Some people sincerely believe that the sexual instinct is for reproductive purposes only; they claim we should never indulge in sexual intercourse unless it be for the purpose of bringing a child into the world. The act performed without such aim in view is stigmatized by them as carnal lust, as a sin. Some even say that such an act is equivalent to an act of prostitution. To argue the question with such people would be a waste of time. It is not fair to impugn the good faith, the sincerity of your opponents, because I have convinced myself that the most insane, most bizarre notions may be held by otherwise sane people in perfect sincerity. But we cannot help questioning the reasoning faculties of people holding such beliefs.
Let us see where the belief of "sex relations for procreation only" would lead us to. In a normal healthy couple impregnation follows one connection. So if a couple wanted to limit themselves to three or four or six children, they would be entitled to have relations only three, four or six times in their lives. For it must be remembered that during pregnancy sexual relations would be prohibited, as during pregnancy no further impregnation can
take place, and no intercourse must take place which has not for its purpose the conception of a new human being. If the people were believers in big families, and agreed to have twelve children—no anti-Malthusian would expect more than that—they would be entitled to twelve relations during their marital life.
Assuming that not every act is followed by pregnancy, but that it takes on the average three or four times to bring about the desired result, we will have it that during the wife's childbearing period the couple may indulge in sex relations from once in three or four years to once or twice a year.
Can a sane person knowing anything about the sexual instinct make any such demands from married people living in the same house and perhaps occupying the same bed? It must be borne in mind that as soon as the wife has reached the menopause all relations must cease, because she can no longer become pregnant, and intercourse without a probable or possible pregnancy is a sin. Also remember that no matter how beautiful, young and passionate the wife may be, if she has some little trouble which makes pregnancy impossible, sex relations must be absolutely abstained from. And of course if the husband or wife is sterile, all relations must be renounced forever, no matter how strong the libido may be in one or both.
It is strange that Nature did not act according to the formula of our sex fanatics; no pregnancy, no intercourse. If she had meant it to be that way, she would have abolished sexual desire in woman immediately after the menopause. Unfortunately this is not the case. For we know that the sexual libido in women after the menopause is often and for several years stronger than before. Why? Nor has Nature abolished the sexual instinct and the passionate desire for sex relations in all those men and women who are for some reason or other sterile, or otherwise so defective that no child can result from the union.
As I stated at the beginning, it is a waste of time to argue the matter. Those who believe that sex relations are for racial purposes only, are welcome to their belief, and are welcome to live up to it. (How few of them do, though, honestly and consistently?) We must reiterate our opinion that the sex instinct has other high purposes besides that of perpetuating the race, and sex relations may and should be indulged in as often as they are conducive to man's and woman's physical, mental and spiritual health. No iron-clad rules can be laid down as to the frequency.
For some people three times a year may be sufficient, others may require relations three times a month (the best for the average) and still others may not be satisfied with less than three times a week. The human libido sexualis cannot be put into an iron mould, and you should pay no attention to religious fanatics who are ignorant of physiology and psychology and who can only blunder and bungle up things.
Let us see where the belief of "sex relations for procreation only" would lead us to. In a normal healthy couple impregnation follows one connection. So if a couple wanted to limit themselves to three or four or six children, they would be entitled to have relations only three, four or six times in their lives. For it must be remembered that during pregnancy sexual relations would be prohibited, as during pregnancy no further impregnation can
take place, and no intercourse must take place which has not for its purpose the conception of a new human being. If the people were believers in big families, and agreed to have twelve children—no anti-Malthusian would expect more than that—they would be entitled to twelve relations during their marital life.
Assuming that not every act is followed by pregnancy, but that it takes on the average three or four times to bring about the desired result, we will have it that during the wife's childbearing period the couple may indulge in sex relations from once in three or four years to once or twice a year.
Can a sane person knowing anything about the sexual instinct make any such demands from married people living in the same house and perhaps occupying the same bed? It must be borne in mind that as soon as the wife has reached the menopause all relations must cease, because she can no longer become pregnant, and intercourse without a probable or possible pregnancy is a sin. Also remember that no matter how beautiful, young and passionate the wife may be, if she has some little trouble which makes pregnancy impossible, sex relations must be absolutely abstained from. And of course if the husband or wife is sterile, all relations must be renounced forever, no matter how strong the libido may be in one or both.
It is strange that Nature did not act according to the formula of our sex fanatics; no pregnancy, no intercourse. If she had meant it to be that way, she would have abolished sexual desire in woman immediately after the menopause. Unfortunately this is not the case. For we know that the sexual libido in women after the menopause is often and for several years stronger than before. Why? Nor has Nature abolished the sexual instinct and the passionate desire for sex relations in all those men and women who are for some reason or other sterile, or otherwise so defective that no child can result from the union.
As I stated at the beginning, it is a waste of time to argue the matter. Those who believe that sex relations are for racial purposes only, are welcome to their belief, and are welcome to live up to it. (How few of them do, though, honestly and consistently?) We must reiterate our opinion that the sex instinct has other high purposes besides that of perpetuating the race, and sex relations may and should be indulged in as often as they are conducive to man's and woman's physical, mental and spiritual health. No iron-clad rules can be laid down as to the frequency.
For some people three times a year may be sufficient, others may require relations three times a month (the best for the average) and still others may not be satisfied with less than three times a week. The human libido sexualis cannot be put into an iron mould, and you should pay no attention to religious fanatics who are ignorant of physiology and psychology and who can only blunder and bungle up things.
0 comments:
Post a Comment