Johnson: Marriage Selection 



109 



Preferential mating is also indicated 

 in the data* regarding college women 

 and their non-college sisters, cousins, 

 and friends as collected by Miss M. R. 

 Smith. 



FORCE OF PUBLIC OPINION. 



Marriage selection is under some de- 

 gree of legal control through marriage 

 and divorce laws. Those who main- 

 tain^ that mating is wholly capricious 

 forget the very considerable extent to 

 which social control has made itself 

 effective in the past. Indeed, many of 

 the prohibitions are now relaxed, such 

 as the notorious deceased wife's sister 

 provision. It is obvious that marriage 

 laws should make as few restrictions as 

 possible without strong reason. A min- 

 imum age and a high degree of con- 

 sanguinity have been an almost uni- 

 versal matter for legislation or enforced 

 custom. And let it be noted, their ob- 

 ject has been primarily eugenic. A re- 

 lationship closer than that of cousin 

 should constitute a prohibition. Yet 

 cousin marriage need not be denied ex- 

 cept in the event of that branch of the 



family, common to the cousins in ques- 

 tion, having individuals with certain 

 specified defects. The suggestion that 

 proposed cousin marriages should be 

 passed upon by a state eugenic board, 

 although biologically sound, does not 

 seem so from the sociological standpoint. 

 In case of an adverse decision, there 

 would follow either broken hearts or a 

 liaison, for the hope of a favorable deci- 

 sion would have engendered a strong 

 attachment. Freedom from venereal 

 disease — at least for men — ^must be at- 

 tested to by competent physicians by 

 competent tests, the state assuming a 

 share of the financial burden. It does 

 not seem wise, however, to demand 

 freedom from all mental and physical 

 defects, for if the defect is very serious, 

 a surer method must be employed than 

 the withholding of a marriage license. 

 If it is less than very serious and not 

 pernicious, we are not justified in pro- 

 hibiting marriage, provided it is the 

 earnest intention of the couple not to 

 reproduce. In the event of such a 

 marriage proving fertile, sterilization 

 would prevent a second offense. 



^Collegiate Alumnae Data, 

 M. R. Smith, Statistics of college and non-college women. 



1900. 

 Pub. Amer. Stat. Assn., VII. p. 1. 



[26.3 college 



. . -.If ■ 1 24. 2 sisters 1 



Age at Marriage|24 7 cousins 24.3 

 [24.2 friends J 



College 



Equiv. Non-CoU. 



No. of Children 

 1765 

 1.875 



Per cent. Childless at time 

 25T36 

 17.89 



Occupations of Husbands per cent. 



Where Wife is 

 Equiv. Non-College 



Col. Teachers . . 

 Other Teachers. 



Lawyers 



Physicians 



Scientists 



Clergymen 



Artists 



51.4 

 11.8 

 11.2 

 8.6 

 0.6 

 4.8 

 0.3 



Income of Husbands 



College 



Where wife is 

 Equiv. Non-College 



Less than $2,000. 

 $2,000 to $5,000. 

 Over $5,000 



24.5 

 46.5 

 27.1 



36.7 

 44.1 

 16.9 



