being conscious even of first labour. This must be of rare occurrence,
especially among women who have not previously borne children and whose
organs are thus less disposed to dilate; it might be possible in warmer
countries than those of Europe. A lady told me her first three children,
born in India, gave her no trouble at all, but during her last three
confinements in England she nearly lost her life each time; and it is
well known that most Anglo-Indians prefer an Indian confinement to a home
one. There is no doubt that the summer confinement is, as a rule, quicker
and easier for the same patient than one occurring in winter.
But this is a digression. To return to my argument, there exists
no biological fact to dispute the theory that the ovum, whether
before or after the menstrual period, may lie for a few days awaiting
fertilisation. It is entirely unreasonable to suppose that the catamenial
flow might carry away, not only all belated spermatozoa, but even the
ovum itself. So for that very reason, the ovum is discharged separately
from the flow, although in direct relation to it. Thus, one month it is
thrown out _after_ the uterus has been emptied of its menstrual flow,
and the next month it is thrown out _before_ the period is due, and some
seven or eight days previous to the actual discharge. This is the normal
rule. The exception occurs when an abnormal ovary allows the ovum to
escape during the period; even then it happens only after the bulk of the
discharge has been eliminated from the ovary. Thus nature protects the
ovum, which otherwise might well be carried away by the purifying process
of the period at its height.
With reference to menstruation occurring during pregnancy, Montgomery
says: “The safety of the ovum would appear incompatible with the profuse
and frequently repeated discharge which some women experience, without
abortion ensuing.” At the same time there appears to be no reason,
anatomical or physiological, why a certain amount of menstrual discharge
should not escape in the ordinary way, but, should it do so, it is bound
to interfere with the well-being of the ovum.
A woman I knew had a fine boy whom she nursed, although menstruation
started at the second month, and continued regularly. But her horror was
great when she noticed that her figure was growing in size, and when the
“quickening” at four months assured her that she was again pregnant, she
weaned her boy at once; but the menses continued until she gave birth to
a puny six-month boy, still-born as the result of this triple strain on
the maternal constitution.
It is the apparently independent action of ovulation and menstruation
which has so often puzzled biologists of all ages, affording, as it
does, ample explanation of the doubts they have expressed as to the
possibility of any allied action between them. Menstruation without
ovulation may possibly take place, but can ovulation happen without
menstruation? The presence in the ovary of the ripening Graafian follicle
doubtless encourages the catamenial flow to start, in the one case before
its actual rupture, and in the other seven days after it has burst and
thrown out the ovum into the tube, but the menses may occur equally where
ovulation is immature, faulty or entirely absent.
However this may be, it must be insisted on that conception during
the actual flow cannot take place, for the reason that the embryo, in
all probability, would be carried off with the bulk of the natural
discharge. But after the second or third day this is usually scanty and
slow, insufficient to disturb a possible fertilisation. Such happenings,
however, are not desirable. However scant the discharge or even if it
be quite dried up, the uterus should in no wise be disturbed before the
eighth day.
Even so, where a “freak” ovary is suspected, should intercourse happen
in the fruitless month, it is desirable to take a hot douche for three
successive days after the seventh day of period. This clears away danger
of conception from a “freak” ovary. Such a practice, further, is not only
entirely harmless, but cleanly and productive of much local comfort and
well-being. Where there is danger of undesirable fertilisation, it is the
one and only decent means of avoiding such an occurrence; otherwise the
alternative is to resort to “birth control” methods of a less healthy or
desirable nature. Even in the fruitful month, healthy conception is not
desirable before the eighth or ninth day of period, i.e. two or three
days after the cessation of the actual flow.
Throughout this book I have endeavoured to make clear how it is possible
to avoid such pitfalls. By adhering to the times and dates set forth
in the preceding chapters, every healthy and regular woman can ensure
the normal conception and pregnancy of a child, boy or girl as she
desires. Not only is she assured of immunity from the advent of undesired
offspring, but also the power is placed in her hands of limiting the
number of her children, without having recourse to methods prejudicial
alike to the sources of health and happiness.
XVIII
THE LENGTH OF GESTATION
“Truth remains true, the fault lies in the prover.”—BROWNING.
It has frequently been asked in the course of discussions on the
alternate action of the ovaries, whether both take an active part in
each pregnancy. We have seen that after the removal of one ovary, the
other, in due course, takes to itself the work of both, doing double
duty and thus allowing menstruation to proceed on more or less normal
lines. Similarly it may be concluded that, supposing the right ovary has
produced a fertile ovum, the left one will remain inactive during the
whole period of pregnancy, ceasing both to ovulate and to menstruate.
Thus, the _entire alimentary discharge is left for the use of the right
ovary_, which by sole reason of its activity attracts and distributes
the double supply. Moreover, the placenta is supplied direct from this
ovary with sanguine nutrition wherewith to feed the fœtus, and it is
interesting to note that Jaquemier specified anæmia in numbers of women
as commencing after the middle period of pregnancy; this is accounted for
by the huge supply of blood nutriment absorbed by the placenta feeding
the fœtus.
Another theory, however, is that ovulation and menstruation of both
ovaries do continue during gestation, but that the one ovary does not
directly feed the ovum of its rival, but passes its alimentary fluid to
the opposite side—by so doing directly helping to sustain the fœtus.
But all evidence I have collected seems to point to the former theory.
No doubt, in the case of mixed twins, both ovaries concur directly and
alternatively in the nourishment of their own fertilised ova.
In post-mortems on women advanced in pregnancy, the corpus luteum has
been found in the ovary whence came the embryo, according to its sex.
While on the opposite side no fresh scars of false corpura lutea from
recent menstruation were found, although within a few weeks these would
certainly have shown a distinct yellow mark on the ovarian surface; from
this we gather that the last false corpus luteum formed in that ovary
appeared before the commencement of the pregnancy.
Another point that should be made quite clear is that relating to the
duration of gestation, which differs according to the sex of the child.
Dr. Chavasse was of the opinion that, as girls so often seemed to arrive
at the beginning of the month as counted from the last period, they
were evidently conceived after the period, whereas boys, he argued,
arriving often at the end of the month and generally later than was
expected, were evidently conceived at the end of the month and a few
modern physicians still uphold this theory. But, needless to say, it is
_entirely_ erroneous. Chavasse says also he is inclined to believe that
girls are carried longer than boys. This, again, is exactly the reverse
of the facts, if we study them in a clear light, considering them as they
actually _are_ and not as they appear to be.
A boy takes longer to mature in the uterus than a female for two reasons:
1. He does not, as previously explained, find the preparation of decidua
in the uterus; hence a slower development in the early stages.
2. He weighs at birth about 1 lb. more than the average girl; so he
requires extra time in which to develop.
French medical authorities cherish the idea of longer girl-gestation for
the reason that a female fœtus will, they say, often be carried fully
thirty-nine weeks and she may even, though this is rare, be carried forty
weeks, but when this happens in the case of a girl, the pregnancy becomes
“protracted,” and the result is either an enormous child, weighing from
11 to 12 lbs., or an arrested and abnormal pregnancy. A boy usually goes
his full thirty-nine weeks; often he is carried forty, or even sometimes
forty-one weeks; thus, though begun after the period, he will yet run
right on to the end of the ninth month, or into the tenth month of
gestation.
Personally I have rarely met with the case of a girl-child of under
7 lbs. weight, carried beyond thirty-eight weeks; thirty-nine is the
extreme normal limit, and results in a child weighing from 7-8 lbs. at
least; forty weeks is abnormal. I know many families of girls where
each was carried barely thirty-six or thirty-seven weeks; they were all
healthy and normal, weighing from 5-7 lbs. It may be that the greater
restlessness of the female fœtus hurries, to some extent, the process
of girl-gestation; and the fact that anæmia is very frequent during
girl-pregnancies may be the cause of less endurance in the mother, and
helps to explain why girl-babies are carried a shorter time. It is never
safe to count on a nine-month gestation with a girl. Real “full-time”
girl-babies are exceptions to the rule, and often a mistake arises
through the belief that a child was conceived two or three weeks previous
to its real date of conception. Frequently mothers show me new-born
babies weighing 4½ to 5 lbs., with the remark, “Yes, I carried her
full-time; it was close on nine months since my last period when she
was born,” and in nine cases out of ten these infants have been carried
barely thirty-six weeks. Yet they grow and flourish as well as the
“full-time” babies.
Anyone who has been in a position to await and watch, as I have, great
numbers of births, cannot fail to have noticed that the girl baby comes
unexpectedly early, often before preparations have been completed.
The boy, on the contrary, looked for daily, withholds his advent, often
from week to week; and this must be recognised as the normal distinction.
* * * * *
Nature works slowly and discreetly; she is chary of revealing her
secrets, and few of those, eager for practical results, could have
afforded the life-time of work, which I have been able to give, for the
continuous investigation that was necessary.
As regards my personal experience and the results obtained I can but say
that they have uniformly realised my highest expectations. In every case
where my formula was employed, there has been success, and I can point
to thousands of accurate results. The theory, as a whole, has worked out
consistently all the time, and in the few cases where a disappointment
has occurred it has invariably been proved to the hilt that the formula
was _not_ accurately followed.
I recall the case of a lady who had my formula for a boy; she wrote to me
in October, 1913:
I came across a doctor who holds opposite theories to ours,
_i.e._, first ten days a girl, last ten days a boy, based on
his practice, which is pretty large. I was disappointed to find
anyone whose experience worked out contrary to yours. I am by
way of having an infant in December, having followed out your
theory. So we shall have to wait and see results, but I feel
rather disappointed....
Result—a boy born December, 1913.
This is one of many similar epistles, but in each case the issue has been
as arranged for. It is curious to note here that, apart from accidents,
a child is born on the actual day of the week that it was conceived; and
this detail might well be made use of with reference to the future day of
its birth.
* * * * *
This book may come as a shock to some biologists, especially those who
have been unable to give to these matters the close practical observation
necessary for solving such a problem as that with which it deals. It
may appear to them outrageous that a mere woman should write so openly,
putting the choice of her children’s sex within the reach of every
mother, and, without compunction or hesitation, expounding these secret
laws of nature for the benefit of humanity.
It is, however, unlikely that any male practitioner would have found the
time, even supposing he had the mind and the opportunities to follow
up this exclusive study of one subject in all its minor details and
side-issues. It is only a woman who could possibly have made the unique
series of observations that I have found absolutely necessary in the
pursuit of knowledge so long denied to parenthood. Could any but a woman
have ferreted out the exact dates and times of conception in scores of
pregnancy cases, or follow minutely every detail and symptom, week by
week, month by month, up to the time of parturition?
The very simplicity of my formula, which in no way disturbs the course
of nature’s laws, has often provoked the comment, “Surely it’s all too
simple to be true. Why was it never found out before?” In reply I would
remind my readers of Christopher Columbus and his egg! And is there not a
saying, “The greatest truths are the simplest?”
My final word is this: Time will prove, more and more abundantly, that
the knowledge disclosed to us by nature’s teaching deeply concerns the
whole scheme of life, and must have its effect on the welfare of the
human race.
There may be—there is—more to learn and to discover. I do not assume
complete knowledge of every contingent problem, but what I set out to do
has been accomplished in so far that every woman can, with certainty,
claim complete mastery in the regulation of the sex of her offspring.
APPENDIX
When widespread attention was called in the Press, some months before the
publication of this book, to the nature of my discovery and the theory I
have based on it, there were not wanting one or two critics who thought
fit mildly to question it, doing so, incidentally, with only very partial
knowledge.
By far the best answer to such criticisms is the fact of the practical
success of my theory as demonstrated by actual results. Extracts from a
few of the great number of letters received, which were naturally of a
private and confidential nature, are here set forth and these could be
multiplied indefinitely. Nothing could, to my mind, be more distasteful
than anything savouring in the slightest degree of advertisement, but I
feel bound to use what is the most effective of all methods in bringing
home to enquirers proof of the success which has attended the application
of my theory. I should add that all the letters received were purely
spontaneous expressions of gratitude:
A. _In the following cases Boys were desired_:
“I had a small son born last September. I was most delighted with his sex
... after two little girls, and I wish to thank you for your assistance
and advice.” (1914)
“It all happened exactly as you said, every date was correct, my boy
weighed 10 lbs. at birth; thanking you again for all your kind help.”
(1913)
“You will be sorry to hear that I had a miscarriage.... But it was a boy
according to your theory—thus proving that your advice was correct.”
(1915)
“I must tell you that my wife had a boy on the afternoon of the 1st. She
desires me to write and thank you for your advice.” (1915)
“Our wee boy arrived two weeks ago—yet another triumph for you. I cannot
tell you how thankful I am for all your good advice.” (1916)
“It is splendid having this baby-boy after four girls; it has changed our
whole life.... A thousand thanks.” (1920)
“It was kind of you to provide Mrs. C. with a son! There were great
rejoicings, after three daughters.” (1912)
“I followed out the instructions and the results are magnificent.” (1914)
“I followed your directions and started a child ... it was a boy,
proving your theory correct: eighteen months later, again following your
instructions, I had another boy.” (1915)
“I am forty-one, my two girls are twelve and ten. Since the doctor said
I could have another child, I have unfortunately had no result; I should
not think of another if it was going to be a daughter, but I should love
a son.” (1918)
(_A year later._) “We are all so delighted at having a son and think you
need our grateful thanks.”
“I write as soon as I can to say how immensely grateful I am to you for
the son I have been wanting for the last seven years. He is called ——
after my father. Both my brothers were killed in the war, so I did very
specially want a boy, and now I hope to have more owing to you. I think
your discovery one of the most important that can be made, and only long
for everyone to know of it.” (1925. _Received while the proofs of this
work are passing through the press._)
B. _In the following cases Girls were desired_:
“I wrote to you for a daughter a year ago.... A very precious little girl
arrived in November. I am more grateful than I can say.” (1912)
_From South Africa._
“Thank you for your letter. It may interest you to know that my three
boys started on the day you give for conception of males, and I am
positive the little girl I lost started a week before the period. Thank
you so much for your advice. I hope my new baby-girl will have arrived
next time I write.” (1922)
(_A year later._) “Just to let you know our lovely baby-girl arrived a
month ago.”
“I am so delighted with my daughter and was so well all the time. I feel
so full of gratitude.” (1919)
“My friend, Mrs. P., has her baby girl according to your hints, and she
is very grateful to you.” (1923)
C. _Cases of Sterility_:
“It was an amazement to me when I found I had started, as all the
specialists told me I could not possibly have another child. I had an
easy confinement; the boy weighed 9½ lbs. Many, many thanks. I intend
giving your address to many mothers who need your recipe.” (1917)
“I find it hard to express how awfully grateful I am to you for all you
have done.... It really is too extraordinary what you have done for my
health, besides the infant—your power is so wonderful, and the happiness
you bring to people.” (1913)
“I cannot half express my gratitude to you. It seems just like a miracle
... I am deeply grateful....” (1916)
“I can’t tell you what a joy our little girl is to us. I never can be
grateful enough. Do help my friend as you helped me.” (1924. _This lady
had been childless for fifteen years._)
FOOTNOTES
[1] _Pure Sociology_, p. 313.
[2] L. Schenk: _Determination of Sex_.
[3] R. C. Punnett: _Mendelism_.
[4] Tennessee Lady Cook: _Essays_.
[5] In the mishaps that I have observed, the first bad sign is very
frequently the total disappearance of all kinds of nausea. Montgomery
remarks: “There is little doubt that, in general, vomiting is a useful
concomitant in pregnancy, and that its sudden cessation is very often
indicative of an unfavorable change in the contents of the womb, and of
approaching abortion.”
[6] _Psychotherapy_, p. 19.
[7] _Lancet_, April 23, 1842, p. 119.
[8] Speech by Mr. Wheatley (Minister of Health, 1924) to the Standing
Joint Committee of the Independent Women’s Organisation, July 31, 1924.
[9] _Advice to a Wife._
[10] _Sterility of Woman_, 1890.
[11] _Edinburgh Medical and Surgical Journal_, vol. 38, p. 231.
[12] _Médecine Légale._
[13] _Traité des accouchements_, obs. xxiii, p. 52.
[14] _Medical Jurisprudence_, vol. i, p. 257.
[15] _Transylvania Medical Journal_, vol. vii, p. 447.
[16] _Sex Causation._
[17] _Address to the British Association_, 11th Aug., 1924.
[18] _Leviticus_ xv, 24.
[19] _On the Nature of the Child_. Section 11.
[20] _Pract. Obs._, p. 107.
[21] _Introduction to Midwifery_, 5th Edition, p. 217.
[22] _Leviticus_ xx, 18.
[23] _Leviticus_ xii, 2.
[24] _Brit. and For. Med. Rev._, Oct., 1842, p. 386.
[25] Robertson: _Essays_, p. 92.
[26] _Verhanlungen der Phys. Med. Gesellschaft in Würzburg_, Bid. iv,
1853.
[27] _Dub. Med. Journ._, vol. xxii, p. 15.
[28] _Das Weib_, p. 787.
[29] Playfair: _Science and Practice of Midwifery_.
[30] Montgomery: _Signs and Symptoms of Pregnancy_.
[31] Convisart et Leroux: _Journal de Médecine_.