CHAPTER XXV
There is no disputed question in respect of which the divergent views are so sharply opposed as they are regarding the importance, the value, and the consequences of sexual abstinence.
[The question has been recently discussed by O. Schreiber, in a paper entitled “Sexual Abstinence,” published in Medizinische Blätter, 1907, Nos. 25-27.]
I distinguish five groups of opinion:
1. The apostles of absolute asceticism during the whole of life (Tolstoi, Weininger, Norbert Grabowsky, Kurnig, etc.).
2. The medical advocates of relative temporary continence, until it becomes possible to enjoy permanent hygienic intercourse, free from all objections.
3. The advocates of “duplex sexual morality,” who demand from woman sexual abstinence until she marries, but who regard this as impossible in the case of man.
4. The “Vera”[687] enthusiasts, who on moral grounds demand abstinence for both sexes until marriage.
5. Those who doubt the possibility of abstinence of any kind for either sex, whether absolute or relative.
Regarding those mentioned under the first heading, who demand absolute, life-long sexual abstinence, it is hardly necessary to say a word. It is nonsense, a pious superstition, a Utopia contrary alike to nature and to civilization, born of the belief in the “sinfulness” of sexual intercourse.
The normal sexual impulse is a natural phenomenon; it is pure and thoroughly ethical; and it is only in an insane confusion and in a morally reprehensible falsification of his own nature that man has come to regard it as a “sin,” as an “evil.” Man has a natural, inborn right to the gratification of the sexual impulse. Absolute asceticism must be rejected as a thoroughly immoral doctrine.
The same is true of the duplex sexual morality, alluded to under the third heading, by which that is justified to man which is denied to woman. This “morality” (lucus a non lucendo) presupposes for man a natural impulse, and demands for him a right to gratify it, whilst the existence of such an impulse and of such a right is denied to woman. We have shown that this view is an inevitable consequence of coercive marriage morality.[688]
The standpoint of the sceptics alluded to under § 5 is one which denies the possibility of any abstinence, even merely temporary abstinence; but this view is equally to be rejected. Man is a natural being; his sexual impulse is a natural instinct, and as such one whose existence is justified; but at the same time man is a civilized being. Civilization is an elevation, an ennoblement, a transfiguration of nature, whose unduly powerful impulses and powers must be tamed and harmonized by civilization. The right to sexual gratification is therefore opposed by the duty to set bounds to the sexual impulse, to conduct it into such paths that no harm can result from its exercise, either to the individual or to society; and in order that, like all other impulses, it may subserve the purposes of the evolution of civilization. To this end, however, a relative abstinence is of great importance (this is a matter which has not hitherto been sufficiently recognized); but this course it is only possible to follow when, at the same time, we emphatically affirm the rightness of sexuality, and when it is our desire to utilize it as a civilizing factor of the first rank. The “individualization” of the sexual impulse has been described in detail in an earlier chapter of this work, to which I may refer the reader. If we fail to recognize the value of temporary abstinence, and the importance of the storing up of sexual energy which is thereby effected, and the transformation of this energy into other energies of a spiritual nature, such an individualization becomes impossible.
Alike the medical advocates (§ 2) and the moral advocates (§ 4) of a relative temporary abstinence for both sexes have, from their respective standpoints, made a just demand. This is, in fact, in both cases an “ideal standpoint,” to use the phrase of F. A. Lange; but it is also an ideal most desirable to set before youth, and more especially before our German youth. We cannot repeat too often, or insist with too much emphasis, what an endless blessing results from the endeavour towards, and from the realization of, temporary sexual abstinence, more especially in the years of preparation for life, but also in the years of independent creative work.
The importance of relative sexual abstinence was first recognized by the ancient Israelites. Numerous wise prescriptions and utterances prove this. Julius Preuss, the most celebrated student of ancient Jewish medicine, has recently, in an interesting study of “Sexual Matters in the Bible and the Talmud” (Allgemeine Medizinische Central-Zeitung, 1906, No. 30 et seq.), collected the following facts bearing on the matter:
“Chastity was a self-evident demand for the unmarried. It is true that, in view of the early occurrence of puberty, they married very young—at the age of eighteen or twenty; and Rabbi Huna is of opinion that anyone who at the age of twenty is still unmarried passes his days in sin or—which he regards as even worse—in sinful thoughts. There are three whom God praises every day: an unmarried man who lives in a large town and does not sin; a poor man who finds an object of value and returns it to the owner, and a rich man who gives his tithe secretly. Once when this doctrine was read out in the presence of Rabbi Safra, who as a young man lived in a large town, his face lighted up with joy. But Raba said to him: ‘It is not meant such a one as thou art, but such a one as Rabbi Chanina and Rabbi Oschaja, who live in the street of the prostitutes, and make shoes for them, to whom, therefore, the prostitutes come, and look upon them, but who, notwithstanding this, do not raise their eyes to look upon the prostitutes.’”
After marriage also they endeavoured by valuable prescriptions to enforce the great civilizing idea of temporary sexual abstinence. Thus, intercourse during menstruation was strictly forbidden, and was regarded as a deadly sin; the same was the case as regards intercourse when there was any other hæmorrhage from the genital organs; but in this case the abstinence must last even longer. It is remarkable that the Catholic theologians allowed sexual intercourse without limit when such morbid hæmorrhage was present, and allowed it also, with certain restrictions, during menstruation. Further, among the ancient Hebrews intercourse was forbidden during the week of mourning for parents or brothers or sisters; it was forbidden also during the festival of atonement. Guests in an inn when travelling were also forbidden sexual intercourse, doubtless on grounds of decency. Intercourse was likewise forbidden in times of famine, in order to spare the bodily forces.
Golden sayings recognize the value of moderation and of relative abstinence.
According to an ancient Israelitish popular saying, sexual intercourse is one of eight things which are beautiful when enjoyed in strict moderation, but harmful when enjoyed very freely. The others are walking, possessions, work, wine, sleep, warm water (for bathing and for drinking), and venesection.
Rabbi Jochanan said: “Man possesses a little limb: he who satisfies it hungers; he who allows it to hunger is satisfied.”
Rabbi Ilai said: “When man observes that his evil impulse is more powerful than he is himself, let him go to a place where people do not know him, let him put on dark clothes, let him wear a dark turban, and let him do that which his heart desires; but let him not publicly profane the name of God.” This can only mean that in general he only controls the desire who has already tasted the fruit—that is to say, that abstinence is the safest means against lust; but he who, notwithstanding this, finds that the impulse threatens to become too violent, still has the duty to fight against it, and in any case not to yield immediately.
This ancient notion of relative asceticism was, unfortunately, falsified and thrust into the background by the Utopian and contra-natural idea of absolute asceticism; its great value was completely obscured by the inevitable reaction against the principle of absolute chastity. This reaction led actually to the formation of rules regarding the frequency of intercourse, such as that attributed to Luther—“Twice a week does harm neither to her nor to me”; although it is precisely in this department of life that no rules can be given, and that the greatest individual variations occur, so that “twice a week” may for many constitute by far too much, and can only be regarded as permissible to robust constitutions. Daily indulgence in sexual intercourse, continued for a long period of time, would be deleterious even to a Hercules, and in all circumstances would be harmful to both parties. Nature herself, by exhibiting a certain periodicity in sexual excitement (which periodicity is admittedly far more distinct in women than it is in men, who can “always” love), has facilitated temporary abstinence. This is, in fact, a natural demand even of the most extreme ethical materialism; for, as Friedrich Albert Lange[689] rightly points out, “even though the individual sensual pleasure, as with Aristippos or Lamettrie, is raised to a principle, self-control still remains a requirement of philosophy, if only in order to assure the permanence of the capacity for enjoyment.” So also the poet of the “New Tanhäuser” sings:
“Selig, der da ewig schmachtet,
Sei gepriesen, Tantalus,
Hätt’ er je, wonach er trachtet,
Würd’ es auch schon Ueberdruss:
Gib mir immer Eine Beere,
Aus der vollen Traube nur,
Und ich schmachte gern, Cythere,
Lebenslang auf deiner Spur!”
[“Happy is he who eternally desires.
A happy man art thou, Tantalus!
If he ever attained that for which he longs,
He would instantly taste satiety:
Let me have but a single grape
From the full cluster,
Gladly, Cytherea, will I live,
Ever desiring, in thy courts!”]
The question of abstinence is an entirely different one, according as it relates to the time before or after the first experience of sexual intercourse. Experience shows that in the former case abstinence is far easier than it is when the forbidden fruit has once been tasted. If, with the author of this book, relative asceticism is regarded as the most desirable ideal, we shall endeavour in youth to realize that ideal for as long a time as possible, without any interruption by sexual intercourse; whereas in the later period of the fully-developed sexual life we shall practise sexual abstinence only from time to time.
With regard to the former point, it would be the greatest good fortune for every man if he could remain sexually abstinent until the complete maturity of body and mind—that is, until the age of twenty-five.[690] But this is in most cases an impossibility. Yet it is possible for every healthy man—and it is an imperative demand of individual and social hygiene—to abstain completely from sexual intercourse at least until the age of twenty. That is possible without any harm resulting, and it is carried out by innumerable persons of both sexes. It is, indeed, a fact that in civilized countries the physical and mental maturity of girls and boys by no means coincides with their sexual maturity, but, on the contrary, occurs from three to five years later. First between the ages of twenty and twenty-two does man attain complete development.[691] If the sexual impulse is not artificially awakened and stimulated during these years of adolescence, it may remain very moderate, without masturbation and without pollutions, and can be easily controlled. Relations with the other sex have not yet become necessary for the development of the individual personality. The human being has still enough to do in isolation. First with the commencement of the third decade of life do the conditions alter, and sexual tension becomes so great as to demand the adequate and natural discharge given by the normal sexual act. If this is impossible, pollutions form the natural, or masturbation forms the unnatural, outlet; and when abstinence is continued for a long time after attaining this age, the vital freshness and the spiritual and emotional condition are more or less impaired. To have emphasized this fact, in opposition to those authors[692] who declared that total sexual abstinence is absolutely harmless to mature men, was the great service of Wilhelm Erb,[693] the celebrated, widely experienced Heidelberg neurologist.
“It is a well-known fact,” he writes, “that healthy young men with a powerful sexual impulse suffer not a little from abstinence, that from time to time they are ‘as if possessed’ by the impulse, that erotic ideas press in upon them from all sides, disturb their work and their nocturnal repose, and imperiously demand relief. I always remember the remark of a friend of my youth, a young artist, who, when speaking of these things, was accustomed to say with intense meaning: ‘Wer nie die kummervollen Nächte in seinem Bette weinend sass....’ And the same man could not sufficiently extol the relaxing, disburdening, and positively refreshing influence of an occasional gratification; and the same thing has been said to me innumerable times by earnest and thoroughly moderate men.”
Women also gave him similar assurances.[694] In numerous cases Erb observed physical and mental harm to result from abstinence—sometimes in healthy individuals, but more especially in the neuropathic.
Important also are the investigations of L. Löwenfeld[695] regarding the influence of abstinence. He found that in men under the age of twenty-four any troubles worth mentioning as a result of sexual abstinence were comparatively rare, as compared with the case of men between the ages of twenty-four and thirty-six years, the years of complete manly power and sexual capacity; and he found that whereas in healthy persons these disturbances were indeed of a trifling character (general excitability, sexual hyperæsthesia, hypochondriacal ideas, disinclination for work, slight attacks of giddiness), in neuropathic persons, on the contrary, there would occur coercive ideas, melancholy, feelings of anxiety, and even hallucinations. Females, according to Löwenfeld, bear abstinence—even absolute abstinence—much better than men, but in them also hysterical and neurasthenic conditions may develop as a result of sexual abstinence.
All these harmful consequences of abstinence are, however, neither in man nor in woman, of such a nature that, where an opportunity for sexual intercourse at once hygienic and free from ethical objections is wanting, the gratification of the sexual impulse need be advised by the physician as a “therapeutic measure.” No; Erb himself insists that, on the contrary, the dangers threatened by venereal diseases altogether outweigh the comparatively rare and trifling injuries to health resulting from abstinence. “Extra-conjugal” sexual intercourse involves the dangers of syphilitic or gonorrhœal infection, or of illegitimate pregnancy, which latter to-day must, unfortunately, be regarded as a kind of severe disease. In contrast with these evils, any harmful consequences of abstinence fade away to nothing.
Later in life, when the possibility of a permanent pure love exists, the value of temporary abstinence is to be found especially in the spiritual sphere. Precisely for the “erotocrat,” as Georg Hirth terms one endowed with a powerful and healthy sexual impulse, is this temporary abstinence of a certain importance, because the stored-up quantum of sexual tension re-enforces the inward spiritual productivity. A number of men, at once endowed with strong sexual needs and with a noble mental capacity, have assured me that, in consequence of abstinence, they have temporarily experienced a peculiar deepening and concentration of their mental capacity, by means of which they were undeniably enabled to increase their mental output. This point in the hygiene of intellectual activity, which seems not to have been unknown to Goethe, has been as yet too little studied.
In any case, it is definitely established that from the standpoint of civilization the idea of sexual abstinence is justified, if for this reason alone: because in it we find a great means for increasing and strengthening of the will; but, in the second place, because in it we have a valuable protection against the dangers of wild love; and, finally, because sexual abstinence emphasizes the fact that life contains other things worth striving for besides matters of sex, that the content of life is far from being exhausted by the sexual, even though the sexual impulse, in addition to the impulse of self-preservation, will always remain the most powerful of all vital activities.
[687] “Vera” is the heroine of a novel (“Eine für Viele: Aus dem Tagebuche eines Mädchens”) which attracted considerable attention in Germany. She demanded from men entering on marriage the same virgin intactitude which men are accustomed to expect in their wives. English readers will be reminded of Evadne, in Sarah Grand’s “The Heavenly Twins.” Evadne, it will be remembered, left her husband at the church door, owing to information she received regarding his preconjugal career. In England we might speak of “Evadne” enthusiasts, instead of “Vera” enthusiasts.—Translator.
[688] P. Näcke also (“A Contribution to the Woman’s Question and to the Question of Sexual Abstinence,” op. cit., p. 49) strongly condemns this duplex morality, which he regards as “obviously unjust.” Cf. also Max Thal, “Sexual Morality: an Attempt to solve the Problem of Sexual, and more Particularly of the so-called Duplex Morality” (Breslau, 1904).
[689] Friedrich Albert Lange, “History of Materialism,” vol. iii., p. 302, English edition.
[690] “My dear young men,” thus wrote Ernst Moritz Arndt, at the age of eighty-nine, to the Burschenschaft (Students’ Association) of Jena, “I can wish nothing better for you than that you should arrange your course of life in Jena, and pass through it, as I heretofore passed through it, making a courageous, vigorous, and earnest fight against the lusty, overbearing impulses of youth, which in the best case are so easily carried to excess.... In these your most valuable years, between eighteen and twenty, you must, with redoubled manliness, courage, and chastity, strive to deserve the praise given by Caius Julius Cæsar to the young men of Germany.”
[691] Cf., in this connexion, the remarks of A. Herzen, “Science and Morality,” pp. 11, 12 (Berlin, 1901). The same age for human maturity was fixed on also by J. C. G. Ackermann (“The Diseases of the Learned,” p. 268; Nürnberg, 1777).
[692] I need mention only Seved Ribbing, Acton, Rubner, Paget, Hegar, Beale, Herzen, A. Eulenburg, V. Cnyrim, and Fürbringer.
[693] Wilhelm Erb, “Remarks on the Consequences of Sexual Abstinence,” published in the Journal for the Suppression of Venereal Diseases, 1903, vol. ii., No. I., pp. 1-18.
[694] Theodor Mundt, in his “Madonna” (pp. 240, 241; Leipzig, 1835), has very vividly described the beneficial and refreshing influence of coitus upon women.
[695] L. Löwenfeld, “The Sexual Life and Nervous Troubles,” pp. 62-69, fourth edition.
CHAPTER XXVI
SEXUAL EDUCATION
“Better a year too early than an hour too late.”—Oker Blom.