Often the manifestation of sexual precocity is less gross, but almost equally fraught with danger, nevertheless. Dr. Acton, a distinguished English s… - John Harvey Kellogg

Flirting is not confined to young men and women. The contagion extends to little boys and girls, whose heads ought to be as empty of all thoughts of sexual relations as the vacuum of an air-pump of air. The intimate association of young boys and girls in our common schools, and, indeed, in the majority of educational institutions, gives abundant opportunity for the fostering of this kind of a spirit, so prejudicial to healthful mental and moral development. Every educator who is alive to the objects and interests of his profession knows too well the baneful influence of these premature and pernicious tendencies. Many times has the teacher watched with a sad heart and withering of all his hopes for the intellectual progress of a naturally gifted scholar by this blighting influence. The most dangerous period for boys and girls exposed to temptations of this sort is just following puberty, or between the ages of twelve and eighteen or twenty. This period, a prominent educator in one of our Western States once denominated, not inappropriately, “the agonizing period of human puppyhood.” If this critical period is once safely passed, the individual is comparatively safe; but how many fail to pass through the ordeal unseared! The most painful phase of this subject is the tacit-even, in many cases, active-encouragement which too many parents give their children in this very direction, seemingly in utter ignorance of the enormity of the evil which they are winking at or fostering Parents need enlightenment on this subject, and need to be aroused to the fact that it is one of the most momentous questions that can arise in the rearing and training of children.

Dress and Sensuality.-There are two ways in which fashionable dress leads to unchastity; viz, 1. By its extravagance; 2. By its abuse of the body. How does extravagance lead to unchasitity? By creating the temptation to sin. It affects not those gorgeously attired ladies who ride in fine carriages, and live in brown-stone fronts, who are surrounded with all the luxuries that wealth can purchase-fine apparel is no temptation to such. But to less favored-though not less worthy-ones, these magnificent displays of millenery goods and fine trappings are most powerful temptations. The poor seamtress, who can earn by diligent toil hardly enough to pay her board bill,, has no legitimate admires. Plainly dressed as she must be if she remains honest and retains her virtue, she is scornfully ignored by her proud sisters. Everywhere she finds it a generally recognized fact that “dress makes the lady.” On the street, no one steps aside to let her pass, no one stoops to regain for her the package that slips from her weary hands. Does she enter a crowded car, no one offers her a seat, though she is trembling with fatigue, while the showily dressed woman who follows her is accommodated at once. She marks the difference ; she does not pause to count the chost, but barters away her self-respect, go gain the respect, or deference, of strangers.

Conjugal Onanism.-“The soiling of the conjugal bed by the shameful maneuvers to which we have made allusion, is mentioned for the first time in Gen. 38: 6,and following verses: ‘And it came to pass, when he [Onan] went in unto his brother’s wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. And the thing which he did displeased the Lord ; wherefore he slew him.” Hence the name of “conjugal onanism”. One cannot tell to what great extent this vice is practiced, except by observing its consequences, even among people who fear to commit the slightest sin, to such a degree is the public conscience perverted upon this point. Still, many husbands know that nature often succeeds in rendering nugatory the most subtle calculations, and reconquers the rights which they have striven to frustrate. No matter ; ‘they persevere, none the less, and by the force of habit they poison the most blissful moments of life, with no surety of averting the result that they fear. So, who knows if the infants, too often feeble and weazen, are not the fruit of these in themselves incomplete “procreations”, and disturbed by the preoccupations foreign to the generic act ? Is it not reasonable to suppose that the creative power, not meeting in ist disturbed functions the conditions necessary for the elaboration of a normal product, the conception might be from its origin imperfect, and the being which proceeded therefrom, one of those monsters which are described in treatises on teratology?”