Page:Contraception; 1st ed. (IA in.ernet.dli.2015.94163).pdf/189

a way that certain movements of physiological value (particularly to the man), which ideally the woman should make, are then impossible. It is true that few women either know or practise complete physiological union in coitus, but that is no reason to justify the advocacy in general for normal women of an instrument which inherently prevents certain natural and valuable movements. The Dutch cap, however, is really useful for slightly abnormal cases, such as very fat women, those with injured cervices, &c. (2) My second objection is that it covers all the tissues at the end of the vagina and near the cervix, and these tissues are among the most sensitive (and probably absorptive) of the woman, and it is not good that they should be needlessly covered; they are not covered by the small occlusive cap.

"For these and other reasons I think the Dutch cap inferior to the small occlusive for normal women."

This I followed by further details in a new edition of "Wise Parenthood."^[1]

This cap is still pressed upon the public by the Malthusian League regardless of the objections noted above, and of another and