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

 

 

Rohleder (_Vorlesungen ueber Geschlechtstrieb und Gesamtes 

Geschlechtsleben der Menschen_) adopts a somewhat qualified 

attitude in this matter. As a general rule he is decidedly 

against recommending sexual intercourse outside marriage to those 

who are suffering from partial or temporary abstinence (the only 

form of abstinence he recognizes), partly on the ground that the 

evils of abstinence are not serious or permanent, and partly 

because the patient is fairly certain to exercise his own 

judgment in the matter. But in some classes of cases he 

recommends such intercourse, and notably to bisexual persons, on 

the ground that he is thus preserving his patient from the 

criminal risks of homosexual practices. 

 

It seems to me that there should be no doubt whatever as to the correct 

professional attitude of the physician in relation to this question of 

advice concerning sexual intercourse. The physician is never entitled to 

advise his patient to adopt sexual intercourse outside marriage nor any 

method of relief which is commonly regarded as illegitimate. It is said 

that the physician has nothing to do with considerations of conventional 

morality. If he considers that champagne would be good for a poor patient 

he ought to recommend him to take champagne; he is not called upon to 

consider whether the patient will beg, borrow, or steal the champagne. 

But, after all, even if that be admitted, it must still be said that the 

physician knows that the champagne, however obtained, is not likely to be 

poisonous. When, however, he prescribes sexual intercourse, with the same 

lofty indifference to practical considerations, he has no such knowledge. 

In giving such a prescription the physician has in fact not the slightest 

knowledge of what he may be prescribing. He may be giving his patient a 

venereal disease; he may be giving the anxieties and responsibilities of 

an illegitimate child; the prescriber is quite in the dark. He is in the 

same position as if he had prescribed a quack medicine of which the 

composition was unknown to him, with the added disadvantage that the 

medicine may turn out to be far more potently explosive than is the case 

with the usually innocuous patent medicine. The utmost that a physician 

can properly permit himself to do is to put the case impartially before 

his patient and to present to him all the risks. The solution must be for 

the patient himself to work out, as best he can, for it involves social 

and other considerations which, while they are indeed by no means outside 

the sphere of medicine, are certainly entirely outside the control of the 

individual private practitioner of medicine. 

 

Moll also is of opinion that this impartial presentation of the 

case for and against sexual intercourse corresponds to the 

physician's duty in the matter. It is, indeed, a duty which can 

scarcely be escaped by the physician in many cases. Moll points 

out that it can by no means be assimilated, as some have 

supposed, with the recommendation of sexual intercourse. It is, 

on the contrary, he remarks, much more analogous to the 

physician's duty in reference to operations. He puts before the 

patient the nature of the operation, its advantages and its 

risks, but he leaves it to the patient's judgment to accept or 

reject the operation. Lewitt also (_Geschlechtliche 

Enthaltsamkeit und Gesundheitsstoerungen_, 1905), after discussing 

the various opinions on this question, comes to the conclusion 

that the physician, if he thinks that intercourse outside 

marriage might be beneficial, should explain the difficulties and 


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