elapse before engaging in the full act of coitus!_ Delay here will
lead to a possible loving speed, later on. The young people should
take time enough to get better acquainted with each other than ever
before; to become, in a measure, accustomed to the uncovered presence
of each other, and to the new possibilities of "courting" and "playing
together" that their new conditions offer. In any case, full coitus
should not be attempted till the bride is at least _willing_. If
she can be brought to become _anxious_ for the meeting, so much the
better.
And so, with plenty of time taken for making ready for the act, we
come to the first union of the organs for a newly married couple, the
bride being a virgin. And here is where an explanation is called for.
The vulva, or external part of the female sex organs, is a mouth
shaped aperture, located laterally between the forward part of the
thighs. In shape, size and structure, it much resembles the external
parts of the mouth proper. It begins just in front of the anus, and
extends forward above the pubic bone and a little ways up the belly.
Its entire lateral length is about four or more inches.
This organ is made up of several parts, as follows: The lips, or
labiae, as they are technically known, the clitoris, and the vaginal
opening. The lips are a double row, two on either side, and are known
as labiae major and labiae minor, that is, the thicker and thinner, or
larger and smaller lips. They extend almost the entire length of the
vulva, the outer lips folding over the inner ones when the thighs are
together. The outer parts of the larger lips are covered with hair. In
thickness and quality these labiae are much like the lips of the face
of each individual, a large mouth and thick lips indicate a large
vulva and thick labiae and vice-versa. The clitoris is a gland that
is located forward, on the upper part of the vulva. It corresponds,
almost exactly, in make-up and function, with the glans penis of the
male organ. The vaginal opening is at the rear, or lower part of the
vulva, and leads directly into the vagina proper.
All these parts are composed of most keenly responsive nerves, and
they are covered with a thin, delicate and exceedingly sensitive
skin, almost exactly such as lines the cheeks and the mouth. Both the
clitoris and the lips are filled with expandable blood vessels, and
in a state of tumescence they are greatly enlarged by a flow of
blood into the parts. The clitoris, in this condition, undergoes an
enlargement, or "erection," which is exactly like that of the glans
penis. So much as to the physiology of this part of the female sex
organs, all of which should be well understood by every bride and
bridegroom, though often it is not.
Now, in its virgin state, the vulva has another part, not yet named,
and this is the hymen, or "maiden-head" as it is commonly known. This
is a membrane that grows across the forward, or upper part of the
vaginal opening, and so _closes up_ nearly all that part of the
vulva. This hymen is not always present, however, even in a state of
undoubted virginity. Sometimes it is torn away in childhood by the
little girl's fingers, as she "plays with herself." Sometimes it
is ruptured by lifting, again it is broken away by the use of a
large-sized female syringe. _For all these reasons, it is not right to
conclude that a bride is not a virgin because the hymen is not present
and in evidence at the first coition._
Now many young husbands, and some young wives, are wholly ignorant of
the _existence_ of the hymen, and of the troubles it may cause at the
second part of the sexual act, in a first meeting. This membrane is
often quite tough and strong. It is grown fast to the lower part of
the clitoris and to the inside surfaces of the smaller lips, and
it covers so much of the vaginal opening that it is practically
impossible for the erect penis to enter the vagina so long as it
is present. Now if, under these conditions, the bride and groom
(especially the latter) are ignorant of the real construction of the
parts, and so should try to make a union of the organs, they would
find such union obstructed, if not impossible; and if the man,
puzzled, and impatient, and passion-driven, should _force_ a hasty
entrance into the vagina, rupturing the hymen ruthlessly, he would
hurt the woman cruelly, probably cause her to _bleed_ freely from the
wounded parts, and shock her seriously! All of which would be a score
against the husband, would brand him as a brute, or a bungler, and so
tend to make his "sun-aimed arrow alight in the mud."
The thing to do here, is, first of all, to know the situation and to
talk it over, and carefully, delicately, do the best that can be done
about it. If the conditions are fully understood by the bride and
groom, they can, in almost every case, by working and moving together
carefully, overcome the obstacle, remove the hymen with little or no
pain or loss of blood.
As a matter of fact, when the time for meeting comes, if all the facts
are known, and the husband will hold his erect penis still and steady
against the hymen, the bride will so press against it, and "wiggle
around" it, that _by her own motions_, she will break the membrane and
so be rid of it. She knows how much pain she can endure, and when the
pressure is too hard she can relieve it by her own action! Anyhow,
what is done _she does_ herself, and so can never charge up against
her husband!
It is a rare case in which, by mutual willingness, and desire and
mutual effort to remove the obstruction, it cannot be eliminated
with satisfaction to both bride and groom. If, however, careful and
well-executed efforts fail to remove it, the services of a surgeon
should be procured, and he, by a very simple and almost painless
operation, can remove the difficulty. But never, _no never_, should
it be brutally torn away by the force of the husband, and without the
full willingness of the wife. _Mark this well_. As a matter of fact,
the wise and practical thing for every bride to do, would be to go to
a surgeon a few days before her wedding, and have him remove the hymen
for her. Such operation is nearly painless, and is very easily done.
Still, to do this might raise a doubt of virginity on the part of the
husband and so this is a point to be careful about!
The act of removing the hymen is often spoken of as "defloration"--the
tearing to pieces of a flower. The term is not fortunate. Nothing
worth while has been taken away by removing the hymen, but much that
is useful has been acquired. An organ that has outlived whatever
usefulness it might once have had has been removed, and its going
has made possible new and beautiful uses in life. If this has been
accomplished by the mutual desire and effort of the bride and groom,
it is a cause for joy and not of sorrow; of delight and not of
mourning. As well weep over the removal of the vermiform appendix as
for the destruction of the hymen.
With this obstacle rightly overcome, the second act of coitus offers
no situation that calls for further remark or explanation.
And now a few words about the probabilities of conception resulting
from coitus, and some matters which are very closely related thereto.
In the first place, every healthy and fairly-well-provided-for husband
and wife should desire to have children, and should act in accordance
with such wish. This is not only in harmony with the primary purpose
of sex in the human family, but it is a response to a natural demand
of the human soul, in both man and woman. As Bernard Shaw makes Jack
Tanner say: "There is a father-heart as well as a mother-heart" and
_parenthood is the supreme desire of all normal and wholesome-minded
men and women._ It is not an "instinct," but something far above that
quality.
Parenthood among mere animals is the result of instinct, and of that
alone, but not so in the human race. Human beings naturally desire to
make a home for themselves, and a home, in the fullest meaning of that
word, means _children_ and a "family circle." This is something that
animals know nothing about. Animal mothers forget and ignore their
progeny as soon as they are weaned; and animal fathers will, in many
cases, kill them as soon as they are born, if they get a chance to
do so. These facts prove that parenthood, in the human family, is
something much more than in the rest of the animal kingdom. Indeed,
the whole matter of comparing this quality, as it exists in humanity,
with that of animals merely, is only a continuance of the similar
abomination of comparing the sex functions of these two forms of life.
In the real essentials of existence, they are in no way comparable;
and to make such is not only folly, but approaches the positively
criminal. The results of doing so certainly lead to crime.
Fundamentally, then, nearly all men and women marry with the purpose
and hope of having a family of children. They may not put it that way,
may not even acknowledge it, even to each other or to themselves; but
if married people find that they _cannot_ produce, it is a source of
unspeakable regret to them both. In such cases, the inherent desire
for parenthood will "cry aloud and spare not." A "barren" woman
greatly mourns her inability, and will shed bitter tears over the
fact, if she be truly human; and an "impotent" man will be practically
despised by all who are aware of his incompetence.
And yet, though all normal men and women desire to have children,
it is only right that they should desire to have them _as they want
them_, and _when_ they want them, and not _whenever they may happen
to come!_ That is, sensible and thoughtful people, who plan definitely
for the future, want to make the coming of children to them an affair
of _deliberate_ arrangement, and not of _chance_.
This is not only as it should be, but is really the only right way
that children should be begotten and born. Which statement calls for
a few special words on the right of parents to regulate the production
of progeny.
There is much talk, in some quarters, about "race suicide," and
the wickedness of deliberately limiting the number of children in a
family. Such talking and writing arouse anxious questionings in the
minds of conscientious young married men and women who are desiring to
do the right thing in the premises, but are uncertain as to what the
right thing is, and for such are the following words:
Many years ago, an English philosopher and statesman, Malthus by name,
discovered and announced the fact that the rate of natural increase
in the human race was several times greater than that of the possible
rate of production of food supply for their support. Scientifically
phrased, his statement was that "the rate of increase in humanity
is in geometrical ratio, while the rate of increase of possible food
supply is in arithmetical ratio." And from this basis, he reasoned
that, unless the surplus of human production was in some way cut off
and destroyed, the whole human race would ultimately demand more food
supply than could possibly be produced; and so, in due course of time,
the whole race would perish from starvation!
Then he proceeded to reason that the purpose of disease, plague,
pestilence, famine, poverty and warfare was to cut off and destroy
the _surplus_ of humanity, and hence all these alleged evils were
in reality blessings in disguise, and that _it would be wrong to
interfere_ with their really beneficent workings! Volumes could be
written, and they could not tell the half of the misery and evil that
the promulgation of this doctrine has done for the civilized world,
but there is no space here for giving any such details; nor need this
be done, though the statement of the doctrine had to be made to make
ready for what is to follow.
Now, is it not far more reasonable to suppose that, _since the
possibility of determining the number of off-spring a husband and wife
may produce has been given them_; that since such result can be, for
them, made a matter of _choice_, of an _exercise of the will_, and
not of _blind instinct_--under these circumstances, all of which
undoubtedly exist, is it not far more reasonable to believe that it is
the _purpose of the Creator_ that the limiting of the number of human
beings in the world should be brought about by _curbing the birth
rate_, rather than by _killing the surplus_ after they are born!
There can be but one answer made to this question, by any intelligent
man or woman.
These facts, then, establish the _rightfulness of determining the
number and size of a family by every husband and wife_. But this does
not mean that they are to entirely refrain from cohabiting, in order
to keep from having children! This phase of the argument has already
been gone over and disposed of. But it _does_ mean that husbands and
wives have a right to use such rightful means for the limiting of the
number of offspring as are conducive to the interests of all parties
concerned--themselves, their circumstances, the born or unborn
children, the state, the nation. Let the bride and groom be well
convinced and established in their own minds on these points, as
early in their relation as possible. They should be so from the very
outset--_must_ be so, to reach the best results.
The issue then presents itself: How can such deliberate and wilful
determination of the number of children a husband and wife may have,
be brought about?
And the answer is, that _it can never be accomplished by careless and
hap-hazard cohabiting!_ On the contrary, it can only be compassed by
the most _careful_ and _watchful_ processes of engaging in coitus, and
by a _full knowledge_ of physiological facts, and by acting, _always_,
in accordance with the same. It is no road for careless travel, but it
is a way worth going in, for all that.
On this point, let it be said that all sane and intelligent men and
women agree that anything even approaching _infanticide_ is nothing
short of a crime, and that abortion, except for the purpose of saving
the life of the mother, is practically murder.
But, while this is all true, to prevent the contact of two germs
which, if permitted to unite, would be liable to result in a living
human form, is _quite another affair_.
It is only this aspect of the situation which will be considered in
what follows.
Now, as has already been shown, the essentials for conception consist
of having the ovum present in the womb, and its meeting the semen
there. The corollary of this is, that whenever these coincidences take
place, there is a _possibility_ for conception.
But in all _normal_ cases, the ovum only passes into the womb once in
every twenty-eight days; and, as a rule, it only remains in the womb
for about half that period of time, that is, for about 14 or 15 days
in each month. And so, since the menstrual flow ceases after about
five days from its beginning, in about ten days _after_ its stopping,
the ovum will have passed out of the womb, and hence that organ
contains nothing that is impregnable. Under these conditions, semen
may be deposited in the womb, without danger of impregnation. This is
a simple proposition, and easy to understand if once known.
However, it must be said that these _generally_ common conditions _do
not always obtain_--that is, they are _not_ true in the case of _all_
women. There are women who will conceive at _any_ time in the month,
if they are given a chance to do so. The physiological reason for such
possibility is said to be this: There are always ova in the ovaries,
in varying stages of development. Ordinarily, only once a month do any
of these pass down into the womb; but, in exceptional cases, sometimes
these ova are so partially held in the ovaries that, under the
excitement of coitus, and because all these parts dilate so much
during the act, an ovum may slip its moorings, under such conditions,
pass down into the uterus at an untimely season, meet the semen there,
and pregnancy result. Such are the facts _in some cases_.
How, then, can a husband and wife tell how it is, or will be, in
_their_ particular case?
The answer is that they can only tell by trying, and that should be
done as follows:
The _first_ sexual meeting of the bride and groom should _never_ take
place until at least _ten days after the ceasing of the menstrual flow
in the bride! This is a rule that should never be violated_ if the
parties wish to "_test out_" the real condition as to whether or not
the bride has any "free time." The chances are several to one that she
_has_ such leeway; but the fact can only be established by "proving
up" and this can _never_ be done if any _chances_ are taken. Put this
down as rule number one.
For this reason, it is well for the bride to fix the wedding day; and,
if possible, for her to locate it sometime during the probably immune
period. And the nearer she can bring this day to the _beginning_ of
such period of freedom from danger of pregnancy, the better. For, if
it should happen that the first coitus should take place only a
_day or two before_ the time when another "monthly" was due, such
excitement might hasten the passage of the nearly-ripe ovum into the
uterus, and conception might occur. In which case, "all the fat would
be in the fire," nothing would be proved, and the parties would be as
ignorant as ever regarding the facts in _their_ case.
And so, the _first_ sexual meeting of a bride and bridegroom should be
not _earlier_ than _ten days after the ceasing of the menstrual flow
and not later than three days before the next monthly is due. Put
that_ _down as rule number two, never to be violated._
And if marriage takes place before this period of probable immunity
on the part of the bride arrives, the only safe thing to do is to
"patiently wait" till such time arrives. This may "require fortitude"
on the part of both parties, but it is the only safe thing to do. And
to do just that, will amply repay such waiting. The writer knows of a
case where the wedding took place just three days before the bride's
next monthly was due, and she and her husband waited for more than
_two weeks_ before they met sexually! But it paid to wait, for their
doing so proved that the bride had _two weeks_ of "_free time_" in
_each month, and this was worth all it cost to find out! Take time!_
And now let it be added that it is a great accomplishment for a
husband and wife to be free from a fear of pregnancy as a result of
coitus. This is a thousand times truer for the woman than for the man,
for it is she who has to bear the burden of what follows, if following
there be. The husband can "do the deed" and go about his business. The
wife, if "the fertile seed" takes root, has before her months of care
and anxiety, and she risks her very life in what may come of it all.
For these reasons, she has a _right to dictate all the terms_ which
are liable to cause her to become a mother. _And yet she should
do this with full regard for the husband, in love, in true
wifely-womanhood._ On this point, do not fail to read "The Helpmate,"
by May Sinclair. It is a story that no bride and bridegroom should
fail to read and study, carefully.
The whole subject of how to engage in satisfactory coitus and avoid
pregnancy may be summed up as follows:--The attainment of such
a condition is well worth the most careful, earnest and honestly
pains-taking endeavor. For, if such status be not reached, its lack
will be a source of endless contentions and differences between the
husband and wife. It will lead to jealousies, quarrels, and all sorts
of marital woes. But, the situation once mastered, by the most loving
and accurate of scientific methods of procedure, a happy married life
is certain to result. Otherwise, the "married state" will always be
in a condition of "unstable equilibrium." So let every bride and
bridegroom begin, _from the first_, to try to establish the greatly to
be desired accomplishment. If anything further on this point should be
desired, consult a reliable physician.
VIII
THE ART OF LOVE
And still there is more to be said! Is it not written that "Art is
long!" _And the Art of Love is the longest of all arts, and the most
difficult of all for its complete mastery and attainment!_
It is a matter of misfortune, and yet one of not infrequent
occurrence, that the sex organs of husband and wife are _not well
matched_; and that trouble, sometimes of a most serious nature,
results. When this condition is found to exist, it should be treated
sanely and wisely, and the chances are many to one that the difficulty
can be overcome, to the full satisfaction of both parties concerned.
In such cases, the mis-matching usually arises from the fact that the
penis of the husband is too long for the vagina of the wife. This is
very apt to be the case where the wife is of the "dumpy" sort, with a
small mouth and short fingers, while the husband is "gangling," large
mouthed and long fingered. These are facts that ought to be taken
into account before marriage, and which should figure in determining
whether the parties are "suited" to each other. They _would_ be
regarded in this way, too, if they were generally known, as they most
surely are not. Here is another place where ignorance and "innocence"
get in their work, and make trouble in married life!
In such a case as this, the too-long penis, when fully inserted in the
too-short vagina, and especially when, at the orgasm, the two organs
are crowded together vigorously, as the impulse of both parties
demands they should be at this part of the act, the end of the penis
is driven against the rear walls of the vagina, often furiously, thus
stretching and straining the vaginal passage longitudinally, pressing
against the womb unnaturally, and not infrequently pushing it out
of place and sometimes rupturing the uterine tract seriously, hence
causing all sorts of unfortunate and greatly-to-be-regretted results.
Because of such danger, the first meeting of the husband and wife
should be accomplished with the utmost care, especially in the
_second_ part of the act, the first putting together of the organs.
This is the only way of determining, in each case, how the organs will
"fit," and happy are the parties thereto if such fit is found to be
perfect!
But if it should turn out that there is a mismatching, of the nature
just described, the conditions can be adjusted if the right means are
used.
(Before telling this, however, it should be stated that the relative
size of the sex organs can never be fully judged of by the size of the
body of a man or a woman. Many a small man has an abnormally large
and long penis, and many a little woman has a large vulva and a long
vagina; and the reverse of all this is true, in the case of many men
and women. These items in the count are among the things that can
never be known with certainty except by actual trial, and this is not
possible, as things are now.)
And so, if "mis-matching" is found to exist, in any given case, it can
be provided for, in most cases as follows: