We might be surprised to be told that these parotid glands can have anything to do with the sex organs, but there is no other remote organ that has such a close and rather mysterious relationship with the sex-glands as have the parotids. When the parotid glands, either one or both, are inflamed, the testicles or ovaries are also liable to be attacked by inflammation. The inflammation of the testicles may be so severe as to cause them to shrivel and dry up; or, even when no shrivelling, no atrophy of the testicles occurs, they may be so affected as to become incapable of producing spermatozoa. Moreover, in cases where the testicles of a mumps patient seemingly were not attacked—that is, where the patient was not aware of any inflammation, having no pain and no other symptoms—the testicles may have become incapable of generating spermatozoa.
Besides the testicles, the prostate gland, the secretion of which is necessary to the fertility of the spermatozoa, may also become affected and atrophied.
It is, therefore, a very common thing for men who had the mumps in their childhood to be found sterile.
As to the sexual power of mumps patients, that differs. Some patients lose their virility entirely; others remain potent, but become sterile.
The same thing happens to girls attacked by mumps. They may have a severe inflammation of the ovaries (ovaritis or oöphoritis) or the inflammation may be so mild as to escape notice. In either case, the girl when grown to womanhood may find herself sterile.
A man who never had any venereal disease, but who has had mumps, should have himself examined for sterility before he gets married. As explained in the chapter "Marriage and Gonorrhea," we can, in the case of a man, easily find out whether he is fertile or sterile. But, in the case of a woman, we can not. Time, necessarily, has to answer that question. In all cases, mumps reduces the chances of fertility, and no man or woman who once had mumps should get married without informing the respective partner of the fact. There should be no concealment before marriage. When the partners to the marriage contract know of the facts, they can then decide as to whether or not the marriage is desirable to them.
Hemophilia, or Bleeders' Disease
Hemophilia is a peculiar disease, consisting in frequent and often uncontrollable hemorrhages. The least cut or the pulling of a tooth may cause a severe or even dangerous hemorrhage. The slightest blow, squeeze or hurt will cause ecchymoses, or discolorations of the skin. The peculiarity of this hereditary disease is, that it attacks almost exclusively the males, but is transmitted almost exclusively through the female members. For instance, Miss A., herself not a bleeder, comes from a bleeder-family. She marries and has three boys and three girls; the three boys will be bleeders, the three girls will not; the three boys marry and have children; their children will not be bleeders; the three girls marry, and their male children will be bleeders.
What is the lesson? The lesson is, that boys who are bleeders may marry, because they will most likely not transmit the disease; but girls who come from a hemophilic family, irrespective of whether they themselves are hemophilics or not, must not marry, because most likely they will transmit the disease.
Anemia
Anemia is a poor condition of the blood. The blood may contain an insufficient number of red blood cells or an insufficient percentage of the coloring matter of the blood, that is, hemoglobin. A special kind of anemia affecting young girls is called chlorosis.
Anemia and chlorosis cannot be considered contra-indications to marriage, because they are usually amenable to treatment. In fact, some cases of anemia and chlorosis are due to the lack of normal sexual relations, and the subjects get well very soon after marriage. But it is best and safest to subject anemic patients to a course of treatment and to improve their condition before they marry.
Epilepsy
While epilepsy—known commonly as fits or falling sickness—is not as hereditary as it was one time thought to be, its hereditary character being ascertainable in only about 5 per cent. of cases, nevertheless, it is a decidedly dysgenic agent, and marriage with an epileptic is distinctly advised against. Where both parents are epileptics, the children are almost sure to be epileptic, and such a marriage should be prohibited by law. Under no circumstances should parents who are both epileptic bring children into the world. It should be the duty of the State to instruct them in methods of preventing conception.
Hysteria
Hysteria is a disease the chief characteristics of which are a lack of control over one's emotions and acts, the imitation of the symptoms of various diseases, and an exaggerated self-consciousness. The patient may have extreme pain in the region of the head, ovaries, spine; in some parts of the skin there is extreme hypersensitiveness (hyperesthesia), so that the least touch causes great pain; in others, there is complete anesthesia—that is, absence of sensation—so that when you stick the patient with a needle she will not feel it. A very frequent symptom is a choking sensation, as if a ball came up the throat and stuck there (globus hystericus). Then there may be spasms, convulsions, retention of urine, paralysis, aphonia (loss of voice), blindness, and a lot more. There is hardly a functional or organic nervous disorder that hysteria may not simulate.
Of late years our ideas about hysteria have undergone a radical change, and we now know that most, if not all, cases of hysteria are due to a repression or non-satisfaction of the sexual instinct or to some shock of a sexual character in childhood. Only too often a girl who was very hysterical before marriage loses her hysteria as if by magic upon contracting a satisfactory marriage. On the other hand, a healthy girl can become quickly hysterical if she marries a man who is sexually impotent or who is disagreeable to her and incapable of satisfying her sexually.
While hysteria, in itself, is not hereditary, it, nevertheless, is a question whether a strongly hysterical woman would make a satisfactory mother. The entire family history should be investigated. If the hysteria is found to be an isolated instance in the given girl, it may be disregarded, if not extreme; but if the entire family or several members of it are neuropathic, the condition is a dysgenic one. Marriage may be contracted, provided no children are brought into the world until several years have elapsed and the mother's organization seems to have become more stable. In some cases, a child acts as a good medicine against hysteria. In short, every case must be examined individually on its merits, and the counsel of a good psychologist or psychoanalyst may prove very valuable.
Alcoholism
A good deal depends upon what we understand by alcoholism. The fanatics consider a person an alcoholic who drinks a glass of beer or wine with his meals. This is nonsense. This is not alcoholism, and cannot be considered a dysgenic factor. But, where there is a distinct habit, so that the individual must have his alcohol daily, or if he goes on an occasional drunken "spree," marriage must be advised against. And where the man (or woman) is what we call a real drunkard, marriage not only should be advised against, but most decidedly should be prohibited by law.
Alcoholism, as a habit, is one of the worst dysgenic factors to reckon with. First, the offspring is liable to be affected, which is sufficient in itself to condemn marriage with an alcoholic. Second, the earning powers of an alcoholic are generally diminished, and are likely gradually to diminish more and more. Third, an alcoholic is irritable, quarrelsome, and is liable to do bodily injury to his wife. Fourth an alcoholic often develops sexual weakness or complete sexual impotence. Fifth, alcoholics are likely to develop extreme jealousy, which may become pathological, even to the extent of a psychosis.
If both the husband and wife are alcoholics, then marriage between them which results in children is not merely a sin, but a crime.
We do not now come across cases so often as we used to of women marrying drunkards in the hope or with the hope of reforming them. But such cases still happen. This is a very foolish procedure. Let the man reform first, let him stay reformed for two or three years, and then the woman may take the chance, if she wants to.
Feeblemindedness
Feeblemindedness, in all its gradations—including idiocy, imbecility, moronism, and so on—is strongly hereditary and is one of the most dysgenic factors we have to deal with. It is the most dysgenic of all factors. It is more dysgenic than insanity. Marriage with a feebleminded person not only should be advised against, but should be prohibited by law. A feebleminded man has much fewer chances for marriage than has a feebleminded woman. Feebleminded girls, even to the extent of being morons, if pretty (as they often are) have very good chances of getting married, not infrequently getting for husbands young men of good families who themselves of course are not very strong mentally, but still are far from being considered feebleminded.
There are many cases of brilliant men—more than the public has any idea of—who married pretty, shy, demure, but withal feebleminded, girls, and the result has been in the largest percentage of cases very disastrous. In many cases all the children are feebleminded, or if not feebleminded, so weak mentally that it is impossible to make them go through any college or school. All the private tutoring is often in vain. And the brilliant father's heart breaks. It must be borne in mind that feeblemindedness or weak mentality is much more difficult to detect in a woman than it is in a man. Weakmindedness in a woman often passes for "cuteness," and as among the conservatives a woman is not expected to be able to discuss current topics, her intellectual caliber is often not discovered by the blinded husband until some weeks after the marriage ceremony.
As any instruction in the use of contraceptives would be wasted on the feebleminded, the only way to guard the race against pollution with feebleminded stock is either to segregate or to sterilize them. Society could have no objection against the feebleminded marrying or indulging in sexual relations, provided it could be assured that they will not bring any feebleminded stock into the world. After the man and the woman have been sterilized there is no objection to their getting married.
Where a normal, able or brilliant husband finds out too late that his wife's mentality is of rather a low order he is certainly justified in using contraceptives; and if he is determined to have children he will be obliged to divorce his wife. Of course this applies also to the wife of a weak minded husband.
Insanity
Insanity may be briefly defined as a disease of the mind. We will not here go into a discussion as to what constitutes real insanity, as to what is understood by insanity in the legal sense of the term, and so on, except to note that we have two divisions.
One is functional insanity. This may be temporary, or periodical, and is due to some external cause, is curable, and is not hereditary. For instance, a person may get insane from a severe shock, from trouble, from anxiety, from a severe accident (such as a shipwreck), from a sudden and total loss of his fortune, of his wife and children (by fire, earthquake, shipwreck or railroad accident). Such insanities are curable and are not transmissible. Another example is what is known as puerperal insanity. Some women during childbirth, due probably to some toxic infection, become insane. This insanity may be extreme and maniacal in character. Still, it often passes away in a few days without leaving any trace and may never return again, or, if it does return, it may return only during another childbirth. This kind of insanity is not transmissible.
The second division is what we call organic insanity. This expresses itself in mania and melancholy, so-called manic-depressive insanity. This is due to a degeneration of the brain-and nerve-tissue and is hereditary.
But, our entire conception as to the hereditary transmissibility of insanity has undergone a radical change. There is hardly another disease the fear of whose hereditary character is responsible for so much anguish and torture. In former years, when there was an insane uncle or aunt or grandparent that fact weighed like a veritable incubus on the entire family. Every member of the family was tortured by the secret anguish that maybe he or she would be next to be affected by this most horrible of all diseases—disease of the mind. If an ancestral member of the family became insane at a certain age, every member of that family was living in fear and trembling until several years had passed after that critical age, and only then would they begin to breathe freely. Indeed, many people became insane from the very fear of becoming insane. It cannot be subject to any doubt that many people do become mentally unbalanced from the fear that they will become unbalanced. Fear has a tremendous influence on the purely bodily functions, but its influence on the mental functions is incomparably greater, and a person will often get that which he fears he is going to get.
Now the hereditary character of insanity is not taken in the same absolute sense in which it was formerly. While we still consider it a dysgenic factor, yet we recognize the paramount importance of environment; and we know that by proper bringing-up, using the expression bringing-up in its broadest sense—including a proper mental and physical discipline—any hereditary taint can be counteracted. In connection with this subject, the following very recent statistics will prove of interest.
The families of 558 insane persons cared for in the London county 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.