and the actions of husbands and wives could be brought to conform to
the laws which obtain under them, _the divorce courts would go out of
business_, their occupation, like Othello's, would be "gone indeed."

The first conclusion, then, one that is forced upon the thoughtful
mind by the fact of this difference in the sex possibilities of women
and other female animals, is, as already stated, but which is here
repeated for emphasis, that coitus _can_ be engaged in _by women_ when
_pregnancy_ is _not_ its purpose, on her part; and that _this never
occurs in any other form of female life!_

In view of this fact, is it too much to raise the question whether or
not sex in woman is designed to fulfill any other purpose than that of
the reproduction of the race? True it is, that the _only_ function
of sex in all other females is merely that of producing offspring--of
perpetuating its kind. Under no circumstances does it _ever_ serve
_any_ other end, fulfill any other design. _There is no possibility of
its doing so_!

But one can help wondering if it is not true that, with the existence
of the _possibility_ of engaging in coitus _at will_, rather than
at the bidding of _instinct_ alone, there has also come a _new_ and
_added_ function for the sex-natures that are capable of engaging
in such before-unknown experiences? To a fair-minded person, such
conclusion seems not only logical, but irresistible! That is in view
of this conclusion, it naturally follows that sex in the human family
is _positively designed to fulfill a function that is entirely unknown
to all other forms of animal life_. And from this, it is but a step to
the establishment of the fact that _sex exercise in the human family
serves a purpose other than that of reproduction_!