Chapter VII: “married Love” and Its Developments

The book, _Married Love_, was the outcome of Dr. Stopes’s scientific investigation of her own case, in the course of which, as already mentioned, she had read in the British Museum and elsewhere nearly everything that mattered on cognate subjects. This research revealed to her the great gaps that exist in the information available to ordinary people, as well as the lack of a book of instruction in sex, sufficiently simple to be understood, scientifically accurate, yet sympathetic, and written with a basis of romance and poetry, which she deemed to be the atmosphere in which alone the subject can properly be broached. In addition to this, she made a very fundamental physiological discovery on the subject of women’s spontaneous sex-rhythm and potential response to sex appeal. Concerning this Dr. Stopes brought to the science of human physiology a contribution which has already had, and should yet have, far-reaching sociological results. In her chapter on Rhythm, together with charts, a fundamental law was laid down, or rather the existence of it was detected, but couched in simple and direct language suitable for the readers of any ordinary book instead of for the _Transactions_ of a learned Society. Its profound value has still perhaps not been fully realized, although it was followed up by Havelock Ellis, whose reference to it has already been quoted.

_Married Love_, drafted at first to crystallize her own ideas, was approximately completed in 1914, but Dr. Stopes then made no definite effort to publish it, and it was early in 1918 before she felt that the time for it was absolutely ripe and that it should immediately be published. I had read it in manuscript, and thought it of great interest, but I did not think it would find a ready market, and told her she would be fortunate if 2,000 copies of it were sold in twenty years in the form in which it was being published. In her usual independent way Dr. Marie Stopes laughed, and her laughter was justified, for the first 2,000 copies were sold in a fortnight. The second and third editions were sold without a single advertisement, and Mr. Fifield, who was the original publisher, soon began to be oppressed with the burden of keeping the market supplied. When Dr. Marie Stopes, who knew him to be in general an active, efficient and capable publisher, went to him with the book (sole control of which she retained), she asked him in the initial interview whether he could deal with a book likely to sell by the ten thousand for some years, and probably ultimately by the million, and Mr. Fifield assured her that such was his capacity and desire. He put his heart into the publication of the book, and it owes much to his initial care. When, however, it had begun to get into the ten thousands the successful author was rather astonished to receive urgent telegrams from the publisher saying, “Stop this boom,” and letters bewailing that he had to sit up all night to deal with the orders, and she was startled to find that where she had ordered a printing of 10,000 copies he had cut it down to 7,000. She pathetically remarked, “Most publishers, I should have thought, would be only too glad to have an author who helped them sell their books,” particularly when no financial responsibility was involved. In order to get the book out early in 1918, when paper was at a premium, Dr. Marie Stopes took everything in hand herself, and within three weeks of deciding it should be published, had it on the market. She bought the paper herself, and had to go from one wholesaler to another to obtain the supplies of paper needed for the successive reprintings, as paper was at that time rationed, and it was no small achievement to have kept the book on the market in the way it was. Ultimately, as Mr. Fifield was in any case retiring from business, in the most friendly fashion she transferred the book to Messrs. Putnam, who have published since then.

When first bringing out _Married Love_ I remember hearing Dr. Stopes say that she thought knowledge on these sex matters now so urgent and so well worth her time that she would risk her academic position in London University and everything short of life itself to bring it out. She was quite prepared to be imprisoned. The one thing she was not prepared for was the avalanche of thanks and heartfelt gratitude, the thousands and tens of thousands of touching letters which inundated her from all parts of the world. Indeed, for the first year or two after the publication of _Married Love_ Dr. Stopes’s life was made a positive burden by grateful readers. She had deliberately in this book said very little on the subject of birth control, deeming it a minor matter, for _Married Love_ presupposes a knowledge of birth control, and was planned to give instruction in the general problems facing potentially happy married people. But such a large number of her letters were not only from private individuals requiring birth control help, but from those who had been to their doctors and been refused information, or whose doctors knew nothing satisfactory to tell them, and so large a proportion were from medical men themselves thanking her for the information she gave and asking for more, that it became impossible to reply to the individual letters, and instead of a letter she wrote a very small book called _Wise Parenthood_, which was first published in paper covers as a pamphlet. This has grown, and been kept up-to-date as a small book concerning several methods of contraception, and is planned for the general reader. Public memory is very short, and it may not be generally realized or remembered how great has been the effect of Dr. Stopes’s outspoken and scientific work on the subject of sex in general and contraception in particular. Before 1918 it was the exceptional doctor who was able and willing to give contraceptive information to his parents; to-day the position is almost reversed. After some time a further need became apparent, for a centre where trained experts could give personal advice to the very large number of people who require individual attention and cannot follow written instructions, and Dr. Stopes and Mr. Roe often spoke of the idea of a clinic and endeavoured to urge suitable societies and institutions to found one. Everyone feared to do so and shirked the responsibility. At last they said: “We seem to be the only two people independent enough, and with the necessary freedom, resources, and determination, to do it. No one can oust us from our positions, no one can stop us; obviously _we have got to do it ourselves_.”

The first birth control clinic in the British Empire therefore was founded by Dr. Marie Stopes and her husband in 1921 as a demonstration of what was needed throughout the country. It was deliberately kept small and simple, because they did not desire, as reformers often do, to create a large institution with an expensive staff, but desired to demonstrate how, with a simple everyday shop and rooms, easy of access, with equipment costing only a small sum well within the means of every welfare centre in the country, the knowledge of the control of conception could be brought to the very poor and ignorant. As they explain in the little brochure describing the first foundation of the clinic: “Here mothers will be considered not only as the producers of mere babies, _but as the creators of splendid babies_. Only motherhood which is in the control of the mother, can now truly advance our race.... Birth control knowledge will be given not in the crude repulsive form it is advocated in some quarters, but as the keystone in the arch of progress towards racial health and happiness.”

In order not to be hampered by the conflict of ideas and ideals, no committee was organized in connection with this first clinic, but a number of distinguished persons from different social circles kindly showed their interest in the work by lending their names as patrons, including several distinguished medical men and women. The clinic was opened on March 17, 1921, and its simple accommodation was very soon overtaxed to such an extent that it has hardly dared to advertise its existence since the first great meeting of welcome which was held at the Queen’s Hall.

Dr. Stopes served as a member both on the Cinema Commission and on the Birth Rate Commission. The latter in its previous Report had dealt with birth control questions, and in the Sessions arranged for 1920-1921 intended not to deal with that subject. Dr. Stopes was willing to take no active part in drawing attention to it; but witness after witness skirted so near the subject in giving evidence, that questions on it were unavoidable, and it ultimately became one of the most important topics before this Commission as it had been on the former one.

At the conclusion, however, contrary to the weight of the evidence, a majority of the Commission signed a reservation opposed to scientific birth control; whereupon a minority resolution was drawn up by Dr. Marie Stopes, which was signed by Lord and Lady Willoughby de Broke, Dr. C. W. Saleeby and herself.

About the time of the foundation of the clinic Dr. Marie Stopes, in connection with coal mining and other work, was to some extent in touch with Downing Street and met the Prime Minister personally, who naturally could not at that stage commit himself to any open approval of a subject which had not yet been voiced in a reputable public manner. He said to her however, “Show us that there is a public behind you; hold great meetings. There has never been a really _respectable_ great meeting on the subject in the country.” Dr. Marie Stopes responded. “All right,” she said, “I will take the Queen’s Hall myself and pack it,” and this she did without any committee or backing beyond that of a small number of private friends, and a brilliant platform of speakers gathered round her. The Hall itself was packed to overflowing, and the phrase “Constructive Birth Control” coined and set in circulation. An American journalist who was present said: “That meeting took my breath away; twice you knocked us sideways. Once by daring to do it at all, and the second time when you gave us that idea that birth control could be _constructive_, a pro-baby idea; we had always thought of it as a purely negative and repressive movement.” Letters of cordial approval and support were sent for public reading at this meeting by Miss Maude Royden, Lady Constance Lytton, the Lady Glenconnor, Sir James Barr, C.B.E., M.D., and many others.

Speeches were made by Rt. Hon. G. H. Roberts, Dr. Jane L. Hawthorne, Dr. Killick Millard, Admiral Sir Percy Scott, Councillor H. V. Roe, Dr. Marie Stopes, and myself.

All the speeches were reported verbatim, and are published in a pamphlet,[1] together with some impressions of the meeting by people who were present.

Dr. Jane Hawthorne said:

“I am here this evening to represent those who have neither the
opportunity nor the power to make their own appeal, and therefore I
am anxious to put before you as clearly as possible the position of
the very poor, hard-worked wife and mother.... The other week a woman
came into one of our clinics to tell us that in twelve years she was
the mother of nine children, and of these two only were alive, and
this, ladies and gentlemen, is the history of that family.”

After giving terrible details of this and a second family, Dr. Hawthorne continued:

“Another woman, whom I know well, comes regularly to the Infant
Welfare Clinic every eighteen months with a new baby, and that mother
is mentally deficient, whilst her husband is deaf and dumb. None of
these children are normal, and so they are born to very quickly find
their way into the hospitals, the asylums and other institutions.

“These, ladies and gentlemen, are only a few--a very few--of the
hundreds of similar cases which one meets with in the year, and
yet it seems to me that these few voice an appeal which ought to
be irresistible to those of us who have ears to hear, and those
of us who have the knowledge and power to help. By what right
do we withhold this knowledge and take upon ourselves so great a
responsibility?”

In the course of her own speech Dr. Stopes said:

“Sometimes those who feel intensely with me, yet shrink from doing
anything for the poor mothers, because they think that by so helping
them young girls and others will learn methods of birth control and
may thus be sent downhill on a life they ought not to embark upon.
So I want to make it clear once and for all that such an idea must
not be allowed to hinder us. One of the very first experiences in the
Birth Control Clinic was a strong case to show how misguided that
would be. The second person who came to my Clinic when it was first
opened came on behalf of a girl of twenty who was pregnant for the
sixth time! And every previous time she had had an abortion performed
by her own mother! We, of course, had no help for that girl. We
cannot deal with such cases. Yet it shows that in that terrible
underworld of misery and anguish which we selfish, self-centred,
lazy people so seldom visualize and understand, there _is_ already
‘knowledge’ of a kind. ‘Knowledge’ is going round which is utterly
detrimental, utterly unwholesome and tragic in its effects. The
true knowledge which we are bringing to counteract that is clean
and wholesome, and is pure physiological information to replace the
miserable half-knowledge which already exists.

“Then, too, another aspect of my Birth Control Clinic is lit up
by the fact that by the word ‘control’ I mean CONTROL. It is
extraordinary how the words ‘birth control’ have become associated
with a negative and repressive movement. Now, in my opinion, control
consists in being able to go uphill just as well as to go downhill;
to turn to the right as well as to the left. I will tell you the
story of one woman who came a fortnight ago.

“She was one of the type that certain clergymen in their pulpits
would refer to as ‘those wicked women who refuse maternity.’ All
through her marriage she had openly declared she did not want
children. But to me she came for help and said: ‘I have been married
seventeen years and have not had a child.’ I asked her whether she
wished she had one and she said: ‘Of course, _of course_ I want a
child, but I’ve never told anyone; I pretend that I do not want one
because I can’t get it,’ and then she cried, and exclaimed: ‘I would
give my life, and suffer any torture to have a child.’ We gave her
information which I think will help, and I hope that in about nine
months there may be a Clinic baby in that home.”

There have been many other cases yielding “Clinic babies” since then.

Dr. Stopes continued:

“Another incredible thing is the general lack of knowledge about sex
and all the wonderful and beautiful mysteries of marriage. The extent
of this ignorance is extraordinary. Do you know we had five cases of
people married for years, and in each case the husband has not known
how to play his part, and the wife is still a virgin and she wonders
why she does not have a child!...

“We have already to-day sufficient sound physiological knowledge to,
from this moment (if one could only get everyone to know of it),
check the birth of every diseased, unhealthy, unprepared-for child.
We really can, as Dr. Killick Millard quoted, stem at the source
this incessant stream of misery which is always greater than our
resources can deal with.

“How great this misery, and how great the expense of it is to
our race, can be found by reading a few of these Blue-books. You
could very advantageously spend a few shillings at Imperial House,
Kingsway, buying Reports in regard to prisons, costs of maintenance
of schools of detention for the feeble-minded, asylums for the blind,
schools for the defective, and so forth. Surely it is far better to
spend the money on healthy, happy children who cost us far less per
head than the wastrels! (Applause.)

“To get rid of the wastrels in a Christian way we must see that they
are not born.

“Beyond this, this ideal which I present is not _merely_ that we
shall be simply healthy people and have only healthy children born;
it is further that we shall consciously step forward to a greater
potentiality of health, beauty, happiness, and understanding of life.
An old false idea, which early got incorporated into Christianity, is
that the enjoyment of beauty and sex-life in marriage was a wrong,
or at any rate a lesser thing than the ascetic and repressed life.
That idea is now doing us infinite harm. It is a lower and baser
ideal which was suited to the earlier stages of evolution, but we
have now passed through the stages of human evolution, when that
idea is of any further use. The ideal which humanity to-day needs is
the ideal of a full joyous life of real understanding, coupled with
control, and with the full use of every beautiful aspect of the life
of man and woman together....

“I absolutely deny that the so-called ‘self-control’ which consists
of the ascetic repressing of mutual love between man and woman is a
high ideal. It was a temporary ideal suited to a phase of life in
which there was no scientific knowledge. I now say quite clearly that
the truest and a far higher ideal is for a man and woman to love each
other profoundly as a pair of individuals, and to benefit by that
love and interchange which each needs from the other. And at the same
time, but as a separate conscious act, to create only those children
for which they have sufficient means, sufficient love, and sufficient
health. That is to say, that married lovers should play the part of
parents _only_ when they can add individuals of value to the race.”

Following Dr. Stopes, I said:

“Some three or four thousand years ago Moses and his successors,
using the scientific knowledge of their times, and well understanding
the difficulties and dangers of the small Jewish tribe they
represented, formulated a code of morality based on the broad
common-sense principle that everything possible should be done to
induce their women to bear as many children as possible for fear
the race should be exterminated by the hostile nations and the wild
beasts that surrounded them on all sides.

“That morality no longer fits our case to-day. If every woman in
England were induced to bear a score of children the resulting misery
would totally eclipse the sufferings caused by the Great War. It
was very well 3,000 years ago to say: ‘Happy is the man that hath
his quiver full of them (i.e., children); they shall not be ashamed
when they speak with their enemies in the gate.’ With twenty fine,
strapping sons of his own, he could indeed talk ‘like a father’ to
any foe.

“But times have changed. We no longer insist on a man going to his
deceased brother’s widow to perform the husband’s duty and raise
up seed to increase the family. We even place obstacles in the way
of his marrying his deceased brother’s widow if he wants to. Then
again, we do not tolerate public polygamy in the old-fashioned way,
and we should be much scandalized if we had a king whose matrimonial
experiences were as melancholy and as multitudinous as those of King
Solomon.

“Evidently in our new conditions we need some clear guidance suited
to our present-day conditions, but which shall preserve the spirit
of ancient religion by dealing with the questions of marriage and
motherhood on lines as clear, broad, reasonable, and humane, as were
the precepts of Mosaic morality for the people and time when they
were formulated. It is not creditable to those who now sit in Moses’s
seat that they have made no serious attempt to do this. They have
tithed the mint and anise of church ceremonies and legal enactments
while forgetting the weightier matters necessary to the promotion
of healthy and happy homes for men and women rearing cheerier and
sturdier offspring to fill our places when we have passed to the
Great Beyond. It was under these circumstances that Dr. Stopes, three
years ago, produced her great work, ‘Married Love,’ which has since
been followed by ‘Radiant Motherhood’ and other works.

“These offer sound and sane guidance which we can oppose to the
quackery, ignorant confusion of thought, and ascetic malignity, of
those who love the darkness rather than the light. That is why I wish
particularly to emphasize the thanks due to Dr. Marie Stopes.”

Mrs. Zangwill, the authoress, wrote of that meeting:

“I had not heard Dr. Stopes speak in public before, and so was
unprepared for the beauty of her voice, and the amazing way in which
it carries. She put forward yet another aspect of the case. Birth
control is control and not negation, she insisted. Her clinic is not
only to prevent the unwanted baby; it is to produce the wanted. She
touched on instances of disastrous marital ignorance--ignorance that
is only possible through our ignoring the most important subject in
life--the subject that _is_ life.”

It seemed that the enthusiasm and interest showed at this meeting should not be allowed to die down with no permanent growth, and consequently a Society was founded to carry on birth control propaganda and work on the lines indicated at the meeting. The Society for Constructive Birth Control and Racial Progress was founded at the Hotel Cecil on August 16, 1921, Mr. H. V. Roe being elected honorary secretary and Dr. Marie Stopes president, with a distinguished committee and list of vice-presidents. In a few weeks this Society secured more public support than the old Malthusian League had done in forty years, for it was run in a way more in keeping with the feeling of the time, a yearning for constructive help for a pro-baby organization which recognized the sacredness of motherhood and the need of knowledge to space babies so as to give the best conditions for both mother and child. This spirit is embodied in the tenets of the Society (see Appendix C). Regular meetings have been held in London, and a number of others all over the country, which have stimulated men and women in many directions, so that now the birth control movement is a powerful constructive movement in the country, though it is not yet fully organized, nor are its adherents all conscious of how large is the number of those who, like themselves, privately approve but still fear their next door neighbour--who also probably privately approves, but fears to say so.

Following her first presidential address to the Constructive Birth Control Society, Dr. Marie Stopes responded to an invitation to speak in the Town Hall in New York, and “popped across” the Atlantic for a three-days’ visit. She found herself compelled to stay five days, as there was no suitable return sailing, and during that time she gave an address to the first great meeting on the subject in the Town Hall in New York, a verbatim report of which was published by the Voluntary Parenthood League; besides which she spoke at some private drawing-room meetings at which the formation of clinics for birth control in America was discussed and a scheme set on foot.

Dr. Stopes’s little book, “Truth About Venereal Disease,” had the good fortune to be mentioned with praise and approval in the House of Lords by the presidents of both the then opposing Societies that were combating the evil--Lord Gorell and Lord Willoughby de Broke--and it did something towards the object with which it was written, namely, the unification of the opposing factions.

The Society for Constructive Birth Control, finding the press indifferent, needed an organ, and when it held its first public dinner (a very successful affair), Dr. Marie Stopes produced from under her dinner napkin, as a surprise, the first number of the _Birth Control News_, which was circulated among the guests. This monthly, in the form of an ordinary newspaper so as to be readable and attractive to the man-in-the-street, has ever since then chronicled the world-wide development and interest in birth control, which is now beginning to be recognized by thinkers in all directions as one of the most useful and urgent subjects for social consideration.

When _Married Love_ was first published Dr. Marie Stopes won the approval of almost everyone, as it was written in a sympathetic strain of idealism. With its plea for temperate wholesome living and the spread of sound knowledge it was difficult to disagree, and she had too, in the first six editions of the book, the cordially expressed support of a Roman Catholic priest of the Society of Jesus, who said:

“DEAR DR. STOPES,--

“I have read _Married Love_ with deep interest. As a piece of
thoughtful, scientific writing I find it admirable throughout, and
it seems to me that your theme could not have been treated in more
beautiful or more delicate language, or with a truer ring of sympathy
for those who, through ignorance or want of thought, make shipwreck
of their married happiness.

“Your clear exposition of the rhythmic curve of sex-feeling and of
the misinterpretation on the part of so many husbands of what they
call their wives’ contrariness, arising from their ignorance of its
existence, should bring happiness to many married couples whose lives
are drifting apart through want of knowledge. In the exercise of my
ministry I have repeatedly traced the beginnings of the rift to this
want of knowledge, and consequently of sympathy.

“So far we are in complete agreement, but our ways part when you
treat of birth control.”

Then follow the usual Roman Catholic objections to birth control, in the course of which he says:

“Let me take in illustration of my meaning the case you give of the
worn-out mother of twelve. The Catholic belief is that the loss
of health on her part for a few years of life and the diminished
vitality on the part of her later children would be a very small
price indeed to pay for an endless happiness on the part of all.”

He does not explain why “endless happiness” should be obtained by irrational conduct, but concludes his letter with the words:

“I cannot end without thanking you very sincerely for allowing me
to read your book. Apart from what, as a Catholic, I object to in
it, it contains so much most helpful matter that I feel sure it will
bring to many a happiness in married life now wanting through the
ignorance and the consequent want of sympathy which you so rightly
deplore.”

After Dr. Stopes and her husband founded the clinic however, and thus came into the arena not merely as dreamers and talkers, but as people who were practically active, hostilities arose of which something will be said in the next chapter. These pioneers naturally enough encountered sporadic animosity often in unexpected quarters, and sometimes, much to their distress and surprise, in the very quarters from which they had expected helpful co-operation; but no organized opposition exists except in one direction, namely, in the official attitude of the Roman Catholic Church and its associates, which became actively hostile after the founding of the clinic. Until then many Roman Catholics had been Dr. Stopes’s ardent admirers and public supporters, but after that date they were forbidden to express public approval, and were positively encouraged to suppress knowledge of her and of her work, as well as to pursue a hostile policy. These hostilities began to take the form of scurrilous articles in the press, which Dr. Stopes was advised to ignore. Later however a Roman Catholic medical practitioner published a book which contained statements against which Dr. Stopes, as the leader of a movement, felt herself bound to take legal proceedings. Owing to the fact that at the time of writing an appeal is before the House of Lords, this case is still _sub judice_, and cannot be discussed in detail; but I may be permitted to say that among its remarkable features were the medical contradictions voiced by the defendant’s witnesses. In the _Birth Control News_ for November, 1923, some of this medical evidence was analysed.

This case, though costing Dr. Stopes many thousands of pounds and incalculable worry and waste of time, did not hinder the birth control movement; on the contrary it gave it a great advertisement and educated large numbers of people into becoming sympathizers who had previously held aloof not realizing the issue at stake. All over the country, meetings continued to be held on the whole question of contraception, social economics, and sex life. Among the larger meetings addressed by Mr. H. V. Roe and Dr. Marie Stopes was one at Stockport, organized by the Labour Party, which was attended by a packed audience of 3,000. A couple of thousand squeezed into the Central Hall in Edinburgh; a meeting of 1,000 was held in the Battersea Town Hall; a meeting of over 1,000 in Liverpool.

Previously, in 1922, a meeting had been held at the Town Hall at Deptford, when the mayor in office officially countenanced the meeting by taking the chair. Delicate health alone has prevented Dr. Marie Stopes from “stumping the country”; for a few years ago she had to undergo a serious operation, and has never regained sufficient strength to travel as she did previously. From the point of view of the movement this is unfortunate, for undoubtedly the time is ripe, and Dr. Marie Stopes, going from town to town, would set fire to the great mass of public opinion now smouldering red hot in its demand that birth control shall be made available at the Welfare Centres, or in small clinics all over the country, and that the self-respecting, thrifty, and healthy, members of the community shall no longer be burdened with the upkeep of large families of C3’s and wastrels who are on the rates, and, still more important, that the enslavement of mother shall no longer exist among us.

Unable herself to speak night after night, she devised the idea of making others speak for her, and wrote a play. Nothing has so far been said here of Dr. Stopes’s interest in the drama. That also is, perhaps, inherited from her mother’s passionate interest in Shakespeare. But I know that if she had not so many other calls on her time, she would have devoted herself to the drama. As it is she has published an interesting volume on the _No_ plays of Japan (see p. 110 and Appendix A), one of which was produced at the Birmingham Repertory Theatre, besides being set to music by Boughton and performed several times by the Glastonbury Festival Company. She has also published two or three modern plays besides “Our Ostriches.” One of them, “Conquest,” is symptomatic of the tendencies which led up to the inception of the League of Nations.

The birth control play, “Our Ostriches,” ran at the Royal Court Theatre, London, for three months, and contained an amusing scene in which a Commission (a replica of many official Commissions) sat on the stage, the heroine of the play eliciting ardent applause every night from the audience. “Our Ostriches” afforded Dr. Marie Stopes the experience of a riotously successful first night, when, in reply to calls for “Author,” she gave a short speech in which she mentioned that this birth control play had been permitted, but another play of hers, a pro-baby one, had been blocked by the Lord Chamberlain.

[1] _Queen’s Hall Meeting on Constructive Birth Control._ Putnam’s Sons, Ltd. 1921. 1s. net.