{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_71898/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_71898","id":"gutenberg_71898","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/71898","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Gender & Sexuality Studies","Category: Health & Medicine","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Psychiatry/Psychology","Category: Sexuality & Erotica","Sexual ethics"],"text":"SEXUAL ETHICS\n\n\n\n\n                             SEXUAL ETHICS\n\n                                  BY\n\n                   AUGUST FOREL, M.D., PH.D., LL.D.\n\n                  FORMERLY PROFESSOR OF PSYCHIATRY AT\n                            AND DIRECTOR OF\n               THE INSANE ASYLUM IN ZURICH (SWITZERLAND)\n\n                           WITH INTRODUCTION\n\n                                  BY\n\n                    Dr. C. W. SALEEBY, F.R.S. Edin.\n\n\n                            [Illustration]\n\n\n                                LONDON\n                           THE NEW AGE PRESS\n                           140 FLEET STREET\n                                 1908\n\n\n\n\n             _Translated from the German by Ashley Dukes_\n\n\n\n\n                             INTRODUCTION\n\n                  By Dr. C. W. SALEEBY, F.R.S. Edin.\n\nThere is something absurd, as such, in a request for an introduction\nby any one to the work of one of the greatest of living thinkers, and\nsomething still more absurd in the fact that Professor Forel should,\nat this date, need an introduction to any intelligent audience in any\ncivilised country, as it seems he does to English readers; but if\ncompliance with that request is at all likely to increase, even by one,\nthe number of his readers, it is a duty to comply with it.\n\nNot to consider his treatises on philosophy and psychology, nor his\nlong series of original and important researches on the senses and\nlives of the social insects, Professor Forel has already given to\nthe world a volume entitled _Die Sexuelle Frage_\u2015\u2015this has now been\npublished in English[A]\u2015\u2015which is by far the best work on the sex\nquestion in any language, and has actually received on the Continent\nsomething like the recognition which is its due. The gist of its\nteaching is to be found in this little treatise on Sexual Ethics,\nand the reader who may find himself or herself unconvinced, or even\nrepelled, by the brief and dogmatic theses of the following pages, may\nbe earnestly counselled to read the larger work. Here, and in that,\nProfessor Forel deals\u2015\u2015always from the loftiest moral standpoint, the\ninterests of human life at its highest\u2015\u2015with the question which must\nremain fundamental for man so long as he is mortal, and with which the\nstatesmen of the future will primarily concern themselves, realising as\nthey will, and as the \u201cblind mouths\u201d called statesmen to-day cannot,\nthat there is no wealth but life, that the culture of the racial life\nis the vital industry of any people, and must so remain so long as\nthree times in every century the only wealth of nations is reduced\nto dust and raised again from helpless infancy. Professor Forel sees\nthis question from the only standpoint that is worthy of it. The sexual\nquestion is concerned with nothing less than the life of this world to\ncome. It is for this reason that every productive sexual union should\nbe a sacrament; it involves nothing less than the creation of a human\nlife\u2015\u2015the most tremendous act of which man or woman can be capable.\nIt is the no less than sacred cause of Eugenics or Race-Culture that\ngives the sexual life its meaning and the dignity which it may rightly\nclaim, and it is just because the Swiss thinker sees this and never\nloses sight of it that his work is so immeasurably raised above the\nordinary discussions of marriage, prostitution, venereal disease, and\nthe like. His claim for posterity on the ground of our debt to the past\nmay be amplified by the reflection that, in serving the racial life,\nand in making its welfare the criterion of our sexual ethics, we are\nserving human beings as real as we are ourselves, and tens or hundreds\nfor units whom we can serve to-day. There is always an interval\u2015\u2015nine\nmonths at least\u2015\u2015and no one expects babies or politicians to associate\ncause and effect over such abysses of time; but there are others who\nare learning to think in generations, and Professor Forel will yet add\nto their number.\n\n  [A] _The Sexual Question._ Rebman, Ltd.\n\nIn his criticisms of alcohol and the abuse of capital, Professor Forel\nopposes himself to the most powerful of vested interests. Well, if\nyou invest your interests in any other bank than that of the laws of\nlife, you or your heirs will find that theirs is but a rotten concern.\nThe history of organic evolution is proof enough that the higher life\nand the things which buttress it, \u201csagging but pertinacious,\u201d will\nalways win through in the long run. As a direct enemy of human life,\nand notably through its influence upon the sexual instinct, alcohol\nis certainly doomed. If life is the only wealth, the manufacture of\n_illth_ is a process too cannibal to be permitted for ever.\n\nProfessor Forel speaks of subduing the sexual instinct. I would\nrather speak of transmuting it. The direct method of attack is often\nfutile, always necessitous of effort, but it is possible for us to\ntransmute our sex-energy into higher forms in our individual lives,\nthus justifying the evolutionary and psychological contention that it\nis the source of the higher activities of man, of moral indignation and\nof the \u201crestless energy\u201d which has changed the surface of the earth.\nAs directly interfering with this transmutation, the extent of which\nprobably constitutes the essential difference between civilised and\nsavage man, alcohol is the more to be condemned.\n\nIn what Professor Forel has to say regarding prostitution and the\nideal of marriage, he will win assent from all except the profligate\nand those medical men who, in hideous alliance with the _protozoon_\nof syphilis and the _coccus_ of gonorrh\u0153a, defend prostitution and\neven acclaim it as the necessary complement to marriage. If there is a\nstronger phrase than most damnable of lies to apply to such teaching,\nhere is certainly the time for its employment. On this subject of\nprostitution, Professor Forel has said the last word in a masterly\nchapter of _Die Sexuelle Frage_. In his praise of monogamy, he is only\nechoing the stern verdict of the ages\u2015\u2015delivered a thousand \u00e6ons before\nany existing religion was born or thought of, and likely to outlast\na whole wilderness of their dogmas. The essence of marriage I would\ndefine as _common parental care of offspring_, and its survival-value\nas consisting in the addition of the father\u2019s to the mother\u2019s care.\nIn the absence of parenthood, a sexual association between man and\nwoman is on the same plane as any other human association; it means\nneither more nor less, and must be judged as they are judged. It is\nwhen the life of the world to come is involved that new questions\narise\u2015\u2015questions as momentous as is the difference between the\nproduction of human life at its best and of a child rotten with\nsyphilis, or permanently blinded to the light as it opens its eyes for\nthe first time, or doomed to intelligence less than a dog\u2019s.\n\nI, for one, have no shadow of doubt that the ideal of sexual ethics\nwill some day be realised, that pre-eminently preventable\u2015\u2015because\ncontagious\u2015\u2015diseases like syphilis and gonorrh\u0153a will be made an end\nof, that prostitution will disappear with its economic cause, that\nwe shall make parenthood the privilege of the worthy alone, and thus\ncreate on earth a better heaven than ever theologians dreamed of in\nthe sky. \u201cThere are many events in the womb of Time which will be\ndelivered.\u201d Individuals are mortal, and churches, and creeds, but Life\nis not. Already the gap between moss or microbe and man is no small\none, and the time to come is very nearly \u201cunending long.\u201d Uranium and\nradium will see to that.\n\n                                                       C. W. SALEEBY.\n\n\n\n\n                             SEXUAL ETHICS\n\n\nThe two conceptions of morality and sexual life are frequently\nconfounded and expressed by the same term in the popular usages of\nspeech. The word \u201cmoral\u201d is commonly used to mean sexually pure, that\nis to say, continent; while the word \u201cimmoral\u201d suggests the idea of\nsexual incontinence and debauch. This is a misuse of words, and rests\nupon a confusion of ideas, for sexuality has in itself nothing to do\nwith morality. It points, however, to the undoubted fact that the\nsexual impulse, since it has other human beings as its object, easily\nleads to moral conflicts within the breast of the individual.\n\nIt will be convenient to discuss our subject under the two heads: I. Of\nethics in general; and II. Of sexual ethics in particular.\n\n\n\n\n                               I. ETHICS\n\n\nEthics is the science of morals. Morals may be said to consist of two\nvery distinct factors, which we will attempt to analyse:\u2015\u2015\n\n1. An instinctive sense, the conscience, sense of duty, or ethical\nimpulse, which says to us: \u201cThis shalt thou do, and that shalt thou\nleave undone.\u201d A person in whom it is highly developed experiences\nsatisfaction if he obeys the \u201cvoice of conscience,\u201d and remorse if he\nfails to do so.\n\n2. The second factor of morals includes the objects of conscience, that\nis, the things which conscience commands or forbids.\n\nThe great philosopher Kant founded upon the instinct of conscience\nhis Categorical Imperative, and held the further investigation of its\ncauses to be unnecessary. If the conscience says \u201cThou shalt,\u201d one\nmust simply act accordingly. This is, in Kant\u2019s opinion, the absolute\nmoral law, which bids or forbids an action independently of any other\nconsideration.\n\nThe further they progress, however, the more do reason and science\nrebel against the conception of the Categorical Imperative. Kant,\ngreat as he was, was not infallible. The imperative of the conscience\nis in itself no more categorical and absolute than that of the sexual\nimpulse, of fear, of maternal love, or of other emotions and instincts.\n\nIn the first place daily observation shows us the existence of people\nborn conscienceless, in whom the sense of duty is lacking, who are\naware of no \u201cThou shalt,\u201d and in whose eyes other individuals are\nmerely welcome objects for plunder or inconvenient hindrances. For\nthese \u201cethically defective\u201d persons there can be no categorical\nimperative, because they have no conception of duty.\n\nThe ethical sense may exist in varying degrees of intensity. In some\npersons the conscience is weak, in others strong; and there are cases\nin which it is developed to an exaggerated and morbid extent. People of\nthis type suffer pangs of conscience over the merest trifle, reproach\nthemselves for \u201csins\u201d which they have never committed, or which are no\nsins at all, and make themselves and others miserable. How can all this\nbe reconciled with the absolute moral law as stated by Kant?\n\nThe theory of the Categorical Imperative becomes even more absurd when\nwe consider the actions to which men are guided by their consciences.\nThe same habit\u2015\u2015the drinking of wine, for instance\u2015\u2015may be for one\nman a matter of duty (for a Christian at the Eucharist or for an\nofficer at the toast of the King); for another (the Mohammedan) it\nmay be forbidden as a deadly sin. Murder, which is certainly almost\nuniversally prohibited by conscience, is a \u201cduty\u201d in time of war,\nand even for certain persons in the duel. Such instances could be\nmultiplied indefinitely.\n\nWe will presently state the profounder reasons which prove Kant\u2019s\nerror; but we must first mention another source of pretended ethical\ncommandments. The _religions_ exhibit a remarkable medley of various\nproducts of human mystical phantasy and human emotions which have\ncrystallised and formed themselves into legends and dogmas, and these\nlatter have become interwoven with human morals in such a fashion that\nthey seem at first inextricable.\n\nThe instinct of fear and the lust for power, the hypertrophy of the\nEgo and the ethical sentiments have here intermingled in a thousand\ndifferent ways. More especially we may mention the fear of the unknown,\nof darker powers, and of death; the expansion of the beloved Ego, which\nbecomes idealised in the conception of godhead, and then immortalised;\nthe feelings of sympathy, antipathy and duty towards other individuals,\nand so forth. The mysterious powers which move the universe are then\nconceived as anthropomorphic (personal) gods, or as one such God.\n\nThe next stage is the attribution of godlike qualities to man,\nwhich flatters his vanity considerably, and gives him a sense of\nsatisfaction.\n\nAs a result of this habit of thought, and assisted by the hallucinations\nof highly imaginative, hysterical, or insane individuals, there have\ndeveloped the various conceptions of a direct intercourse between the\nGodhead and man. Hypnotism and psychiatry, in the respective cases of\nthe sane and the insane, teach us how extraordinarily sensitive the\nhuman brain is to such impressions.\n\nIn this way the legendary revelations, according to which God has\nmanifested himself directly and personally to certain individuals,\nand dictated to them commandments for the guidance of Humanity, have\nresulted.\n\nIn this, and in no other way, has come into existence the social\ntyranny of religious dogmas. Certain men have made God in their\nown image, and have, in the course of centuries, imposed their own\nhandiwork upon whole nations, mainly by means of the organising\nability of their more ambitious successors. Even to-day such prophets\nfrequently arise, both within and without the walls of lunatic\nasylums. Each one declares that he alone possesses the true revelation.\n\nThe divine injunctions vary considerably according to the different\nreligions, and are often mutually contradictory. Among them are\ncommandments relating to the Godhead which have nothing to do with\nnatural moral law, and yet are amalgamated with it. Some of these are\nfrom the human point of view frankly immoral. Many, on the other hand,\nrepresent the precepts of a more or less suitable moral code, which\nvaries according to the personal views of the founder of the religion.\n\nThe Koran ordains polygamy and forbids the use of wine, while modern\nChristianity allows the latter and ordains monogamy. Both Moses and\nMohammed, however, regard woman as subordinate to man, and as his\nprivate property; a view which contradicts a higher and at the same\ntime a more natural moral law.\n\nMental science has now the hardihood to maintain, Kant and the\nreligious dogmas notwithstanding, that the moral law is completely\naccessible to its investigations; that true human ethics can be founded\nupon human nature alone; that the dogmas and commandments of pretended\nrevelation serve only to check a progressively higher development\nof morals; and that the dogma which holds out promises of heaven or\nthreats of hell in the hereafter is in its effect actually immoral,\ninasmuch as it seeks to regulate the moral conduct of men by purely\nselfish motives\u2015\u2015by the aid of a bill of exchange upon the future life,\nso to speak.\n\n                   *       *       *       *       *\n\nIn order to understand natural human ethics we must consider its\nnatural source, that is to say, the origin of the sense of duty or\nsocial conscience.\n\nThe sense of duty is, as an inclination, inborn, and therefore\nhereditary. It can indeed be developed or dulled by education, but it\ncannot be acquired; and only diseases of the brain can destroy it where\nit once clearly exists. What is actually inculcated or acquired, as\nthe case may be, is not the conscience, but the object towards which\nit is directed, as is the case with the feeling of shame or modesty.\nJust as the European woman is ashamed to exhibit her bare legs, but not\nher face, while with the Turkish woman the reverse holds true, so the\nobjects of the conscience, according to acquired local customs, can\nbe absolutely opposed to one another, or at least very different in\ntheir nature. They have, however, for the most part certain features\nin common, which are suited to the requirements of human nature. The\nreason for this we shall see below.\n\n                   *       *       *       *       *\n\nFrom what does conscience, or the sense of duty, arise? First of all\nfrom a conflict between two groups of instinctive emotions allied with\ninstinctive impulses: (1) the group of so-called egoistic feelings and\nimpulses, directed towards self-preservation and self-gratification;\nand (2) the group of sympathetic or altruistic impulses directed\ntowards the preservation and well-being of others.\n\nIf I feel sympathy or love for a person, an animal, or an object, I\nsuffer personally and feel displeasure as soon as the object of my\nsympathy suffers or is endangered. Hence the words compassion and\nsympathy (suffering with). I therefore seek to help the object of my\nsympathy, to save him even at the risk of personal injury; and thence\nthe conflict arises. If my egotism triumphs I do not come to his aid,\nor at most only do so if I risk nothing thereby. If, on the other hand,\nmy sense of sympathy is victorious, I sacrifice myself.\n\nIn the former instance I experience a feeling of dissatisfaction, the\nfeeling of neglected duty and of remorse; in the latter I have the\npleasurable sensation of duty fulfilled. And yet the nature of the\nobject matters little. Only the intensity of the sympathy, together\nwith the individual development of the conscience, determine the\nintensity of the sense of duty in any given case. An insane person\ncan feel the most vehement sense of duty or remorse without any real\nobject, or as the result of entirely perverted conceptions.\n\nAs every living creature, particularly if it possesses a separate\nnervous system, has the instinct of self-preservation, the conscience\ntherefore results directly from the conflict between this instinct\nand the secondary emotions of altruistic sympathy. These latter are\nof later origin, and have for the most part been evolved from the\nattraction between the sexes (sexual love), or from the relationship of\nparents to the offspring dependent upon them (parental love).\n\nThe first feelings of duty and of sympathy in the animal kingdom are\ntherefore confined to the family, and adapted to the preservation\nof the species. They are also exclusive, and may only persist for\na short time (as in the case of cats), but frequently they are of\nlifelong duration. The conjugal fidelity of certain apes and parrots is\nexemplary.\n\nBut the necessity of protection against common foes brought about\nin the case of many animals a ripening of the sense of sympathy,\nand it became extended to whole groups, so that here and there free\ncommunities (swallows, buffaloes, monkeys) have resulted. Finally\ncertain species have developed the senses of sympathy and duty to such\nan extent that they have led to a complete anarchistic Socialism, as\nis the case among wasps, bees, and ants. Here the social sense has so\nfar overcome both egotism and altruism limited to a few individuals\nthat it wholly dominates them. The individual devotes his whole energy\nand labour to the communal existence, and even sacrifices his life for\nthis object. He never, however, sacrifices his life for another single\nmember of the community, unless the latter is of primary importance for\nthe maintenance of the species. One worker-bee does not immolate itself\nfor another, but does so without hesitation for the queen and the hive.\nIt will even empty the whole contents of its stomach into the queen\nbee\u2019s mouth and starve in order to save her. The altruism of the ants\nand the bees knows nothing of family affection or sexual love; it is\nconfined absolutely to the hive or nest. Different beehives or ants\u2019\nnests are either inimical or indifferent to one another.\n\nNearer to man stand the higher mammals. Every one is aware of the\nsentiments of sympathy and duty in the dog, for instance. In man\nhimself these affections are pre-eminently domestic, as may be seen in\nthe love of mother and child, husband and wife, father and son, and in\nall the obligations thus contracted. But they also have a considerable\ntendency to extend to other intimate objects or persons with whom the\nindividual frequently comes into contact\u2015\u2015to friends, animals, etc.\n\nWe can also observe this inclination among bees and ants, where\nstrangers are received into the hive or nest after a short period\nof familiarisation. But among mankind the tendency always maintains\na strongly individual character. The result is on the one hand a\ngrouping into communities, such as castes, tribes, and nations; and on\nthe other a host of individual friendships and enmities.\n\nThis fundamentally individual character of the human sense of sympathy\nrests primarily upon the fact that our nearest ancestors in the animal\nworld, the parents of the existing anthropoid apes, were domestic\nand solitary, while our primeval ancestors lived in numberless tiny\ncommunities, inimical to one another.\n\nIn this way there appeared among mankind instinctive and exclusive\nimpulses of sympathy and of duty, combined with intensely selfish\npredatory desires. The extraordinary complexity of the human brain\nis responsible for the strange many-sidedness of character which\nresulted. For example, crime and heroism developed side by side; child\nmurder, parricide, rapine and robbery, slavery, war, and in particular\nthe vilest subjugation of woman as an article of commerce or a beast\nof burden\u2015\u2015these represent the fruits of egotism and its attendant\ncunning and meanness. On the other hand we see self-sacrifice, valour,\nheroic martyrdom, patriotism, sense of justice, asceticism, pity for\nthe weak, and persistent labour for the family and the State, resulting\nas the fruits of the instinct of sympathy and the social sense.\n\nThe primitive sense of duty, which arose from direct assistance\nrendered to the object of sympathy, is now being enlarged by a higher\nracial and individual development, and is, indeed, resolving itself\ninto a universal inclination to subdue egoistic instincts and passions.\n\nIf from a sense of duty I do something which is wearisome or dangerous,\nit is for the most part no longer out of direct sympathy with the\nparticular object. The primeval impulse (which led to conflict)\nis becoming independent, and is taking the form of a higher and\nsecondary instinct, tending towards the suppression of baser desires\nand weaknesses. And yet it is necessary, in order to prevent the\ndegeneration of this instinct, that the objects towards which it is\ndirected shall be ever more adequately and better suited to the social\nwelfare of the community.\n\n                   *       *       *       *       *\n\nFrom the above brief sketch, which is based upon the theory of\nevolution and the researches of science, it is clear as the day that\nmoral laws can only be relative. They were always relative to the\nfamily, to the tribe, to the fatherland; they must become relative\nto mankind. The racial (that is, inherited and instinctive) social\nsense in man is unfortunately very variable in individual cases. In\nthe average it is extremely weak and chiefly directed towards a few\nindividuals. Moreover, as the result of centuries of bad habits and\nancient prejudices, its objects are falsely or unsuitably taught in\nprocess of educating children. Instead of the child\u2019s sense of duty\nbeing directed to the necessity of labour and social sacrifice for\nmankind as a whole and posterity in particular, it is directed towards\nfalse codes of honour, local patriotism, family exclusiveness, private\nproperty, pretended divine commandments, and so forth.\n\nThe Earth is small, and human intercourse becomes more extensive every\nyear; the union of all civilised peoples into a single great civilised\ncommunity is _inevitable_. Ethics must, therefore, as far as reason\npermits, be directed towards this object. We require animals and plants\nin order to live, so that we can further extend our altruism at most\nto a moderate protection of other animals, if we are to avoid injury\nto our own race. We may remark in passing that the altruism of many\nlovers of animals, who prefer their favourite pets to human beings and\nto the social welfare, is typical of the exclusiveness and stupidity of\nmisdirected impulses of sympathy.\n\nMorality must therefore in the future consist of a common social\nimpulse\u2015\u2015it must itself become social. This impulse must overthrow not\nonly egotism, but also the exclusiveness of individual sympathies. We\nare still, alas, far from this goal! The family is often a thieves\u2019\nkitchen; patriotism is a prolific parent of wars; while communities and\nsocieties, however noble their objects may be, readily degenerate into\npetty sects and cliques.\n\nAnd now comes yet another difficulty, namely, the frequent lack of\nharmony between the ethical motives which inspire an action and its\nreal moral value.\n\n                      \u201cIch bin\n    Ein Theil von jener Kraft\n    Die stets das B\u00f6se will\n    Und stets das Gute schafft,\u201d\n\nsays Mephistopheles in Goethe\u2019s _Faust_.[B] Let us say often instead\nof always, and mention also that other Power which often wills the\ngood and yet does the evil, and we have the well-known picture of\nthe intelligent, ambitious egotist, who, without any sense of duty,\nachieves great and good results; and that of the foolish, infatuated\naltruist, who devotes the whole might of his zeal for duty to the\nservice of socially pernicious forces!\n\n[B] \u201cI am a part of that power which always wills the evil and always\ndoes the good.\u201d\n\n                   *       *       *       *       *\n\nAs a result of exaggerating the above-mentioned phenomena certain\ntheorists have imagined that ethics can be founded upon pure egotism.\nBut this is a mistake. Without the altruistic impulses of sympathy\nand duty among its individual members no common social existence can\nthrive; on the contrary, it must degenerate.\n\nThe power of the emotions in man is much too strong to allow of any\nother result. Any one who imagines that he is completely master of his\nemotions makes, if possible, a still greater mistake than one who avows\nthat he has never lied, or that his actions are governed by free-will.\nAll human morality is bound up with these impulses and emotions.\nSocialism, for instance, will become moral, or else it will not come\nto pass. Without the support of the social conscience of mankind it\ncannot become moral. Every effort must therefore be directed towards\nstrengthening the social conscience.\n\nThe falsity of the theory of absolute good and evil is demonstrated by\nthe whole disposition of a world in which living creatures are designed\nto prey upon one another. When a spider devours a fly it is good for\nthe spider and bad for the fly. The ethical value of the act itself is\ntherefore purely relative.\n\nIt is just the same with human ethics. To attempt to explain all the\nevil in the world by the sin of Adam is to attribute a miserable\nincapacity to God. The same holds true of the attempts of certain\nmodern Protestants to set up the dogma of a progressive revelation,\nin order to bring the older dogmas into harmony with the theory of\nevolution and descent. All these halting exegeses are only new models\nof the artificial drags which theology seeks to impose upon the free\nresearch of science.\n\nAltruism and egotism stand only in relative opposition. Among ants\nand bees they are instinctively adjusted to one another with wonderful\nharmony, and are rarely, if ever, found in conflict. This result\ncan and must be striven after by mankind, however great may be the\ndifficulties presented by our hereditary nature. For its achievement a\nharmonious co-operation of the hereditary social conscience with reason\nand knowledge is absolutely necessary.\n\nI must briefly mention two other points. Firstly, morality and social\nor race hygiene become one and the same thing directly we include in\nour conception of hygiene a healthy condition of the brain or soul,\nand subordinate the individual hygiene to that of society in general.\nThen everything socially unhygienic is immoral, and everything immoral\nsocially unhygienic. If, for instance, I ruin a healthy, active member\nof society, in order possibly to achieve the salvation of an incurably\ndiseased criminal, I am committing, although from altruistic motives,\nan act which is injurious from the point of view both of ethics and\nsocial hygiene, and therefore evil and immoral.\n\nSecondly, the boundaries of jurisprudence and of ethics are by no means\nclear. Jurisprudence is more narrowly confined. It has no right to lay\nclaim to or to pass a verdict upon everything which ethics may discover\nor attain. Laws and the constraint they imply are a necessary evil,\na crutch for the lame and defective social conscience. They must be\nreduced to an indispensable minimum. The ethical and social instincts,\non the other hand, can never be too highly developed. Humanity must\ngradually develop in the future to such a point that jurisprudence may\nbe completely replaced by an instinctive and inculcated social impulse.\n\n    \u201cEs erben sich Gesetz und Rechte\n     Wie eine ew\u2019ge Krankheit fort.\u201d[C]\n\n[C] \u201cLaws and statutes pass on in heritage, like an eternal\ndisease.\u201d\u2015\u2015Goethe, _Faust_.\n\nIn order now properly to understand our actual subject, viz. sexual\nethics, we must state the fact that an action, as well as the motives\nwhich inspire it, may be either (1) _ethically positive_, i.e. good;\n(2) _ethically negative_, i.e. evil; or (3) _ethically indifferent_,\ni.e. without any relation to morals.\n\nIn their relationship to morals an action and its motive may be\ncompletely independent of one another, as we have already seen.\n\nWe must further note that there are various degrees of duty, and that\nfrom this cause conflicts may arise. There are duties towards one\u2019s\nself, which serve to increase the worth, and particularly the social\nworth, of the individual by self-culture and education. In these days\nof effeminate culture it is too often forgotten that self-discipline\nand restraint, and even a certain degree of asceticism, fit the\nindividual for freedom and happiness, while the craving for pleasure\nmakes him useless and dependent.\n\nThen there are duties towards the family and those nearer to us,\ntowards the State, towards existing Humanity, and towards posterity.\nThis last duty is the highest of all. Everything that we enjoy to-day\nin culture and knowledge we owe to the toil, the suffering, and often\nthe martyrdom of our forefathers. Our most sacred duty is, therefore,\nto secure for our descendants a loftier, happier and worthier existence\nthan our own.\n\nSpeaking generally, a rational system of morals must subordinate the\nwelfare of the individual to that of the community at large. A man who\nis unprejudiced and possesses the ethical and social instinct will\ntherefore hold it as a principle first of all to do no man any injury;\nthen to develop his own individuality as highly as possible, which will\nbe both for his own good and that of the community; and as far as in\nhim lies to be of service to others and to Humanity.\n\nFrom this we may derive the following commandment of sexual ethics:\u2015\u2015\n\n_Thou shalt take heed in thy sexual desire, in its manifestations in\nthy soul, and chiefly in thy sexual acts, that thou do no hurt to\nthyself nor another, nor, above all, to the race of men; but shalt\nstrive with thy might to increase the worth of each and all._\n\n\n\n\n                           II. SEXUAL ETHICS\n\n\nEverything that we have up to the present said of ethics and the social\nsense in general applies also to sexual ethics in particular. The\nonly essential thing is to discuss the matter without prejudice, and\nto put aside the ancient traditions of mystagogy, dogma, and custom.\nThis should be comparatively easy when we consider our present-day\nconventions, hypocritical as they are to the point of nausea, and the\nmanner in which they support the right of the stronger and other rank\nabuses under the false cloak of morality.\n\nIn itself the sexual desire is neither moral nor immoral. It is simply\nan instinct adapted to the reproduction of the species. The common\nconfusion of sexuality with immorality is, I repeat, entirely erroneous.\nA man without sexual feeling must of course be extraordinarily \u201cmoral\u201d\nin his sex relationships, and yet he can be the greatest scoundrel\nimaginable. His sexual coldness and indifference have not the smallest\nethical value.\n\nAccording to the definition given above, we may classify every sexual\ndesire as ethically positive if it is of benefit to individuals,\nto society, and especially to the race (that is, to posterity); as\nethically negative if it does injury to any or all of these; and as\nethically indifferent if it neither does injury nor is of any service.\nAt the same time we must observe the ethical gradation: (1) _the race_,\n(2) _society_, (3) _the more intimate surroundings or family_, and (4)\nthe _individual self_.\n\nWhen we come to examine the concrete cases more closely we find that\nthe circumstances attendant upon the gratification of the sexual\ndesire, and the consequences of this gratification, lead to conflicts\nwith morality far more frequently than does the sexual act itself.\n\nIn the first place even the normal reproduction of human beings\nmay become immoral, in that it may do injury to the race or to\nindividuals. Malthus pointed out this fact. Habitable space upon the\nearth is limited, while, on the other hand, the procreative capacity\nof mankind is unlimited. If unlimited reproduction is permitted, it\nis possible that the existing space may be insufficient to meet the\nneeds of the enormous multitudes of men which must result. The latter\nmay then fall victims to famine and distress, as in the case of the\nChinese, or the rabbits of Australia; and only disease, starvation, or\nslaughter can bring about a return to the normal condition. It must\nbe obvious to every unbiassed person that this is not _moral_. And\nas there are harmless methods of regulating the number of births and\nto some extent the quality of the offspring, the just and proper use\nof these methods must be described as ethically positive. Everything\nis moral which makes for the happiness and well-being of society;\neverything immoral which prejudices or endangers it.\n\nThere can, however, be too few people in the world; and there is\neverywhere a great dearth of men and women wholly sound in mind and\nbody, light-hearted, unselfish, industrious, persevering, intelligent,\nable and yet well-intentioned, peaceable, and honest.\n\nOn the other hand, we have a monstrous superabundance of feeble,\nsickly, mentally perverted, criminally disposed, idle, treacherous,\nvain, crafty, covetous, passionate, capricious, and untrustworthy\nindividuals, whose claims upon others are inexhaustible, while their\nown services to society are either valueless or actually harmful.\n\nWhile the first-mentioned class produce far more than they consume,\nit is appalling to think of the vast store of human energy and human\nlife which goes to waste in sick-rooms, lunatic asylums, hospitals,\nand prisons. And if we look more closely we find outside these\ninstitutions, and under no restraint, a still vaster army of human\nsharks, who prey physically and mentally upon society, and are a burden\nupon the industrious community. The greater number of these useless\npests owe their faults to an hereditarily defective constitution of the\nprotoplasmic germs which brought them into being; and therefore a sound\nsystem of racial ethics demands rational selection in breeding.\n\nEqually destructive, however, are external conditions and habits of\nlife, such as the use of alcohol, resulting as they do in paralysis\nof energy, confusion of the mind, and degeneration of the cells\n(blastophthory).\n\n                   *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe _libido sexualis_, or sexual desire in mankind is infinitely\nstronger than is necessary for the reproduction of the race. Man has no\nbreeding season; he is always ready for sexual intercourse. Although\nthe number of women in the aggregate only slightly exceeds that of men,\nthe male has usually an instinctive inclination to polygamy. Luther\naccurately estimated the normal requirements of a healthy man in the\nprime of life at on the average two to three sexual connections in\neach week; and yet this is far in excess of what is necessary for the\nprocreation of children in a monogamous marriage. It is, moreover, well\nknown that a man can even considerably exceed the above number without\ninjury to his health, and there are women whose needs in this respect\nare actually greater than those of men.\n\nIt therefore follows that the widespread artificial excitement of the\nsexual desire from motives of sensuality is harmful from the standpoint\nboth of ethics and of social hygiene.\n\nWe cannot, it is true, be held responsible for a natural instinct\ninherited from our ancestors. But we must seek to subdue this instinct\nas far as possible, not to excite and stimulate it by artificial means.\nAlready there is more than enough purposeless, and therefore ethically\nindifferent, sexual intercourse.\n\nAnd yet Tolstoy is wrong in wishing to forbid this. As long as it does\nno actual harm we must tolerate it, the more so because the happiness\nof the individual and the cheerfulness with which he labours are so\noften dependent upon the normal satisfaction of his instincts.\n\nWithin the limits indicated above, the gratification of the sexual\ninstinct, whether in the case of man or woman, is in itself ethically\nindifferent, provided it does not result in the procreation of\nchildren. We have already dealt with the ethical value of procreation,\nwhich depends upon the nature of the results expected. And we are\ntherefore bold enough to declare that every sexual connection which\ndoes not injure either of the two persons who take part in it, or any\nthird person, and which, moreover, can do no injury to the child which\nmay be engendered by it, is in itself ethically indifferent, and cannot\ntherefore be immoral.\n\nWe have certainly imposed considerable modifications in this sentence,\nfor it is possible for a perfectly normal sexual connection to do\nuntold injury, especially to the woman and the child she bears; so\nthat an act which is in theory not immoral may become so in practice,\nor may give rise to grave moral conflicts. This often happens at the\npresent time as the result of our prejudices, established customs, and\nunjust laws.\n\nFrom the standpoint of sexual ethics the ideal marriage is undoubtedly\na monogamous union, resting upon mutual and enduring affection and\nloyalty, and consummated by the birth of several children; a union in\nwhich the husband may be from six to twelve years older than the wife,\nand both must be robust in mind and body.\n\nThis ideal state of things is not as rare as our modern pessimists\nwould have us believe, but neither is it especially common. Moreover,\nif this marriage is to reach that perfection which it can and must\nattain, it must be completely free, that is to say, both parties must\nbe absolutely equal before the law, and no external compulsion other\nthan that of common obligations towards the children must bind them to\none another. To this end a complete separation of property, and a just\nand proper valuation of every service performed by the wife as well as\nthe husband are of the first importance.\n\nFrom the aforesaid it must by no means be inferred that every person is\nto yield without restraint to his sexual desires. Unfortunately this\nfundamentally false conception of free marriage and free love is at\nthe present time widespread, and it cannot be too vigorously combated.\nIn the first place, two persons are concerned in the sexual act, and\nany exercise of constraint by one upon the other is immoral and even\ncriminal. The same holds true of every seduction.\n\nMoreover, the highest freedom of man lies in his mastery of self. The\nonly man who is truly free is the man who is able to control his lower\ninstincts. The compulsion which must be exercised in a mutually happy\nsex relationship conformable to ethical principle must, however, be no\nexternal legal compulsion, but an inward self-repression. Fidelity in\nmarriage must be a matter of mutual trust and yet a matter of honour.\nThe State and the laws cannot compel it, and have never been able to do\nso; external constraint begets only hypocrisy, strife, and treachery.\nOn the other hand the State and the law must, as time goes on, become\nmore and more adapted to the protection of the helpless offspring of\nsex unions.\n\nBoth parents, in proportion to their fitness and ability, must be\nmade responsible for the support of their children. It is in the\nhighest degree immoral to make a distinction between legitimate and\nillegitimate children, and so to expose them and their mothers to\npublic disgrace because of the fulfilment of a natural function. Is\nit not senseless, from the standpoint both of ethics and of law, to\ndeclare the existence of a child, and therefore of a human being, to be\nlegal or illegal, or to speak of \u201cnatural children,\u201d as if the others\nwere unnatural! In what bureaucratic brain can such an idea have first\narisen? It is only a remnant of a barbarous code of morals, based upon\nthe grossest prejudice. Antiquity, alas, justifies everything\u2015\u2015even\ncrime!\n\n                   *       *       *       *       *\n\nEvery woman who is healthy and strong should be proud of becoming a\nmother. If sexual intercourse were frankly and naturally treated as one\nof the most important acts in human life, the paternity of the child\nwould be easily ascertainable. A woman should not wait until the birth\nof the child before speaking of it, but should promptly make a formal\ndeclaration as to its parentage to the registrar of births as soon as\nshe becomes aware of her pregnancy. This would be easily practicable\nif all girls received proper instruction regarding the most important\nfunction of their lives. Instead of this, everything is now concealed\nfrom them, and they are brought up in gross ignorance of their sexual\nnature and duties.\n\nIf every pregnancy were at once legally recognised in this way, and if\nthe law would determine the responsibilities of both parents towards\ntheir offspring, untrammelled by marriage laws and with the well-being\nof society as its only aim, the most pressing need of our time, from\nthe standpoint of sexual ethics, would be satisfied. A complete\nequality can only be attained by naming all children after the mother.\nThis is, moreover, the only rational and just system. It was formerly\nthe custom among many primitive peoples.\n\nNone of these reforms, however, need in any way debar the formation of\nvoluntary marriage contracts. Such contracts are, indeed, distinctly\nadvisable, for the voluntary resolve of two people to remain faithful\nto one another, and to build up a permanent home for their children, is\nat once the best, truest, and most natural foundation of marriage.\n\nBut no one can foresee the future, and therefore simple facilities for\ndivorce must be provided in case it becomes intolerable or inexpedient\nfor the two persons to live together any longer. A divorce must take\nplace if one or both of the parties wish for it. The State and the Law\nmust only have the right to demand the fulfilment by the parents of\nall obligations towards their children. Marriage contracts for a fixed\nperiod are therefore as such not immoral. Such agreements have even\nbeen recommended by the Christian philosopher Charles Secr\u00e9tan, in his\nbook _Le Droit de la Femme_.\n\nSterile marriages, or other sex relationships, must be free. The law\nhas no concern with them as long as they do not involve injury to\nany one\u2019s property, health, or personal will. They are in themselves\nethically indifferent.\n\nOn the other hand, all sexual intercourse which is bought or sold,\nsuch as marriage for money, the keeping of paid mistresses, and the\nwhole system of prostitution, is immoral, because it is corrupting and\ndevoid of love, and amounts simply to plunder by the aid of money.\nProstitution is a hotbed of sexual vices and abnormal practices. By\nits means the sexual instinct is perverted and led astray into every\nimaginable bypath, while women are degraded in the basest of all\nslaveries.\n\nMost repulsive of all, from the point of view of ethics, is the trade\nin prostitutes known as the \u201cwhite slave traffic,\u201d with its criminal\ndevices for the enticement, intimidation, and seduction of young girls.\nThe traffic in waitresses for caf\u00e9s and beer-gardens is often little\nbetter. It is sad enough to reflect that these loathsome outgrowths\nof sexual immorality often still enjoy the protection of the State,\nand that many medical men defend their continuance under the pretext\nof hygiene. It is just in this very respect that we see that social\nhygiene and ethics are one and the same thing. Only the idiotic\none-sidedness of your specialist could declare such a monstrosity as\nState-established prostitution to be hygienic. A system which makes for\nthe mental and physical ruin of the race cannot be hygienic, and the\ndelusion that by its aid men are protected from venereal disease is in\ndirect conflict with the actual facts.\n\nMoreover, sexual intercourse which is bought and sold has no relation\nto love. As a mode of gratifying the sex instinct it stands even lower\nin the moral scale than the habit of self-abuse. And any man who makes\nuse of prostitution becomes an accomplice in creating this miserable\nclass of outcasts whom we speak of as \u201cunfortunates.\u201d In short,\nwhoremongery and prostitution are a social cancer, and therefore in\nthe highest degree immoral. They furnish an instance of the manner in\nwhich money corrupts our whole civilisation. This corrupting influence,\nwith its robbery of one man by another, makes itself felt in every\ndepartment of life, and is exercised by every form of private capital.\n\nThe climax of immorality in the cult of Mammon is reached, however,\nby the capital employed in maintaining the two great evils of alcohol\nand prostitution, both of which act as bloodsuckers upon the vitality\nof the individual, the race, and all that is holiest in men. These\ntwo forms of capital work hand in hand, fashioning the goddess of\nlove in the likeness of a lewd, sordid harlot, with the man as at\nonce her ravisher and her victim. They are also the worst enemies of\nour descendants, whose procreation is often undertaken in a moment of\nintoxication, and whose lives are exposed to the risk of alcoholic\ndegeneration or venereal disease!\n\nThese, therefore, are the chief foes of sexual morality: the struggle\nfor wealth (as exemplified in the domination of private capital) and\nthe use of alcohol. Let us combat both in the name of ethics. \u201c_In hoc\nsigno vincemus!_\u201d\n\n                   *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe following will, I hope, make my meaning still clearer.\n\nIn sexual ethics many diseases and abnormalities play, of course,\na great part. First of all there are the venereal diseases, and\nparticularly syphilis and gonorrh\u0153a, which often destroy family\nhappiness and endanger the offspring. It is too often forgotten that\nchronic gonorrh\u0153a can poison marriage, and that decay of the spinal\nmarrow (locomotor ataxia) and the so-called softening of the brain\n(progressive or general paralysis) are nothing else than a very late\nresult of syphilis, appearing from ten to twenty years after infection.\n\nIn a brief statistical discussion of the question, based upon medical\ninformation, I have shown that seventy-five per cent of venereal\ninfections are acquired while in a state of alcoholic excitement. In\nthe vast majority of these cases the infection is communicated by\nmeans of prostitution, which, as the result of the incredibly numerous\nand varied sex relationships of the women, serves simply as a vast\nmanufactory of venereal diseases.\n\nIt is true that married women are often infected by their husbands\nor lovers, but this is only a result of the previous visits of the\nlatter to houses of ill-fame. Hygiene and morals both suffer serious\ninjury in this way. Any one who is infected, and nevertheless has\nsexual connection with a person not infected in the same way, commits\na basely immoral act, if not a crime. This is done, however, _daily_,\nwhen the infection is concealed. Nay, more, the medical men who\nofficially visit and examine prostitutes are well aware that they can\nat most only temporarily remedy a few of the worst symptoms, and that\nthey are powerless to cure the disease itself. In spite of this such\nwomen are set at liberty once more to carry on their disastrous trade!\nAnd very few prostitutes ever completely escape venereal infection.\n\nThese are the fruits of paid \u201clove,\u201d maintained chiefly by the\ndrinking habits of the present day. It is plain that the chief task of\nsexual ethics must be the cleansing of this Augean stable. There are,\nhowever, a host of other social evils of a similar kind, such as the\nseduction and exploitation of waitresses, women factory workers, and\nso forth. These abuses belong to the same domain and present the same\nopportunities of infection.\n\n                   *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe various perversions of the sexual instinct constitute another\nprolific source of disaster. Most of these are hereditary, and\ntherefore inborn. We will only briefly mention sadism (the combination\nof acts of cruelty and violence with sexual gratification), masochism\n(sexual gratification combined with the passive endurance of similar\ncruelty and violence), inverted sexual feeling (homosexuality),\nfetishism (sexual attraction for inanimate objects), exhibitionism,\nsodomy, etc.\n\nThe unfortunate people who suffer from these perversions are treated\nunjustly and, for the most part, far too harshly. Perverse instincts\nwhich injure no one when carried into practice (fetishism, for\nexample), are ethically indifferent and harmless, in that their\npossessors, generally speaking, do not multiply. It is, however,\nimmoral for such persons to marry. Any one who suffers from an\nhereditary perversion of the sex instinct should avoid marriage and all\nprocreation of children.\n\nBut if the pervert can only gratify his instinct by injuring other\npeople, he must be regarded as a dangerous lunatic, and placed under\ncurative treatment. There must, however, be no question of legal\npunishment. The foregoing treatment is above all necessary in the case\nof sadists (who frequently commit murder) and in that of persons of\nunsound mind who violate children. Homosexual persons (i.e. men or\nwomen whose sexual inclination is for their own sex) are, on the other\nhand, comparatively harmless as long as they direct their attentions to\nadults, and provided there is no seduction or use of compulsion. The\nsame holds good in the case of other perversions such as inclination\nfor animals. Our laws are still entirely at fault in these matters, and\ninflict punishment upon the basis of ancient theological dogmas.\n\nThe case of perversions acquired by suggestion, evil example, or\nfrequent repetition is somewhat different. These latter are much more\nreadily curable.\n\nPerverted sexual habits often arise from a craving for variety, or as\nmakeshifts adopted when the opportunity for normal sex intercourse is\ndenied. Our efforts must be directed towards removing these causes by\nraising the general standard of social morals.\n\nReligious morality has been the cause of untold mischief in this matter\nof sexual perversions by representing as great sins and crimes actions\nwhich are in reality the result of a diseased mental state.\n\nThe habit of self-abuse is also extremely variable in its origin. It\narises usually as a makeshift, but often as the result of evil example.\nIt may also (although less frequently) be inherited, or originate from\nnervous trouble, while in other cases it is prompted by mechanical\ncauses (phimosis, worms, or gymnastic exercises). There is no greater\nblunder than that of exaggerating its importance by representing\nit as a horrible and extremely dangerous vice. It must be cured by\n_pacification_ and soothing, by strengthening of the will, and in some\ncases by providing the means of normal sexual intercourse (_not_,\nhowever, by means of prostitution). This is the only proper treatment\nof self-abuse, which is not as dangerous as is commonly maintained. In\nthis, as in all other cases, our conception of sexual ethics will point\nout the right path.\n\n                   *       *       *       *       *\n\nAbnormalities of the brain or mind, especially constitutional\n(hereditary) mental inferiorities, such as weakness of will-power,\nmoral idiocy (inherent lack of conscience), epilepsy, hysteria,\nhypochondria, kleptomania, etc., together with all acquired mental\ntroubles, are the cause of innumerable sexual disorders and perversions;\nof vices, crimes, and misdeeds of every description; of rapine and\nseduction; of unhappy marriages, or rather hells upon earth; and of the\nbirth of countless doomed and wretched children.\n\nHere we may see once again that ethics and social hygiene are at one.\nUntil now the theologians and the lawyers have treated these mental\nconditions by denouncing them as deadly sins and imprisoning the\nunhappy victims. This is disastrous to morality, to the unfortunate\npersons themselves, and to society at large. Expert mental treatment\nwith a view to a fundamental cure is the first necessity.\n\nHere, again, alcohol and narcotics in general are the stone which\nsets the whole avalanche in motion. The use of alcohol produces\nmental inferiorities by its corrupting influence upon the cells\n(blastophthory), and many people whose weakness of mind is traceable to\nthis cause cannot resist its use, and so become dangerous inebriates.\n\nOnce more, it is the source and fountain of the evil that must be\nstopped.\n\nBut there are other hereditary diseases and degeneracies of every kind,\nnot only of the brain, but of the whole body, such as the disposition\nto tuberculosis, rickets, short-sightedness, and diseases of the blood,\nall of which are related to sexual life and morals, because they are\nall more or less injurious to the individual and to society.\n\nIf persons suffering from such diseases have children at all they must\nproceed with the greatest caution, and they should always be instructed\nas to the hereditary nature of their maladies and the risk of their\ntransmission.\n\n\nAnd now can we not hear the dictates of a truly human moral code, based\nupon the facts that we have just considered?\n\n_It is true that we cannot change the present hereditary nature of\nman, but it is none the less our duty, now that Science has revealed\nthis nature to us, to prepare for our posterity a greater degree of\nhappiness and a higher standard of social life than we now possess.\nTo this end we must first strive with all our might to destroy the\nall-corrupting supremacy of private capital and wealth, with its\nexploitation of human life and energy; and we must further combat the\nuse of all narcotic poisons, especially that of alcohol._\n\n_We must not rest until these two deadly monsters are overthrown._\n\n_In the sphere of sexual life we must endeavour to replace by truth\nand justice the present-day hypocrisy which parades under the false\nbanner of \u201cmorality.\u201d We must also restore to woman the same natural\nand equal rights possessed by man._\n\n_Moreover, we must no longer be content to remain indifferent and idle\nwitnesses of the senseless and unthinking procreation of countless\nwretched children, whose parents are diseased and vicious, and whose\nlives are for the most part destined to be a curse both to themselves\nand their fellow-men._\n\n_We must therefore recommend to all persons who are sickly or infirm in\nbody or mind, and especially to all suffering from hereditary ailments,\nthe use of means for the prevention or regulation of conceptions,[D]\nso that they may not, out of pure stupidity and ignorance, bring into\nthe world creatures doomed to misery and misfortune, and predisposed to\ndisease, insanity, and crime._\n\n[D] We refer, of course, to such preventive methods as are completely\nharmless to the persons making use of them. Methods for the prevention\nof _conception_, in general fulfil this condition.\n\n_We must endeavour in this way to bring about a vast and universal\nsterilisation of all worthless, incapable or diseased people, without\nattempting to prohibit in an ascetic and impracticable manner the\ngratification of their normal sexual instinct and their desire for\naffection._\n\n_The qualification for parentage must not be the possession of a\ncertain amount of money or property, but solely the social worth and\nintrinsic hereditary qualities of the two individuals._\n\n_The multiplication of all who are healthy, capable, and ethically fit\nmust be encouraged as far as possible._\n\n_An excessive frequency of childbirths in the case of one woman must be\nprevented and regulated by the use of the means mentioned above._\n\n_In this way we shall carry out a true racial selection and prepare the\nway for a better and happier Humanity. And so at last we shall have\nbrought our true sexual ethics into living being and reality._\n\n\n                   *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n  =_Just Ready._=      [Illustration]         Royal 8vo, 550 pp.\n                                           Cloth. Price =21s.= net.\n\n                         THE SEXUAL QUESTION.\n\n     A SCIENTIFIC, PSYCHOLOGICAL, HYGIENIC, and SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY\n                       for the CULTURED CLASSES.\n\n                  By AUGUST FOREL, M.D., Ph.D., LL.D.\n\n Formerly Professor of Psychiatry and Director of the _Provincial Lunatic\n  Asylum, Z\u00fcrich_. English adaptation by C. F. MARSHALL, M.D., F.R.C.S.\n  (London). With 23 Illustrations, 17 of which are printed in colours.\n\nThis book is the fruit of long experience and reflection. It has two\nfundamental ideas\u2015\u2015the study of nature, and the study of the psychology\nof man in health and in disease.\n\n\u201cIt is imperative that every man and woman shall know (1) the\ncomplete facts of normal sexual life, i.e. the physical conditions of\nreproduction; and (2) so much of sex pathology as is necessary in order\nto avoid the many pitfalls existing round them. The highest praise we\ncan give Prof. Forel\u2019s book is to say that it meets this need. It is\n\u2018a scientific, psychological, hygienic, and sociological study\u2019 of the\nsexual question.\u201d\u2015\u2015_The New Age._\n\n\n                         MARRIAGE AND DISEASE.\n                     Cloth. Price =10s. 6d.= net.\n\n    Being an Abridged Edition of \u201cHealth and Disease in Relation to\n        Marriage and the Married State.\u201d (2 vols., =30s.= net.)\n\n   By many Authors. =Edited by Prof. H. SENATOR and Dr. S. KAMINER=.\n Translated by =J. DULBERG, M.D., J.P.= (Manchester). Demy 8vo. 452 pp.\n\nTo give an idea of the scope of the work, it may be stated that it\ncontains chapters on such subjects as:\u2015\u2015The Hygienic Significance of\nMarriage, Congenital and Inherited Diseases and Predispositions to\nDisease, Consanguinity and Marriage, Climate, Race and Nationality in\nRelation to Marriage, Sexual Hygiene in Married Life, Constitutional\n(Metabolic) Diseases, Diseases of the Nervous System, Insanity,\nAlcoholism and Morphinism, Occupational Injuries, Medico-Professional\nSecrecy, The Economic Importance of Sanitary Conditions, &c. &c.\n\n\u201cThe present book is an attempt to make available for general\nconsumption the gist of the larger work from which it is taken.... The\nmaterial contained in the book is most valuable, and a study of it\nshould be useful to those capable of appreciating it....\u201d\u2015\u2015_The Lancet._\n\n\u201cIt is a work which should be on the shelves of every public library\nfor the perusal of serious men and women, and especially young men and\nwomen about to marry. It is a wonderful book.\u201d\u2015\u2015_The Sunday Chronicle._\n\n\n                           FOOD AND HYGIENE.\n\nA Scientific Book in simple language, dealing with such subjects as the\ncomposition, character, and nutrient value of food, and containing, as\n_The British Medical Journal_ states, \u201ca vast amount of trustworthy\ninformation well arranged in a clear and plain style.\u201d By WILLIAM\nTIBBLES, M.D., L.R.C.P., M.O.H. Large crown 8vo., 684 pp., =8s.= net.\n\n\n              HYGIENE OF THE LUNG IN HEALTH AND DISEASE.\n\n                By Prof. Dr. L. von SCHROETTER. Trans.\n                  by H. W. ARMIT, M.R.C.S. =2s.= net.\n\nHygiene is essentially a social science, and the Author has been happy\nin his selection of the limits necessary for lay instruction.\n\n\n  MONISM? An Antidote to Prof. Haeckel\u2019s \u201cThe Riddle of the Universe.\u201d\n\n          By S. Ph. MARCUS, M.D., =1s.= net; by post =1s. 2d.=\n                  Translated by R. W. FELKIN, M.D., &c.\n\n\n          London: REBMAN, LIMITED, 129 Shaftesbury Avenue, W.C.\n\n   _Medical, Scientific, & General Publishers. Catalogue & Descriptive\n                          Circulars Post-free._\n\n\n\n\n         Medium 8vo, 800 pp.      [Illustration]      =_Just Ready._=\n      Cloth. Price =21s=. net.\n\n                          THE SEXUAL LIFE OF\n                               OUR TIME\n               IN ITS RELATIONS TO MODERN CIVILISATION.\n\n   =By IWAN BLOCH, M.D.=, Physician for Diseases of the Skin and of\n  the Sexual System in Charlottenburg, Berlin; Author of \u201cThe Origin\n      of Syphilis,\u201d &c. Translated from the Sixth German Edition\n                         by M. EDEN PAUL, M.D.\n\n  An intensely interesting work! 10,000 Copies sold in Germany within\n four months of publication!! 85,000 Copies issued there up to date!!!\n\n\n                    VITALITY, FASTING, & NUTRITION.\n\n   A Physiological Study of the Curative Power of Fasting, together\n     with a New Theory of the Relation of Food to Human Vitality.\n\n  By HEREWARD CARRINGTON, Member of the Society for Psychical Research,\n                              London, etc.\n\nIn this work new theories, some revolutionary in the extreme, are\nadvanced as to the nature of disease, the action of drugs and\nstimulants, the germ theory, the quantity of food necessary to sustain\nlife, of cancer, insanity, pain, fatigue, sleep, death, the causation\nand maintenance of bodily heat and of human vitality.\n\nThe recent attempts at creation of life are criticised, and altogether\nthis is one of the most remarkable books that have been published for\nmany years.\n\n       Just ready. Royal 8vo, 700 pp. Cloth. Price, =21s.= net.\n\n\n              HYPNOTISM: Or Suggestion and Psychotherapy.\n\n  A Study of the Psychological, Psycho-Physiological, and Therapeutic\n  Aspects of Hypnotism. By Dr. (Med.) AUGUST FOREL, Dr. Phil. (h.c.)\n                  et Jur. (h.c.) Ohigny, Switzerland.\n\n               Translated from the Fifth German Edition\n                  by H. W. ARMIT, M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P.\n\n         Large crown 8vo. 382 pp. Cloth. Price =7s. 6d.= net.\n\n\n                      DEATH AND ITS VERIFICATION.\n\n   Being a Description of the Various Tests which should be adopted\n               to Prevent the Risk of Premature Burial.\n\n             By J. BRINDLEY JAMES, L.R.C.P., M.R.C.S. Eng.\n\n         Large post 16mo. Price =1s.= net. By post, =1s. 2d.=\n\n\n                          THE THEORY OF IONS.\n\n A Consideration of its Place in Biology and Therapeutics. By WILLIAM\n  TIBBLES, M.D., LL.D., L.R.C.P., &c., Author of \u201cFood and Hygiene.\u201d\n\n               Crown 8vo. 150 pp. Cloth. =2s. 6d.= net.\n\n\n         London: REBMAN, LIMITED, 129 Shaftesbury Avenue, W.C.\n\n   _Medical, Scientific, & General Publishers. Catalogue & Descriptive\n                            Circulars Post-free._\n\n\n                   *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n Transcriber\u2019s Notes:\n\n \u2015\u2015Text in italics is enclosed by underscores (_italics_); text in\n   bold by \u201cequal\u201d signs (=bold=).\n\n \u2015\u2015Punctuation and spelling inaccuracies were silently corrected.\n\n \u2015\u2015Archaic and variable spelling has been preserved.","title":"Sexual ethics","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":10255}