[Continence not Injurious.]—It has been claimed by many, even by physicians,—and with considerable show of reason,—that absolute continence, after full development of the organs of reproduction, could not be maintained without great detriment to health. It is needless to enumerate all the different arguments employed to support this position, since they are, with a few exceptions, too frivolous to deserve attention. We shall content ourselves chiefly with quotations from acknowledged authorities, by which we shall show that the popular notions upon this subject are wholly erroneous. Their general acceptance has been due, without doubt, to the strong natural bias in their favor. It is an easy matter to believe what agrees well with one's predilections. A bare surmise, on the side of prejudice, is more telling than the most powerful logic on the other side.
"We know that this opinion is held by men of the world, and that many physicians share it. This belief appears to us to be erroneous, without foundation, and easily refuted."[6]
6 Mayer.
The same writer claims "that no peculiar disease nor any abridgment of the duration of life can be ascribed to such continence." He proves his position by appealing to statistics, and shows the fallacy of arguments in support of the contrary view. He further says:—
"It is determined, in our opinion, that the commerce of the sexes has no necessities that cannot be restrained without peril."
"A part has been assigned to spermatic plethora in the etiology of various mental affections. Among others, priapism has been attributed to it. In our opinion, this malady originates in a disturbance of the cerebral nerve power; but it is due much less to the retention of sperm than to its exaggerated loss; much less to virtuous abstinence than to moral depravity."
There has evidently been a wide-spread deception upon this subject. "Health does not absolutely require that there should ever be an emission of semen, from puberty to death, though the individual live a hundred years; and the frequency of involuntary nocturnal emissions is an indubitable proof that the parts, at least, are suffering under a debility and morbid irritability utterly incompatible with the general welfare of the system."
[Does not Produce Impotence.]—It has been declared that strict continence would result in impotency. The falsity of this argument is clearly shown by the following observations:—
"There exists no greater error than this, nor one more opposed to physiological truth. In the first place, I may state that I have, after many years' experience, never seen a single instance of atrophy of the generative organs from this cause. I have, it is true, met the complaint, but in what class of cases does it occur? It arises, in all instances, from the exactly opposite cause, abuse; the organs become worn out, and hence arises atrophy. Physiologically considered, it is not a fact that the power of secreting semen is annihilated in well-formed adults leading a healthy life and yet remaining continent. No continent man need be deterred by this apocryphal fear of atrophy of the testes, from living a chaste life. It is a device of the unchaste—a lame excuse for their own incontinence, unfounded on any physiological law."[7]