SEXUAL HYGIENE 169 



woman be allowed more than one husband, as is actu- 

 ally the case in some countries 1 ' ' Oh ! no ; " our polyg- 

 amist replies, ''a woman is not capable of loving more 

 than one man, and is not even able to satisfy the 

 sexual demands of a single husband; so, of course, 

 a plurality of husbands is out of the question. A 

 man is capable of loving any number of women, being 

 differently constituted; and so the same rule does not 

 apply. ' ' 



The writer evidently confounds love with lust. He 

 will grant unstinted indulgence to the lusts of man, but 

 requires woman to be restrained, offering as an apol- 

 ogy for such a manifestly unfair and unphilosophical 

 discrimination, that ''man is differently constituted 

 from a woman sexually, requiring more active exer- 

 cise of the sexual functions,"— a conclusion which 

 could be warranted only by the selection, as a typ- 

 ical specimen of the male part of humanity, of a 

 man with an abnormal development of the animal 

 propensities. 



A correct understanding and application of the laws 

 of sexual hygiene would effectually sweep away every 

 vestige of argument based on this foundation. 



4. In proof of the propriety of polygamy, as well as 

 of its necessity, the author referred to cites the well- 

 known fact that Plato, Aristotle, Bacon, Alexander, 

 Caesar, Napoleon, Burns, Byron, Augustus, Webster, 

 and numerous others of the noted men of all ages have 

 been incontinent men. The fact that these men were 

 guilty of crime does not in the least degree detract from 

 the enormity of sin. It is equally true that many great 

 men have been addicted to intemperance and other 

 crimes. Alexander was a Sodomite as well as a lecher- 

 ous rake. Does this fact afford any proof that those 



