Witness the effect of this same theory in the marriage relation! The man who has been accustomed to gratify his passions promiscuously, seeks and marries a lovely, virtuous girl. She is not supposed to have needs in this direction. Neither has she learned that her body is her own and her soul is her Maker’s. She gives up all _ownership_ of herself to her husband, and what is the difference between her life and the life of the public woman? She is sold to one man, and is not half so well paid. Is it too strong language to say she is the one _prostitute_ taking the place, for the man, of many, and not like her, having choice of time or conditions? In consequence she not only suffers physically, but feels disgraced and outraged to the depths of her soul. She is liable to a chance maternity and the _unwelcome_ child is deprived of physical vigor, and may be endowed with lustful passions and morbid appetites, if he does not indeed curse his own existence. At the close of one of my health _conversations_ after speaking upon this subject, a lady tremblingly, but touchingly, gave her experience. She said: “Ladies, when I was married two years I was the mother of a puny, sickly baby; it had required incessant care and watching to keep it alive. When it was only seven months old, to my surprise, astonishment and horror, I felt _quickening_, and for the first time, I knew I was pregnant again. I was abased, humiliated. The sense of degradation that filled my soul, cannot be described. What had been done? The babe that was born and the babe that was unborn were robbed of their just inheritance. Remorsefully and tearfully I told my mother. She says: ‘Why child, you should not grieve; don’t you know your children are legitimate?’ My whole being arose in protest; I stamped my foot and almost screamed; ‘Although my husband is the father of my children, they are not legitimate. No man-made laws, nor priestly rites can ever make an act legitimate that deprives innocent children of their right to life and health.’ With sobs and moans, reaction came and I fainted in her arms. What was the sequel? Two years later both of these children after a brief existence lay in the ‘city of the dead,’ and until my husband and I learned _the law_ we could not have children to live.” Parties holding the _second theory_ claim: That coition is a love act. That it should never occur except when there is mutual participation on the part of both man and woman, and should be governed and guarded so as to control the creative power. Thus this act is the emblem of love; by it there is a mutual exchange of subtle elements which gives health and vigor, and more firmly cements the union. That if the lives of married people accorded to this theory, the demand of the man would be no more frequent than that of the woman. That the husband cannot sustain this relation satisfactorily and without injury to himself unless there is reciprocation on the part of the wife.