Main  Contacts  
Table of contents
PREFACE
THE MOTHER AND HER CHILD-1.1
THE MOTHER AND HER CHILD-1.2
THE MOTHER AND HER CHILD-1.3
THE MOTHER AND HER CHILD-1.4
THE MOTHER AND HER CHILD-1.5
SEXUAL EDUCATION-2.1
SEXUAL EDUCATION-2.2
SEXUAL EDUCATION-2.3
SEXUAL EDUCATION-2.4
SEXUAL EDUCATION-2.5
SEXUAL EDUCATION-2.6
SEXUAL EDUCATION-2.7
SEXUAL EDUCATION-2.8
SEXUAL EDUCATION-2.9
SEXUAL EDUCATION-2.10
SEXUAL EDUCATION-2.11
SEXUAL EDUCATION AND NAKEDNESS-3.1
SEXUAL EDUCATION AND NAKEDNESS-3.2
SEXUAL EDUCATION AND NAKEDNESS-3.3
SEXUAL EDUCATION AND NAKEDNESS-3.4
THE VALUATION OF SEXUAL LOVE-4.1
THE VALUATION OF SEXUAL LOVE-4.2
THE VALUATION OF SEXUAL LOVE-4.3
THE VALUATION OF SEXUAL LOVE-4.4
THE FUNCTION OF CHASTITY-5.1
THE FUNCTION OF CHASTITY-5.2
THE FUNCTION OF CHASTITY-5.3
THE FUNCTION OF CHASTITY-5.4
THE FUNCTION OF CHASTITY-5.5
THE FUNCTION OF CHASTITY-5.6
THE PROBLEM OF SEXUAL ABSTINENCE-6.1
THE PROBLEM OF SEXUAL ABSTINENCE-6.2
THE PROBLEM OF SEXUAL ABSTINENCE-6.3
THE PROBLEM OF SEXUAL ABSTINENCE-6.4
THE PROBLEM OF SEXUAL ABSTINENCE-6.5
THE PROBLEM OF SEXUAL ABSTINENCE-6.6
PROSTITUTION-7.1
PROSTITUTION-7.2
PROSTITUTION-7.3
PROSTITUTION-7.4
PROSTITUTION-7.5
PROSTITUTION-7.6
PROSTITUTION-7.7
PROSTITUTION-7.8
PROSTITUTION-7.9
PROSTITUTION-7.10
PROSTITUTION-7.11
PROSTITUTION-7.12
PROSTITUTION-7.13
PROSTITUTION-7.14
PROSTITUTION-7.15
FOOTNOTES-1
FOOTNOTES-2

physically; and in no small number the result is, and ever will 

be, utter physical shipwreck on one of the many rocks, sharp, 

jagged-edged, which beset the way, or on one of the many beds of 

festering slime which no care can possibly avoid." In America the 

same view widely prevails, and Dr. J.F. Scott, in his 

_Sexual-Instinct_ (second edition, 1908, Ch. III), argues very 

vigorously and at great length in favor of sexual abstinence. He 

will not even admit that there are two sides to the question, 

though if that were the case, the length and the energy of his 

arguments would be unnecessary. 

 

Among medical authorities who have discussed the question of 

sexual abstinence at length it is not, indeed, usually possible 

to find such unqualified opinions in its favor as those I have 

quoted. There can be no doubt, however, that a large proportion 

of physicians, not excluding prominent and distinguished 

authorities, when casually confronted with the question whether 

sexual abstinence is harmless, will at once adopt the obvious 

path of least resistance and reply: Yes. In only a few cases will 

they even make any qualification of this affirmative answer. This 

tendency is very well illustrated by an inquiry made by Dr. 

Ludwig Jacobsohn, of St. Petersburgh ("Die Sexuelle 

Enthaltsamkeit im Lichte der Medizin," _St. Petersburger 

Medicinische Wochenschrift_, March 17, 1907). He wrote to over 

two hundred distinguished Russian and German professors of 

physiology, neurology, psychiatry, etc., asking them if they 

regarded sexual abstinence as harmless. The majority returned no 

answer; eleven Russian and twenty-eight Germans replied, but four 

of them merely said that "they had no personal experience," etc.; 

there thus remained thirty-five. Of these E. Pflueger, of Bonn, 

was skeptical of the advantage of any propaganda of abstinence: 

"if all the authorities in the world declared the harmlessness of 

abstinence that would have no influence on youth. Forces are here 

in play that break through all obstacles." The harmlessness of 

abstinence was affirmed by Kraepelin, Cramer, Gaertner, Tuczek, 

Schottelius, Gaffky, Finkler, Selenew, Lassar, Seifert, Gruber; 

the last, however, added that he knew very few abstinent young 

men, and himself only considered abstinence good before full 

development, and intercourse not dangerous in moderation even 

before then. Brieger knew cases of abstinence without harmful 

results, but himself thought that no general opinion could be 

given. Juergensen said that abstinence _in itself_ is not harmful, 

but that in some cases intercourse exerts a more beneficial 

influence. Hoffmann said that abstinence is harmless, adding that 

though it certainly leads to masturbation, that is better than 

gonorrhoea, to say nothing of syphilis, and is easily kept within 

bounds. Struempell replied that sexual abstinence is harmless, and 

indirectly useful as preserving from the risk of venereal 

disease, but that sexual intercourse, being normal, is always 

more desirable. Hensen said that abstinence is not to be 

unconditionally approved. Rumpf replied that abstinence was not 

harmful for most before the age of thirty, but after that age 

there was a tendency to mental obsessions, and marriage should 

take place at twenty-five. Leyden also considered abstinence 

harmless until towards thirty, when it leads to psychic 

anomalies, especially states of anxiety, and a certain 

affectation. Hein replied that abstinence is harmless for most, 


Page 2 from 5:  Back   1  [2]  3   4   5   Forward