Part 4
Now the fact of this remarkable difference in the sex-status of women and the same quality in all other female animals leads us to a great number of interesting, not to say startling, conclusions, some of which are as follows:
In the first place, the phenomenon clearly establishes the fact that sex in the female human being _differs, pronouncedly_, from that of all other female life. For, whereas, among all females except woman, coitus is _impossible_, except at certain times and seasons, among women the act can not only be permitted, but is as much possible or _desired_ at one time as any other, regardless of the presence or absence of the ovum in the womb. That is (and this point should be noted well by the reader) there is a _possibility_, on the part of the female humanity, for coitus, _under conditions that do not at all obtain in any other female animal life_.
This is a conclusion which is of such far-reaching importance that its limits are but dimly recognized, even in the clear thinking of most married people. The fact of such difference is known to them, and their practices in living conform to the conditions; but what it all means, they are entirely ignorant of, _and they never stop to think about it_.
And yet, _right here is the very center and core of the real success or failure of married life_! Around this fact are grouped all the troubles that come to husbands and wives. About it are gathered all the joys and unspeakable delights of the happily married--the only truly married. It is these items which make a knowledge of the real conditions which exist, regarding this part of married life, of such supreme importance. If these conditions could be rightly understood, and the actions of husbands and wives could be brought to conform to the laws which obtain under them, _the divorce courts would go out of business_, their occupation, like Othello's, would be "gone indeed."
The first conclusion, then, one that is forced upon the thoughtful mind by the fact of this difference in the sex possibilities of women and other female animals, is, as already stated, but which is here repeated for emphasis, that coitus _can_ be engaged in _by women_ when _pregnancy_ is _not_ its purpose, on her part; and that _this never occurs in any other form of female life!_
In view of this fact, is it too much to raise the question whether or not sex in woman is designed to fulfill any other purpose than that of the reproduction of the race? True it is, that the _only_ function of sex in all other females is merely that of producing offspring--of perpetuating its kind. Under no circumstances does it _ever_ serve _any_ other end, fulfill any other design. _There is no possibility of its doing so_!
But one can help wondering if it is not true that, with the existence of the _possibility_ of engaging in coitus _at will_, rather than at the bidding of _instinct_ alone, there has also come a _new_ and _added_ function for the sex-natures that are capable of engaging in such before-unknown experiences? To a fair-minded person, such conclusion seems not only logical, but irresistible! That is in view of this conclusion, it naturally follows that sex in the human family is _positively designed to fulfill a function that is entirely unknown to all other forms of animal life_. And from this, it is but a step to the establishment of the fact that _sex exercise in the human family serves a purpose other than that of reproduction_!
Now, this fact established, a whole world of new issues arises and demands settlement. Among these, comes the supreme question: _What is the nature of this new experience that has been conferred upon human beings, over and above what is vouchsafed to any other form of animal life? What purpose can it serve? How can it be properly exercised? What is right and what is wrong under these new possibilities_? These are some of the issues that _force_ themselves upon all thoughtful people, _those who wish to do right under any and all circumstances in which they are placed_.
Of course, here as elsewhere, the unthinking, the happy-go-lucky and the "don't-give-a-damn," can blunder along in almost any-old-way. But they can, and will, reap only the reward which always follows blundering and ignorance. In these days of scientific clear-thinking, we have come to understand that _salvation from sin comes by the way of positive knowledge and not at the hands of either ignorance or innocence_! If husbands and wives ever attain to the highest conditions of married life, it can only be after they _know and practice, what is right in all their sex relations, both for reproductive purposes and in all other respects! Note that well_!
As things are now, especially in all civilized countries, and
## particularly among Christian people, this _secondary_ function of sex
in the human family, while blindly recognized as a fact, is none the less abused, to a most shameful degree. For ages, the whole situation has been left in a condition of most deplorable, not to say damnable, ignorance; and no honest endeavor has been made to find out and act up to the truth in the premises. Husbands and wives have engaged in coitus _ad libitum_, utterly regardless of whether it was right or wrong for them to do so! They have taken it for granted that _marriage_ conferred on them the _right_ to have sexual intercourse whenever they chose, (especially when the man chose,) and they have acted accordingly. This is especially true of men, and the practice has been carried to such length that the right of a man to engage in coitus with his wife _has been established by law_, and the wife who refuses to yield this "right" to her husband can be divorced by him, if she persists in such way of living! It is such a fact as this which caused Mr. Bernard Shaw to write: "Marriage is the most licentious institution in all the world." And he might rightfully have added "it is also the most brutal," though it is an insult to the brute to say it that way, for brutes are never guilty of _coitus under compulsion. But a husband can force his wife to submit to his sexual embraces, and she has no legal right to say him nay!_ This doesn't seem quite right, does it?
Now there are several different ways of viewing this new and added sexual possibility in the human family, namely, the act of coitus for other than reproductive purposes. The Catholic church has _always_ counted it as a sin. Popes have issued edicts regarding it, and conclaves of Bishops have discussed it and passed resolutions regarding it. There has always been a difference of opinion upon the subject amongst these dignitaries and authorities, but they all agree in one respect, namely, that it is a _sin_. The only point of difference has been as to the extent or enormity of the sin! By some it has been reckoned as a "deadly sin," punishable by eternal hell fire, if not duly absolved before death; by others it has been held to be only a "venial sin," one that must always be confessed to the priest when coitus is engaged in, and which can be pardoned by the practice of due penance. _But, always, it was a sin_!
The Protestant church has never issued edicts regarding this matter, but, for the most part, it has tacitly held to the Catholic teaching in _theory_, while universally _practicing_ the reverse, in actual married life. Protestants have looked upon it as a necessity, but have taught that it was _regrettable_ that such was the case. They have held, with Paul, that, "it is better to marry than to burn." And most of them have chosen the marriage horn of the dilemma.
Among some European nations, attempts have been made to make it impossible for husbands and wives to cohabit except for reproductive purposes. In one of these nations, padlocks were used for preventing the act. A slit was made through the foreskin of the penis, and through this slit the ring of a padlock was passed, much as an ear-ring is passed through the lobe of a lady's ear. The padlock was made so large that it could not be introduced into the vaginal passage, and so coitus was impossible when it was worn. It could only be removed by the magistrate into whose hands the regulation of this part of the citizens' life was given. Specimens of these padlocks are still to be seen in European museums.
Now the terribly immoral thing in all this way of living has always been the fact that it _compelled_ people to continually _violate their consciences_, by _pretending_ to _believe_ one thing and constantly _practicing_ the reverse of their proclaimed belief. That is, it lured them into _living a continual lie, and such can never be for the good of the soul_! It goes without saying that the sooner this abominable way of living can be ended, the better it will be for all parties concerned--the individuals who are the victims of such falsehood, and the communities of which they form a part.
From all this it follows that the first thing every new husband and wife _ought_ to do is to _settle clearly in their own minds the issue as to whether it is right or wrong for them to engage in coitus for any other than procreative purposes_. Having settled this point, one way or the other, then _let them conscientiously act accordingly. For only so can they live righteous lives_!
In settling this point, so far as available authorities for the young people to study and consider are concerned, these are all _against_ coitus except for begetting of off-spring. All the "purity" writers and Purity Societies are ranged together on the negative side. Likewise are all the books of "advice to young wives and husbands," especially those addressed to young _wives_.
Now all these "authorities" base their whole argument upon the purely _animal_ facts in the premises. Probably a certain Dr. C. is more largely read for information on these matters than any other author, especially among young women. He has written a large, and from the view-point he takes, a very plausible volume; and it is very extensively advertised, especially in papers which young women read. The result is that it has come to be almost a standard authority in these affairs.
Dr. C.'s argument is, baldly, as follows:--(a) Among animals, the universal practice is a single act of coitus for each begetting of off-spring, (b) Human beings are animals, (c) Therefore, human beings should only engage in coitus for reproductive purposes.
To this syllogism he adds a corollary, which is, that, therefore, all sexual commerce in the human family, for any other than reproductive purposes, is _wrong._ These are his texts, so to speak, and through several hundred pages he preaches, _don't, don't, don't,_ sermons. The entire volume is one of denial and prohibition. He proclaims the act, even for the one purpose he allows to be right, as low, and in itself degrading, to be engaged in only after "prayer and fasting" and "mortifying the flesh," and even then, in the most passionless, and only done-because-it-has-to-be manner; as a mere matter of duty; to be permitted by sufferance; joyless, disgusting in itself; a something to be avoided, even in thought, other than it is a necessity for the continuance of the race.
_It is from such data as this that thousands of "innocent" brides annually make up their minds as to what is right or wrong in the matter of sexual intercourse._
In doing this, most of these young women are perfectly conscientious, and want to do the right thing, and there are two items in the count that naturally lead them to accept Dr. C.'s teachings as correct. The first is, that it coincides with all they have ever heard about such matters; the second, that the Doctor flavors all his text with a religious quality, of the alleged most sacred sort. He instances saintly women who have lived the most ascetic lives, and whose religious status was achieved because, and by means of, their perfect chastity. In fact, this word "chastity" (which he translates as entire renunciation of the whole sex nature) becomes the test word of his whole treatise, and its practice is upheld as the true road to all goodness and virtue.
Now, nearly all well-bred and cultivated young women are naturally religious (and not a word should be said against their being so) and they are anxious to time their lives to everything that the highest religious demands prescribe. It is, therefore, most natural that, being thus taught by an authority for which they have the highest regard, they enter marriage with the _fixed opinion_ in accordance with their teaching. How could it be otherwise?
On the other hand, a few young husbands, indeed none but now and then a "goody-good" (who usually turns out to be the worst of the whole lot, in course of time), are willing to "stand for" any such theory, much less to live any such life as this theory would impose. These "don't care what the book says," and, from the manner of their bringing up, from all they have learned or heard by hearing _men_ talk about married life, (which is usually of the most vulgar sort) they have come to the conclusion that marriage confers upon the parties the _right_ to engage in sexual commerce at will; and, especially, that the husband has the _right_ to the body of his wife _whenever he chooses_. For, indeed, does not the law give him that right! And so long as one "keeps inside the law" what more could be asked! Yea, verily! What more could be asked?
So it is that _most brides and bridegrooms go to their marriage bed with the most widely diverse views as to what is right and wrong in the premises_--as to the life they will lead in their new estate. The young wife is for "purity" and "chastity." The young husband, driven by a passion which he has long held in thrall, in the belief that he can now give the fullest vent to it, when he has got where such relief is possible, is like an excited hound when it seizes its prey, which he fully believes he has the right to deal with as he pleases! What wonder that, in view of all these circumstances, the most extensive observer of marriage-bed phenomena should write: "_As a matter of fact, nine young husbands in ten practically rape their brides at their first sexual meeting." Could anything be more horrible, or criminally wicked_? And it is all so needless! It is all the result of ignorance, of "innocence," and the worst of false teaching. The pity of it!
True, these unfortunate conditions are often modified by "mother nature," who inspires the bride with curiosity, which, in a measure, controls her in spite of her false teachings, and with passion, which, to a degree, will assert itself over and above all false modesty, her religious scruples and her fear of pregnancy; and so she _may_ come through the ordeal of introduction to the act of coitus in a fairly sane condition of mind, even though she may have practically been _raped_! But, too often, the result of such first contact is _a shock to the bride from which she may not recover during all the subsequent years of married life_! And "here is where the trouble lies," for untold thousands of married men and women, all over the civilized world, to-day. And it might all be so different! It ought, _in every case_, to be all so different! But if it ever does become different, _knowledge_ has got to take the place of "_innocence"_ on the part of the _bride_, and of _ignorance_ on the part of the _bridegroom_, both of whom must be _taught_ to "_Know what they are about_" before they engage in the sexual act, and be able to meet each other sanely, _righteously, lovingly,_ because they both _desire_ what each has to give to the other; in a way in which neither claims any _rights_, or makes any _demands_ of the other--in a word, in _perfect concord_ of agreement and action, of which mutual love is the inspirer, and _definite knowledge_ the directive agent.
Such a first meeting of bride and bridegroom will be no raping affair. There will be no shock in it, no dread, no shame or thought of shame; but as perfectly as two drops of water flow together and become one, the bodies and souls of the parties to the act will mingle in a unity the most perfect and blissful that can ever be experienced by human beings in this world. This is no dream! It is a most blessed reality, which all normally made husbands and wives can attain to, if only they are properly _taught and educated_, if only they will learn how to reach such blissful condition.
However, such greatly desired status is not to be had for the asking merely. _Instinct can never bring it about; "innocence"_ will never yield such a result; and _force_, or the declaration of a "_right_" in the premises will forever banish it to the realm of the never-to-be-realized. It can only come as a result of clear-headed thinking, scientific investigation, honest study, wise and righteous
## action under the given conditions; and, above all, _a love, each for
the other, that knows no bounds_. All these things _must_ obtain, _on the part of both parties concerned_, or the desired results can _never_ be attained.
Having said which, here shall follow some suggestions as to how such estate may be reached by the readers of these pages.
But first, let us finish Dr. C., and all of his tribe--banish them from all our reckoning in these matters, forever.
As already shown, this argument has not a leg to stand on. These writers treat the whole situation as though men and women were _mere animals! Men and women are far more than mere animals, and God hath made them so_! And for these reasons we will have respect for men and women as _God has made them_, rather than as Dr. C. and the "purity leagues" say God _should_ have made them!
As a matter of fact, the secondary function of sex in the human family is something _far above_ mere animality; it is something that mere animals know nothing about, that they can never experience, or in any way attain to, and these _fundamental differences_ in the premises remove the whole issue from the realm of comparison with any forms or functions of mere animal life. As well reason that animals never eat cooked food, and so men ought never to eat cooked food (and there are some people who do so reason, strange to say) or that animals do not wear clothes, and so men ought not to wear clothes--as well make these, or a score more of comparisons, between the human race and mere animals, as to try to compare them in the item of their sex functions.
In only the single fact that, on the physical plane merely, coitus for the purpose of procreation is common to all animal life, mankind included, is there a point of comparison between humanity and the brute creation. _Beyond that point there is nothing comparable between the two_! As well say that because beasts can hear, therefore they can comprehend and enjoy a Beethoven Sonata, or because they have eyes they can delight in a picture by Corot!
This is only another way of saying that sex has functions and uses in the human family that are entirely apart from the possibilities of all other animal life--functions as much above mere animality as music is above mere physical hearing, as painting above mere physical sight.
These facts forever upset and overthrow all the theories of Dr. C. and Co., they entirely eliminate the whole bunch from any part or lot in the issue on which they have essayed to speak with such authority, but whose main point, whose essential elements they have _entirely misunderstood_, and hence have treated in a way that is wholly at variance with the truth in the premises, and it is the truth that we are looking for.
Once more (for it is well to go to the bottom of this matter while we are about it) the honest truth is, that _it is the universal practice of the human race for men and women to cohabit for other purposes than reproduction, and it has always been so_, since men and women were men and women! It is true among the most savage and barbarous tribes of the earth, and it is more emphatically true of the highly civilized people in all lands and climes. And is it reasonable to suppose that such a universal phenomenon should _not_ have been intended to be as it is! As well say that appetite for food is a mistake, one that ought to be eliminated!
Again, the experiences of men and women, all over the world, prove that, where this act is engaged in properly, according to the laws that obtain in the premises, _it conduces to the highest physical, mental, and spiritual well-being of the parties concerned_. Indeed, it is beyond doubt true that the men and women who have never known this most perfect of all human experiences, have never reached the summit of human attainment, have never arrived at the perfection of manhood and womanhood. Length of life, health of the highest sort, and happiness, the most delectable--all come, these and more, to men and women by this route, _if it is rightly traveled_. Hell and damnation result if that road is wrongly trod!
And that's what makes the manner of traveling it so important.
VI
THE ACT OF COITUS
Strictly speaking, the act of coitus should be considered as composed of four parts, or acts, of one common play, or drama. Not that there is a sharp line of demarcation between each act or part, for the _four_ really blend into _one_ composite whole, when taken together, seriatim; but there are _four phases_ of the act which may well be studied separately, in making a detailed review of a sexual meeting of a man and a woman.
These four parts are: _first_, the preparation for the act; _second_, the _union_ of the organs; _third_, the motion of the organs; _fourth_, the orgasm.
In what immediately follows, these _four_ stages of the act of coitus will be studied and traced in detail, with the utmost care, in the hope that such pursuit may result in the best possible good to the student.