And as for the men who have "an uncontrollably powerful sexuality", who "would like to have all restrictive laws smashed to pieces", society needs protection from this type as well as his cousins of lesser degree, and for such the operation of vasectomy, which is practically painless and not attended by danger, should be performed, and it would doubtless prove of considerable benefit to themselves, while it would also be a protection to society. The statement that the institutions of polygamy, monogamy and polyandry were influenced by the degree of sexual power in a race or nation, polygamy indicating sexual strength, monogamy moderate sexual strength, and polyandry sexual weakness, has no foundation in fact. The foundation upon which monogamy rests is that of an existing necessity for it, and this necessity is now strengthened by laws and customs. Crawley states that "Our formal marriage system is not a forcible repression of natural impulses, but merely the rigid crystallization of those natural impulses which, in a more fluid form, have been in human nature from the first". The various forms of marriage would appear to be influenced by economic conditions rather than by "sexual power".
Monogamous marriage is found to exist among birds in about 90 per cent. of cases, their
unions being fairly permanent as well. Permanent monogamous marriage occurs among anthropoid apes, and as man slowly
developed from the animal state it is probable that monogamous marriage was an inheritance
and dictated by the needs of the offspring, just as it is today. Polygamy at one time prevailed almost universally, and arose with the Patriarchal form
of government. This institution led to a great abuse of power, the women were regarded as
mere chattels, and were bought and sold like animals. Thus the word family originally meant
slaves or servants. The woman by her unpaid labor helped to support the Patriarch, who then
had time to devote to congenial pursuits. Because of the numerical equality of the sexes, only
the wealthy and powerful males could indulge in polygamy, the other males were obliged to
lead a celibate life.
Polyandry was also an economic question, tho of a different nature. The latter arose
when there was a surplus of males, and not "when tribes were sexually weak". Polyandry was
an adaptation to conditions, and when a numerical equality was regained between the sexes,
it disappeared. The purpose of marriage is the continuance of the race. A sexual intemperance which
murders infants born and unborn, which brings diseases and mutilation to wives, which
destroys the procreative capacity in both sexes, which breaks up homes, which leads to
divorce, which destroys efficiency, and shortens the expectation of life, cannot be tolerated.
The greatest good of the greatest number is the end to be kept in view, and humanity is
no longer reckoned as so many men besides women and children; the best interests of the
sexes are bound up together, for Kant has said the sexes are but half of the whole and what
injures one injures both.
It is almost inconceivable, that, when men have tendencies to immorality which they are
bravely struggling to subdue, and when they come to the physician for advice and help, the
latter, instead of giving wise counsel, advises the man not to attempt to gain a victory over
self, but to cease struggling, to be false to his marriage vows. Such a physician destroys the
confidence of the public in the physician and degrades the profession to which he belongs.
NOTE BY THE EDITOR
The above article was not intended for inclusion in this Symposium on Sex Morality. It appeared
in the MEDICAL REVIEW OF REVIEWS as an answer to my paper and I include it here as a good
illustration of the kind of argumentation which is indulged in by the quasiscientific prudes. All they
have to do is to throw at you the adjective "immoral" or "vicious", and they think they have settled
the question. To discuss Dr. Glasgow's paper would be futile. But I will take the liberty to reproduce
here a paragraph from an article in my Sexual Problems of Today. The little article is entitled: "Who
Should Discuss the Sexual Continence Question?" and the paragraph referred to is as follows:
In order to reach a proper solution of the sexual continence question, we must eliminate from the
discussion certain classes of people. We must eliminate the man who is so old that he no longer remembers
that he ever was young; we must eliminate the impotent or pervert, who never experienced any normal desire;
we must eliminate the bigoted theologian and the narrow-minded moralist, who consider extra-marital
intercourse a crime, about on a par with burglary or murder; we must eliminate this by all means the
asexualized old maid, who has no conception of the power of the libido in normal man (or in normal woman,
for that matter); and last but not least we must also eliminate the debauchee who puts an absurdly
exaggerated value on the sexual function, and who believes that life without sexual gratification is not worth
living. Dr. Maude Glasgow, whose sincerity nobody will question, is a typical representative of one of
the above referred to classes it is not necessary to specify which and she is therefore not
competent to discuss any sexual problems. The question should be discussed only by normal, healthy, free thinking, scientific men and
women ranging in age between thirty and fifty. They may be older, provided they have good
memories. Only then will we have an honest and scientifically valuable answer to this tremendously
important question: The existence or non existence of the sexual "necessity".