Woman, William J. Robinson [classic literature books txt] 📗
- Author: William J. Robinson
- Performer: -
Book online «Woman, William J. Robinson [classic literature books txt] 📗». Author William J. Robinson
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.
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.
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 (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 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 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 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, 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.
We have seen
Comments (0)