Not sure about Mark Twain's penis size, though. History is silent on this issue. He had a couple of daughters so it was clearly big enough in that sense. Whether or not he really pleased his wife or whether or not that was even an issue in the late 19th century, I couldn't say.
But we do know that Twain had a grudging respect for Chinese people. He had issues with them, no doubt. Just as he did with the Jews and the blacks. But also like the Jews and the blacks, he appreciated that they had good qualities as well as bad. On the Chinese he said:
They are a harmless race when white men either let them alone or treat them no worse than dogs; in fact they are almost entirely harmless anyhow, for they seldom think of resenting the vilest insults or the cruelest injuries. They are quiet, peaceable, tractable, free from drunkenness, and they are as industrious as the day is long. A disorderly Chinaman is rare, and a lazy one does not exist.
-- Mark Twain
Another prophecy: that by 1935 we shall have Chinamen coming to us as missionaries. But I think that that was not really intended as a prediction, I think it merely embodied a hope; a hope that some day those excellent people would come here and teach us how to be at peace and bloodless for thousands of years without the brutal help of armies and navies. But that gentle dream is dead: we have taught them to adopt our sham civilization and add armies and navies to such other rotten assets as they may possess.
-- Mark Twain
But what about masturbation? Twain gave a whole speech on the subject of "onaism". He has some unorthodox opinions. He's largely against it which was the norm at the time. But he doesn't express any religious views. He just states that it's inferior to getting it on with the ladies. I'm not sure that I agree but also one doesn't preclude the other. One can masturbate and also get it on with the ladies.
He also expresses a peculiar notion that masturbation need not be a solitary endevour. Upon agreement, one can masturbate with other men. Maybe at the time this was socially acceptable but unless I'm traveling in the wrong social circles, I don't think that this is the case any longer.
My gifted predecessor has warned you against the "social
evil--adultery." In his able paper he exhausted that subject; he
left absolutely nothing more to be said on it. But I will
continue his good work in the cause of morality by cautioning you
against that species of recreation called self-abuse to which I
perceive you are much addicted. All great writers on health and
morals, both ancient and modern, have struggled with this stately
subject; this shows its dignity and importance. Some of these
writers have taken one side, some the other.
Homer, in the second book of the Iliad says with fine
enthusiasm, "Give me masturbation or give me death." Caesar, in
his Commentaries, says, "To the lonely it is company; to the
forsaken it is a friend; to the aged and to the impotent it is a
benefactor. They that are penniless are yet rich, in that they
still have this majestic diversion." In another place this
experienced observer has said, "There are times when I prefer it
to sodomy."
Robinson Crusoe says, "I cannot describe what I owe to this
gentle art." Queen Elizabeth said, "It is the bulwark of
virginity." Cetewayo, the Zulu hero, remarked, "A jerk in the
hand is worth two in the bush." The immortal Franklin has said,
"Masturbation is the best policy."
Michelangelo and all of the other old masters--"old masters,"
I will remark, is an abbreviation, a contraction--have used
similar language. Michelangelo said to Pope Julius II, "Self-
negation is noble, self-culture beneficent, self-possession is
manly, but to the truly great and inspiring soul they are poor and
tame compared with self-abuse." Mr. Brown, here, in one of his
latest and most graceful poems, refers to it in an eloquent line
which is destined to live to the end of time--"None knows it but
to love it; none name it but to praise."
Such are the utterances of the most illustrious of the
masters of this renowned science, and apologists for it. The
name of those who decry it and oppose it is legion; they have made
strong arguments and uttered bitter speeches against it--but there
is not room to repeat them here in much detail. Brigham Young, an
expert of incontestable authority, said, "As compared with the
other thing, it is the difference between the lightning bug and the
lightning." Solomon said, "There is nothing to recommend it but
its cheapness." Galen said, "It is shameful to degrade to such
bestial uses that grand limb, that formidable member, which we
votaries of Science dub the Major Maxillary--when they dub it at
all--which is seldom, It would be better to amputate the os
frontis than to put it to such use."
The great statistician Smith, in his report to Parliament,
says, "In my opinion, more children have been wasted in this way
than any other." It cannot be denied that the high antiquity of
this art entitles it to our respect; but at the same time, I think
its harmfulness demands our condemnation. Mr. Darwin was grieved
to feel obliged to give up his theory that the monkey was the
connecting link between man and the lower animals. I think he was
too hasty. The monkey is the only animal, except man, that
practices this science; hence, he is our brother; there is a bond
of sympathy and relationship between us. Give this ingenuous
animal an audience of the proper kind and he will straightway put
aside his other affairs and take a whet; and you will see by his
contortions and his ecstatic expression that he takes an
intelligent and human interest in his performance.
The signs of excessive indulgence in this destructive pastime
are easily detectable. They are these: a disposition to eat, to
drink, to smoke, to meet together convivially, to laugh, to joke
and tell indelicate stories--and mainly, a yearning to paint
pictures. The results of the habit are: loss of memory, loss of
virility, loss of cheerfulness and loss of progeny.
Of all the various kinds of sexual intercourse, this has the
least to recommend it. As an amusement, it is too fleeting; as an
occupation, it is too wearing; as a public exhibition, there is no
money in it. It is unsuited to the drawing room, and in the most
cultured society it has long been banished from the social board.
It has at last, in our day of progress and improvement, been
degraded to brotherhood with flatulence. Among the best bred,
these two arts are now indulged in only private--though by consent
of the whole company, when only males are present, it is still
permissible, in good society, to remove the embargo on the
fundamental sigh.
My illustrious predecessor has taught you that all forms of
the "social evil" are bad. I would teach you that some of these
forms are more to be avoided than others. So, in concluding, I
say, "If you must gamble your lives sexually, don't play a lone
hand too much." When you feel a revolutionary uprising in your
system, get your Vendome Column down some other way--don't jerk it
down.
Message Thread
« Back to index