122 



The Journal of Heredity 



greater than that of the sexually im- 

 moral, to get its evolutionary effect, it 

 remains to compare the quality of the 

 sexually moral and immoral. 



For this purpose we should distinguish 

 between the individual who is chaste 

 till the normal time of marriage and 

 then marries and whose sexual life is 

 truly monogamous, and that abnormal 

 grou]) who remain chaste and celil^ate 

 to an advanced age. Strictly speaking, 

 these last are not moral, if the\- 

 have valuable and needed traits, be- 

 cause their failure to reproduce affects 

 decidedly adversely the welfare of their 

 group in the long run. While the race 

 suffers through the failure of many of 

 these individuals to contribute progeny, 

 probably in the long run it does not so 

 far as males are concerned as much as 

 might be supposed. Such individuals 

 are often innately defective in their in- 

 stincts or, in the case of disappointed 

 lovers, may have a badly proportioned 

 emotional equipment, since it leads them 

 into a position so obviously opposed to 

 race interests. 



But, to pass to the essential com- 

 parison, that between the sexually 

 immoral and the sexually moral as 

 limited above, it is necessary first of all 

 to decide whether monogamy is a 

 desirable and presumably permanent 

 feature of human society. 



We conclude that it is : 



1. Because it is sj^reading at the 

 expense of polygamy even where not 

 favored by legal interference. The 

 change is most evident in China and 

 India. 



2. In monogamy, sexual selection 

 improves valuable traits of character, 

 rather than mere personal beauty or 

 ability to acquire wealth; and 



3. The greatest amount of hai)]jiness 

 is produced by a monogamous system, 

 since in a polygamous society so many 

 men must remain unmarried and so 

 many women are dissatisfied with shar- 

 ing their mates with others. 



Assuming this, then adaptation to the 

 condition of monogamous society rei)re- 



sents race i)rogress. Such a race profits 

 if those who do not comi)ly with its con- 

 ditions make a deficient racial con- 

 trilnition. It follows then that sexual 

 immorality is eugenic in its result and 

 that, if all sexual immorality should 

 cease, an imjjortant means of race 

 l^rogress would be lost. We have an 

 illustration in the case of the negro in 

 America, whose failure to increase in 

 numlKT faster than whites is attributa])le 

 to the widesjjreafl sterility resulting from 

 venereal infection. Should venereal dis- 

 eases alone be eliminated, we would 

 expect that race immediately to increase 

 in numbers faster than the whites. 



It may be felt by some that this 

 jjosition would have an immoral effect 

 ujjon youth if widely accepted. This 

 need not be feared. On the contrary, 

 I believe that one of the most powerful 

 factors in ethical culture is pride due to 

 consciousness of being one who is fit 

 and worthy. 



The traditional view of sexual moral- 

 ity has been to ignore the selection al 

 as])cct here discussed and to stress the 

 alleged deterioration of the germ-plasm 

 b>' the direct action of the toxins of 

 syjjhilis. The evidence relied upon to 

 demonstrate this action seems to me 

 to be vitiated by the possibility that 

 we had, instead, a transmitted infection 

 to the progeny. We cannot then credit 

 such an action since it is so highly 

 imjjrobable from analogy until it has 

 been demonstrated in cases where the 

 parents have been indubitably cured. 



Is it necessary, then, to retain sexual 

 immorality in order to achieve race 

 progress? No, because it is only one 

 of many factors in race progress. We 

 can mitigate this as well as alcoholism, 

 disease, infant mortality — all powerful 

 selective factors — ^^'ithout harm, pro- 

 vided we make u]j for it by increased 

 efficiency of other selective factors such 

 as the segregation of defectives, more 

 effective sexual selection, a better 

 correlation of income and ability, and 

 a more eugenic distribution of family 

 limitation. 



