Marrying Butts, Part Two

Leta looked disheveled, and she knew it. What she wasn’t certain of was whether or not Mr. Butts, her date for the afternoon, would remark. In any case, she prepared a fictional story about it. The truth would never do, not with Mr. Butts, not if their relationship was to continue to grow. She was waiting outside of their agreed-upon meeting place when he appeared.

"Mrs. Bassett," he said and politely tipped his hat.

"Mr. Butts," she returned, still expecting him to comment on her appearance, but he didn't.

"Thank you for coming."

"My pleasure."

Still, he gave no indication that he saw her disheveled state.

Then he offered her his arm. "Shall we go in?" he inquired.

"Yes, yes, of course," she agreed as she took it.

By this time several other attendees had arrived and entered the little church, so Mrs. Leta Bassett and Mr. Arthur Butts strolled into the sanctuary and took their seats.

Frankly, Leta was surprised when he asked her to accompany him to this presentation. In the six weeks that they had known each other, she would never have guessed that he had any interest in flowers, and most certainly not in botanical talk about them. He was a farmer, but the two were not always related. In fact, none of the farmers in her own family cared at all about flowers.

Still, he asked her, and she agreed to meet him.

When he asked her, Mr. Butts made it clear to her that he had read about the lecture in the newspaper. She figured it was his way of trying to merge their separate lives. After all, he was a farmer, and she a city woman. Leta could only interpret that he was leading up to something.

In contrast to her appearance, Mr. Butts had freshly bathed, put tonic in his hair and wore his best suit. It was a little old fashioned, but Leta didn't mind. In fact, she found his general quiet and seeming backwardness quaint.

They sat near the rear of the little church, not in the last pew but one up. While she wasn't out of place in a church, having attended regularly since she was a child, Mr. Butts seemed more awkward than usual.

A plump woman who couldn't be bothered to fix herself up at all gave a mercifully brief welcome speech and then introduced the horticulturist. As soon as the lecturer appeared from behind a thick red velvet curtain, however, Leta's countenance fell. She had, she realized instantly, not two weeks earlier, experienced a rather passionate dalliance with him in the back seat of his car.

To be continued.

Marrying Butts, Part One

Her hair was a mess. That's all she could think, standing outside the little church, where she was meeting Mr. Butts. She tried to check out her reflection in the glass windows, but the sun wasn't right, and all she had was her silhouette. This grayish black shade of her head with its variety of protrusions and clumps served only as further proof that she was far from presentable.

What on earth were these people going to think of her, looking like she had just been blown in by a cyclone?

She reached for her comb. She would make one last attempt at respectability, but just then she saw him turning the corner. She was out of time, and he would just have to take her as she was.

He smiled brightly. Perhaps he had forgotten his spectacles, she thought. When he drew nearer and actually saw how she looked, he would have a different reaction.

"What happened to you?" he would ask with great concern in his squeaky drawl. "You look like you was dragged through the mud."

"I had a tough night," she would answer.

"What happened?" he would continue, and then she would have to provide a suitable answer, one that wouldn't cause him to walk away right then and there. While she was rarely ashamed of herself, Leta was also, at the same time, discreet. That she was known for having trysts with a number of men was far more vague than including the names of the men themselves. Still, her reputation already preceded her into relationships like the one she had with Mr. Butts. Providing details was more than she ever dared. Now that he was, it seemed, courting her, she needed to exercise more caution. As far as he knew, she had been married three times before the beginning of their romance. Due to a violent, unsafe living situation, she was compelled to divorce her first husband, the father of her two children. Her second husband was murdered, and her third marriage also ended in divorce when she learned he was carrying on with other women behind her back and secretly paying for his drinking and womanizing with the money she had set aside for her children...or something like that.

Ironically, Leta found it very easy to lie to Mr. Butts. Although for the most part, she considered herself a truthful person, even in her looseness, as it were, but in his case, the near-truths and untruths came easily. It wasn't an indication of a strong marriage, if they went that far, but there was something about him that made lying seem appropriate. And in this instance she would have to lie.

She would make it a simple lie. Her neighbor had fallen off a ladder. His wife was hysterical, so she had been at the hospital all night with them. He had a concussion, but he would be fine. She didn't have time to freshen up. She hadn't even been to her own church that morning. She was sorry. She had no way of getting in touch with him, and she didn't want him to think that she had forgotten about their date, so there she was.

Yes, that would suit him. It sounded plausible. He would understand.

To Be Continued.

The condom

My very sexually active great-grandmother only had two children, so I am still considering all the options on just how she never had more. Thus, I did some research on the condom:

According to Wikipedia, “Condoms have been used for at least 400 years. Since the 19th century, they have been one of the most popular methods of contraception in the world.” In Western culture, the first use of such devices was to counter syphilis. In his 16^th century treatise, Italian Gabriele Falloppio describes the condom as a linen sheath that has been soaked in a chemical solution and allowed to dry before use. These cloths were sized to cover the glans of the penis, and were held on with a ribbon. He claimed that an experimental trial of the linen sheath demonstrated protection against syphilis.

From this point on, either penis coverings became more popular or writers and scientists became more comfortable talking about them (or both), for the use of such coverings to protect from disease is described in a wide variety of literature throughout Europe. It wasn’t until 1605, however, when the first indication that the device was being used for birth control rather than disease prevention, went public. This occurred via a theological publication—De iustitia et iure (On justice and law)—by Catholic theologian Leonardus Lessius. Of course, he condemned them as immoral. Then, “in 1666, the English Birth Rate Commission attributed a recent downward fertility rate to use of ‘condons’, the first documented use of that word (or any similar spelling).”

During the Renaissance, condoms were made out of animal intestines and bladder. The first known condoms to cover the entire penis appeared in the late 15th century, when Dutch traders introduced ones made from fine leather to Japan.

Despite several kinds of opposition from legal, religious and medical circles, the condom market grew rapidly. By the 18th century, a variety of kinds of condoms were available and sold at pubs, barbershops, chemist shops, open-air markets and the theater throughout Europe and then America. Of course, due to expense and lack of sex education, condoms were generally used only by the middle and upper classes. It wasn’t until the 19^th century that contraceptives were promoted to those with lower incomes.

Condom use increased tremendously in the U.S. after the Civil War, particularly in response to skyrocketing rates of sexually transmitted diseases. (Oh, those Victorians—puritanical on the surface, but secretly breaking their own rules.) In fact, during this time, sex education classes were introduced to public schools for the first time, teaching about venereal diseases and how they were transmitted. Of course, the primary method taught to prevent sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) was abstinence, because the medical community and self-declared “moral watchdogs” considered STDs to be punishment for sexual misbehavior. In fact, the stigma against victims of these diseases was so great that many hospitals refused to treat people who had syphilis.

For decades, this attitude and educational practice continued—condoms were only for bad people who had sinful sex. Yet, “Worldwide, condom sales doubled in the 1920s.” By the mid-1930s, many religious institutions sanctioned contraceptives for married couples and legal restrictions began to be relaxed.

So perhaps my great-grandmother required that her husbands and lovers wear condoms to prevent pregnancy and disease. Yet in her environs—rural and urban Ohio—it seems more apropos that pregnancy prevention would have been left up to her, the woman. I grew up in the 1970s, and even into the present there is a prevailing attitude that pregnancy prevention is a woman’s responsibility.

But all this condom history is pretty interesting, isn’t it?

No more children

I don't know why my great-grandmother Leta had only two children and only with her first husband, particularly as she was a person with an obviously strong sexual appetite. During the 1920s and 30s, while she was in her twenties and thirties, she had four husbands and a number of trysts. Never becoming pregnant is quite surprising. The family myth is that she barely took care of the two she had, although my research into that history has proved that belief to be somewhat of a fallacy. Perhaps her own physiology decided that two were sufficient. Perhaps she did become pregnant and terminated the pregnancy. Perhaps she was quite skilled at practicing the “rhythm method” of birth control, by paying the strictest attention to her cycle and abstaining when her chances of becoming pregnant were at their peak.

I am most surprised that she did not have any children with her second husband Albert Mohr. First, he seemed very compatible to her. After all, by divorcing her first husband in 1922, she took a tremendous life-risk for a woman with children. Then, only three weeks after the divorce married Albert. She must have been crazy in love with him. And I may be making this up, but I find it hard to accept that they didn’t want children together. She was only 28 and he 37 when they married. Plus, he had no children of his own. Yet they didn’t. Perhaps they were trying, and he was murdered before they conceived.

As noted in a previous blog, there are many reasons that women can be infertile, so I have considered that perhaps she acquired Chlamydia from one of her sexual experiences. However, there are more serious repercussions of this illness than infertility, and this was before the common use of penicillin to treat STDs. To my knowledge, she never suffered from any of the corresponding health difficulties.

I do know that her daughter/my grandmother Vivian struggled with childbearing. She had complications delivering her first child—my dad—in 1939. Although he was breech, she did not have him Caesarean section. After he was born, she had several miscarriages and eventually believed she would no longer conceive. However, 12 years after the birth of my father, she had another child, and two years later a third. Becoming pregnant with my uncle was a huge surprise, but there he was. She was 37 years old.

However, Leta had only the two children in her first marriage.

As I fictionally re-create her life, this leaves me in a little bit of a quandary. First, I wonder if her lack of pregnancy is even an issue? Do I need to bring it into the story at all?

On the other hand, I am very attached to the notion of her wanting to conceive with Albert, her second husband. Such a complication helps focus her personality and the choices she made over the following, barfly years.

Second, do I need to provide any detail about it? Can’t she just live her life, enjoying or not, such as it was, as a sexually active woman who simply never got pregnant again and never much noticed that she didn’t?

It seems to me that I still need to research this one. It would be easier if her sexual liberation occurred after 1960, when the Pill became the primary form of birth control for women. But we’re talking the 1920s and 30s here, so that option is out.

And so I’ll continue puzzling it out until the right answer presents itself.

Infertility

Infertility is not a situation that most people take lightly. It is generally fraught with anxiety and not a little shame. My great-grandmother Leta had two children with her first husband Ralph. She was still under 30 when she divorced him and married Albert Mohr. He was under 40 and had no children. And they didn’t have any. I don’t know why. Nor did she have any children with any of her subsequent husbands, at least two of whom she married during what we would call her “child-bearing years.” And we know that she was quite a sexual being.

So I am considering that perhaps after having two children she could have no others. According to several web sites, there are quite a number of reasons that a woman may become infertile, some far more complicated than others.

Chlamydia, for example, is a sexually transmitted infection that is also the most frequent cause of fallopian tube damage or blockage—75% actually.

Pelvic Inflammatory Disease (PID) is the most common cause of infertility worldwide. It's a bacterial infection of the pelvis or one or more of the reproductive organs—ovaries, fallopian tubes, cervix or uterus. Sometimes PID spreads to the appendix or to the entire pelvic area. The bacteria stems from the same bacteria that cause sexually transmitted diseases or may develop from bacteria that reach the reproductive organs through abortion, hysterectomy, childbirth, sexual intercourse, use of an intrauterine (IUD) contraceptive device or a ruptured appendix.

Lifestyle habits that may contribute to a woman’s infertility are: 1) heavy use of alcohol, tobacco or drugs; 2) starvation diets or anorexia; or 3) stress. A woman may also be infertile as the result of hormonal deficiencies, problems in the reproductive organs and some illnesses. While many of these are treatable, others are not.

These include the following:

Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCO) is a disease in which the ovaries produce high amounts of male hormones, especially testosterone. Instead of producing eggs, the follicles form fluid-filled cysts that eventually cover the ovaries. This syndrome is dangerous for a number of other reasons, such as an increase in diabetes, cancer and heart disease. Physical effects include excessive facial hair, thinning hair, acne, depression, unexplained weight gain, irregular or no periods and/or high insulin or cholesterol readings.

Endometriosis refers to a condition in which sections of the uterine lining implant in the vagina, ovaries, fallopian tubes or pelvis, form cysts that grow with each menstrual cycle, and may eventually turn into blisters and scars which block the passage of the egg.

Decreased production of any one of the five hormones that regulate a woman's reproductive cycle may result in infertility.

Adrenal or thyroid deficiencies may cause hormonal and ovarian problems, and some women produce excess amounts of prolactin, a hormone that normally stimulates the production of breast milk and simultaneously prevents ovulation.

Women may develop antibodies or immune cells that attack the man's sperm, mistaking it for a toxic invader.

In a luteal phase defect, a woman's corpus luteum (the mound of yellow tissue produced from the egg follicle) may fail to produce enough progesterone to thicken the uterine lining. Then the fertilized egg may be unable to implant.

Fibroids, (or benign growths) may form in the uterus near the fallopian tubes or cervix. As a result, the sperm or fertilized egg cannot reach the uterus or implant there. This is very common in women over age 30.

A variety of uterine problems may also cause infertility. These include:  1) endometritis (an abnormal swelling of the uterine lining that makes it difficult for the fertilized egg to implant); 2) scar tissue left after abdominal surgery that affects the movement of the ovaries, fallopian tubes, and uterus; 3) frequent abortions that weaken the cervix or by leaving scar tissue that obstructs the uterus; 4) weak, infrequent or abnormal contractions in the uterus that fail to push the sperm up to the fallopian tubes; 5) poor quality cervical mucous; 6) certain diseases, such as diabetes, kidney disease or high blood pressure, or ectopic pregnancy and some urinary tract infections; 7) medications such as hormones, antibiotics, antidepressants, and pain killers (although these are temporary); and 8) premature menopause (often from excessive exercise or anorexia).

Of course, my great-grandmother could just have been very good about not getting pregnant after her two children. As I do not know the exact reason or reasons, the novel, at least as far as I can tell right now, will require I make one or more.

Leta and Ralph divorce, part two

In my search for documents and factual history of my great-grandmother Leta’s life, I was fortunate to have come across her divorce filing from her first husband, my great-grandfather Ralph Chetister, The petition was filed by attorney Telma R. Smith in the Court of Common Pleas of Lucas County, Ohio on June 28, 1922.

While I wonder if this was a particularly difficult act, the document itself, as I suppose it must have had to in 1922, presents a the litany of grievances. These are rather disturbing. In the short document (two and a half pages), Leta lists several incidents of cruelty, mean-spiritedness and even violence. Leta is the plaintiff and Ralph is the defendant.

The document states “That while plaintiff and defendant were still living together plaintiff was obliged to refrain from having lady visitors call upon plaintiff because of defendant’s insulting and ungentlemanly conduct toward said visitors, humiliating plaintiff, and causing plaintiff great distress of mind.”

And while the complaint claims that Ralph called Leta “vile and indecent names, unfit to be set forth herein” and “charged plaintiff with unchastity,” she counter-charges that “defendant was in the habit of consorting and keeping company with woman other than his wife, frequenting dances with said women and escorting them home from dances and other places of amusement, remaining away until a late hour at night, causing plaintiff great anxiety and distress of mind.”

While personal charges of unfaithfulness and neglect detail their own viscidity, the complaint includes a very powerful accusation, that “while plaintiff and defendant were still living together, defendant refused to work and provide plaintiff with the common necessaries of life, and that it became necessary for plaintiff to keep borders for the purpose of maintaining the house and supplying herself and family [they had two children] with the necessaries of life.” This long paragraph concludes with a clincher, “that plaintiff, notwithstanding her poor health, has been required to depend upon her own efforts and the assistance of friends for support and maintenance.”

I am sure that the court did not look up on this favorably, and I wonder if my great-grandfather was working at the time of the divorce, since he hadn’t been during the separation (according to this complaint, at least), but had been for many years of their marriage.

Finally, the document concludes with a personal revulsion: “That defendant contracted or became infected with a loathesome [sic] skin disease; that defendant’s untidiness and uncleanliness of person constantly jeopardized plaintiff, putting plaintiff in great fear of contracting the aforesaid disease from defendant; that when plaintiff would ask defendant to use care and discretion in connection with said disease, defendant would become enraged, exercise less care and discretion, calling plaintiff vile and indecent names, unfit to be set forth herein.”

The document then concludes, “Wherefore, plaintiff prays that upon the final hearing hereof she may be divorced from said defendant, and awarded the care, education, custody and control of said two minor children, and for such other and further relief to which she may be entitled in the premises.”

On November 8, 1922, Leta was awarded her divorce. The court costs were $1,870.65. While “Alimony, property right and custody of minor children [were] agreed upon by the parties hereto and approved by the court,” Leta was charged with paying the court costs.

Three weeks later, she married husband number two—Albert E. Mohr.

Leta and Ralph divorce, part one

On June 28, 1922, after nine years of marriage, my great-grandmother Leta M. (Scott) Chetister filed a petition for divorce from my great-grandfather Ralph M. Chetister in the Court of Common Pleas of Lucas County, Ohio.  The petition was submitted by her attorney Telma R. Smith. One certified copy was given to the Sheriff. The cost was $15.00.

I have a copy of this document, as well as several attachments.

First, Leta “says that she now is, and for more than one year last past has been, a bona fide resident of the State of Ohio, and for more than thirty days last past, a resident of Lucas County in said state.

In order to file in the county in the state, she was required by law to fulfill these basic residence requirements.

The document reveals the basic of the family: 1) marriage date – April 19, 1913; and 2) two children – “Vivian, age 8 years, dale, age 5 years.”

It further notes that Leta and Ralph had separated on February 15, 1922. They resided at different locations in Toledo, three-quarters of a mile apart.

Following the basic introduction comes the complaint by the Plaintiff (Leta) against the Defendant (Ralph):

“Defendant has been guilty of extreme cruelty toward plaintiff in this, to wit:- that on the 1^st day of February, 1922, defendant threatened to kill plaintiff, called plaintiff vile and indecent names, unfit to be set forth herein, charged plaintiff with unchastity, when defendant knew, or had ample opportunity to know that plaintiff was chaste, putting plaintiff in great fear and causing plaintiff great mental and physical suffering and anguish; that on the 15^th day of February, 1922, when plaintiff was very sick, defendant refused to summon a physician for plaintiff, notwithstanding plaintiff’s suffering and physical distress.”

Although I am not positive how this worked, if she was so ill, but this was also the day of formal separation.

However, according to the document, these instances were not the first signs of marital distress. On October 15, 1921, four months earlier, “defendant struck plaintiff a violent blow, bruising plaintiff’s flesh, calling plaintiff vile and indecent names unfit to be set forth herein; that in July of 1919, defendant attacked plaintiff, choking plaintiff, bruising plaintiff’s flesh, causing plaintiff great pain and suffering; that on June 25, 1919, defendant struck plaintiff, causing plaintiff great pain and suffering.”

The overall reason for these actions was attributed to Ralph’s “vicious and ungovernable temper, and that on many occasions without just cause defendant became enraged, striking plaintiff, calling plaintiff vile and indecent names, charging plaintiff with unchastity.”

There is a pattern here – temper, violence and accusation.

TO BE CONTINUED.

Time to go

This was not what she wanted, but then, here she was. Her attorney was looking at her intently. The question had been asked, and she had to answer: “Why do you want a divorce?”

How could she answer? Should she say that her life had become unbearable? But what did that mean? If she told the truth, would it make her out to be the one doing the wrong?

After all, there really wasn’t anything especially wrong with her husband. He worked and provided for her and their two children. He liked to go out a couple of nights a week with his co-worker friends, but most men they knew did. Of course, she liked to go out, too and not just to visit with her church friends. But he didn’t like that. In fact, what was wrong was how he didn’t want her to enjoy herself in any way.

But she knew that many women were in the same place, and they endured their husbands and their situation as housewives. Why was she different? And was her difference bad?

She wasn’t bad. She didn’t care what anyone thought. She was who she was, and her husband didn’t like her.

But could she say that?

“I want a divorce because my husband doesn’t like me,” she answered. The attorney, a dark haired, dark-eyed, plain woman in a stiff skirt suit looked at her intently.

“What do you mean, he doesn’t like you?” she inquired.

“I mean,” Leta repeated, “he doesn’t like me.”

“In the bedroom?”

“Yes, that and—“

“But you have two children.”

“My youngest is six.”

“Has it been that long?”

The attorney started to write notes.

“Sporadic, usually when he’s been drinking.”

“Does he drink a lot?”

“No, no, not really.”

“But he does drink?

“Yes. And…”

“And…” The attorney leaned forward. Leta froze. “You don’t need to be nervous. You can tell me.”

Leta looked hard at the lawyer with the intense gaze. It was time for her to decide. This was it. Once she started talking, once she gave the details there was no turning back. In her mind’s eye, she saw her daughter and her son—what the change this would have on them. Ralph wasn’t a great father to them. He barely noticed them. He didn’t even know them at all, and what he did know, he didn’t like. He thought that their daughter was growing up too fast (like she could help it), and that their son was a simpering mama’s boy. Just like you! Leta thought, regularly annoyed her that her husband couldn’t see the similarity. Then she thought of him—her husband—glowering at her when she came home from a church activity, complaining about the food she prepared for supper, sweating in his easy chair after work and refusing to wash up, looking at her as if she were trashy.

And she knew she could do it.

“My husband does not treat me or my children very well,” she said clearly, and then came the experiences and details.