VII

THE FIRST UNION

And now, although so much has been said, there is much that remains to be said, and which ought to be said, to do the subject justice. Some of these things are as follows:

Something more ought to be told about the second part of the act of coitus, the union of the organs, when this occurs for the _first_ time on the part of the woman.

At the first meeting of the husband and wife, if the woman be a virgin, there are certain conditions which exist, on her part, that are not present in after-meetings, and these must be understood and rightly dealt with, or the worst of bad results may ensue.

Of course, at such first meeting, all the preliminaries prescribed as forming the _first_ movement of the act should be carried out _to the limit_. It is not too much to say that these should be prolonged for _some days_! Do not start, young husband, at this statement! Well did Alexander Dumas, pere, write: "Oh, young husband, have a care in the first overtures you make toward your bride! She may shrink from what she feels must come; she may put her hands over her eyes to shut out the sight; but do not forget that she is a woman, and so is filled with _curiosity_, under any and all circ.u.mstances! And you may set it down as sure, that, though she blinds herself with her hands as she scales the dizzy heights you are leading her over, nevertheless, _she will peek through her fingers!_ So she will watch you with most critical eyes, and note every show of _selfishness or blundering on your part! So have a care!_ You may think you are aiming your arrow at the sun. See to it that it does not alight in the mud!" Good words these, and to be heeded, come what may!

As a rule, if the bride be a virgin, it is well to _let plenty of time elapse before engaging in the full act of coitus!_ Delay here will lead to a possible loving speed, later on. The young people should take time enough to get better acquainted with each other than ever before; to become, in a measure, accustomed to the uncovered presence of each other, and to the new possibilities of "courting" and "playing together" that their new conditions offer. In any case, full coitus should not be attempted till the bride is at least _willing_. If she can be brought to become _anxious_ for the meeting, so much the better.

And so, with plenty of time taken for making ready for the act, we come to the first union of the organs for a newly married couple, the bride being a virgin. And here is where an explanation is called for.

The v.u.l.v.a, or external part of the female s.e.x organs, is a mouth shaped aperture, located laterally between the forward part of the thighs. In shape, size and structure, it much resembles the external parts of the mouth proper. It begins just in front of the a.n.u.s, and extends forward above the pubic bone and a little ways up the belly.

Its entire lateral length is about four or more inches.

This organ is made up of several parts, as follows: The lips, or l.a.b.i.ae, as they are technically known, the c.l.i.toris, and the v.a.g.i.n.al opening. The lips are a double row, two on either side, and are known as l.a.b.i.ae major and l.a.b.i.ae minor, that is, the thicker and thinner, or larger and smaller lips. They extend almost the entire length of the v.u.l.v.a, the outer lips folding over the inner ones when the thighs are together. The outer parts of the larger lips are covered with hair. In thickness and quality these l.a.b.i.ae are much like the lips of the face of each individual, a large mouth and thick lips indicate a large v.u.l.v.a and thick l.a.b.i.ae and vice-versa. The c.l.i.toris is a gland that is located forward, on the upper part of the v.u.l.v.a. It corresponds, almost exactly, in make-up and function, with the glans p.e.n.i.s of the male organ. The v.a.g.i.n.al opening is at the rear, or lower part of the v.u.l.v.a, and leads directly into the v.a.g.i.n.a proper.

All these parts are composed of most keenly responsive nerves, and they are covered with a thin, delicate and exceedingly sensitive skin, almost exactly such as lines the cheeks and the mouth. Both the c.l.i.toris and the lips are filled with expandable blood vessels, and in a state of tumescence they are greatly enlarged by a flow of blood into the parts. The c.l.i.toris, in this condition, undergoes an enlargement, or "erection," which is exactly like that of the glans p.e.n.i.s. So much as to the physiology of this part of the female s.e.x organs, all of which should be well understood by every bride and bridegroom, though often it is not.

Now, in its virgin state, the v.u.l.v.a has another part, not yet named, and this is the hymen, or "maiden-head" as it is commonly known. This is a membrane that grows across the forward, or upper part of the v.a.g.i.n.al opening, and so _closes up_ nearly all that part of the v.u.l.v.a. This hymen is not always present, however, even in a state of undoubted virginity. Sometimes it is torn away in childhood by the little girl's fingers, as she "plays with herself." Sometimes it is ruptured by lifting, again it is broken away by the use of a large-sized female syringe. _For all these reasons, it is not right to conclude that a bride is not a virgin because the hymen is not present and in evidence at the first coition._

Now many young husbands, and some young wives, are wholly ignorant of the _existence_ of the hymen, and of the troubles it may cause at the second part of the s.e.xual act, in a first meeting. This membrane is often quite tough and strong. It is grown fast to the lower part of the c.l.i.toris and to the inside surfaces of the smaller lips, and it covers so much of the v.a.g.i.n.al opening that it is practically impossible for the erect p.e.n.i.s to enter the v.a.g.i.n.a so long as it is present. Now if, under these conditions, the bride and groom (especially the latter) are ignorant of the real construction of the parts, and so should try to make a union of the organs, they would find such union obstructed, if not impossible; and if the man, puzzled, and impatient, and pa.s.sion-driven, should _force_ a hasty entrance into the v.a.g.i.n.a, rupturing the hymen ruthlessly, he would hurt the woman cruelly, probably cause her to _bleed_ freely from the wounded parts, and shock her seriously! All of which would be a score against the husband, would brand him as a brute, or a bungler, and so tend to make his "sun-aimed arrow alight in the mud."

The thing to do here, is, first of all, to know the situation and to talk it over, and carefully, delicately, do the best that can be done about it. If the conditions are fully understood by the bride and groom, they can, in almost every case, by working and moving together carefully, overcome the obstacle, remove the hymen with little or no pain or loss of blood.

As a matter of fact, when the time for meeting comes, if all the facts are known, and the husband will hold his erect p.e.n.i.s still and steady against the hymen, the bride will so press against it, and "wiggle around" it, that _by her own motions_, she will break the membrane and so be rid of it. She knows how much pain she can endure, and when the pressure is too hard she can relieve it by her own action! Anyhow, what is done _she does_ herself, and so can never charge up against her husband!

It is a rare case in which, by mutual willingness, and desire and mutual effort to remove the obstruction, it cannot be eliminated with satisfaction to both bride and groom. If, however, careful and well-executed efforts fail to remove it, the services of a surgeon should be procured, and he, by a very simple and almost painless operation, can remove the difficulty. But never, _no never_, should it be brutally torn away by the force of the husband, and without the full willingness of the wife. _Mark this well_. As a matter of fact, the wise and practical thing for every bride to do, would be to go to a surgeon a few days before her wedding, and have him remove the hymen for her. Such operation is nearly painless, and is very easily done.

Still, to do this might raise a doubt of virginity on the part of the husband and so this is a point to be careful about!

The act of removing the hymen is often spoken of as "defloration"--the tearing to pieces of a flower. The term is not fortunate. Nothing worth while has been taken away by removing the hymen, but much that is useful has been acquired. An organ that has outlived whatever usefulness it might once have had has been removed, and its going has made possible new and beautiful uses in life. If this has been accomplished by the mutual desire and effort of the bride and groom, it is a cause for joy and not of sorrow; of delight and not of mourning. As well weep over the removal of the vermiform appendix as for the destruction of the hymen.

With this obstacle rightly overcome, the second act of coitus offers no situation that calls for further remark or explanation.

And now a few words about the probabilities of conception resulting from coitus, and some matters which are very closely related thereto.

In the first place, every healthy and fairly-well-provided-for husband and wife should desire to have children, and should act in accordance with such wish. This is not only in harmony with the primary purpose of s.e.x in the human family, but it is a response to a natural demand of the human soul, in both man and woman. As Bernard Shaw makes Jack Tanner say: "There is a father-heart as well as a mother-heart" and _parenthood is the supreme desire of all normal and wholesome-minded men and women._ It is not an "instinct," but something far above that quality.

Parenthood among mere animals is the result of instinct, and of that alone, but not so in the human race. Human beings naturally desire to make a home for themselves, and a home, in the fullest meaning of that word, means _children_ and a "family circle." This is something that animals know nothing about. Animal mothers forget and ignore their progeny as soon as they are weaned; and animal fathers will, in many cases, kill them as soon as they are born, if they get a chance to do so. These facts prove that parenthood, in the human family, is something much more than in the rest of the animal kingdom. Indeed, the whole matter of comparing this quality, as it exists in humanity, with that of animals merely, is only a continuance of the similar abomination of comparing the s.e.x functions of these two forms of life.

In the real essentials of existence, they are in no way comparable; and to make such is not only folly, but approaches the positively criminal. The results of doing so certainly lead to crime.

Fundamentally, then, nearly all men and women marry with the purpose and hope of having a family of children. They may not put it that way, may not even acknowledge it, even to each other or to themselves; but if married people find that they _cannot_ produce, it is a source of unspeakable regret to them both. In such cases, the inherent desire for parenthood will "cry aloud and spare not." A "barren" woman greatly mourns her inability, and will shed bitter tears over the fact, if she be truly human; and an "impotent" man will be practically despised by all who are aware of his incompetence.

And yet, though all normal men and women desire to have children, it is only right that they should desire to have them _as they want them_, and _when_ they want them, and not _whenever they may happen to come!_ That is, sensible and thoughtful people, who plan definitely for the future, want to make the coming of children to them an affair of _deliberate_ arrangement, and not of _chance_.

This is not only as it should be, but is really the only right way that children should be begotten and born. Which statement calls for a few special words on the right of parents to regulate the production of progeny.

There is much talk, in some quarters, about "race suicide," and the wickedness of deliberately limiting the number of children in a family. Such talking and writing arouse anxious questionings in the minds of conscientious young married men and women who are desiring to do the right thing in the premises, but are uncertain as to what the right thing is, and for such are the following words:

Many years ago, an English philosopher and statesman, Malthus by name, discovered and announced the fact that the rate of natural increase in the human race was several times greater than that of the possible rate of production of food supply for their support. Scientifically phrased, his statement was that "the rate of increase in humanity is in geometrical ratio, while the rate of increase of possible food supply is in arithmetical ratio." And from this basis, he reasoned that, unless the surplus of human production was in some way cut off and destroyed, the whole human race would ultimately demand more food supply than could possibly be produced; and so, in due course of time, the whole race would perish from starvation!

Then he proceeded to reason that the purpose of disease, plague, pestilence, famine, poverty and warfare was to cut off and destroy the _surplus_ of humanity, and hence all these alleged evils were in reality blessings in disguise, and that _it would be wrong to interfere_ with their really beneficent workings! Volumes could be written, and they could not tell the half of the misery and evil that the promulgation of this doctrine has done for the civilized world, but there is no s.p.a.ce here for giving any such details; nor need this be done, though the statement of the doctrine had to be made to make ready for what is to follow.

Now, is it not far more reasonable to suppose that, _since the possibility of determining the number of off-spring a husband and wife may produce has been given them_; that since such result can be, for them, made a matter of _choice_, of an _exercise of the will_, and not of _blind instinct_--under these circ.u.mstances, all of which undoubtedly exist, is it not far more reasonable to believe that it is the _purpose of the Creator_ that the limiting of the number of human beings in the world should be brought about by _curbing the birth rate_, rather than by _killing the surplus_ after they are born!

There can be but one answer made to this question, by any intelligent man or woman.

These facts, then, establish the _rightfulness of determining the number and size of a family by every husband and wife_. But this does not mean that they are to entirely refrain from cohabiting, in order to keep from having children! This phase of the argument has already been gone over and disposed of. But it _does_ mean that husbands and wives have a right to use such rightful means for the limiting of the number of offspring as are conducive to the interests of all parties concerned--themselves, their circ.u.mstances, the born or unborn children, the state, the nation. Let the bride and groom be well convinced and established in their own minds on these points, as early in their relation as possible. They should be so from the very outset--_must_ be so, to reach the best results.

The issue then presents itself: How can such deliberate and wilful determination of the number of children a husband and wife may have, be brought about?

And the answer is, that _it can never be accomplished by careless and hap-hazard cohabiting!_ On the contrary, it can only be compa.s.sed by the most _careful_ and _watchful_ processes of engaging in coitus, and by a _full knowledge_ of physiological facts, and by acting, _always_, in accordance with the same. It is no road for careless travel, but it is a way worth going in, for all that.

On this point, let it be said that all sane and intelligent men and women agree that anything even approaching _infanticide_ is nothing short of a crime, and that abortion, except for the purpose of saving the life of the mother, is practically murder.

But, while this is all true, to prevent the contact of two germs which, if permitted to unite, would be liable to result in a living human form, is _quite another affair_.

It is only this aspect of the situation which will be considered in what follows.

Now, as has already been shown, the essentials for conception consist of having the ovum present in the womb, and its meeting the s.e.m.e.n there. The corollary of this is, that whenever these coincidences take place, there is a _possibility_ for conception.

But in all _normal_ cases, the ovum only pa.s.ses into the womb once in every twenty-eight days; and, as a rule, it only remains in the womb for about half that period of time, that is, for about 14 or 15 days in each month. And so, since the menstrual flow ceases after about five days from its beginning, in about ten days _after_ its stopping, the ovum will have pa.s.sed out of the womb, and hence that organ contains nothing that is impregnable. Under these conditions, s.e.m.e.n may be deposited in the womb, without danger of impregnation. This is a simple proposition, and easy to understand if once known.

However, it must be said that these _generally_ common conditions _do not always obtain_--that is, they are _not_ true in the case of _all_ women. There are women who will conceive at _any_ time in the month, if they are given a chance to do so. The physiological reason for such possibility is said to be this: There are always ova in the ovaries, in varying stages of development. Ordinarily, only once a month do any of these pa.s.s down into the womb; but, in exceptional cases, sometimes these ova are so partially held in the ovaries that, under the excitement of coitus, and because all these parts dilate so much during the act, an ovum may slip its moorings, under such conditions, pa.s.s down into the uterus at an untimely season, meet the s.e.m.e.n there, and pregnancy result. Such are the facts _in some cases_.

How, then, can a husband and wife tell how it is, or will be, in _their_ particular case?

The answer is that they can only tell by trying, and that should be done as follows:

The _first_ s.e.xual meeting of the bride and groom should _never_ take place until at least _ten days after the ceasing of the menstrual flow in the bride! This is a rule that should never be violated_ if the parties wish to "_test out_" the real condition as to whether or not the bride has any "free time." The chances are several to one that she _has_ such leeway; but the fact can only be established by "proving up" and this can _never_ be done if any _chances_ are taken. Put this down as rule number one.

For this reason, it is well for the bride to fix the wedding day; and, if possible, for her to locate it sometime during the probably immune period. And the nearer she can bring this day to the _beginning_ of such period of freedom from danger of pregnancy, the better. For, if it should happen that the first coitus should take place only a _day or two before_ the time when another "monthly" was due, such excitement might hasten the pa.s.sage of the nearly-ripe ovum into the uterus, and conception might occur. In which case, "all the fat would be in the fire," nothing would be proved, and the parties would be as ignorant as ever regarding the facts in _their_ case.

And so, the _first_ s.e.xual meeting of a bride and bridegroom should be not _earlier_ than _ten days after the ceasing of the menstrual flow and not later than three days before the next monthly is due. Put that_ _down as rule number two, never to be violated._

And if marriage takes place before this period of probable immunity on the part of the bride arrives, the only safe thing to do is to "patiently wait" till such time arrives. This may "require fort.i.tude"

on the part of both parties, but it is the only safe thing to do. And to do just that, will amply repay such waiting. The writer knows of a case where the wedding took place just three days before the bride's next monthly was due, and she and her husband waited for more than _two weeks_ before they met s.e.xually! But it paid to wait, for their doing so proved that the bride had _two weeks_ of "_free time_" in _each month, and this was worth all it cost to find out! Take time!_

And now let it be added that it is a great accomplishment for a husband and wife to be free from a fear of pregnancy as a result of coitus. This is a thousand times truer for the woman than for the man, for it is she who has to bear the burden of what follows, if following there be. The husband can "do the deed" and go about his business. The wife, if "the fertile seed" takes root, has before her months of care and anxiety, and she risks her very life in what may come of it all.

For these reasons, she has a _right to dictate all the terms_ which are liable to cause her to become a mother. _And yet she should do this with full regard for the husband, in love, in true wifely-womanhood._ On this point, do not fail to read "The Helpmate,"

by May Sinclair. It is a story that no bride and bridegroom should fail to read and study, carefully.

The whole subject of how to engage in satisfactory coitus and avoid pregnancy may be summed up as follows:--The attainment of such a condition is well worth the most careful, earnest and honestly pains-taking endeavor. For, if such status be not reached, its lack will be a source of endless contentions and differences between the husband and wife. It will lead to jealousies, quarrels, and all sorts of marital woes. But, the situation once mastered, by the most loving and accurate of scientific methods of procedure, a happy married life is certain to result. Otherwise, the "married state" will always be in a condition of "unstable equilibrium." So let every bride and bridegroom begin, _from the first_, to try to establish the greatly to be desired accomplishment. If anything further on this point should be desired, consult a reliable physician.