asylums were investigated, and, according to reports received from
the educational authorities, only 15 of these (less than 3 per cent)
had mentally defective children. As to the time of the birth of the
children, whether before or after the attack of the insanity, we find
the following figures: 56 out of 573 parents had children after their
first attack of insanity, and 106 children were born after the onset
of insanity in the parent; while the remaining 1259 children were born
before the parent became insane.
Altogether, as will be seen from a discussion of the various factors
rendering marriage permissible or nonpermissible, I am inclined to
consider environment a more important factor than heredity. The purely
physical characteristics bear the indelible impress of heredity. But
the moral and cultural characteristics, which in the modern civilized
man are much more important than the physical, are almost exclusively
the results of environment.
=Neuroses--Neurasthenia--Psychasthenia--Neuropathy--Psychopathy=
I will not attempt either exhaustive or concise definitions of the
terms named in the caption, for the simple reason that it is
impossible to give satisfactory definitions of them. The conditions
which these terms designate do not constitute definite disease-entities,
and many different things are understood by different people when these
terms are mentioned. Only brief indications of the meaning will be
given.
Neurosis is a functional disease of the nervous system.
Neurasthenia is a condition of nervous exhaustion, brought about by
various causes, such as overwork, worry, fright, sexual excesses,
sexual abstinence, and so on. The basis of neurasthenia, however, is
often or even generally a hereditary taint, a nervous weakness
inherited from the parents.
Psychasthenia is a neurosis or psychoneurosis similar to neurasthenia,
characterized by an exhaustion of the nervous system, also by weakness
of the will, overscrupulousness, fear, and a feeling of the
_unreality_ of things.
Neuropathy is a disease or disorder of the nervous system. Psychopathy
is a disease or disorder of the mind.
Of late years we often hear people referred to as neurotics,
neurasthenics, psychasthenics, neuropaths or psychopaths. These are
undoubtedly abnormal conditions, and, taken as a general thing, they
are dysgenic factors.
But a dysgenic factor in an animal _is_ a dysgenic factor, and that
is all there is to it. There are no two sides to the question. But if
anything goes to show the difference between animals and human beings,
and to demonstrate why principles of eugenics, as derived from a study
of animals, can never be _fully_ applicable to human beings, it is
these considerations which we now have under discussion. To repeat,
neuroses, neurasthenia, psychasthenia, and the various forms of
neuropathy and psychopathy are dysgenic factors. But people suffering
from these conditions often are among _the world's greatest geniuses_,
have done some of the world's greatest work, and, if we prevented or
discouraged marriage among people who are somewhat "abnormal" or
"queer," we should deprive the world of some of its greatest men and
women. For insanity is allied to genius, and if we were to exterminate
all mentally or nervously abnormal people we should at the same time
exterminate some of the men and women that have made life worth
living.
And what is true of mentally abnormal is also true of physically
inferior people. An inferior horse or dog _is_ inferior. There is no
compensation for the inferiority. But a man may be physically
inferior, he may be, for instance, a consumptive, but still he may
have given to the world some of the sweetest and most wonderful poems.
A man may be lame, or deaf, or strabismic, he may be a hunchback or a
cripple and altogether physically repulsive, and yet he may be one of
the world's greatest philosophers or mathematicians. A man may be
sexually impotent and absolutely useless for race purposes, yet may be
one of the world's greatest singers or greatest discoverers.
In short, the eugenic problem in the human is not, and never will be,
as simple as it is in the animal and vegetable kingdoms. If we want to
strive after healthy, normal mediocrity, then the principles of animal
eugenics become applicable to the human race. If, on the other hand,
we want talent, if we want genius, if we want benefactors of the human
race, then we must go very slow with our eugenic applications.
=Drug Addiction or Narcotism=
Addiction to drugs, whether it be opium, morphine, heroin or cocaine,
is a strongly dysgenic factor. The addiction to the drug is of itself
not transmissible, but the weakened constitution or degeneracy which
is generally responsible for the development of the drug addiction is
inheritable.
A few cases of drug addiction are external; that is, the patient may
have a good healthy constitution, no hereditary taint, and still
because during some sickness he was given morphine a number of times
he may have developed an addiction to the drug. But those cases are
rare. And such cases, if they are cured and if the addiction is
completely overcome, may marry.
But in most cases it isn't the drug addiction that causes the
degeneracy; it is the degeneracy or the neuropathic or psychopathic
constitution that causes the drug addiction. And such cases are bad
matrimonial risks.
And it is a very risky thing for a woman to marry an addict with the
idea of reforming him. As I said about the alcoholic: Let him reform
first, let him stay reformed for a few years, and then the rest is not
so great.
=Consanguineous Marriages=
Consanguinity means blood relationship, and consanguineous marriages
are marriages between near blood relatives. The physician is
frequently consulted as to the permissibility or danger of marriages
between near relations. The question generally concerns first cousins,
second cousins, uncle and niece, and nephew and aunt.
The popular idea is that consanguineous marriages are bad _per se_.
The children of near relatives, such as first cousins, are apt to be
defective, deaf and dumb, blind, or feebleminded, and what not. This
popular idea, as so many popular ideas are, is wrong. And still there
is of course, as there always is, some foundation for it. The matter,
however, is quite simple.
We know that many traits, good and bad, are transmitted by heredity.
And naturally when traits are possessed by both father and mother they
stand a much greater chance of being transmitted to the offspring than
if possessed by one of the parents alone. Now then, if a certain bad
trait, such as epilepsy or insanity, is present in a family that trait
is present in both cousins, and the likelihood of children from such a
marriage inheriting that trait is much greater than when the parents
are strangers, the taint being present in the family of only one of
the parents. But if there be no hereditary taint in the cousins'
family, and, still more, if the family is an intelligent one, if there
are geniuses in the family, then there cannot be the slightest
objection to marriage between cousins, and the children of such
marriages are apt to inherit in a strong degree the talents or genius
of their ancestors. In short, if the family is a bad one, one below
par, then marriage between cousins or between uncle and niece should
be forbidden. If the family is a good one, above par, then marriage
between relatives of that family should be encouraged.
The idea that the children from consanguineous marriages are apt to be
deaf and dumb has no foundation in fact. Recent statistics from
various asylums in Germany, for instance, have shown that only about
five per cent. of the deaf and dumb children were the offspring of
consanguineous marriages. If 95 per cent, of the deaf and dumb had
_non_-consanguineous parents, how could one say that even in the other
five per cent, the consanguinity was the cause? If it were the other
way around, then of course we could blame consanguinity. As it is, we
can assume even in this five per cent, a mere coincidence, and we have
no right to say that consanguinity and deaf and dumbness stand in the
relation to each other of cause and effect.
It is interesting to know that among the Egyptians, Persians, and
Incas of Peru close consanguineous marriages were very common. The
Egyptian kings generally married their sisters. This was common custom
and if the children born of such unions were defectives or
monstrosities the fact would have become quickly apparent and the
custom would have been abolished. Evidently the offspring of very
close consanguinity was normal, or even above normal, or the practice
would not have been continued such a long time.
It is perhaps worth while noting that one of the world's greatest
scientists, Charles Darwin, was the child of parents who were first
cousins.
=Homosexuality=
Homosexuality (homos--the same) is a perversion in which a person is
attracted not to persons of the opposite but to persons of the same
sex. Thus a homosexual man does not care for women, but is attracted
to men. A homosexual woman is not attracted to men; she only cares for
women and may even loathe men. A homosexual, man or woman, has no
right to marry. The wrong committed by a homosexual marrying is a
double one: it is wrong to the partner, wrong to the children. The
normal partner is bound to discover the abnormality, and if he (or
she) does, then the married life is a very unhappy one. Even if the
abnormal partner uses the utmost efforts to conceal the abnormality,
he cannot afford any pleasure to the normal partner, because the
sexual act committed under loathing cannot be satisfactory. The other
wrong is committed on the offspring. Homosexuality is hereditary, and
nobody has a right to bring homosexuals into the world, for there is
no unhappier being than a homosexual. I know a homosexual woman, who,
knowing her abnormality, married for the sake of a comfortable home.
She has been successful in hiding from her husband her abnormality, he
simply considering her frigid. But each sexual act costs her tortures.
So far she has succeeded in avoiding pregnancy. I also know a highly
refined and educated homosexual gentleman, who married before
understanding his condition. Many homosexuals, not knowing that such a
thing as homosexuality even exists, do not understand their own
condition; they feel a little strange, a little puzzled, but they
don't know that they ought not to marry. Soon after marrying his
condition became clear to him, but in the meantime his wife conceived,
and he is now the father of a healthy, good-looking boy. It is
possible that with proper bringing up the development of any
homosexual traits will be prevented. It should be borne in mind that
long sexual repression is favorable to the development of
homosexuality.
But to emphasize: homosexuality is a dysgenic factor, and no
homosexual should marry.
=Sadism=
Sadism is a sexual perversion in which the person derives pleasure
only when beating, biting, striking, or otherwise inflicting pain on
the person of the opposite sex. The degree of cruelty varies, but all
sadists should be shunned. Unfortunately the fact that a man is a
sadist is often not found out until after marriage, but as soon as the
wife has found it out she should leave the man and demand a divorce.
Sadism is a sufficient ground for a separation or divorce. No person
with any moral feeling in him or her should be responsible for
bringing children into the world with a possible sadistic heredity.
Sadistic cruelty is often of the gross, brutal, repulsive kind, but
sometimes the sadist inflicts on his "beloved" object refined tortures
of which only a cunning "demon" is capable. The sufferings which the
wives of some sadists have to undergo are known only to themselves and
to a few--very few--physicians.
=Masochism=
Masochism is a sexual perversion in which the person, man or woman,
_likes_ to suffer pain, beatings, insults and other cruelties at the
hands of the beloved object. It is a dysgenic factor but much less
important than sadism.
=Sexual Impotence=
Sexual impotence is not hereditary, but impotence in the male either
so complete that he cannot perform the act or consisting only in
premature ejaculations (relative impotence or sexual insufficiency)
should constitute a bar to marriage. This impotence may not interfere
with impregnation; the wife may have children and the children will
not be in any way defective, but the wife herself, unless she is
completely frigid, will suffer the tortures of hell, and may quickly
become a sexual neurasthenic, a nervous wreck, or she may even develop
a psychosis. Any man suffering with impotence should have himself
treated before marriage until he is cured; if his impotence is
incurable, then for his own sake and for the sake of the girl or woman
he is supposed to love he should give up the idea of marriage. The
only permissible exception is in cases in which the prospective wife
knows the nature of her prospective husband's trouble, and claims that
she does not care for gross sexual relations and therefore does not
mind the impotence. In case the wife is absolutely _frigid_, the
marriage may turn out satisfactory. But I would always have my
misgivings, and should the wife's apparently absent but in reality
only dormant libido suddenly awaken there would be trouble for both
husband and wife. It is therefore necessary to emphasize: in all cases
of impotence--caution!
=Frigidity=
Frigidity, as we have explained in a previous chapter, is a term
applied to lack of sexual desire or sexual enjoyment in women. Of
course many women before marriage are themselves ignorant of their
sexual condition. Having learned to restrain their impulses, to
repress any sexual stir, they themselves are often unable to say
whether they have a strong or weak libido, or any at all. And whether
or no a given woman would derive any pleasure from the sexual act can
only be found out after marriage. Many girls, however, know very well
whether they are "passionate" or not, but they wouldn't tell. They are
afraid to confess to a complete lack of passion--they fear they might
lose a husband.
Frigidity as an agent in marriage may be considered from two points of
view: the offspring and the husband. The offspring is not affected by
the mother's frigidity. A very frigid woman, if the frigidity is not
due to serious organic causes, may have very healthy children and make
an excellent mother. As far as the husband is concerned, it will
depend a good deal on the degree of frigidity. If the woman is merely
cold, and, while herself not enjoying the act, raises no objection to
it, then it cannot be considered a bar to marriage. In fact many men,
themselves not overstrong sexually, are praying for somewhat frigid
wives. (It must be stated, however, that to some husbands relations
with frigid and non-participating wives are extremely distasteful.)
But when the frigidity is of such a degree that it amounts to a strong
physical aversion to the act, it should be considered a bar to
marriage. Such frigidity is often the cause of a disrupted home, often
leads to divorce and is legally considered a sufficient cause for
divorce or for the annulment of marriage, the same as impotence in the
man is.
=Excessive Libido in Men=
We have seen that sexual impotence is a dysgenic factor and if
complete and incurable should constitute a barrier to marriage. The
opposite condition is that of excessive libido. Libido is the desire
for the opposite sex. A proper amount of libido is normal and
desirable. A lack of libido is abnormal. And an excess of libido is
also abnormal. But a good many men are possessed of an excess of
libido; it is either congenital or _acquired_. Some men torture their
wives "to death," not literally but figuratively. Harboring the
prevailing idea that a wife has no rights in this respect, that her
body is not her own, that she must always hold herself ready to
satisfy his abnormal desires, such a husband exercises his marital
rights without consideration for the physical condition or the mental
feelings of his partner. Some husbands demand that their wives satisfy
them _daily_ from one to five or more times a day. Some wives who
happen to be possessed of an equally strong libido do not mind these
excessive demands (though in time they are almost sure to feel the
evil effects), but if the wife possesses only a moderate amount of
sexuality and if she is too weak in body and in will-power to resist
her lord and master's demands, her health is often ruined and she
becomes a wreck. (Complete abstinence and excessive indulgence often
have the same evil end-results.) Some men "kill" four or five women
before the fury of their libido is at last moderated. Of course, it is
hard to find out a man's libido beforehand. But if a delicate girl or
a woman of moderate sexuality has reasons to suspect that a man is
possessed of an abnormally excessive libido, she would do well to
think twice before taking the often irretrievable step.
I have spoken so far of excessive libido in normal men, that is, in
men who are otherwise normal, sane and can _whenever necessary_
control their desires. There is a form of excessive libido in men
called satyriasis, which reaches such a degree that the men are often
not able to control their desires, and they will satisfy their
passion even if they know that the result is sure to be a venereal
infection or several years in prison. Of course, satyriasis is a
dysgenic factor; those suffering with that disorder are not normal;
they are on the borderland of insanity, and not only should they not
be permitted to marry, but they should be confined to institutions
where they can be subjected to the proper treatment.
=Excessive Libido in Women=
Just as we have impotent and excessively libidinous men, so we have
frigid and excessively libidinous women. A wife possessed of excessive
libido is a terrible calamity for a husband of a normal or moderate
sexuality. Many a libidinous wife has driven her husband, especially
if she is young and he is old, to a premature grave. And "grave" is
used in the literal, not figurative, sense of the word. It would be a
good thing if a man could find out the character of his future wife's
libido before marriage. Unfortunately, it is impossible. At best, it
can only be guessed at. But a really excessive libido on the part of
either husband or wife should constitute a valid ground for divorce.
When the libido in woman is so excessive that she _cannot_ control her
passion, and forgetting religion, morality, modesty, custom and
possible social consequences, she offers herself to every man she
meets, we use the term nymphomania. It is a disease which corresponds
to satyriasis in men, and what I said of satyriasis applies with equal
force to nymphomania. Nymphomaniac women should not be permitted to
marry or to run around loose, but should be confined to institutions
in which they can be subjected to proper treatment.
=Harelip=
This is a congenital defect consisting in a notch or split in the
upper lip. It is due to defective development of the embryo and is as
a rule found in association with cleft palate. Probably hereditary,
but is not common and is not of much importance.
=Myopia=
Myopia means nearsightedness. This defect is undoubtedly hereditary to
a certain degree, but it is doubtful if, other conditions being
favorable, any man would give up a girl because she is myopic or vice
versa. Still, if the condition is extreme, as it sometimes is, it
should be taken into consideration. And where both the man and the
woman are strongly myopic some hesitation should be felt in
contracting a marriage. If the husband alone is myopic, then the
defect may be transmitted to the sons but not to the daughters, and
these daughters may in their turn transmit the defect to their sons
but not to their daughters. In other words, the defect is more or less
_sex-limited_.
=Astigmatism=
This is a defect of the eye, depending upon some irregularity of the
cornea or the lens, in which light rays in different meridians are not
brought to the same focus. It is to a certain extent hereditary, but
plays an insignificant rôle. It is an undesirable trait, but cannot be
considered a dysgenic factor.
=Baldness=
Premature baldness is a decidedly inheritable trait. And so is
premature grayness of the hair. But it is doubtful if any woman would
permit these factors to play any rôle in her choice of a husband.
=Criminality=
Almost a complete change has taken place in our ideas of criminality,
and there are but very few criminologists now who believe in the
Lombrosian nonsense of most criminality being inherited and being
accompanied by physical stigmata of degeneration. The idea that the
criminal is born and not made is now held only by an insignificant
number of thinkers. We know now that by far the greatest percentage
of crime is the result of environment, of poverty, with all that that
word implies, of bad bringing up, of bad companions. We know that the
child of the criminal, properly brought up, will develop into a model
citizen, and vice versa, the child of the saint, brought into the
slums, might develop into a criminal.
Then we must remember that there are many crimes which are not crimes,
per se, but which are merely infractions of man-made laws, or
representing rebellious acts against an unjust and cruel social order.
Thus, for instance, a man or a woman who defying the law, would give
information about birth control, and be convicted for the offence,
would be legally a criminal. Morally he or she would be a high-minded
humanitarian. A man who would throw a bomb at the Russian Czar or at a
murderous pogrom-inciting Russian Governor would be considered an
assassin, and if caught would be hanged; and in making up the pedigree
of such a family, a narrow-minded eugenist would be apt to say that
there was criminality in that family. But as a matter of fact, that
"assassin" may have belonged to the noblest-minded heroes in history.
The eugenists will therefore pay little attention to criminality in
the ancestry as a dysgenic factor. As long as the matrimonial
candidate himself is not a criminal, the ancestral criminality should
constitute no bar to the marriage. It is not likely to show itself
atavistically in the children. Altogether a good deal of nonsense has
been written about atavism. And people forget that the same rules of
heredity that are applied to physical conditions cannot be applied to
spiritual and moral qualities, the latter being much more dependent
upon environment than the former. Of course the various circumstances
must be taken into consideration, and each case must be decided upon
its merits. No generalizations can be permitted. The _kind_ of crime
must always be considered.
And, furthermore, it should be borne in mind that not only is a
criminal ancestry _per se_ no bar to marriage, the marriage candidate
himself may be an ex-criminal, may have served time in prison, and
still be a very desirable father or mother from the eugenic viewpoint.
A man who in a fit of passion or during a quarrel, perhaps under the
slight influence of liquor, struck or killed a man is not, therefore,
a real criminal. After serving his time in prison he may never again
commit the slightest antisocial act, may make a moral citizen and an
ideal husband and father.
This is not a plea for the under dog. For in this case, where the
future of the race is at stake, all other considerations must be put
into the background. I simply plead for an intelligent consideration
of the subject. Many honored citizens are worse criminals and worse
fathers than many people who have served prison sentences.
=Pauperism=