women, denies that sexual abstinence can ever
produce satyriasis
or nymphomania. Näcke, who has frequently discussed
the problem
of sexual abstinence (e.g., _Archiv für Kriminal-
Anthropologie_,
1903, Heft 1, and _Sexual-Probleme_, June, 1908),
maintains that
sexual abstinence can, at most, produce rare and
slight
unfavorable results, and that it is no more likely
to produce
insanity, even in predisposed individuals, than are
the opposite
extremes of sexual excess and masturbation. He adds
that, so far
as his own observations are concerned, the patients
in asylums
suffer scarcely at all from their compulsory sexual
abstinence.
It is in England, however, that the virtues of
sexual abstinence
have been most loudly and emphatically proclaimed,
sometimes
indeed with considerable lack of cautious
qualification. Acton,
in his _Reproductive Organs_, sets forth the
traditional English
view, as well as Beale in his _Morality and the
Moral Question_.
A more distinguished representative of the same view
was Paget,
who, in his lecture on "Sexual Hypochondriasis,"
coupled sexual
intercourse with "theft or lying." Sir William Gowers (_Syphilis
and the Nervous System_, 1892, p. 126) also
proclaims the
advantages of "unbroken chastity," more especially as a method of
avoiding syphilis. He is not hopeful, however, even
as regards
his own remedy, for he adds: "We can trace small
ground for hope
that the disease will thus be materially reduced."
He would
still, however, preach chastity to the individual,
and he does so
with all the ascetic ardor of a mediæval monk. "With all the
force that any knowledge I possess, and any
authority I have, can
give, I assert that no man ever yet was in the
slightest degree
or way the worse for continence or better for
incontinence. From
the latter all are worse morally; a clear majority
are worse
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.
Pflüger, 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 Kräpelin, Cramer,
Gärtner, 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. Jürgensen 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. Strümpell 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,
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. Grützner 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.
Fränkel 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
the writers regard as moral considerations.
Moreover, as the same
writers are usually equally emphatic in regard to
the advantages
of sexual intercourse in marriage, it is clear that
they have
committed themselves to a contradiction. The same
act, as Näcke
rightly points out, cannot become good or bad
according as it is
performed in or out of marriage. There is no magic
efficacy in a
few words pronounced by a priest or a government
official.
Remondino (loc. cit.) remarks that the authorities
who have
committed themselves to declarations in favor of the
unconditional advantages of sexual abstinence tend
to fall into
three errors: (1) they generalize unduly, instead of
considering
each case individually, on its own merits; (2) they
fail to
realize that human nature is influenced by highly
mixed and
complex motives and cannot be assumed to be amenable
only to
motives of abstract morality; (3) they ignore the
great army of
masturbators and sexual perverts who make no
complaint of sexual
suffering, but by maintaining a rigid sexual
abstinence, so far
as normal relationships are concerned, gradually
drift into
currents whence there is no return.
Between those who unconditionally affirm or deny the
harmlessness of
sexual abstinence we find an intermediate party of
authorities whose
opinions are more qualified. Many of those who occupy
this more guarded
position are men whose opinions carry much weight, and it is probable that
with them rather than with the more extreme advocates on either side the
greater measure of reason lies. So complex a question as this cannot be
adequately investigated merely in the abstract, and
settled by an
unqualified negative or affirmative. It is a matter in which every case
requires its own special and personal consideration.
"Where there is such a marked opposition of opinion truth is not
exclusively on one side," remarks Löwenfeld
(_Sexualleben und
Nervenleiden_, second edition, p. 40). Sexual
abstinence is
certainly often injurious to neuropathic persons.
(This is now
believed by a large number of authorities, and was
perhaps first
decisively stated by Krafft-Ebing, "Ueber Neurosen durch
Abstinenz," _Jahrbuch für Psychiatrie_, 1889, p. 1).
Löwenfeld
finds no special proclivity to neurasthenia among
the Catholic
clergy, and when it does occur, there is no reason
to suppose a
sexual causation. "In healthy and not hereditarily neuropathic
men complete abstinence is possible without injury
to the nervous
system." Injurious effects, he continues, when they appear,
seldom occur until between twenty-four and thirty-
six years of
age, and even then are not usually serious enough to
lead to a
visit to a doctor, consisting mainly in frequency of
nocturnal
emissions, pain in testes or rectum, hyperæsthesia
in the
presence of women or of sexual ideas. If, however,
conditions
arise which specially stimulate the sexual emotions,
neurasthenia
may be produced. Löwenfeld agrees with Freud and
Gattel that the
neurosis of anxiety tends to occur in the abstinent,
careful
examination showing that the abstinence is a factor
in its
production in both sexes. It is common among young
women married
to much older men, often appearing during the first
years of
marriage. Under special circumstances, therefore,
abstinence can
be injurious, but on the whole the difficulties due
to such
abstinence are not severe, and they only
exceptionally call forth
actual disturbance in the nervous or psychic
spheres. Moll takes
a similar temperate and discriminating view. He
regards sexual
abstinence before marriage as the ideal, but points
out that we
must avoid any doctrinal extremes in preaching
sexual abstinence,
for such preaching will merely lead to hypocrisy.
Intercourse
with prostitutes, and the tendency to change a woman
like a
garment, induce loss of sensitiveness to the
spiritual and
personal element in woman, while the dangers of
sexual abstinence
must no more be exaggerated than the dangers of
sexual
intercourse (Moll, _Libido Sexualis_, 1898, vol. i,
p. 848; id.,
_Konträre Sexualempfindung_, 1899, p. 588). Bloch
also (in a
chapter on the question of sexual abstinence in his
_Sexualleben
unserer Zeit_, 1908) takes a similar standpoint. He
advocates
abstention during early life and temporary
abstention in adult
life, such abstention being valuable, not only for
the
conservation and transformation of energy, but also
to emphasize
the fact that life contains other matters to strive
for beyond
the ends of sex. Redlich (_Medizinische Klinik_,
1908, No. 7)
also, in a careful study of the medical aspects of
the question,
takes an intermediate standpoint in relation to the
relative
advantages and disadvantages of sexual abstinence.
"We may say
that sexual abstinence is not a condition which
must, under all
circumstances and at any price, be avoided, though
it is true
that for the majority of healthy adult persons
regular sexual
intercourse is advantageous, and sometimes is even
to be
recommended."
It may be added that from the standpoint of
Christian religious
morality this same attitude, between the extremes of
either
party, recognizing the advantages of sexual
abstinence, but not
insisting that they shall be purchased at any price,
has also
found representation. Thus, in England, an Anglican
clergyman,
the Rev. H. Northcote (_Christianity and Sex
Problems_, pp. 58,
60) deals temperately and sympathetically with the
difficulties
of sexual abstinence, and is by no means convinced
that such
abstinence is always an unmixed advantage; while in
Germany a
Catholic priest, Karl Jentsch (_Sexualethik,
Sexualjustiz,
Sexualpolizei_, 1900) sets himself to oppose the
rigorous and
unqualified assertions of Ribbing in favor of sexual
abstinence.
Jentsch thus expresses what he conceives ought to be
the attitude
of fathers, of public opinion, of the State and the
Church
towards the young man in this matter: "Endeavor to be abstinent
until marriage. Many succeed in this. If you can
succeed, it is
good. But, if you cannot succeed, it is unnecessary
to cast
reproaches on yourself and to regard yourself as a
scoundrel or a
lost sinner. Provided that you do not abandon
yourself to mere
enjoyment or wantonness, but are content with what
is necessary
to restore your peace of mind, self-possession, and
cheerful
capacity for work, and also that you observe the
precautions
which physicians or experienced friends impress upon
you."
When we thus analyze and investigate the the three main streams of expert
opinions in regard to this question of sexual
abstinence--the opinions in
favor of it, the opinions in opposition to it, and the opinions which take
an intermediate course--we can scarcely fail to conclude how
unsatisfactory the whole discussion is. The state of
"sexual abstinence"
is a completely vague and indefinite state. The
indefinite and even
meaningless character of the expression "sexual
abstinence" is shown by
the frequency with which those who argue about it assume that it can, may,
or even must, involve masturbation. That fact alone
largely deprives it of
value as morality and altogether as abstinence. At this point, indeed, we
reach the most fundamental criticism to which the
conception of "sexual
abstinence" lies open. Rohleder, an experienced
physician and a recognized
authority on questions of sexual pathology, has
submitted the current
views on "sexual abstinence" to a searching criticism in a lengthy and
important paper.[95] He denies altogether that strict
sexual abstinence
exists at all. "Sexual abstinence," he points out, in any strict scenes of
the term, must involve abstinence not merely from sexual intercourse but
from auto-erotic manifestations, from masturbation, from homosexual acts,
from all sexually perverse practices. It must further
involve a permanent
abstention from indulgence in erotic imaginations and
voluptuous reverie.
When, however, it is possible thus to render the whole psychic field a
_tabula rasa_ so far as sexual activity is concerned--
and if it fails to
be so constantly and consistently there is no strict
sexual
abstinence--then, Rohleder points out, we have to
consider whether we are
not in presence of a case of sexual anæsthesia, of
_anaphrodisia
sexualis_. That is a question which is rarely, if ever, faced by those who
discuss sexual abstinence. It is, however, an extremely pertinent
question, because, as Rohleder insists, if sexual
anæsthesia exists the
question of sexual abstinence falls to the ground, for we can only
"abstain" from actions that are in our power. Complete sexual anæsthesia
is, however, so rare a state that it may be practically left out of
consideration, and as the sexual impulse, if it exists, must by
physiological necessity sometimes become active in some shape--even if
only, according to Freud's view, by transformation into some morbid
neurotic condition--we reach the conclusion that "sexual abstinence" is
strictly impossible. Rohleder has met with a few cases in which there
seemed to him no escape from the conclusion that sexual abstinence
existed, but in all of these he subsequently found that he was mistaken,
usually owing to the practice of masturbation, which he believes to be
extremely common and very frequently accompanied by a
persistent attempt
to deceive the physician concerning its existence. The only kind of
"sexual abstinence" that exists is a partial and temporary abstinence.
Instead of saying, as some say, "Permanent abstinence is unnatural and
cannot exist without physical and mental injury," we ought to say,
Rohleder believes, "Permanent abstinence is unnatural and has never
existed."
It is impossible not to feel as we contemplate this
chaotic mass of
opinions, that the whole discussion is revolving round a purely negative
idea, and that fundamental fact is responsible for what at first seem to
be startling conflicts of statement. If indeed we were to eliminate what
is commonly regarded as the religious and moral aspect of the matter--an
aspect, be it remembered, which has no bearing on the
essential natural
facts of the question--we cannot fail to perceive that these ostentatious
differences of conviction would be reduced within very narrow and trifling
limits.
We cannot strictly coordinate the impulse of
reproduction wi