Such wretches ought to be punished in a purgatory by themselves, made seven times hotter than for ordinary criminals. Society is full of these lecherous villains. They insinuate themselves into the drawing-rooms of the most respectable families; they are always on hand at social gatherings of every sort. They haunt the ball-room, the theater, and the church, when they can forward their infamous plans by seeming to be pious. Not infrequently they are well supplied with a stock of pious cant, which they employ on occasion to make an impression. They are the sharks of society, and often seize in their voracious maws the fairest and brightest ornaments of a community. The male flirt is a monster. Every man ought to despise him; and every woman ought to spurn him as a loathsome social leper.

Youthful Flirtations.--Flirting is not confined to young men and women.

The contagion extends to little boys and girls, whose heads ought to be as empty of all thoughts of s.e.xual relations as the vacuum of an air-pump of air. The intimate a.s.sociation of young boys and girls in our common schools, and, indeed, in the majority of educational inst.i.tutions, gives abundant opportunity for the fostering of this kind of a spirit, so prejudicial to healthful mental and moral development.

Every educator who is alive to the objects and interests of his profession knows too well the baneful influence of these premature and pernicious tendencies. Many times has the teacher watched with a sad heart the withering of all his hopes for the intellectual progress of a naturally gifted scholar by this blighting influence. The most dangerous period for boys and girls exposed to temptations of this sort is that just following p.u.b.erty, or between the ages of twelve and eighteen or twenty. This period, a prominent educator in one of our Western States once denominated, not inappropriately, "the agonizing period of human puppyhood." If this critical period is once safely pa.s.sed, the individual is comparatively safe; but how many fail to pa.s.s through the ordeal unseared!

The most painful phase of this subject is the tacit--even, in many cases, active--encouragement which too many parents give their children in this very direction, seemingly in utter ignorance of the enormity of the evil which they are winking at or fostering. Parents need enlightenment on this subject, and need to be aroused to the fact that it is one of the most momentous questions that can arise in the rearing and training of children.

Polygamy.--One hundred years ago the discussion of the public propriety or impropriety of a plurality of wives would have been impossible.

Polygamy had not obtained a foothold as an inst.i.tution in any civilized land. Being well known as not uncommon among certain heathenish and barbarous tribes, it was looked upon as a heathenish and debasing inst.i.tution, the outgrowth of ignorance and gross sensuality, and a relic of a sensual age. Now, this is no longer true. Even in this, the most enlightened of all lands, where there are most ample facilities for culture, for moral and mental development, polygamy holds up its hideous head in defiance of all the laws of G.o.d and man. It is true that the perpetrators of this foul crime against humanity and Heaven have been driven by the indignation of outraged decency to seek a lurking place in the far-off wilderness of the Western territories; yet the foul odors from this festering sore are daily becoming more and more putrescent, and in spite of the distance, are contaminating the already not overstrict morals of the nation.

No better evidence of the blighting, searing effect of this gross social crime could be found than the fact that not only is polygamy coming to be winked at as something not so very bad after all, but men from whom we have a right to expect something better are coming forward in its defense.

We have just been perusing a work written for the express purpose of justifying and advocating polygamy, which was written by an evangelical clergyman. He was evidently not willing to own his work, however, since his name is carefully excluded from the t.i.tle-page, and his publisher put under an oath of secrecy. The arguments which he makes in favor of polygamy are chiefly the following:--

1. That it is approved by the Bible.

2. That a robust man requires more than one woman to satisfy his s.e.xual demands.

3. That there are more women than men; and since every woman has a right to have a husband, the only way all can be supplied is to allow several women, two or more, according to the capacity of the man, or as they can agree, to form a marriage partnership with one man.

4. That the great men of all ages have been polygamists in fact, if not by open profession.

5. That monogamy is a relic of the paganism of the ancient Greeks and Romans, with whom it originated.

6. That it is the only proper and effective cure for the "social evil,"

and all its attendant vices and dire diseases.

As this work has had quite a circulation, bearing the imprint of a well-known Boston publisher, and has not received any answer that we are aware of, we deem it worth while to give these arguments, which are very strongly presented, at least a brief pa.s.sing notice. We will consider them in the order in which we have stated them.

1. We deny most emphatically the a.s.sertion that polygamy is either taught or approved by the Bible. It was tolerated in a people who had long been in the darkness of Egyptian bondage, but never approved.

Indeed, the inspired writers have evidently taken pains to give numerous examples of the evils growing out of that violation of the law of G.o.d and Nature.

2. The second argument is based upon the a.s.serted fact that man naturally possesses stronger s.e.xual demands than woman; that these demands are imperative; and that it is not only impossible, but in the highest degree injurious, to restrain them.

While it is true as a fact affirmed by constant observation that men have stronger pa.s.sions than women, in general, and that many men demand of their wives a degree of s.e.xual indulgence which is the cause of serious injury to them, and even impossible for them to grant without doing themselves the greatest wrong, it is by no means proven either that these demands are imperative, that they are natural, or that they are not injurious to the man as well as the woman, much less beneficial to either. On the contrary, there is as great a weight of evidence as could be required that restraint, self-control, and moderation in the exercise of the s.e.xual instinct is in the highest degree beneficial to man, as well as to woman, and necessary for his highest development.

3. While it is true that there are a few more adult women than men, the difference is not sufficiently great to require the introduction of polygamy as a remedy for enforced celibacy. At any rate this would be unnecessary until all bachelors had been provided with wives, when there would be found no necessity for further provision, since there are large numbers of women who are utterly unfit to marry, who would be injured by so doing, and would only serve to degenerate the race, besides making themselves more wretched than they already are.

Again, it is a well-known fact that more males than females are born, the preponderance of adult females being caused by a greater mortality among male children, together with the losses from accidents and war.

By a correct observance of the laws of health, together with the abolition of wars, the disparity in relative numbers of the s.e.xes would disappear. Indeed, it might happen that men would be in the preponderance.

Still again, it is only in a few very populous and long-settled communities that there are more women than men, as in the States of Ma.s.sachusetts, Connecticut, and a few others of the Eastern States, and a few countries of Europe. In all newly settled countries the reverse is true. The inquiry naturally arises, What shall be done under these circ.u.mstances? Shall a woman be allowed more than one husband, as is actually the case in some countries? "Oh! no;" our polygamist replies, "A woman is not capable of loving more than one man, and is not even able to satisfy the s.e.xual demands of a single husband; so, of course, a plurality of husbands is out of the question. A man is capable of loving any number of women, being differently const.i.tuted from a woman; and so the same rule does not apply."

The writer evidently confounds love with l.u.s.t. He will grant unstinted reign to the l.u.s.ts of man, but requires woman to be restrained, offering as an apology for such a manifest unfair and unphilosophical discrimination that "man is differently const.i.tuted from a woman, s.e.xually, requiring more active exercise of the s.e.xual functions," a conclusion which could be warranted only by the selection, as a typical specimen of the male part of humanity, of a man with an abnormal development of the animal propensities.

A correct understanding and application of the laws of s.e.xual hygiene would effectually sweep away every vestige of argument based on this foundation.

4. In proof of the propriety of polygamy, as well as of its necessity, the author referred to cites the well-known fact that Plato, Aristotle, Bacon, Alexander, Caesar, Napoleon, Burns, Byron, Augustus, Webster, and numerous others of the noted men of all ages have been incontinent men. The fact that these men were guilty of crime does not in the least degree detract from the enormity of the sin. It is equally true that many great men have been addicted to intemperance and other crimes.

Alexander was a Sodomite as well as a lecherous rake. Does this fact afford any proof that those crimes are virtues instead of vices? Such argument is hardly worthy of serious refutal, since it stultifies itself.

5. The fact that monogamy was practiced among the ancient Greeks and Romans is in no way derogatory of it as an inst.i.tution. Even if it could be shown that it originated with those nations, still this would in no way detract from its value or respectability. Do not we owe much to those grand old pagans who laid the foundation for nearly all the modern sciences, and established better systems of political economy, and better schools for uniform culture of the whole individual, than any the world has seen since? But monogamy did not originate with the Greeks, neither was it invented by the Romans, nor by any other nation.

It originated with the great Originator of the human race. It is an inst.i.tution which has come down to us, not from Greece or Rome, but from Paradise.

If it was so important that man should have more than one woman to supply his s.e.xual demands, why was the Creator so short-sighted as to make but one Eve? It would have been as easy to remove two or three or half a dozen ribs from Adam's side as one; and as the whole world had yet to be populated, a plurality of wives would certainly have accelerated the process. Surely, if polygamy was ever required or excusable, it ought to have been allowed at the start.

Again, when Noah went into the ark, taking with him an a.s.sortment of all species of animals, he took some kinds by pairs and some by sevens, from which we might suspect, at least, that he observed the laws of nature respecting polygamous and monogamous animals. But he took only one wife for himself, and only one for each of his sons. Why not two or half a dozen instead? Polygamy would certainly have accelerated the repopulation of the earth most wonderfully; but Noah was monogamous.

To say, in view of such facts, that monogamy originated with the paganism of ancient Greece and Rome, is blasphemy.

6. The argument that polygamy will cure the "social evil" is exactly equivalent to the argument that the removal of all restraint from the sale and manufacture of intoxicating drinks, thus making them cheap and common, is the best remedy for intemperance. An equally good argument might be made for the cure of theft, murder, and every other vice and crime, by a similar plan. Such reasoning is the veriest sophistry. None but a biased mind could produce such flimsy arguments.

But we forbear. We have already given this subject more attention than it is worthy of, though we have failed to characterize the vice of polygamy as it deserves. We leave this for the reader.

Polyandry.--Perhaps we should add a word or two respecting this custom, which seems to be a still greater outrage against nature than that of polygamy, being the possession of a plurality of husbands by one woman.

This practice is in vogue in several countries at the present time, being very common in Thibet, where it is not an unusual thing for a woman in marrying the eldest of a family of brothers to include in the contract all of the other brothers as well. Polyandry was also common among the ancient Medes. Indeed, the Medes practiced both polygamy and polyandry. A man was not considered respectable unless he had at least seven wives; neither were women considered worthy of general esteem unless they had as many as five husbands. In that country, the fact that a woman was already married was in no degree a barrier to subsequent marriages, even while the husband was living, and without the trouble of a divorce. Those who maintain the propriety of polygamy would do well to consider the historic facts respecting the opposite practice.

There appear to be as good grounds for believing one to have a basis in the human const.i.tution as the other.

Divorce.--Another of the crying evils of the day, and one which menaces in a most alarming manner the most sacred interests of society, is the facility with which divorces may be obtained. In some States the laws regulating divorce are so notoriously loose that scores and even hundreds of people visit the States referred to every year with no other object than to obtain a dissolution of the bonds of matrimony. The effect of this looseness in the laws is to encourage hasty, inconsiderate marriages, and to make escape from an uncongenial partner so easy that the obligation to cultivate forbearance and to acquire mutual adaptation which may not at first exist, is wholly overlooked.

The Bible rule for divorce, laid down by the Great Teacher, is little regarded in these degenerate days. He made adultery the only legitimate cause for divorce; yet we now see married people breaking asunder their solemn marriage ties on the occurrence of the most trivial difficulties.

If a couple become tired of each other and desire a change, all they have to do is to forward the fee to a New York or Chicago lawyer, and they will receive back in a short time the legal papers duly signed, granting them the desired annulment of their vows.

Although countenanced by human laws, there can be no doubt that this shameless trifling with a divine inst.i.tution is regarded by High Heaven as the vilest abomination. In no direction is there greater need of reformatory legislation than in this. The marriage contract should be recognized in our laws as one which cannot be made and broken so lightly as it now is. It should be annulled only for the most serious offenses.

The contrary course now pursued so frequently is most detrimental to morals. Our divorce laws virtually offer a premium for unchast.i.ty.

Not infrequently we see among the advertis.e.m.e.nts in the newspapers notices like the following: "The undersigned is prepared to furnish divorces to parties desiring the same at moderate rates, in short time, and without publicity. ---- ----."

The animus of these advertis.e.m.e.nts is fraud. The parties so engaged are the vilest scoundrels; and that they are allowed to continue to ply their nefarious vocation is a foul blot upon the enlightened civilization of a so-called Christian country. A publisher who will insert such a notice in his journal, would advertise a brothel if he dared. While there is so much interest in the suppression of obscene literature, we would suggest that the proper authorities should direct their attention to the suppression of unlawful divorces, and the proper punishment of the villains engaged in forwarding this nefarious business.

Who May not Marry.--Many writers devote much s.p.a.ce in laying down rules which are to be implicitly followed by those seeking life partners.

We have attempted nothing of the sort, both from its impracticability, and from the fact that such rules are never followed; and if the attempt should be made to follow the prescribed rules, we are not sure that more good than harm would be the result. Hence, we shall content ourselves with calling attention to a few facts of great importance respecting the conditions which imperatively forbid marriage, and which cannot be violated without the certain entailment of great suffering.

_1. Persons suffering with serious disease of a character communicable to others by contagion or by hereditary transmission._

Many people wonder why it is that diseases are so much more numerous and varied in modern times than in the earlier ages of the race. There has been an evident increase within a few centuries. While there are, undoubtedly, numerous influencing causes, one which cannot be overlooked is the hereditary transmission of disease, which preserves those disorders which already exist, and adds new ones which originate from new exciting causes. By this means, the human race is undoubtedly being weakened, human life shortened, and diseases multiplied. Compare the average age of human beings of the present day, less than forty years, with the longevity of the early members of the race, who lived more than as many score of years. Some mighty deteriorating influence has been at work; and we hazard nothing in the a.s.sertion that the marriage of diseased persons and kindred violations of the laws of human hygiene have been not unimportant factors in producing this most appalling diminution in the length of human life.

Among the diseases which are most certain to be transmitted are pulmonary tuberculosis, or consumption, syphilis, cancer, leprosy, epilepsy, and some other nervous disorders, some forms of skin disease, and insanity. The list might be extended; but these are the more common.

Persons suffering with these disorders have no right to marry, for at least four reasons:--

(1) It is a sin against the offspring of such unions, who have a right to be born well, but are forced to come into the world with weakly const.i.tutions, diseased frames, and the certainty of premature death.

The children of consumptive and syphilitic parents rarely survive infancy. If they do, it is only to suffer later on, as they surely will, and, perhaps, to communicate the same destructive diseases to other human beings; but these diseases rarely extend beyond the third generation, the line becoming extinct. The most heart-rending spectacles we have ever met have been the children of parents suffering with the diseases mentioned. Their appearance is characteristic; no physician of experience can fail to detect the sins of a profligate parent in a syphilitic child. Every feature indicates the presence of a blighting curse.

There are those who a.s.sert that a man who has suffered with disease of the character last mentioned may marry after the lapse of two or three years from the disappearance of the active symptoms of the malady.

Such a.s.sertions we consider as most dangerous and pernicious. The individuals who make them are well acquainted with the fact that of all diseases this is the most difficult to eradicate when once the system has become thoroughly infected by it. Not only three years but thirty years may elapse after active symptoms disappear, yet the disease may break out again in a new and still more serious and complicated form. It may even lie entirely dormant or latent in the system of the parent during his lifetime, but break out in all its terrible destructiveness in his children. A man or woman who has once suffered with this fell disease is contaminated for life; and it is a crime for such an one to entail upon innocent, unoffending human beings such a terrible legacy. Such a person has no right to marry; or if married, has no right to perpetuate the results of his sins in offspring. It is _never safe_ to say to a man who has once been infected that he is cured. If a cure ever takes place, it is exceedingly rare.

(2) It is a crime against the race. One of the primary objects of marriage is reproduction. As members of the human race, it is the duty of parents to produce a high type of human beings, at least to do all in their power to produce healthy offspring. If they cannot do this, and are aware of the fact, they are guilty of abuse of the reproductive function in bringing sickly offspring into the world to suffer.

(3) It is injurious to the contracting parties themselves. If a person has a communicable disease, as syphilis, leprosy, and some bad forms of skin disease, the disease will certainly be communicated to the wife or husband, and so a double amount of suffering will be entailed. The dread disease, consumption, rightly called the scourge of civilization, is now well known to be communicable. A few years ago we were consulted by an old gentleman, a native of Canada, who was suffering with pulmonary disease. We inquired respecting the history of the malady.

Said he, "Doctor, it may seem strange, but I believe I _inherited_ consumption from my wife, who died of consumption a few years ago."

Excepting the wrong use of the term inherit, we were not prepared to dispute the old gentleman's ideas respecting the origin of his disease.