dependent upon these previous vicious
habits."[4]
[Footnote 4: Acton.]
"Those lascivious _day-dreams_ and amorous reveries, in which young
people--and especially the idle and the voluptuous, and the sedentary
and the nervous--are exceedingly apt to indulge, are often the sources
of general debility, effeminacy, disordered functions, premature
disease, and even premature death, without the actual exercise of the
genital organs! Indeed, this unchastity of thought--this adultery of
the mind--is the beginning of immeasurable evil to the human
family."[5]
[Footnote 5: Graham.]
Amativeness.--Certain phrenologists contend that the controlling
center of the sexual passion is the cerebellum, or little brain, which
is situated at the lower and back part of the head. They apparently
love to dwell upon the theme, and ride their hobby upon all possible
occasions, often in the most disgusting manner, and always leaving the
impression that they must be themselves suffering from perversion of
the very function of which they speak.
There may be some doubt whether the function called amativeness is
located in the cerebellum at all; at least, it is perfectly certain
that amativeness is not the exclusive function of the cerebellum. Says
Carpenter, the learned physiologist, "The seat of the sexual sensation
is no longer supposed to be in the cerebellum generally; but probably
in its central portion, or some part of the medulla oblongata."
The cerebellum is intimately connected with the principal vital organs;
hence, if it is largely developed, the individual will possess a
well-developed physical organism and a good degree of constitutional
vigor. He will have vigorous health, and probably strong sexual powers;
not, however, as a special function, but for the same reason that he
will have a good digestion.