=Consanguineous Marriages.=--To avoid injurious consanguinity, it is

sufficient, in my opinion, to prohibit the procreation of children

between direct and collateral relations, especially between parents

and children and between brothers and sisters. Anything more than this

is only useless chicanery. Laws which prohibit marriage between

relations by alliance are absurd, for instance those which forbid a

widower to marry his sister-in-law (deceased wife's sister), etc.

Among some peoples such unions are ordained by law!

There is also no valid reason to prohibit unions between first cousins

or between uncles and aunts, with nephews and nieces. There is nothing

to prove that such marriages are injurious to the offspring. What is

harmful is the accumulation of hereditary taints, whether they occur

in relations or persons who are strangers to each other. Nevertheless,

the _perpetuation_ of consanguineous unions in the same family is not

as a rule advisable.

=Restriction of Personal Liberty in Sexual Life Among Harmful or

Dangerous Individuals.=--The inability of men to distinguish, among

the motives of the acts of their fellows, what is abnormal, unhealthy,

impulsive or obsessional, from what is healthy and normal is one of

the most deplorable phenomena in social life, and greatly hinders the

action of reformatory civil legislation and rational administrative

measures.

The passionate, confused and unreasonable sentiments of the masses

give expression, according to the impulse of the moment, to two

contradictory absurdities and injustices. On the one hand, they cry

out against arbitrary constraint of individual liberty, against

illegal restriction or detention, when competent judges or experts try

to limit the movements of dangerous individuals affected with mental

disorders, but who appear sane to the incompetent public; or when, to

insure social safety, they send these individuals to a lunatic asylum,

or limit their dangerous liberty in some other way. On the other hand,

when such an individual goes free, thanks to the intervention of

incompetent meddlers, and commits assassination, violation,

incendiarism, or all kinds of sadic atrocities, or even only

terrorizes his own family, these same people, suddenly animated by

contrary sentiments of vengeance, imperiously demand an exemplary

expiation and all possible reprisals. This sometimes goes as far as

torture of the culprit or burning at the stake, as with the lynchers

in America.

It is very difficult for the psychiatrist, who is the competent expert

in these matters, to make truth and impartiality prevail. He is nearly

always suspected of seeing madness everywhere, and of being afflicted

with a mania for sending sane persons to asylums! In reality, he

desires to take measures which are at the same time humane for the

insane and protective for society, so as to treat as equitably and

reasonably as possible the unfortunates who are more or less

irresponsible for their acts; he wishes to see established laws and

organizations which will efficiently protect the insane against

themselves and against the exploitation and abuse of others, at the

same time preventing them from doing injury to society.

On the other hand, society and with it the old style of jurist, in

their ignorant dread of psychopathological matters, endeavor to take

all possible measures to protect the sane public against the

alienists, thus completely neglecting the true interests of the insane

as well as those of society, while fighting against a phantom! The

anxiety and mistrust of the public in this matter are continually kept

up by "brigand stories" related by certain insane or semi-insane

persons, which are spread by the press, always eager for scandal, or

by pamphlets which the cheapness of printing places within the reach

of the poorest!

These phenomena of public psychology greatly hinder the most urgent

reforms. The public regard asylums with horror, and the path of the

alienist is thorny, for he is exposed to continual accusations and

threats whatever he may do, a situation which does not encourage him

to suggest bold innovations.

Ignorant of psychology and especially of psychopathology, the public

and with it the formal jurist, the slave of codes (I am only speaking

of honest lawyers, and not of the number who abuse the situation to

obtain oratorical and other success and crown themselves with

laurels), regard themselves as the champions of individual liberty,

and are unable to perceive that the net result of their efforts is, on

the one hand, to condemn a considerable number of insane and crazy

persons to prison, and on the other hand to assure liberty and

impunity to the most dangerous individuals, always ready to commit the

most atrocious crimes, or at any rate to make martyrs of a number of

patient and innocent beings, hard-working and healthy in mind,

especially women and children.

The alienists, who see clearly into all this misery, easily become

pessimistic in their impotence against the want of sense, ignorance

and unconscious passion of the masses, and even competent authorities.

The natural cowardice of men often makes them shut their eyes to avoid

nuisances, and causes them to take no action against the most

dangerous monsters, and especially against those who are most

mischievous by their pens. This is why the martyrdom of unfortunate

women and children illtreated by chronic alcoholics, sadists and other

neuropaths or psychopaths, never comes to an end, owing to the stupid

outcry against so-called violation of individual liberty.

On this soil, sexual atrocities and crimes, largely increased by

drink, play an important part. Without troubling myself about

prejudice and indignation I shall say in a few words what appears to

me to be urgent:

So long as jurists and legislators will not study either psychology or

psychiatry, and will not submit all habitual criminals and all

dangerous men to an expert examination, all serious reform in this

domain will remain impossible. To improve the present state of affairs

a common understanding between jurists and alienists is urgent; but

this can only be attained by jurists making a study of psychology, and

a kind of practical clinic among imprisoned criminals. How can one

judge and condemn one's neighbor without having the least idea of the

state of mind of these pariahs of society? All the jurists who have

the welfare of humanity at heart, should support the _international

union of penal law_, and the efforts of men like Professor Franz von

Liszt, Gaukler of Caen, and many other courageous reformers.[8]

It is needless to say that it is not sufficient to combat the excesses

of criminal and dangerous individuals, such as sadists, for example,

by placing them under supervision and preventing them doing harm. It

is also necessary to attack the cause of the evil by preventing their

germs from being reproduced, degenerated as they usually are by the

blastophthoria of their alcoholic parents (vide Chapter I). The first

question, which is purely legal and administrative, does not concern

us here; but I may be allowed to say a few words on the second.

Zealous and advanced reformers have proposed castration in such cases,

which has provoked a general cry of indignation. This has been

discussed in certain American states. The hyperaesthetic sentiment of

our modern civilization cannot tolerate such ideas, while ancient

races such as the Islamites provided, and still provide eunuchs as

servants, who are free from danger for their wives, and think little

of hanging or decapitating men who cause them any trouble. In the

same way, we are dumb and impassive before the butcheries of war,

because they are fashionable, especially when we do not come in

contact with them. The Pope himself formerly procured eunuchs in order

to have soprano voices in his church, and did not hesitate to castrate

young boys for this purpose. The times change and we change with them!

For some years, however, castration has been employed as a remedy for

certain disorders both in men and women, especially for hysteria in

women. I admit here that, in an asylum which I superintend, I have

castrated a veritable monster afflicted with constitutional mental

disorders, taking advantage of the fact that he himself requested this

operation to relieve him of pain in his seminal vesicles, but with the

chief object of preventing the production of unfortunate children

tainted with his hereditary complaint.

Many years ago I also castrated a young hysterical girl of fourteen,

whose mother and grandmother were both prostitutes, and who had

already begun to have intercourse with all the urchins in the street.

Here again, I frankly admit that the hysterical troubles of the

patient served me as an excuse to prevent this unfortunate girl from

reproducing beings who would probably resemble her. I am of opinion

that castration, or some more benign operation, such as dislocation of

the Fallopian tubes in women (which renders them sterile without

destroying the ovaries, or even attenuating the sexual appetite)

should be performed in order to prevent the reproduction of the most

deplorable and most dangerous beings.

Among certain individuals, such as sadists, whose sexual appetite is

dangerous in itself, castration would be necessary. In my opinion, the

more benign operations are indicated in all individuals whose

psychopathological condition in this domain is such that they are

absolutely incapable of resisting their impulses, or of understanding

the dictates of reason. By this means they could go free instead of

being incarcerated in asylums.

On the other hand, I must emphasize the fact that such measures, the

personal consequences of which are so serious, should only be taken

in the case of absolutely dangerous, incurable individuals, concerning

whose pathological state there can be no doubt. I also believe that

these individuals, especially those with sexual abnormalities, would

very often consent to the operation, as was the case with my two

patients.

It would be a great advance if civil legislation would in such cases

accord official recognition to castration or dislocation of the tubes,

with the consent of the criminal or patient concerned. At present, our

laws and regulations are such that a psychopathological monster cannot

even be castrated when he wishes it, because medical men refuse to

undertake such an operation without a positive medical indication of

the usual kind, and because there is no legal protection; yet, when

done in time, castration would often save sadists and other dangerous

perverts from a criminal life, and society from their crimes and those

of their offspring.

When it is only a question of avoiding the procreation of tainted

children, it would be sufficient to instruct reasonable people in the

methods of avoiding conception (vide Chapter XIV).

It is important to bear in mind that modern legislation on marriage

often flavors the reproduction of criminals, lunatics and invalids,

while it hinders the production of healthy children by men who are

intelligent, honest and robust. When an abnormal or unhealthy man is

married, his wife is obliged to submit to the conception of tainted

children. On the other hand, when a strong, healthy and intelligent

girl is in a situation, it often happens that everything is done to

prevent her marrying, so as not to lose her services; the more

conscientious she is and the more attached to her masters, the more

often is this likely to occur.

Girls who have illegitimate children often lose their situations and

their honor. The consideration of cases of everyday occurrence is

sufficient to grasp the difficulty of the question. What we require is

more personal liberty for healthy, normal and adaptable individuals,

and more restrictions for the abnormal, unhealthy and dangerous. The

civil law of the future will have to take these facts into

consideration, if it wishes to keep level with scientific progress,

and prevent the instinct of the people having recourse to lynch law,

or retaliation.

Meanwhile, attempts have been made to get out of the difficulty by

prohibiting the marriage of insane persons or by declaring their

marriage null when it has already been consummated; or again, by

admitting insanity as a cause for divorce. Such measures are good as

makeshifts in a period of transition. They assume that conceptions

only occur in marriage, and that marriage necessarily means

procreation. But these two suppositions are false, for it is only the

pressure of custom and legislation which realizes them in part,

especially in Catholic countries.

The civil code, in the present state of society, has at least the

advantage of making possible the dissolution of monstrous unions, such

as those of the absolutely insane or certain psychopaths of the worst

kind. Unfortunately, divorce is as a rule only accorded in cases of

well-marked mental disorders, while in reality the most atrocious

unions are those which are contracted by crazy persons with only

diminished responsibility, in whom the public and the law are unable

to recognize or understand the existence of a definite mental anomaly.

These people most often marry at a time when no one has yet recognized

their true mental condition, or foreseen the consequences of their

marriage. The unfortunate who finds herself (or himself) bound by such

a union is then an object of endless martyrdom. The frequency of

mental anomalies causes them to play an immense, and too often

unrecognized role, in unhappy marriages.

At the request of the mother the tribunal of Bale recently prohibited

the marriage of a young man affected with a slight degree of mental

weakness. This judgment was upheld by the Swiss tribunal for the

following reasons: "Although capable of work, of earning his living,

and of performing his military service, an individual may be an

unsuitable subject for marriage. In the interests of family life and

the future generation, it is the duty of the State to prevent the

marriage of the feeble-minded, in order to avoid the perpetuation of a

race of degenerates." I quote this from a journal. We can only

congratulate tribunals which have the courage to consider the vital

interests of the nation in their judgments.

=Right of Succession.=--Although right of succession has no direct

bearing on the sexual question, it is indirectly connected with it

through its influence on the procreation of children.

At the present day the poor have more children than the well-to-do.

This is because they have nothing to lose, because coitus is one of

their few pleasures, because they are ignorant of the means of

preventing conception, and because they hope to profit by their

children's labor. People who have some property are, on the contrary,

afraid of falling into poverty through the procreation of too many

children, and those who possess more are afraid of poverty for their

offspring. The latter only desire a few heirs, so that after their

death they can leave each a fortune suitable to their social position.

In France, especially, well-to-do people often limit their families to

two. The parents have the unhappy idea that a certain fortune must be

assured to their children to enable them to live in comfort. They do

not understand that the necessity for a man to earn his living by work

is the chief condition for a healthy existence.

Again, among very rich people there is often the fear that a large

fortune may lose its power when divided, and thus diminish the

influence of the family.

It is obvious that great poverty and great wealth constitute two

extreme social evils. It is deplorable for a child to grow up with the

idea that he will inherit a large fortune, enjoy life without working,

and regard poor people more or less as subordinates. But it is still

worse for a man to remain all his life an object for exploitation, in

spite of the most repugnant and most arduous work, unless his superior

faculties and good luck give him the chance of rising. It is also

discouraging for a man to be unable by arduous work to obtain anything

for himself or his wife and children, and only to work for society,

and especially for the interests of capitalists.

Human instinct is not sufficiently social to allow of assiduous and

hearty work solely in the interests of the community. The egoistic

sentiments and family instincts of man are still much too strong.

If we take all these facts into consideration, the right of

succession becomes very important. It has been attempted to deal with

the question by progressive taxes on succession to large fortunes: but

this is not enough. I have not the presumption to give a positive

opinion on these matters which are not in my province, but I venture

to suggest the possibility of greatly restricting the right of

succession by postponing the right to the enjoyment of their heritage

till the children are of an age when they could earn their own living;

say, from twenty-five to twenty-six, so as not to interfere with their

higher education. In this way a man would not be deprived of the

pleasure of working for himself and his family; and every young man

and young woman, being obliged to work at some special subject, would

know that they could earn their living after twenty-five or

twenty-six, without counting on their heritage.

I do not pretend to build a new social system on this idea, for many

propositions of the kind have already been made. I only wish to draw

attention to one element of the problem, which consists in diminishing

the possibility of the exploitation of man by man, without destroying

the pleasure for work, at the same time favoring the procreation and

education of healthy and capable offspring. This naturally presupposes

a new moral and social state, in which family right would be changed

and good education organized for all. Even then intelligent men would

have the desire to rise above the average and bring up their children

with the same object. This is an instinct in mental development which

should be carefully cultivated, and not extinguished, by every social

organization.

In all social systems it must be recognized that certain branches of

culture, such as scientific research and art, involve great expense

and bring little or no material reward to the scientist or the artist.

A richer State ought to provide for these important branches of

civilization, which always tend to higher culture.

I have already mentioned separation of property and an equable

division of the fruits of labor between conjoints as the only just

basis in marriage contracts. I repeat here, that true justice can only

be established by the recognition of equal legal rights for men and

women.

PENAL LAW

Penal law is the right of punishment. It is based on the ideas of

_culpability_ and _expiation_, and these are based on the idea of

free-will, which is itself founded on a pure illusion, as we have

shown above.

This simple reflection is sufficient to show the precarious position

of our present penal law. The science of penal law has too long

ignored the progress of humanity and of the other sciences. It is

affected with incurable marasmus, because its foundations are laid in

error. The idea of expiation was naturally developed on the basis of

mysticism combined with the right of the stronger, and associated with

the sentiment of vengeance natural to the low mentality of our animal

ancestors. Among the latter the weaker was punished because he was the

weaker: "_Vae victis!_" and order was obtained by force. But the

visions of human imagination having urged man to create a god or gods

in his own image, he attributed to the divinity the sentiments of

anger experienced by man, and pretended that expiation was required

for offenses against this or that majesty or human idea, transformed

into an offense to the divine majesty.

This offense to the divinity was therefore only the nebulous

expression of a developing social conscience in man, an obscure

mixture of sentiments of wounded sympathy, adulation of the strong and

great, and desire for vengeance and expiation. Till then man was

accustomed to judge other men according to the right of the stronger,

more or less mitigated by sentiments of family and friendship. His

terror of natural mysteries--the forest, night, thunder, hurricanes,

stars, etc., led him to imagine the intervention of occult powers, and

later on of higher powers capable of judging good and evil actions,

the ideas of good and evil being formerly very different from what

they are at present. The functions of advocates or executors of the

divine will were always, however, reserved for privileged men, who

gave judgment in His name, either as priests, kings, or later on as

judges. We may also note by the way that judgment can be given without

belief in free arbitration, as is shown by the Mahometan fatalists and

the judgments of Haroun-al-Raschid, for example. In fact, fatalism

logically excludes the idea of free-will, for if everything is

absolutely predetermined, the thoughts, resolutions and acts of man

are also predetermined, which excludes all liberty.

=Responsibility.=--I have attempted to show in another work[9] that a

rational penal law should in no way concern itself with the question

of free arbitration. The fact that we feel free and responsible is not

at all sufficient to justify the doctrine of Kant.

The question of knowing whether an absolute predestination (fatalism,

regulating the universe in advance in all its details) exists or not,

is a question of pure metaphysics, the solution of which is quite

beyond human comprehension, and need not occupy us here. We must

simply depend on the scientific postulate of determinism, _i.e._, on

the law of causality applied to the motives of our actions, a law

which is very much like that of the conservation of energy, and which

admits of divers possibilities for the future, for it does not assume

a knowledge of the first cause of the universe nor the will of a

divinity.

We shall then understand that the complication of our cerebral

activities, mnemic and actual, combined with the fact that a great

part of them (and consequently of the motives for our actions) remain

subconscious, must produce in us the illusion of free-will.

On the other hand, we shall find the measure of what we are to

understand by relative liberty, in the plastic faculties of the

activity of the human brain, which allow it to adapt itself as

adequately as possible to the numerous and diverse complications of

existence, and especially to social relations between mankind.

The most adaptable man is the most free, especially in the sense of

active and conscious adaptation. There are also men who adapt

themselves passively and are easily molded. This passive plasticity at

any rate renders them capable of submitting to everything and only

provoking conflict as a last resource. These individuals are no doubt

less free, since they obey the impulses of others; nevertheless, their

elasticity gives them a certain relative liberty, because they do not

feel constraint and easily adapt themselves to laws and other social

requirements. But the highest form of liberty, the moral faculty of

higher adaptation, is not that of the human fox who exploits others

for his own profit, but that of true higher intellects, capable of

adapting their activity to the social requirements of humanity. On the

contrary, the man who is least free is the one who, dominated by his

passions and baser appetites, or by insufficiency of intelligence or

will power, is thereby incapable of conducting himself reasonably,

gives way to all temptations and impulses, falls into all kinds of

snares, cannot keep to any resolution, and is in perpetual conflict

with society.

What is the use of the theoretical belief in free-will in this case?

This man feels subjectively as free, or often more free, than one who

is more reasonable and more master of himself, and yet he is a slave!

When, dominated by his psychic bonds, he violates the law, he is

punished, but he himself resents the punishment as an injustice. The

judge who condemns him and imagines he holds the scales of justice in

equilibrium, only carries out the principles of an unjust law, a kind

of mild retaliation, exacting moderate expiation. Or again, by

exercising a right derived from old traditions based on religious

ideas, he plays the part of proxy for the Deity and judges in His

place. We might even say that a mail is in reality all the more free

the better he realizes that he is not so, _i.e._, that his actions

depend on the activity of his brain! At any rate he will then be less

often deceived and will react in a more plastic manner.

=The True Task of Penal Law; Its Traditional Errors in the Sexual

Question.=--Penal law has only one thing to do, that is to cut itself

free from its roots and transplant itself on a social and scientific

soil. There would then be no longer a penal law, but a _law protecting

society against dangerous individuals, and a law of administration for

persons incapable of conducting themselves_. Its task would be the

complement of that of civil law. Henceforth the judge would cease to

pass judgment on his neighbor and his neighbor's motives, acting as a

proxy for God. He would no longer punish, but would content himself

with protecting, restraining and ameliorating.

The history of psychiatry and sorcery proves that we are not

exaggerating. It is not very long since the insane were regarded, not

as persons suffering from disease, but as criminals and sorcerers, and

were treated by punishment and exorcism. The ancients, on the

contrary, especially certain Greek and Roman physicians (notably

_Caelius Aurelianus_) had already recognized that insanity was a

disease of the brain, and had distinguished its different forms.

Even at the present day, we find among the Catholics and among certain

Protestant sects, as among savages, a belief in sorcery, and if this

belief got the upper hand, prosecution for sorcery--exorcism and other

forms of cruelty--would soon become the fashion.

Before the sixteenth century prosecutions for sorcery were universal,

and remained very common for a long time afterwards. It is only since

the time of the French Revolution that insanity has been recognized as

a mental disease. Even in the nineteenth century a German alienist,

Heinroth, punished the insane like criminals. The atrocious prejudice

of the people against the insane dates from the time of prosecution

for sorcery.

Even now we are the slaves of a prejudice which holds a legal

conviction sufficient to dishonor the prisoner and stain his character

for the rest of his days. Hans Leuss' book, _Aus dem Zuchthause_ (From

the prison), 1904, is very instructive on this point. Condemned to

prison himself, the author makes some wise and dispassionate

observations which give food for reflection. I may also quote the

words of Doctor Guillaume, who was for a long time superintendent of

the penitentiary at Neuchatel, and who is now director of the Swiss

federal bureau of statistics at Berne. The question we are dealing

with had been treated in a discussion in which I took part, and to

which Doctor Guillaume had listened silently. At the conclusion, he

said to us: "Gentlemen, in the course of my life I have become

acquainted with a large number of convicts, but I have never been able

to discover among them more than two classes of individuals; the one

class were diseased, and the others ... ah! the others; the more I

study their cases and their personality, I ask myself if I should not

have done as they did under the same circumstances!" It is unnecessary

to say that Doctor Guillaume did not mean to establish two clearly

marked classes, for most criminals represent a mixture of both; but

his main idea gives a good idea of the question of penal law.

How sexual questions lead to conflicts with penal law, how penal law

judges them, and how it ought to judge them after what we have just

said, I can only refer to what I have said concerning civil law. Our

present penal law is aware of singular sexual crimes and often

punishes them from curious motives.

When a poor imbecile, ridiculed by women and overcome by his sexual

appetite, copulates with a cow, the latter is not injured in any way;

neither is the owner. Moreover, the question of property does not

trouble the judge, for he punishes sodomy even when the culprit owns

the animal. How does the law obtain the right to punish an act which

does no harm to any one, nor to society, nor even to an animal? It is

evidently a vestige of religious mysticism, something like punishment

for sinning against the Holy Ghost. The sins of Sodom and Gomorrah,

they say, caused the wrath of God, who destroyed these towns for this

reason. According to the legend, sodomy was a vice of the inhabitants;

is this why it is punished at the present day? But the masturbation of

Onan, according to the Bible, also caused the wrath of God; why then

do not our present laws institute punishment for those who practice

it?

In many of the Swiss cantons and in Germany, sexual connection between

men is prosecuted by law. The German legislators have even recently

discussed the question whether punishment should be enforced only when

the penis of one man is introduced into the anus of the other

(pederasty), or whether indecent contact and mutual onanism are

sufficient to justify punishment.

Our penal law is thus concerned with the question whether it should

punish or not, according as this or that mucous membrane or part of

the skin is used for the satisfaction of a morbid sexual appetite!

These are truly singular points for a legislator to decide, compelled,

in spite of his incompetence, to play the part of physiologist,

anatomist and psychologist!

If I am correctly informed, the German legislation is inconsistent in

punishing sexual intercourse between two men, but not between two

women. These examples suffice to show what blind-alleys a penal law

leads to, the basis of which is vicious and which is guided by the

traditions of mysticism.

Quite recently, in the Swiss journal of penal law, a jurist seriously

upheld the necessity for the conception of a crime against religion!

Ideas of this kind would lead us to punish suicide, like the English.

We will now proceed to analyze the facts from the point of view of

their true social value.

=Limits of Penal Law in the Sexual Domain.=--If we would avoid

injustice and ridiculous contradictions, we should keep to the

principle that penal justice has only the right to intervene in cases

where individuals or society are injured, or run the risk of being

injured. It is also necessary to examine, in each case, whether the

person who has committed the offense was not irresponsible and

affected with mental disease at the time; or whether his

responsibility was not diminished, _i.e._, whether he was not

seriously abnormal without being quite insane. The conception of

responsibility, necessarily relative, should be understood in the

sense of relative liberty, which we have defined above.

According to the result of the inquiry (culpability being proved) the

judge will have to decide how society can be best protected against

the repetition of such acts, and how the culprit may be most easily

improved, provided he is capable of improvement.

If, for example, the culprit is an inebriate, his detention in a home

for inebriates will protect society and benefit the individual much

better than all the fines and imprisonments at present in force.

If he is an incorrigible recidivist, incapable of resisting his

criminal impulses, the law should keep him under observation in a safe

place, or deprive him only of certain dangerous liberties. It is not

so difficult to decide these questions as the public imagines. The

antecedents of the criminal, his previous convictions, and a careful

study of his psychology will nearly always lead to a clear diagnosis

and prognosis. In this case a mutual understanding between

psychiatrists and jurists will produce excellent results. It is

needless to say that if it is only a case of transient cerebral

obnubilation, such as sunstroke or somnambulism, etc., the culprit

should be acquitted.

=Rape, etc.=--Normal coitus may render a penal action legitimate when

it is obtained by force or stratagem (rape, abuse of a feeble-minded

or hypnotized person, etc.). It is evident that measures of protection

against such acts are urgent, and that persons abused in this way

should have the right to heavy indemnities. What we require is not so

much extenuation of penalty for the culprit as greater protection for

his victims.

In cases of rape, when the woman becomes pregnant against her will, I

am of opinion that artificial abortion should be allowed by law as an

exceptional measure. We cannot expect a woman to have a child imposed

upon her by a man's violence, especially when she is unmarried, and

oblige her to bring it up, from the simple fact that she conceived it.

It should be the same in cases of abduction of female minors.

When, on the contrary, a male minor seduced by an adult woman, makes

her pregnant, it is the woman only who is responsible for the

maintenance of her child, and there are no reasons to accord her the

right of abortion, for it is she who desired the sexual act. The close

bonds which exist between the child and its mother justify such legal

dispositions.

With regard to civil laws, we have mentioned the case of venereal

infection after coitus. In this case civil indemnity would be most

equitable. A penal action could only be based on prosecution by the

injured party, unless it was a question of directly criminal

intent--infection for vengeance, for example.

=Incest.=--Under the heading of _consanguineous marriages_, we have

seen to what extent the conception of incest should be limited, in

respect to civil law. The grave cases of incest are those between

parents and children. Their normal causes are mental anomalies,

alcoholism, proletarian promiscuity, or isolation of a family in some

remote place. Incest is common, in Switzerland especially, among the

inhabitants of isolated mountain chalets. I will give a few typical

and genuine examples of incest giving rise to penal actions:

(1). A drunken and brutal husband persecuted his wife with excessive

coitus. The latter then gave him her own daughter to satisfy his

violence.

(2). An inebriate woman induced her own son, aged seventeen, to have

intercourse with her. Infuriated at the idea that his mother had made

him her lover, he murdered her one day when he was drunk. Condemned as

a parricide, this young man conducted himself in prison in a model

manner. Alcohol, combined with his incestuous seduction, had made him

the murderer of his mother.

(3). In a family composed exclusively of imbeciles and psychopaths,

some of whom were put under my care for treatment, incest was

practiced among nearly all of them; between father and daughters;

between mother and sons; and between brothers and sisters.

The last case, and many others, show that incest is not the cause but

the effect of mental disorders. This does not mean that the offspring

of such unions are not slightly tainted by the mere fact of such

concentrated incest, but these cases are comparatively so rare that

they do not contribute to any appreciable extent, as incest, in

causing degeneration of the race; the factor which causes degeneration

is here mental disease, which arises from other hereditary causes,

chiefly of blastophthoric origin.

From what we have said it results that a penal action for incest

should only take place in the case of minors or insane persons, abuse

of strength or power, or rape. The measures of civil law should

suffice to reduce other cases of incest to a minimum.

The disgust which the generality of men feel for sexual union between

brothers and sisters, and especially between parents and children, is

the best protection against incest. The elimination of alcoholism, the

superintendence of the insane, and the improvement of our social

organization are much more likely than penal laws to lead to the

gradual disappearance of incest.

=Assaults on Minors.=--All assaults on minors should naturally be

prosecuted. But prosecution should take a different form according as

the culprit is affected with a pathological perverse disposition, or

whether it is simply a question of abuse of confidence committed by a

normal man. A master who, having no sexual anomaly, commits assaults

on young girls, his pupils, should be deprived of the right of

teaching in girls' schools, for it is only there that he is dangerous.

If, on the other hand, he is affected with perversion (pederasty,

etc.), further measures for protection should be taken against him;

according to the circumstances.

=Sexual Perversions.=--When we pass, on to sexual perversions, the

inconsequences and mysticism of our present penal law become still

more apparent. This code often prosecutes and punishes sexual actions

which do no harm to any one, or which two persons practice of their

own accord. Such cases may be suitable for moral or medical treatment,

but should never justify a penal prosecution. This applies to all the

manipulations of onanism, pederasty, masochism, fetichism, etc., which

take place between adults by mutual agreement.

What is the use of prosecuting inverts? It is a fortunate thing for

society that these psyhcopaths are contented with their mutual sexual

intercourse, the result of which is sterile and therefore does no harm

to posterity. The real crime is the marriage of an invert to an

individual of the opposite sex, and yet this crime is sanctioned by

the law! It is a crime against the normal conjoint and against the

children who may result from such an unhappy union. By severely

punishing homosexual intercourse, the penal laws of many countries

provoke the lowest form of blackmail, as Krafft-Ebing, Moll,

Hirschfeld and others have proved by numerous examples, and as I have

myself confirmed among many of my patients.

It is quite another thing with abnormal or perverse forms of the

sexual appetite, which can only be satisfied against the will of their

object, or by injuring it more or less severely. Here it is the duty

of the law to organize energetic measures of protection; not with a

view to punish the pervert, who is a diseased person, but to protect

his victims in time.

We will first deal with _sadism_; secondly with the violation of

children. Here a very delicate question arises. In the case of such

terrible sexual appetites we should not wait for victims before taking

action. On the other hand, we cannot punish a man, nor even take

administrative measures against him, simply from the fact that he

possesses a dangerous appetite, especially if he is in other respects

well-behaved and conscientious, and strives with all his might against

his perversion. I have treated a patient who suffered from a terrible

pathological appetite of this kind. He was a highly moral man who

never harmed any one, but was in a state of despair over his

affliction, which he resisted with all his power, seeking relief in

masturbation when his passion became too violent.

In such cases, the moral sentiments of an individual offer sufficient

social protection, and it is neither the right nor the duty of the

physician to denounce him. But he should advise the patient to retire

to an asylum to avoid committing a crime, if he feels that he cannot

restrain his passions. It is very rare for such cases to come to the

knowledge of the public, for these patients prefer to suffer in

silence or to commit suicide; but they are none the less instructive

and characteristic.

At other times dangerous perversions are discovered by chance, the

pervert, instead of resisting his passion, seeking opportunities to

satisfy it without discovery. In such cases strong measures should be

enforced. Unfortunately, sadists are very well aware of the dangers

they run, and know better than any other criminals how to commit their

crimes without being discovered. As soon as the perpetrator of a sadic

crime is discovered, or simply an attempt at sadism, he should be

arrested and placed where he can do no harm. The question of

castration arises here: but we do not know yet how far this protects

the sadist and his victim against recurrence. If this operation proves

efficacious it should never be neglected.

The _exhibitionists_ present great difficulty. They are not dangerous,

since they touch nobody. Their "victims," if they can be called so,

are girls or women before whom they expose their genital organs and

masturbate. No doubt modesty may be much offended by such acts,

especially in young girls and children; disgust and fear may also harm

them; but I think the law is too severe in these cases, for there is

no question of an injury which is dangerous in itself. I have known

little girls who have been frightened several times by exhibitionists,

but I have never known them injured by the disgust which they

experienced. The affair is too ridiculous and too ugly. It would be

sufficient to send exhibitionists to an asylum for short periods,

unless extreme weakness on their part necessitated prolonged

detention.

Simple _necrophilia_ should be treated in the same way by penal law.

But this perversion is more dangerous on account of its relationship

with sadism. There are some sadists who are only necrophiliacs for

fear of becoming assassins. Such individuals are very dangerous and

should be kept in confinement.

The _fetichists_ are, on the contrary, generally very innocent. At the

most they might be prosecuted for theft when they take away their

fetiches. One of their worst misdemeanors is that of cutting off the

hair of young girls.

=Concubinage. Prostitution. Proxenetism. White Slavery.=--We have

already seen that concubinage should never be punishable in itself,

although it is so in some countries. We shall not again return to the

question whether prostitution should be the object of judicial and

penal actions. Proxenetism and white slavery, on the contrary, cause

grave injury to the rights of many individuals and should be made

criminal offenses; for they are crimes against society and the

individual, and committed for lucre. It cannot be legal to do commerce

with the body of one's neighbor: this is a crime which is closely

related to slavery and similar abuses. (Vide Chapter X.)

The law should punish all public solicitation, obscenity or sexual

brutality, but the punishment should take a milder form. The sexual

act and everything connected with it should be absolutely free, but a

man has no right to provoke or annoy his neighbor by indecent sexual

invitations if the latter does not wish to respond to them.

It is, however, extremely difficult to fix the limits of what is

licit, for prudery may also go too far and regard the most innocent

allusions as provocations. It is absolutely necessary to leave a

margin for normal sexual invitations. All that is required is that

they should not overstep the limits of recognized propriety, so long

as there is not mutual agreement between the two parties. (Vide

_Flirtation_, Chapter IV.)

=Lewdness. Pornography.=--The question naturally presents itself of

knowing how far it is permitted to proceed publicly with a mutual

agreement without causing offense or injury to other parties. On the

whole, our customs are free enough in this respect, and a greater

liberty in public flirtation would be inconvenient. For instance, lewd

exhibitions, coitus, etc., could not be allowed in public places.

Children especially should be protected against such excitations of

the sexual appetite, and it is necessary to fix a legal distinction

between what is offensive and what is not offensive to public

propriety or modesty.

Simple police regulations are sufficient for this purpose, but they

are very necessary to protect women and children, and occasionally

young men, against importunities or sexual obsessions, against sexual

solicitation, or even against assault or other offenses, such as

incitement to masturbation, obscene words and gestures, etc.

It is, no doubt, very difficult to define the limits. Our modern

customs have left a large margin for pornography, which they treat

like a spoiled child. The most dangerous form, however, is not that

which flaunts itself in shop windows, by advertisements and placards,

in public kiosks and dancing rooms; but the refined and aesthetic

pornography which appears in the form of elegant engravings, erotic

novels and dramas, under the cloak of art and even under that of

morality.

Unfortunately, the public is a very bad judge of these things. Certain

books have openly and fearlessly described the sexual vices of our

time--for example, Zola's novels and the dramas of Brieux--and these

have been stigmatized as pornographic. As a matter of fact their

authors in no way merit such a reproach. Such works in no way

encourage immorality; on the contrary, they inspire disgust and a

healthy and holy terror at the perversity of our sexual customs. No

doubt such works may have an erotic action on ignorant and low-minded

persons. The Tyrolean peasants, in their moral indignation, have been

known to destroy the marble statues of women erected in public places.

Such acts serve no purpose, for prudery will never rid the world of

eroticism; it will only increase it by leading to hypocrisy. We have

something better to do than persecute and insult true art and men of

talent or genius who expose our social perversions.

Pornography is quite another thing. It is not contented with

representing the aesthetic, licit, and normal side of natural

eroticism. It does not depict sexual vice so as to emphasize its

ugliness and its tragic consequences, but to glorify it. Whether it is

represented as brazen nudity unadorned, or enveloped in a transparent

veil which reveals everything it pretends to hide; whether it reels in

bacchanalian orgies; whether it appears in brilliant fancy dress

illuminated by electric lights, or in the discreet light of a

fashionable boudoir; whether it is clearly revealed or equivocal,

perverted in one way or depraved in another; in all its forms its aim

is to tickle, to excite, to seduce, to allure, by arousing lewdness

and inflaming its lowest passions.

The pornographic dishes are often served up with a sentimental and

moral sauce which naturally does not tend to hide the flavor of the

meat--for then all its charm would be gone--on the contrary it

increases its spicy quality by means of contrast, at the same time

making the product more marketable; this hypocritical disguise giving

it a certain varnish of propriety. The trick of clothing pornographic

articles with the mantle of virtue may deceive the artless, and give

the less artless excuse for buying them without putting themselves to

any inconvenience. In such cases it is extremely difficult to act

without injustice and without doing injury to art and science by

vexatious measures. This requires much tact and rare perspicacity.

=Other Sexual Misdemeanors.=--Many sexual assaults are committed on

the insane and feeble-minded, in the hope that they will not defend

themselves and denounce the criminal. We have mentioned the case of

inverts who become attendants in lunatic asylums in order to satisfy

their appetites. Such crimes should be classed with those committed

against minors. In the first place it is necessary to take into

account the special dangers they present, and in the second place, the

personality of the criminal, his capacity for repentance, improvement,

and self-control.

=Artificial Abortion.=--It is a difficult question to decide whether a

woman should have the right to dispose of the embryo she carries in

her womb, and the duties of society with regard to this question. It

is certainly the duty of society to protect the child as soon as it

is born. In this case the laws cannot be too severe in protecting the

child from unnatural parents, or from the "baby farmers," whose

business is to get rid of the infants by starving them or exposing

them to disease.

It is the same with analogous abuses which we have mentioned with

regard to civil law. These crimes or misdemeanors very often result as

much from the economic organization of our society, as from want of

protection for infancy and girl-mothers, as well as from the shame

with which the latter are branded by our hypocritical customs.

The question becomes more difficult with regard to the embryo _before

birth_. Should the law punish artificial abortion? Opinions on this

question vary. I have already said that in cases of rape, and forced

pregnancy in general, the right to artificial abortion should be

conceded to the woman. On the other hand, I think it should be

prohibited on principle when the fecundating coitus has been voluntary

on both sides, and when there is no medical reason for such a measure.

In principle, the human embryo, when once conceived, should have the

right to live. Birth is only an episode in its life. This generally

takes place at the end of the ninth lunar month of pregnancy, but a

child born at the seventh month is often viable. It is, therefore,

arbitrary not to recognize the right of the embryo to live. On the

contrary, the right that a woman has to dispose of her body would seem

to outweigh this, when conception has been imposed on her by stratagem

or violence. In fact, the right of the embryo to life should depend on

the wish of the bearers of each of the two germs by which it is

formed, at the moment of conception.

On the other hand, numerous exceptions to the above rule should be

allowed, and doctors should not be too severe, for it would be for

them to decide in most cases whether artificial abortion was licit or

not. Some pregnancies are a veritable misfortune for the parents and

offspring, when the bodily and mental health of the mother or child,

or both of them, is in danger. When a lunatic or an idiot, married or

not, makes a woman pregnant, artificial abortion should be allowed;

also in all cases when an insane or epileptic woman becomes pregnant.

An analogous case is that where a drunkard renders his wife pregnant

against her will, especially when he is intoxicated at the moment; for

the offspring runs a great risk of blastophthoria.

It is needless to say that abortion should be permitted whenever

pregnancy seriously endangers the life or health of the mother, or

when a grave disease in the mother condemns the child to become an

invalid. On the other hand, such indications should not be acted on

too lightly; a rational limit is here a matter of practice and common

sense, combined with medical science.

=The Right to Live of Monsters, Idiots, or the Deformed.=--The

preceding remarks naturally lead us to the question whether children

who are born invalids, deformed, or idiots, etc., should be

necessarily condemned to live by the law, and whether special

dispositions should not be made for such cases.

The obligation to preserve, often by means of all the resources of

medical science, miserable creatures, born as cretins or idiots;

children with hydrocephalus or microcephalus, without eyes or ears, or

with atrophied genital organs, etc., is an atrocity sanctioned by the

law. Would it not be better to allow these miserable beings to be

suppressed by means of a painless narcosis, with the consent of the

parents and after an expert medical opinion, instead of condemning

them by law to a life of misery? Science has proved that every

congenital malformation of the brain is as incurable as that of any

other organ.

Here again our legislation is fettered by ignorance and religious

dogma. On one hand, immense armies are organized to kill the most

healthy men by thousands and tens of thousands, and many more

thousands are abandoned to famine, prostitution, alcoholism and

exploitation; on the other hand, medicine is expected to employ its

whole art and efforts in prolonging life as long as possible and thus

martyrizing miserable human wretches, degenerate in body and mind or

both, often when they cry out for death!

Large asylums are built for idiots, and there is much joy when after

many years of persevering effort some devoted person succeeds in

teaching these beings, whose mentality is far inferior to that of a

monkey, to repeat a few words like a parrot, to scribble some words

on paper, or to repeat a prayer mechanically with their eyes turned

toward heaven!

It is difficult to compare these two facts without feeling the bitter

irony of what are euphemistically called our hereditary customs. In

truth, the nurses and teachers who devote themselves to the education

of cretins and idiots would do better to occupy themselves in some

manual work; or even leave the idiots to die, and themselves procreate

healthy and capable children in their place! But this question does

not properly belong to our subject.

=The Rights of the Embryo.=--A distinction is generally made between

artificial abortion practiced in the first months of pregnancy and

that induced in the later months. When the child is born viable, the

term premature labor is used. When this is induced with the object of

getting rid of the child the penalty is much more severe than for

abortion, for it is regarded almost as infanticide.

For this reason, and owing to the difficulty of the whole question, a

mother should never be given the right to destroy the embryo or child

in her womb, excepting in cases where pregnancy has been forced upon

her. Each case should be submitted to a medical examination, and a

doctor's certificate should be required. This is all the more

indicated since our present knowledge makes it easy to prevent

pregnancy by anticonceptional measures. Society is, therefore,

entitled to demand that a mother who has voluntarily conceived a child

has no right to interrupt its development, _i.e._, to kill it. If, as

we hope, we shall eventually obtain more extended rights for women and

greater sexual liberty in general, even in marriage, the reasons

justifying artificial abortion, apart from medical or hygienic

measures, will become more and more rare.

The stigma of shame which is branded on illegitimate maternity

unfortunately justifies many cases of abortion and even infanticide.

Things ought to change in this respect, and in the future no pregnancy

ought to be a source of shame for any healthy woman whatever, nor

furnish the least motive for dissimulation.

If the objection is raised that I am inconsistent; that every man,

and consequently every woman, should have the power to dispose of

their own body on every occasion, and that penal law should therefore

take no cognizance of artificial abortion, I reply that this does not

apply to the case in point; for it is here a question, not of one

body, but of two or more (in the case of twins). From the moment of

conception the embryo acquires a social right which merits all the

more protection, the more its possessor is incapable of looking after

it.

=Adultery.=--Adultery, which even at the present day is often

considered as a crime or misdemeanor, should be simply regarded as a

reason for divorce. We have already treated the question with regard

to civil law, and have shown the futility of trying to obtain fidelity

by law. In my opinion, the misdemeanor of adultery should be entirely

abolished from penal law. When it is complicated by fraud or other

crimes, it is the latter only which are concerned.

=Human Selection.=--The indirect danger to which children of bad

heredity are exposed constitutes a grave social evil. At present,

penal law is absolutely impotent in this matter. We have seen what

civil law might perhaps effect, and what is already done in some

countries. In another chapter we shall discuss much more appropriate

measures for improvement in this domain.

We have already mentioned castration and certain cases in which it

might be practiced. These cases will always be very limited, and it is

on the basis of social morality and hygiene of the race that the

question of conception should be regulated in a rational and voluntary

manner. We shall obtain much more in this way than by legal measures,

which are always lame because they interfere with individual liberty.

We must never forget that the law is only a necessary evil, and often

a superfluous one.

In conclusion, I may remark that penal law should be combined, like

civil law, with administrative measures, to protect both the

individual and society in sexual matters, at the same time watching

over the interests of future generations. But it should only do this

as far as the weakness and eroticism of men hinder a similar or better

result from being obtained by moral education, combined with rational

intellectual instruction.

FOOTNOTES:

[8] Vide DELBRUeCK, _Gerichtliche Psychopathologie_ (Job. Ambr. Barth,

Leipzig, 1897).--DELBRUeCK, _Die Pathologische Luege und der pyschisch

abnorme Schwindler_ (Ferdinand Enke, Stuttgart, 1891).--FOREL, _Crime et

anomalies mentales constitutionnelles_ (GENEVE, 1902, H.

Kuendig,).--KOeLLE, _Gerichtlich psychiatrische Gutachten_ (from the

clinic of Professor Forel at Zurich), Stuttgart, 1894, Ferdinande

Enke.--VON LISZT, Schutz der Gesellschaft gegen Gemeingefaehrliche

(_Monatsschrift fuer Kriminalpsychologie und Strafrechtsreform_).--FOREL,

Die verminderte Zurechnungsfaehigkeit (_die Zukunft_, 1899, no 15), etc.

[9] "Die Zwiechungsfaehigkeit des normalen Menschen," Munich.

APPENDIX TO CHAPTER XIII

A MEDICO-LEGAL CASE

The following case occurred in 1904 in the Canton of St. Gall, in

Switzerland, and confirms my opinion:

Frieda Keller, born in 1879, was the daughter of honest parents. Her

mother was mild-mannered and sensible, her father loyal, but harsh and

sometimes violent. Frieda was the fifth of eleven brothers and

sisters. She was a model scholar. At the age of four years she had

meningitis which left her with frequent headaches. In 1896-97 she

learnt dressmaking and helped at home in the household work. When she

was free, she did embroidery to help her family. Afterwards she

obtained a situation in a dressmaker's shop at St. Gall, where she got

sixty francs a month.

To increase her income she worked on Sundays as a waitress at the Cafe

de la Poste. The proprietor, a married man, began to persecute her

with his affections, which she had great difficulty in avoiding. She

then entered another shop where she got eighty francs a month. One

day, in 1898, when she was then nineteen, the proprietor of the cafe

succeeded in seducing her, and on May 27, 1899, she gave birth to a

boy at the Maternity of St. Gall. She had confessed her misfortune to

her parents, and her mother had pity on her. Her mother had also been

seduced and rendered pregnant at the age of fifteen; abandoned by her

seducer she committed infanticide, and was sentenced to six years'

imprisonment; as she had always been well-behaved, the tribunal had

recognized that she acted "less by moral depravity than by false

sentiment of honor." Frieda, who was fond of her mother, knew nothing

of this history. The father was very hard toward his daughter and

refused her all help and pity. Twelve days after her confinement she

took her child to the Foundling Hospital at St. Gall.

Her seducer then promised to maintain the child, but never paid more

than eighty francs. After a time he left the town and was seen no

more. The circumstances under which Frieda became pregnant were not

fully inquired into and her seducer was ignored. It was not absolutely

a case of rape, but of taking a poor, weak and timid girl by surprise.

Frieda Keller felt nothing but disgust for her seducer. Later on the

latter would no doubt deny the fact of his paternity; but he had

tacitly admitted this by the payment of eighty francs.

Frieda had to pay five francs a week to the Foundling Hospital and

also thirty-four francs to her married sister. In 1901 her father

died, and in 1903 her mother. Frieda inherited 2,471 francs from her

father, but this sum was tied up in her brother's business and he

never sent her the interest. It is characteristic of her mentality

that she never attempted to exact it.

Then began for this unfortunate young girl a life of struggle and

despair. She was possessed of two ideas. On the one hand she could no

longer maintain her child, and on the other hand would not admit

anything from shame. They would not keep the child in the hospital

after Easter, 1904, when it would reach the maximum age of five years.

What was she to do?

Frieda Keller was then evidently in a pathological state of mind,

which was upheld by her defender, Doctor Janggen. She wished to keep

her secret and provide for the maintenance of the child; but she took

no steps in this direction. She did not seek for cheap lodgings, not

for a rise of salary, nor even for the money illegally detained by her

brother for his own profit. She never spoke to her married sister, nor

to any one, of her desperate position. The father of her child had

disappeared and she never gave information against him for fear of

divulging her secret. Moreover, the law at St. Gall only admitted the

charge of paternity against unmarried men! She found no practical way

of disposing of her child. After Easter, 1904, when the child was

discharged from the hospital, she was haunted by a single idea--to get

rid of the child. She struggled for a long time against this

obsession, but in vain, and it finally became a resolution.

Although she was fond of her sister's children, she did not love her

own. She rarely visited her child and appeared to take no notice of

it. This woman who was well-disposed toward every other creature, who

was of exemplary conduct and would not hurt a fly, never even spoke of

her own child. On April 9th she wrote to the hospital that she would

come and fetch the child.

A few days before this she took a long walk in the woods; the next day

she wept at home, while looking for some string. Alone with her

despair, she had definitely made her terrible resolution. She said

afterwards, at the assizes:

"I could not free myself from the feeling that I must get rid of the

child."

She then went to the hospital, after having bought new clothes for the

child, and told the authorities that an aunt of hers at Munich would

take care of the child. She then took the child to the woods. Having

found a lonely spot she sat down for a long time while the child

played in the wood. For some time she had not the courage to do the

deed, but at last an irresistible force, as she said, urged her to do

it. With her hands and shoes she dug a grave, then strangled the child

with string, with such force that it was difficult to untie the knot

on the dead body afterwards. She knelt for some time by the child till

it ceased to give any signs of life, then buried it, and returned home

restraining her tears with difficulty.

On the 1st of June she wrote to the hospital that the child had

arrived at Munich. On the 7th of June the body was exposed by rain and

was discovered by some Italians. On the 14th of June she was arrested.

During the trial she declared that her action had been the result of

her inability to maintain the child, and the necessity of keeping her

secret. This secret was the shame and dishonor of involuntary

maternity and illegitimate birth.

All the witnesses spoke in favor of Frieda Keller and gave evidence

that she was well-mannered, intelligent, hard-working, economical, of

exemplary conduct and loving her sister's children. She did not deny

the premeditation of her crime, and in no way sought to diminish her

responsibility.

According to the law of St. Gall, such cases are punishable with

death; but Frieda Keller's sentence was commuted to penal servitude

for life.

Such are the facts of this case taken from the official report, and

from an extract published by M. de Morsier in the _Signal de Geneve_.

We are compelled to exclaim with M. de Morsier that a legislation

which, in such a case, condemns to death one who can justly be called

a victim, while leaving unpunished the real culprit, is calculated to

destroy all belief in justice in a democracy which calls itself

Christian. It is a justice of barbarians, a disgrace to the twentieth

century. The tribunal and the juries have enforced to the letter an

article in the Code, and this is called justice! We may well say:

_Fiat justitia, pereat mundus._

Frieda Keller was no doubt in an abnormal condition of mind; she

probably suffered from the influence of auto-suggestion which became

an obsession. Such cases are not uncommon. This is clearly shown by

the absurdity of her manner of acting, which was both useless and

pernicious, while she might easily have got out of her difficulty in

other ways. If our judges and juries had a little more knowledge of

human psychology and a little less of the Code in their heads, they

would have had some doubts on the mental integrity of the accused, and

would have ordered an expert examination by a mental specialist. But,

apart from this point, I put the question--can we expect from a woman,

maternal sentiments for a child resulting from sexual surprise

bordering on rape?

In the preceding chapter I have demanded the right of artificial

abortion to women rendered pregnant by rape or against their will, and

I think the case of Frieda Keller supports my contention. I do not

intend to justify the assassination of a child already five years of

age; but I wish to point out that the absence of maternal love is

quite natural in such a case. It is precisely the instinctive aversion

of Frieda Keller for her child, otherwise inexplicable, which shows

most clearly that it was a case of imposed maternity, or sexual

satisfaction on the part of the father alone.

The tragic case of this unfortunate woman well illustrates the

brutality and hypocrisy of our customs regarding the sexual question,

and shows what terror, shame, torment and despair may be caused by the

point of view of the so-called rules of morality. In the presence of

these facts I do not think I can be accused of exaggeration: it is

only parchment-hearted jurists and government officials who can remain

indifferent in such cases.

Penal servitude for life for the poor victim of such cruelty is a kind

of "mercy" which rather resembles bitter irony. The law of St. Gall

can do only one thing to repair the evil; that is to change its laws

and liberate the victim as soon as possible.

In ordinary infanticide the true assassin is not usually the mother

who kills her child, but rather the father who abandons the woman he

has made pregnant, and disowns the result of his temporary passion. In

the case of Frieda Keller, maternal heredity, the results of

meningitis, stupidity, irreflection, want, shame, fear, a pathological

obsession, and finally the unworthy conduct of the father, all

combined in making this unfortunate girl a victim rather than a

criminal. Her child was not only a source of great anxiety but also an

object of instinctive repulsion.

How is it that such a brave and industrious woman can feel repulsion

toward her own child? If the judges had asked themselves this question

and had replied to it without prejudice, forgetting for the moment

their Code and prejudices, they would not have had the courage to

condemn the woman to death, nor even to condemn her at all; for their

conscience would have clearly shown them the true culprits--masculine

brutality, our hypocritical sexual customs, and the unjust laws

inspiring terror in a feeble brain.

When every pregnancy and every birth are looked upon by human society

with honor and respect, when every mother is protected by law and

assisted in the education of her children, then only will society have

the right to judge severely of infanticide.

CHAPTER XIV

MEDICINE AND SEXUAL LIFE

=General Remarks.=--Theology teaches belief in God and a future life;

law represents the application of codified laws and customs, old and

new; medicine is said to be an art--the art of curing sick people.

At the origin of each of these three branches of human activity we

find an acquired idea. Man has been led to the religious idea and to

the worship of one or more gods by his terror of certain unknown and

occult powers superior to his own, and by the idea that his faculty of

knowledge, his power, and the duration of his life were limited.

The origin of law is in moral conscience, a phylogenetic derivative of

the sentiments of sympathy, _i.e._, sentiments of duty and justice,

combined with the idea of the necessity for men to live in societies.

As regards medicine, this owes its existence to the fear of disease,

pain and death, which is modified by the acquired experience that

certain substances may sometimes ease suffering.

Theology, if separated from morality whose domain it has usurped,

lives on mysticism, and endeavors to give it a natural and human

appearance by adorning it with sonorous phraseology. Law, losing sight

of its origin and object of existence, only concerns itself with

comments on the text of laws, and in discussing the application of the

articles of the Code. Medicine has concerned itself too much with the

life of the patient, instead of the improvement of human life in

general.

In order to cure a physical malady, to reestablish abnormal or damaged

functions as far as this is possible, the physician must be acquainted

with the vital manifestations of the body in its normal state. For

this reason the art of medicine depends on the accessory sciences,

chiefly anatomy and physiology. These accessory sciences have

considerably developed in the evolution of medicine, and the art of

medicine has become the chief motive power which urges men to research

and discovery in the biological sciences, such as histology,

embryology, comparative anatomy and physiology, anatomy and physiology

of the brain, bacteriology, etc. Pure science now occupies such a

position in medical studies that the "healing art" often remains in

the background; although it must later on take the chief part, and is

regarded by the public as of the greatest importance.

The value of the art of medicine is subject to great variations. It is

only of real value when, free from all charlatanism, it rests on a

sufficiently scientific basis; for the art of an ignoramus falls into

error and employs inappropriate methods; on the other hand, the art of

a charlatan has for its object the purse of the patient. It is common

to meet with physicians who have a good practical experience of art

without possessing scientific knowledge, others who have both

practical experience and science but are charlatans, others again who

are very scientific but incapable in practice. The ideal is a

combination of art, science and disinterested honesty; but it is not

very uncommon to meet with a combination of ignorance, incapacity and

charlatanism. Lastly, too many doctors, otherwise capable and

intelligent, are too much influenced by authority, text-books and

prejudices, instead of observing and judging each case for themselves

in the true scientific spirit. Many dogmas of medical education rest

on hypotheses, theories or statements which have no solid foundation,

and do not represent the fruits of a true personal experience of human

life. Many doctors only see through other people's glasses, without

reflecting for themselves; the worst of these are those with

"systems," homoeopaths, the disciples of natural medicine, etc. It

is especially in the sexual question that these human weaknesses of

medical practitioners often lead to the most pitiable results.

We must first of all take to heart the fundamental principle of

hygiene, which is at the same time that of all honest and sound

medicine--_prevention is better than cure._

The modern opinions of medical men on the sexual question are still

unfortunately greatly obscured by prejudice, authority, and the

indirect influence of the doctrines of religious morality. The same

applies to the question of alcohol. However, it is to medicine and its

accessory sciences that we owe the knowledge which now renders it

possible to judge of the sexual relations of man from the true and

healthy point of view of social and moral science.

We cannot describe here all the relations of medicine to sexual life.

Chapters I, II, III, IV and VIII are entirely based on its results and

on those of natural science. What we have still to consider relates

especially to sexual hygiene, for we have already treated of pathology

in Chapter VIII. I shall reserve the general and social part of

hygiene for the last chapter of the book, and shall confine myself

here to certain special points, and the criticism of current, but

erroneous, medical opinions on the sexual question.

=Prostitution. Sexual Hygiene. Sexual Connection Apart from

Marriage.=--All regulation and medical supervision of prostitution

should be rejected, not only from the moral point of view, but also

from that of hygiene, as a deplorable error, incapable even of

fulfilling its avowed object--protection against venereal disease.

Faith in the dogmas and authority of an existing institution has led

medical men to take a false view of the question. They demand from the

adversaries of regulation proof of a diminution in venereal disease

when regulation was not in force. This is both unjust and absurd. It

is for the supporters of regulation to prove that State regulation of

prostitution has led to any appreciable improvement of the social

evil. Then only can it be asked if the maintenance of such vexatious

measures is still justifiable. But medicine has not furnished the

proof demanded from it; on the contrary, its attempts in this

direction have entirely failed. After all, the system is kept up, not

because it diminishes venereal infection, but because it gives

satisfaction to the sexual appetite of men and their desire for

change. Society, however, has no right to organize such a monstrosity

as regulated prostitution and licensed proxenetism, for the special

pleasure of debauchees.

In virtue of the false dogma of regulation, many doctors, even at the

present day, recommend young men to visit brothels, for alleged

hygienic reasons. This deplorable custom perverts youth and gives it

false ideas. It is a remedy much worse and much more dangerous than

the evil it is supposed to cure, worse than masturbation, much worse

than nocturnal emissions. Sexual anomalies and perversions are not

cured in brothels; on the contrary they develop there.

Moreover, it is absurd to exaggerate the effects of onanism and sexual

excesses in themselves, and thus increase the anxiety of a number of

unfortunates. In Chapter IV, we have already spoken of great

variations which the sexual appetite presents without ceasing to be

normal, and we have mentioned the rule given by Luther. In my opinion

the advice given by the doctor should be as follows:

As long as he does not wish to marry, a young man should remove as far

as possible all sexual ideas from his thoughts. He should be contented

with nocturnal emissions, which are produced spontaneously, and should

avoid all the manipulations of onanism. A young girl should do the

same all the more easily, because her sexual appetite is normally

weaker, and is not accompanied by glandular secretions which more or

less demand ejaculation.

Persons unable to resist their sexual appetite should be extremely

prudent in their extra-nuptial intercourse. Moreover, there is no need

for this to assume the character of prostitution.

=Medical Advice.=--It is the doctor's duty to give friendly advice to

every one who consults him on sexual questions, without posing as a

judge or a moralist. He should never frighten or reprimand the poor

hypochondriac who blames himself for masturbation, nor sexual perverts

of any kind, unless, of course, they are absolutely dangerous, such as

sadists. He should, on the contrary, calm their fears and give them

encouragement; and in this way he may do much good.

Hypnotic suggestion gives him a means of directly combating many cases

of sexual excitation, or at least of attenuating them, by directing

the cerebral activity of the patient to other subjects. Each case

should be judged by itself and attention should be paid to the

different points we have studied in this book. Even between husband

and wife, and especially as a consequence of monogamy, certain

unfortunate or delicate circumstances may raise difficulties; for

example, the periods during which conception should be avoided, a

certain time after accouchement and during certain morbid conditions.

In this case unskillful medical advice may have unfortunate results.

When a doctor forbids a husband to have sexual intercourse with his

wife he exposes him to two dangers. If the husband remains continent

and sleeps in a separate room for too long a time, conjugal love may

become so cooled that a permanent barrier is established between man

and wife; if, on the other hand, he abandons himself to prostitution,

he may contract venereal disease and infect his wife. Again, the

husband may become enamored of another woman and wreck the happiness

of his family. The doctor who prohibits conjugal coitus thus takes a

great responsibility. For this and other reasons we have now an

important question to consider.

Opinions differ considerably as to the effects of sexual continence.

All extreme assertions are erroneous. It is quite certain that the

harmful effects of continence have been greatly exaggerated. Normal

persons of both sexes may remain continent, although not without some

trouble and discomfort. In a general way, we may accept the statement

that many morbid conditions are known to result from sexual excess,

but few from continence. This, however, goes a little too far, for

certain psychopaths and sexual hyperaesthetics often lapse into a state

of mental and nervous excitement from forced continence, so that their

neurosis becomes accentuated and may even end in insanity. I have seen

this occur both in men and women, but such cases are very rare.

Continence is not an easy matter for erotic individuals, and requires

a heroic internal struggle, especially in men. The Canadian reformer,

Chiniqui, whom we have previously quoted, relates the history of a

monk who tore off his testicles in despair at being unable to conquer

his violent sexual appetite.

The fine preachers of morality, endowed with a cold temperament, or

simply senile, who hold forth on the "immorality" of the consequences

of the sexual appetite, would do well to take such facts to heart.

We must not forget that among our brutal, yet human ancestors the

struggle for life demanded the cruel and wanton exposure or slaughter

of all weak and decrepit individuals, and that epidemic diseases,

plagues, and pests ravaged the peoples without mercy. Of course our

present civilization has put up a barrier against all this. Yet, for

that very reason the blind and thoughtless propagation of degenerate,

tainted, and enfeebled individuals is another atrocious danger to

society. But then the sexual appetite cannot be legislated out of

existence or killed by repressive measures.

Quite recently it has been scientifically demonstrated that absolute

sterilization can be produced by the application of the Roentgen Ray,

but at what period of treatment this result may be obtained still

remains an unsettled question, thus leaving the possibility of

incurring the risk of effecting only a doubtful degeneration of the

germs.

We can but consider all legislation and all police measures which are

intended to regulate the sexual intercourse in the human family, as

absolute failures, as inhuman, in fact as down-right detrimental to

the race. Exacting laws have never improved the morals of any race or

nation; hypocrisy and secret evasion are the only results obtained. It

would be better by far if steps were taken to enlighten the masses on

the questions of sexual heredity and degeneration. Wisdom of this kind

does not corrupt. It is rather the unrestricted power of capital and

wealth that brings the rot into the community. Healthy people should

be made to know that a large number of sound, industrious children is

a blessing, in fact, riches to the family, but on the one condition

only, viz.: that they are not relegated to detestable slavery through

the overbearing suppression of capital.

When the dignity of labor shall once have been raised on the pedestal

of worship now occupied by Mammon, there will no longer be need for

complaint about small families and decreasing birth-rates, such as we

hear so much at the present day in France and in the United States.

A few examples might throw some light on this subject.

(1) Dr. Pelman of Bonn, assisted by the local authorities, made an

inquiry into the progeny of a certain Ada Jurke (born in 1740, died in

the beginning of the nineteenth century), who was hereditarily

tainted, a drunkard and a degenerate. Her descendants down to the

present time number 834 persons. The lives of 709 of these individuals

have been officially recorded as follows: 106 were illegitimate

children; 142 were mendicants and tramps; 64 were unable to perform

any kind of work towards their own support and became a charge to the

community; 181 of the women were prostitutes; 7 persons were convicted

of murder and 69 of other crimes. All this within a period of 75 years

at a cost to the state, according to the public records, of five

millions of marks (about $1,250,000) in the shape of monetary support,

jail and law expenses, claims for damages, etc., etc.

(2) Dr. Joerger, Director of the Insane Asylum at Waldhaus, by Chur, in

Switzerland, followed up in a similar fashion the history of a family

of vagrants. The full report may be found under the title of "The Zero

Family," in the _Archiv fuer Gesellschaft's-u. Rassenbiologie_, 1905,

Heft 4, page 494 et seq. It is sad to read of the untold misery,

profligacy, and distress spread broadcast by this family, not to speak

of the many crimes committed by its members.

It is depressing to witness how sheer ignorance and callousness to the

interests of the human race at large allow such people to multiply

without let or hindrance. The unfortunate part about it all is that

this species of humanity is on the steady increase. They really form

the principal hearths whence emanate our criminal classes, that fill

our jails, our Charity Homes, our Hospitals, our Sanatoria, our Insane

Asylums. They breed and multiply not because it affords them a special

pleasure to procreate crime, insanity, and degeneracy, but because no

one takes the trouble to instruct them in the perniciousness of

bringing into this world offspring that can only find and themselves

again disseminate misery, want, and wretchedness; or to teach them how

to prevent this calamity.

(3) Still another category of dangerous elements is becoming more

numerous every day. I refer to the _neurasthenics_. Heredity is an

important factor here, too, as every neurologist is able to attest

from his own daily observations. The worst feature about this peril is

the fact that neurotics as a rule suffer from excess of sexual

appetite, whilst they are sorely lacking the power of self-control,

circumstances which often enough lead to crime, insanity, and suicide.

Untold thousands of them, unaware of the fearful consequences of

hereditary impairment, go on bringing into this world children

destined to unhappiness and suffering. It is noteworthy too that these

nervous wrecks generally intermarry. Does not this account to a large

extent for the great number of unhappy marriages recorded nowadays?

Of course, it is quite evident that under such pitiable conditions,

the hereditary taints become increasingly aggravated. If the patients

have money, which is very often the case, they prove profitable

customers of the "nerve-specialist," and likewise of the endless chain

of private sanatoria for nervous diseases. It is a sad spectacle

indeed. My own experience has taught me that nine out of ten of these

unfortunate beings have families, because they are ignorant of the

dangers of heredity, and unfamiliar with the safe and proper means for

preventing conception. Why not teach them? A few cases may suffice.

(_a_) An hysterical woman, whose father was a lascivious, egotistical

crank, married a man absolutely devoid of will power and energy. She

was gifted; the marriage a failure. Of the two children, one was an

indolent, thoroughly useless, good-for-nothing boy, whose only thought

was of wasting money on pretty neckties and the like and of flirting

with the girls, of which art he was a past-master. The other one, a

girl, betrayed the same characteristics and disposition. The mother

was in despair and inconsolable, cursing her offspring and the

marriage alike. Too late, alas!

(_b_) The son of a neurasthenic father and an hysterical mother,

although of a good-natured disposition, had the vilest, uncontrolable

temper, which would suddenly carry him away to acts of violence only

to be bitterly regretted immediately afterwards. Whilst drunk he

became excited and drawing a revolver wounded several innocent

bystanders. As an officer in the army he was insulted by a tipsy

student, whom he shot down on the spot, although he was sober himself

at the time. On another occasion he shot himself in the breast, but

recovered. Presently he fell in love most desperately with an

hysterical woman and married her. The mother-in-law, who was an

eccentric, mischievous person, started a bitter feud between the two

families. He became greatly wrought up over the affair and demanded of

his wife to stop the quarrel at once. As she demurred, he ended her

life with a bullet from a pistol. Of course, he was arrested and

languished in jail in utter agony and despair. What a future for those

two unfortunate children that sprang from this union! I may point out

here that at the time when he killed his wife, whom he loved

passionately, he was not under the influence of strong drink, for he

had given up the use of alcohol altogether for quite a number of

years.

(_c_) A very religious lady had married a man who became insane. He,

too, was a devout churchman. There were 8 children. Under treatment

the father improved and was dismissed from the asylum. I urged them

both to prevent further conception, having in view the dangers of

hereditary taint in the possible offspring. The wife indignantly told

me that her church demanded of her to bear as many children as she

could. They had several more, all of them candidates for the insane

asylum or the institute for nervous patients. And that is called

religion and morality!

(_d_) A heavily tainted couple, desperately enamored of each other,

came to me in great distress to ask: "May we get married?" I answered:

"It does not strike me as being the wisest thing for you to do. But if

you cannot exist without each other, by all means get married; but

think what a calamity it would be, if two beings tainted as you both

are, were to beget offspring." "But we are so fond of children."

"Well, that is easily mended. There are plenty of healthy orphans

whose parents were strong and sound both in body and in mind, but who

are strangers to a father's and mother's love, and are craving for a

good education. Make your own choice, but take only the very best.

Then you will have a family and enjoy all the pleasures of parenthood.

As for the rest, heed my advice. Avoid pregnancy."

The law of heredity winds like a red thread through the family history

of every criminal, of every epileptic, eccentric and insane person.

And we should sit still and witness our civilization go into decay and

fall to pieces without raising the cry of warning and applying the

remedy?

However, this is by no means all. Tuberculosis is the white plague of

to-day. It is considered an established fact that every living human

being inhales and swallows tubercle bacilli by the millions every day,

and it is even claimed that every one of us harbors somewhere in the

economy this dreadful poison to a larger or smaller degree. Whilst the

pure, immune blood in a sound, robust constitution is able to resist

the inroads of, and even to kill, sterilize, and eliminate these

bacilli, the weaker and hereditarily tainted individual falls a prey

to the attacks of this dire disease by the thousands. True, serum

therapy and open-air treatment are accomplishing many cures, but the

hereditary disposition remains in the system all the same, and may be

transmitted to the coming generation, or at any rate may impair the

power of resistance in the offspring.

Moreover, the sexual appetite is very pronounced in phthisical

patients. They marry and beget children in the most wanton fashion.

The law cannot and does not prevent them, and the carnal instinct is

not to be killed. What is to be done when law and religion forbid the

application of preventive measures and even prosecute the person that

recommends them?

Local disease and pathological conditions in the woman (at times in

man also), within wedlock, may render parturition an immediate danger

to the life of the mother or of the child or of both together, for

instance, cancer of the womb or other affections of the uterus, kidney

disease, a deformed pelvis. Surely in such cases it is the bounden

duty of the physician to intervene and council against, nay,

absolutely forbid impregnation. Well, how is it to be done? Must

husband and wife, who love and esteem each other, be separated? It

would be unnatural, in fact it is quite impossible. Or should they

abandon sexual intercourse all together and live like brother and

sister? Well, a few exceptionally cold natures may have will power

enough to carry into effect such a pact. But in 99 out of 100 cases

the interdict of the sexual act sends the husband to satisfy his

cravings elsewhere and contract disease, or he falls in love with

another woman and wrecks home and family.

Similar conditions may be brought about by other causes as well. Take,

for instance, the poor workingman or mechanic who has already six or

seven children and whose wife is unusually fertile, giving birth to

children year after year. The wages of the father do not suffice to

properly support them all. The food that can be purchased with the

slender means is not at all adequate. Rent and other bills fall behind

and the man gets in debt. They are both young yet. What is to be done?

If they follow the natural law there will be an increase in the family

every year. Moreover, these ever-recurring labors weaken the

constitution of the woman and sap away her strength. Starvation?

Sexual continence in wedlock? It is strange, indeed, to hear rich men,

well-fed clergymen, pious zealots and reformers, leaning back in their

comfortable chairs after a sumptuous meal and smoking an expensive

Havana cigar, discuss this burning question and bewail the immorality

of the common people.

Statistics prove that these very people, who extol to the poor all the

blessing of a big family, never live up to their teachings either in

theory or in practice. The majority of these apostles of morality have

no children at all, or at the utmost two or three. Why should that be

so? What interesting reading it would make if the sexual history of

these persons were followed up and printed.

Money, hygiene, reason, and the most elementary laws of humanity

demand that the wife, who is fertile above the average, should have a

rest of at least 18 months between each succeeding pregnancy. But this

cannot be achieved in the natural course of events, except in very

rare cases, without wrecking the marriage.

If we crystallize this sexual, social question, we arrive at the

following conclusions:

There are a great many cases, especially of a pathological character,

but none the less also in normal and sound individuals, in which

procreation, within wedlock or without, is dangerous either definitely

or temporarily, either for the mother or the child, or for both, and

for that reason should be interdicted. Very few men and a very small

proportion of women--no matter how firmly they may be resolved--are

capable of effectually suppressing their sexual needs. And even if

they succeed, the consequences are generally of a disastrous nature,

loss of marital love, secret illicit relations with others and

subsequent infidelity, nervous disorders, impotence, etc.

In all these cases we are confronted with the following dilemma:

(1) In the unmarried person: onanism or prostitution, or both. Is that

morality? Such people must either forever forego love, marriage, and

normal, lawful sexual intercourse, or face sterility in wedded life.

(I do not recognize prostitution--see chapter X--as normal

intercourse.)

(2) Within marriage: onanism, prostitution, and infidelity, or the

adoption of rational preventive measures.

I leave it to the reader and to the lawmakers to pick out the correct

alternative and to arrive at the one possible, decent, and ethical

solution of these conflicting questions.

I do not admit that constitutionally frigid natures or those who find

it easy to control their sexual appetite, have any right whatsoever to

pose as normal samples of the human race and to simply ignore the

existence of temperaments, characters, and constitutions so widely

differing from their own. This world's history teaches us that nothing

good has ever come from such vain assumptions, unless it be empty

phrases and dead letters. These righteous, frigid, and strong natures

ought, indeed, to be grateful to their ancestors for having handed

down to them that happy disposition, and to prove their gratitude by

making particular efforts to help those that are yet to come, in

obtaining and sharing the same benign blessing.

It seems almost incredible that in some countries medical men who are

not ashamed to throw young men into the arms of prostitution, blush

when mention is made of anticonceptional methods. This false modesty,

created by custom and prejudice, waxes indignant at innocent things,

whilst it encourages the greatest infamies.

=Hygiene of Marriage.=--When marriage is consummated on the basis of

free reciprocal consent, when both parties know exactly to what they

have pledged themselves, when the corrupting influence of money is

eliminated, when all unnatural regulation is suppressed, when the

superfluous blending of religion and legislation have been abolished

from the bonds of matrimony, when woman has finally obtained equal

rights with man--then love and mutual respect, combined with the

sexual appetite, will constitute the intimate and personal ties of

marriage. At the same time, instinctive sentiments and legal duties

toward the offspring will furnish it with a complementary and lasting

cement. Among men whose nature is true, the instructive sentiment of

altruism or conscience urges them to the performance of social duties

without the necessity of any legal obligation.

A few medical points now require our attention. The husband should be

older than the wife, on the average from six to twelve years. This

point is very important if a monogamous union is to be lasting. Woman

matures earlier than man, both mentally and sexually; her personality

becomes more rapidly adult than his; she ages more quickly and loses

her faculty of procreation sooner than man. Certain savage races solve

the problem by marrying as boys and girls, casting off their wives

when they grow old, to marry younger ones. Among civilized races, man

manages his affairs by making use of prostitution. From his youth he

succumbs to physical and moral corruption, often complicated with

venereal infection, and then often regards marriage as a kind of

hospital for incurables, where the wife plays the parts of housekeeper

and nurse combined!

It is not easy to steer clear of these rocks, nor to formulate a rule

for lasting monogamy. The old style of polygamy is brutal, and

prostitution is still more disgusting. The sentiments of the egoist

are summed up in the maxim, "After me the deluge!" To this the

preacher of morals replies that "man should curb his passions." But

this eternal dialogue does not help us in the least.

I propose a middle course, as follows: The young man who possesses

sufficient strength to overcome his sexual appetite, or whose sexual

appetite is so moderate that he can remain continent till the age of

about twenty-five years, so as to enable him to avoid prostitution,

promiscuous sexual intercourse or masturbation--this young man, I

maintain, has the best chance of gaining the first prize in life. If

he is free from prejudice and is not afraid of using anticonceptional

measures for a certain time, he may then marry a young girl, to whom

he may become permanently attached, if their two characters suit each

other.

A young girl may very well marry at seventeen or eighteen, or at any

rate between eighteen and nineteen. She is then sexually mature and

her mentality is sufficiently developed, so that the difference in age

we have required may be obtained. Young people thus united may

continue their studies before procreating children, and their marriage

will stimulate them to work.

When the intoxication of the honeymoon is over, the continuance of

conjugal happiness depends on an intimate adaptation of the two

conjoints in sentiments, intelligence and sexual appetite; an

adaptation which purifies love on both sides. Work in common, a common

ideal, mutual respect full of affection but free from flattery, and a

reciprocal education which does not degenerate into pedantry nor

tyranny, are the principal conditions for conjugal happiness.

It is absolutely necessary to avoid everything which causes reparation

or exclusion, even in appearance. At the risk of appearing ridiculous

in the eyes of certain superior persons, I repeat that separation of

beds and bedrooms is a dangerous experiment to make in marriage, and

that it may easily lead to estrangement, even when based on the

highest motives.

It is the same, in a still higher degree, with sexual continence in

marriage, even when it does not last for years, excepting in cases of

grave disease or senile impotence.

It is often stated that a woman should avoid coitus for long periods,

because among certain savage races the husband does not cohabit with

her during pregnancy and the two years of nursing which follow it; the

woman being considered by religion as "impure" during this period. But

this proves nothing, for this custom only concerns polygamists, who

make up for it with other women. If our monogamous marriage is to be

natural, and not satisfied with words and illusions, it is necessary

for sexual intercourse to be intimate and constant, and it should only

be interrupted for short intervals, corresponding to the natural

wants of the two conjoints, adapted to each other by mutual

concessions.

Apart from this, menstruation and accouchement constitute the only

exceptions based on physiology. According to Grueber (_Hygiene des

Geschlechtslebens_) accouchement requires an interruption of at least

four weeks; I should say at least six weeks. Every husband, with the

possible exception of the most horrible satyrs, can submit to this

without much discomfort. Pregnancy, on the contrary, does not require

continence, provided the husband takes account of his wife's condition

and treats her with care.

During the last months of pregnancy all violent movements and pressure

on the abdomen should be avoided during coitus, so as not to injure

the embryo. This may be effected by coitus in the lateral position.

Professor Pinard of Paris advises the prohibition of coitus during the

latter part of pregnancy, because it may lead to premature birth. As

regards accouchement at the seventh, eighth or even at the beginning

of the ninth month, this might, it is true, be proved by figures, but

at this time the embryo is sufficiently protected, and with the

precautions indicated above, I consider the danger as nil. As regards

the end of the ninth month, the margin of errors as to the movement of

conception and the signs of birth at term hardly allow of statistics

which exclude subjectivism, and the danger becomes less and less. In

any case a conscientious husband would run no risks under these

circumstances if he was aware of the danger.

What is more important for the wife is that she should have sufficient

rest between her pregnancies. A year at least should elapse between

parturition and the next conception; this gives approximately two

years between the confinements. This is easily managed by the aid of

the preventive animal membranes we have mentioned. In this way the

wife keeps in good health and can bear healthy children at pleasure.

It is certainly better to procreate seven healthy children, than to

procreate fourteen of which seven die, to say nothing of the mother

who rapidly becomes exhausted by uninterrupted confinements.

No rule can be given for the frequency of sexual connection in

marriage; this is a matter for reciprocal arrangement. Luther's rule

of two or three times a week may be considered a normal average for

virile persons of good constitution.

Women who are sexually cold and fond of children, but who have a

horror of coitus, cannot, in my opinion, be regarded as types of the

normal wife, nor can they expect their husbands to abstain from all

coitus except that intended for procreation. On the other hand, the

wife should certainly be made acquainted with the nature of sexual

intercourse and its consequences before marriage. Further, before

engaging in a life-long union, a man and woman ought to explain to

each other their sexual feelings so as to avoid deception and

incompatibility later on.

Without having ever experienced a sexual orgasm, either by coitus or

by masturbation, a normal young girl, when she is sufficiently

instructed in sexual matters, may easily decide whether the idea of

coitus with a man for whom she feels affection is repugnant or

attractive to her. In the case of young men it is still easier.

A woman who had received a complete medical education and had remained

a virgin, but who was well-informed on sexual life, gave me very

precise information on this subject. For a long time the idea of

coitus with men was repugnant to her, till she made the acquaintance

of the one who gained her affections. Repugnance was then replaced by

desire. This case also gives a good example of the monogamous sexual

feeling of the normal woman.

In Chapter XVII we shall discuss the manner in which youth should be

initiated into the sexual question. Our present formality, combined

with general ignorance of girls on sexual matters, renders a mutual

understanding prior to definite betrothal generally impossible.

Moreover, there is a sort of hysterical and pathological love, the

product of the imagination, which is associated with sentimental words

and sighs as well as coquetry, but transformed into disgust or hatred

by the first coitus. Although more common in women this false love is

met with in hysterical men. Sometimes the illusion disappears while

there is yet time to break off the betrothal. Marriage by trial and

has been attempted by some, but with varied success.

For a number of reasons, both parties should be medically examined

before marriage. This precaution may reveal the presence of a narrow

pelvis or vaginismus in the woman, or aspermia, venereal disease,

etc., in the man.

When a woman will only support coitus with a view to procreation, she

would do well if she informed her _fiance_, who can then consider

whether he can submit to such restriction. If the wife will not allow

her husband a concubine it generally results in clandestine

extra-nuptial relations and subsequent divorce proceedings.

My opinion on this subject will no doubt appear very immoral to many

people, but it is natural and rational. It is needless to say that I

do not intend that a man has the right to compel his wife to have

intercourse whenever he pleases. The question is a very delicate one;

but, by the aid of goodwill a satisfactory solution of the problem can

be obtained in most cases, in the manner indicated above. Love and

mutual respect will always find a way out of the difficulty. It is

necessary to avoid extreme asceticism and unnatural idealism on the

one hand and excessive sexual indulgence on the other hand. In the

sexual question above all others it is the wisest course to strike a

happy medium.

An extremely important question is that of the procreation of

children. We have just explained how this can be regulated at will; we

have now to consider how children of the best quality can be

procreated.

The first condition is the good quality of the parents. Their heredity

or the intellectual and physical value of their ancestry is of

paramount importance. We must take into consideration, not only the

intelligence and physical health, but also good sentiments, a

conscientious character and energy of will. What is the use of

procreating healthy and robust children if they are vain, egoistic,

impulsive, crafty, wanting in will power, or perhaps criminal? Such

individuals constitute a social plague.

At the time of conception the parents should not be in a condition of

acute or chronic alcoholism, nor affected with any disease; otherwise

the progeny may be tainted by _blastophthoria_ (Chapter I).

The age of the procreators should also be taken into account. Children

born of parents advanced in years are generally feeble.

The fatal error which causes the procreation of children to depend on

pecuniary reasons and interests is a social misfortune. Healthy men

and women ought never to avoid reproduction, even when they are poor.

Progeny of good quality grow up, so to speak, by themselves. Progeny

with evil instincts, or decadent, have a pre-existing hereditary

taint, or have been affected by blastophthoria in some other way.

No doubt acquired diseases or accidents may make an invalid of a child

or a man, but these are exceptions which prove the rule, for here

again the descendant of healthy parents is more resistant than others,

if he has not artificially altered his state of health and power of

resistance by alcohol or venereal disease.

Among savages, and at the present day among many peasants, children

are rather an advantage than a burden, because these people have

simple and healthy habits and few wants. It is our artificial and

unhealthy desire for luxury, frivolity, comfort and enjoyment, our

muscular weakness resulting from want of exercise, our exaggerated

terror of diseases and microbes, in a word our effeminacy, which makes

us so incapable of rearing large families simply and cheaply. No doubt

it becomes more and more necessary to give children a good education,

and this necessity complicates the question. But, in my opinion this

education will in the future be conducted by the State.

=Hygiene of Pregnancy.=--This subject is too special to be fully dealt

with here. We may, however, mention that idleness and overwork are

equally detrimental to the pregnant woman and her child. It is

needless to say that every pregnant woman requires care and good food.

Violent efforts, especially in the upright position, should be avoided

(vide Bachimont: _La Puericulture intra-uterine_, 1898, Paris). But

domestic work and moderate exercise of the body are beneficial.

Precautions are especially necessary during the last months of

pregnancy for the general health of the mother and child, but

imprudence during the early months may cause abortion in many women.

The progressive enervation of women in easy circumstances has no doubt

rendered them less adapted to procreation. This failing should be

corrected by progressive but prudent training.

=Medical Advice as to Marriage.=--The permission or prohibition of

marriage is a delicate question at the present day, but will be less

so in the future, if our propositions are realized. If one of the two

candidates for matrimony has been or is still insane, or seriously

affected with tuberculosis, or with active syphilis or chronic

gonorrhea, it is clearly our duty to prohibit marriage.

If the situation is not so grave, and if it is only a question of

hereditary taint, especially when there is a probability of the

offspring being deformed in body or mind, we may content ourselves

with prohibiting the procreation of children, while giving permission

for marriage, provided anticonceptional measures are used. The

importance of these measures is obvious in such cases. We should

explain to the young people in question that the procreation of

unhealthy or backward children is bad and even criminal, and warn them

against such an unpardonable act of thoughtlessness. If they are very

fond of children they can be recommended to adopt poor orphans.

There is no need, however, to be too severe. Medical men are often

pessimists, and have a tendency to see disease everywhere and to give

a grave prognosis. The procreation of children should not be

prohibited simply because there is insanity in some member of the

family, but the probabilities of hereditary transmission should be

calculated in the way we have explained in the first chapter of this

book.

Taking into consideration the bodily and mental health and the

character of the two candidates for marriage, as well as that of their

ancestry, the physician should consider what is likely to be the

average quality of children from such a marriage. According as his

calculation leads to a probability above or below the average of the

population, from all the points of view of the social value of man, he

will advise the parties concerned as to freedom or limitation in

procreation.

The average of humanity must not be placed too high, and the physician

should always keep in mind the great mental mediocrity, weakness of

will, the low moral level and physical defects of the bulk of the

population.

When persons who are intelligent and educated, but more or less

psychopathic or hereditarily tainted, put questions of this kind to

the doctor, because they are very conscientious and prudent, they

should be recommended to lead a healthy life and avoid alcohol, but

need not remain sterile, for their offspring may be morally and

intellectually above the average, and if all blastophthoric influences

are avoided there is a possibility or even probability of gradual

regeneration. In short, the doctor must treat each case on its own

merits, carefully weigh both sides of the question, and avoid being

influenced by exclusive dogmas of any kind. Thus only can he give wise

and useful advice.

What is of especial importance for us, is the knowledge that it is not

necessary, from the point of view of social hygiene, to prohibit

marriage for the sole reason that the offspring may be of bad quality.

We can allow psychopaths with hereditary taints, or even invalids of

both sexes, to contract sterile marriages, by requiring them to avoid

conception by some means or other, in the name of social hygiene and

morality. In such cases dislocation of the tubes has a definite

effect, and if we consider the negligence and weakness of mind of such

individuals, we should do well to recommend this proceeding whenever

there is a clear indication for inducing sterility. In this way we

avoid cruel measures, which, by the way, are almost impracticable,

which take away all hope of love and happiness from these

unfortunates, throw them into the arms of prostitution or bitter

pessimism, and make them disgusted with their own existence.

=Medical Secrecy.=--Medical secrecy and its limitation is a very

delicate question, especially in sexual matters. Opinions vary in

different countries and among different individuals. In France medical

secrecy is almost made an idol; the medical man may refuse to give

evidence in a court of law and even conceal a crime. In Germanic

countries, on the contrary, especially in German Switzerland, too

little importance is attached to medical secrecy. In short, medical

secrecy is an elastic idea which is open to different interpretations.

Although certain particular cases may present great difficulties,

there is a middle course of moral conduct which will serve the purpose

of every conscientious doctor. As a general rule the doctor's duty is

to keep secret everything confided to him by his patients, except when

the patients themselves speak openly of it, or authorize their doctor

to do so. There are, however, exceptions to this rule.

First of all it assumes normal responsibility in the patient, and is

only conditional among irresponsibles. When a lunatic, for example,

relates to a doctor, under the seal of secrecy, certain things which

depend on delirious ideas and which threaten the safety of others, or

which render certain measures necessary in the patients' own interest,

the doctor's duty is to make known the state of affairs, but only to

responsible persons. It is the same as regards children. It is

needless to say that the doctor should use all possible measures in

the interest of the patient or child.

But even with responsible persons medical secrecy has its limits. The

doctor is here only bound to secrecy so far as it does not injure the

rights of other individuals, or those of society.

It is the duty of a medical man to report all cases of smallpox or

cholera, etc., even against the consent of the patient, and to isolate

the latter to avoid an epidemic, which is contradictory to medical

secrecy. In short, he must not, under the pretext of medical secrecy,

become an accomplice of harmful acts or crimes. I will mention a few

examples bearing on the sexual question:

A sadist or a sexual pervert addicted to assaults on children consults

a doctor and confides to him his morbid appetite. It is obvious that

the doctor has to do with a dangerous individual and is at the same

time in a difficult position. In this case extreme measures are bad.

The doctor who simply treats the patient without concerning himself

about the possible victims, contravenes his duties. The one who

replies to the patient, "you are a beast; go away or I shall denounce

you," acts in a still worse manner. The one who simply denounces the

patient also puts himself in the wrong. In my opinion, the doctor

should first of all make a thorough examination of the mental and

sexual condition of the patient, so as to establish the degree of

perversion and satisfy himself whether he has to do with an honest

individual worthy of pity, who strives to overcome his morbid

appetite; or, with a crafty egoist with no conscience, who only

consults the doctor to escape from temporary difficulties into which

his perversion has led him, and who indulges his morbid appetite

without scruple, constituting a perpetual danger to society.

Unfortunately, the latter cases are very common, and the doctor is

usually consulted from interested motives only. Under these

circumstances medical secrecy renders the doctor the accomplice of the

criminal.

Between the honest patient and one who is absolutely perverse, there

are many transitional stages. In these cases the doctor should always

make a careful examination before forming an opinion. If he feels

uncertain, he should call in a specialist in mental disease, and then

act accordingly. If he is convinced that the patient has made the

resolution to overcome his morbid appetite, and has so far resisted

the temptation to injure any one, he should strengthen the patient's

resistance by doing everything possible (except marriage) to rid him

of his malady; he should make him aware how dangerous his condition is

to himself and to others; he may even recommend either castration or

masturbation in case of urgency, in order to avoid crime; he should

make him promise to come immediately for internment in an asylum, as

soon as he can no longer resist. Under these conditions he may respect

medical secrecy and at the same time save the existence of the

unfortunate patient, while protecting society.

In more severe cases, when the doctor is convinced that the patient is

incapable of controlling himself or does not wish to, or that he has

already committed crimes, he should act as follows: He must explain to

the patient that it is impossible for him to take the responsibility

and that he must be immediately sent to an asylum, in default of which

information will be given against him. We must make him understand

that he is a danger to society and goes beyond the limits of what is

licit, but that if he voluntarily submits to rational treatment,

offering all requisite guarantees on both sides, he (the doctor) is

disposed to avoid any legal action.

The duty of medical secrecy ought never to go so far as to render the

medical man an accomplice of dangerous individuals or criminals. The

lunatic asylum in such cases is the natural refuge for the patient, as

the lazaret is for cases of smallpox or cholera. These cases, however,

require public asylums which are not too large, well organized, with

divisions for different cases, and provided with a sufficient medical

staff.

I have chosen as the first example one of the worst kind of cases

which endanger the public safety. But there are other cases such as

that depicted by Brieux in "_Les Avaries_." A syphilitic subject

wishes to marry before he is cured, and consults his doctor. Does the

whole duty of the doctor consist in dissuading the patient from

marriage? Has he actually the right to be silent when the patient will

not listen to him, and thus allow an innocent young woman to be

contaminated, through respect--or rather idolatry--for medical

secrecy? Is it not rather his duty to say to the patient: "Beware! If

you do not promise to obey me, I will immediately denounce you to your

_fiancee_ and her parents, and will tell them the state of affairs."

It seems to me that this is his duty. In this case the doctor does not

denounce the patient without his knowledge; he threatens him face to

face, and may speak to him as follows: "You have confided in me. I am,

it is true, under the obligation of medical secrecy toward you, so

long as you do no harm to any one. But if, in spite of all my

explanations and warnings, you attempt to marry in your present state,

rendering yourself guilty of infamous deceit toward a family and an

unfortunate young woman whose health you will ruin, trusting in the

obligation of secrecy which ties my tongue, I must inform you that I

have a much higher duty than that of a doctor toward his patient--my

duty toward society, which I shall fulfill, and so prevent an innocent

person from becoming your victim."

This is my view of the duty of a conscientious doctor who upholds the

dignity of his profession. An analogous case came under my

observation: A young tuberculous subject affected with several "white

swellings" wished to marry. He refused to listen when I declared that

he would be guilty of a crime toward his _fiancee_. Thereupon I told

him that I should tell everything to the young girl. I did this at

once and so prevented the marriage. This egoist succeeded later on in

capturing the heart of another young girl, whom I also warned, but who

married him out of pity. At any rate I consider that I did my duty.