d, it might happen that men would be in the
preponderance.

Still again, it is only in a few very populous and long-settled
communities that there are more women than men, as in the States of
Massachusetts, Connecticut, and a few others of the Eastern States,
and a few countries of Europe. In all newly settled countries the
reverse is true. The inquiry naturally arises, What shall be done under
these circumstances? Shall a woman be allowed more than one husband,
as is actually the case in some countries? "Oh! no;" our polygamist
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
from a woman; and so the same rule does not apply."

The writer evidently confounds love with lust. He will grant unstinted
reign to the lusts of man, but requires woman to be restrained, offering
as an apology for such a manifest unfair and unphilosophical
discrimination that "man is differently constituted from a woman,
sexually, requiring more active exercise of the sexual functions," a
conclusion which could be warranted only by the selection, as a typical
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 the 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 lecherous rake. Does this fact
afford any proof that those crimes are virtues instead of vices? Such
argument is hardly worthy of serious refutal, since it stultifies
itself.

5. The fact that monogamy was practiced among the ancient Greeks and
Romans is in no way derogatory of it as an institution. Even if it could
be shown that it originated with those nations, still this would in
no way