“The experience of many proves the truth of this statement.”
Hopefully she went home, and in six months I had the satisfaction of knowing my patient was restored to health, and a single coition in a month gave the husband more satisfaction than the many had done previously, that the creative power was under control, and that my lady could proudly say “I love,” where previously she said “I hate.”
If husbands will listen, a few simple instructions will appeal to their common sense, and none can imagine the gain to themselves, to their wives, and children and their children’s children. Then it may not be said of the babes that their “Death borders on their birth, and their cradle stands in the grave.”
The third theory, that the sexual relation should never be sustained, save for procreation, has many adherents. They teach that there are other uses for the procreative element than the generation of offspring—far better uses than its waste in momentary pleasure. This element, when retained in the system, the mental powers being properly directed, is in some way absorbed and diffused throughout the whole organism, replacing waste, and imparting a peculiar vivifying influence. It is taken up by the brain and may be coined into new thoughts—perhaps new inventions—grand conceptions of the true, the beautiful, the useful, or into fresh emotions of joy and impulses of kindness, and blessings to all around. It is a procreation on the mental and spiritual planes instead of the physical. It is just as really a part of the generative function as is the begetting of physical offspring.
They claim that men eminent for grand achievements in fields of science, philosophy, invention, religion and philanthropy, have been men whose lives accorded to this theory, referring us as illustrious examples to Plato, Newton, Lamb, our own Irving and Whittier, and always remembering the humble Nazarene.
They also claim that to woman belongs the “creative power,” that she must choose when a new life shall be evolved, and only by adhering to this law can she be protected in the highest function of her being—the function of maternity. Mrs. Chandler in “Motherhood,” says: “Every mother from the hour when the new life commences, is overshadowed by the Most High. Could she understand her needs and powers, and secure to herself respect due to her sacred office, and, free from all polluting intrusion upon herself, bathe her spirit in the influxes which the life within attracts, very rapidly would disappear the loathesome deformities, the discordant spirits now blotting the fair proportions of humanity.”
She claims that in the Scripture statement in reference to the parents of the child Jesus, that Joseph “knew not” Mary from the hour when the announcement of the new life was made until the birth of the child, is involved a deeper and more important meaning than the Christian world or the medical profession have discovered. Thus this “undisturbed maternity, which was essential to the ushering in of the Prince of Peace, is equally in all cases a vital and indisputable necessity for the improvement of humanity. Motherhood should be a shrine unpolluted by selfishness. O woman! This would be thy recompense for all the sufferings and agonies which pertain to physical womanhood and motherhood.”
It is encouraging for those who believe this thought to know that not only woman but men standing high in learning and literature espouse and teach it. “The Science of a New Life,” by Dr. Cowan, gives what he terms the law of continence as a central thought. It is full of practical lessons for married people, and has had a large sale.
“The Better Way,” a pamphlet, by A. E. Newton, teaches that only through continent lives can we hope for progress.
“Plain Facts,” by Dr. Kellogg, has had an immense sale. He, too, teaches the same thought.