Yet _conjugal_ chastity is that which is especially valued. The inconstancy of a wife commonly cuts much deeper than the dishonor of a sister. In that case, then, which the world usually considers of the highest importance, the fear of offspring _imposes no check whatever_. It cannot make one iota of difference whether a married woman be knowing in physiology or not; except perhaps, indeed, to the husband’s advantage; in cases where the wife’s conscience induces her at least to guard against the possibility of burthening her legal lord with the care and support of children that are not his. Constancy, where it actually exists, is the offspring of something more efficacious than ignorance. And if in the wife’s case, men must and do trust to something else, why not in all other cases, where restraint may be considered desirable? Shall men trust in the greater, and fear to trust in the less? Whatever any one may choose to assert regarding his relatives’ secret inclinations to profligacy, these arguments may convince him that if he has any safeguard at present, a perusal of Moral Physiology will not destroy it. ’Tis strange that men, by way of suborning an argument, should be willing thus to vilify their relatives’ character and motives, without first carefully examining whether any thing was gained to their cause, after all, by the vilification. Footnote 22: Instances innumerable might be adduced. Not one young person, for example, in twenty, is ever told, that sexual intercourse during the period of a woman’s courses is not unfrequently productive, to the woman of a species of fluor albus, and sometimes (as a consequent) to the man of symptoms very similar to those of urethritis or gonorrhœa, but more easily removed. Yet what fact more important to be communicated! And how ridiculous the mischievously prudish refinement that conceals from human beings what it most deeply concerns them to know? The following case is related by Dr. Dewees in his work on Diseases of Females: “We have known a complaint communicated to the male by intercourse with a woman labouring under _Pruritis_. It was very similar to that which affected the female in its general character. When this occurs with the married man, much disturbance is sometimes created from a supposition that the wife has been unfaithful, and the contrary. Indeed it has occurred in more instances than one, within our own knowledge, where the woman has thought herself the injured party; and in one case, the recrimination was mutual. In this instance, the friends of the parties assembled to determine on the terms of separation, when it was suggested, by one of those who happened to be more rational than the rest, that before they proceeded to such an extremity, their family physician should be consulted. We were accordingly sent for. After an attentive hearing of