“You ask

     1.  Whether or not it is formally sinful to use antiseptic ointment
     before illicit intercourse.

     2.  Whether or not the use of such ointment may be advocated.

     3.  Whether or not it is lawful for chemists to sell it.

Ad. 1.  Although it seems that in England (cf.  Times, January, 1917) some have made a scrupulous distinction between the use of this ointment before and after, and have forbidden the former while approving the latter, you need make no such distinction (of course, supposing the ointment is not used by a woman to sterilize).  It is not wrong to seek means, indifferent in themselves, which will prevent the evil consequences of sin.

Ad. 2.  It would indeed be a sin to reveal such drugs or to persuade their use with the intention to induce a man to commit sin; but there is no harm in telling a man who is certainly going to sin how to avoid the consequences.  Ad. 3.  If men could be restrained from vice by prohibiting the sales, this should be done; but so many are ready to expose themselves to danger that you cannot hope for such a result from forbidding the sale.  It is true this removes fear, but the general good, and the removal of danger to the innocent justifies this.  Besides, it is a poor virtue which is kept from sin only by the fear of disease.”

Having gone so far as to admit the desirability and necessity of the medical prevention of sexual diseases, the Roman Catholic Church will certainly find itself later unable to deny the desirability and necessity of preventing the birth of children liable to be born diseased or unfit.  It is not practicable for a wife to take any suitable precautions against infection by a diseased husband, which precautions will not at the same time be effective, to a greater or lesser extent, in the prevention of conception.  There is no half-way house in the matter of sexual hygiene.

ETTIE A. ROUT.

I.—­INTRODUCTION.

At present marriage is easily the most dangerous of all our social institutions.  This is partly due to the colossal ignorance of the public in regard to sex, and partly due to the fact that marriage is mainly controlled by lawyers and priests instead of by women and doctors.  The legal and religious aspects of marriage are not the primary ones.  A marriage may be legal—­and miserable; religious—­and diseased.  The law pays no heed to the suitability of the partners, and the Church takes no regard for their health.  Nevertheless, the basis of marriage is obviously mating, or sexual intercourse.  Without that there is no marriage, and with it come not merely health and happiness but life itself.  Cut out sexual intercourse, and society becomes extinct in one generation.  Every generation must, of necessity, pass through the bodies of its women; there is no other way of obtaining entry into the world.  Hence, it is clearly the duty of women to understand precisely the processes involved, from beginning to end.