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

but in some leads to hysterical manifestations and indirectly to 

bad results from masturbation, while for the normal man 

abstinence cannot be directly beneficial, since intercourse is 

natural. Gruetzner thought that abstinence is almost never 

harmful. Nescheda said it is harmless in itself, but harmful in 

so far as it leads to unnatural modes of gratification. Neisser 

believes that more prolonged abstinence than is now usual would 

be beneficial, but admitted the sexual excitations of our 

civilization; he added that of course he saw no harm for healthy 

men in intercourse. Hoche replied that abstinence is quite 

harmless in normal persons, but not always so in abnormal 

persons. Weber thought it had a useful influence in increasing 

will-power. Tarnowsky said it is good in early manhood, but 

likely to be unfavorable after twenty-five. Orlow replied that, 

especially in youth, it is harmless, and a man should be as 

chaste as his wife. Popow said that abstinence is good at all 

ages and preserves the energy. Blumenau said that in adult age 

abstinence is neither normal nor beneficial, and generally leads 

to masturbation, though not generally to nervous disorders; but 

that even masturbation is better than syphilis. Tschiriew saw no 

harm in abstinence up to thirty, and thought sexual weakness more 

likely to follow excess than abstinence. Tschish regarded 

abstinence as beneficial rather than harmful up to twenty-five or 

twenty-eight, but thought it difficult to decide after that age 

when nervous alterations seem to be caused. Darkschewitcz 

regarded abstinence as harmless up to twenty-five. Fraenkel said 

it was harmless for most, but that for a considerable proportion 

of people intercourse is a necessity. Erb's opinion is regarded 

by Jacobsohn as standing alone; he placed the age below which 

abstinence is harmless at twenty; after that age he regarded it 

as injurious to health, seriously impeding work and capacity, 

while in neurotic persons it leads to still more serious results. 

Jacobsohn concludes that the general opinion of those answering 

the inquiry may thus be expressed: "Youth should be abstinent. 

Abstinence can in no way injure them; on the contrary, it is 

beneficial. If our young people will remain abstinent and avoid 

extra-conjugal intercourse they will maintain a high ideal of 

love and preserve themselves from venereal diseases." 

 

The harmlessness of sexual abstinence was likewise affirmed in 

America in a resolution passed by the American Medical 

Association in 1906. The proposition thus formally accepted was 

thus worded: "Continence is not incompatible with health." It 

ought to be generally realized that abstract propositions of this 

kind are worthless, because they mean nothing. Every sane person, 

when confronted by the demand to boldly affirm or deny the 

proposition, "Continence is not incompatible with health," is 

bound to affirm it. He might firmly believe that continence is 

incompatible with the health of most people, and that prolonged 

continence is incompatible with anyone's health, and yet, if he 

is to be honest in the use of language, it would be impossible 

for him to deny the vague and abstract proposition that 

"Continence is not incompatible with health." Such propositions 

are therefore not only without value, but actually misleading. 

 

It is obvious that the more extreme and unqualified opinions in 

favor of sexual abstinence are based not on medical, but on what 


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