LITTLE BLUE BOOK NO. 1089

Edited by E. Haldeman-Julius

The Common Sense of Sex

James Oppenheim

HALDEMAN-JULIUS COMPANY

GIRARD, KANSAS

Copyright, 1926

Haldeman-Julius Company

PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

THE COMMON SENSE OF SEX

Perhaps one of the hardest lessons this generation has had to learn is that sex is a natural thing. Christianity has had to admit, of course, that sexuality is necessary if the race is to go on, yet it has always frowned upon it. The holy people didn’t marry; the best people became priests, monks or nuns. And so deep has this puritanism gone that even a modern like Bernard Shaw has said that he was shocked at the conduct of married people—so many of them indulged in love for mere pleasure!

A wave of revolt has been sweeping over the western world. We have had poets like Walt Whitman who have celebrated sex as a clean, strong thing; writers like Havelock Ellis who have gathered together a mine of information on the subject; and finally, we have had the great psychologist, Freud, who has made a scientific study of sex and given us a flood of new light on its mysteries.

In spite of this new knowledge, however, most people are apparently still in ignorance. The subject is hedged around with fears and taboos. Shame attaches to many phases of it. There are men and women of strong desires who think they are living in sin; and, on the other hand, those without desire who think they are unnatural. It is time for this dark cloud to roll away; and this booklet is simply one more attempt to place the matter not only in the light of science, but also in the light of common sense.

ABNORMAL SEXUALITY

According to Freud, sexuality begins as something vague, distributed all over the child’s body, and gradually concentrating in the sexual organs. The first vague sexual act is suckling. The child not only experiences the pleasure of food, but also of an act that has rhythm in it, the rhythm of the mouth working with the nipple. It soon discovers that it can produce this rhythm by itself. It works its thumb into its mouth and sucks it. Here begins a pleasure, separated from the food-pleasure, which is dependent on rhythm, and includes the mouth and hand.

The hand, having learned this trick, now begins to rub various parts of the body in a rhythmical manner. In a vague sort of way auto-erotism sets in.

Along with this comes a growing interest in its own body, and a love of displaying it; the stage of exhibitionism. And naturally this leads to curiosity about other bodies, especially bodies like its own.

But, finally, interest is aroused in the opposite sex, and with the awakening of genuine sexual desire in puberty, the child is prepared to step over to normal sexuality.

According to this, every child who develops steadily will finally come to normal sexuality. Yet it is obvious that the world is full of people who have sexual trouble. There are men suffering from partial or complete impotence; there are women with whom desire centers upon the lips; there are others terrified at the sexual act; there are homosexuals, and those who cannot break the auto-erotic habit. Finally, there are those whose only pleasure consists in cruelty to others, or having cruelty practiced upon themselves—the sadists and the masochists.

These troubles, according to Freud, can be traced back to the child’s original love-attachment to the mother or father. It is the Oedipus complex, named after the Greek king who innocently and unknowingly married his own mother, had children by her, and when the truth was revealed to him, put out his own eyes and wandered homeless about the land. This is the crime of incest, tabooed almost universally by every race.

In other words, Freud thinks it natural that the child’s first love should have a sexual coloring; that the boy desires the mother, and the girl the father; but that the deep taboo, felt by the child though not understood by him, produces a fear that drives him finally to take some substitute for the mother, another woman (how often men seek women who are like their mothers!), or may make it impossible for him ever to have normal sexuality.

In other words, the child, in fear of going any further toward the goal of his love, the mother, may become fixed at some point of childish expression: one boy may never go further than auto-erotism; another may remain all his life at the homosexual phase. In this way the perversions are accounted for; they are infantile expressions, due to fear.

The cure, according to Freud, is two-fold: the patient must come to understand that the cause of the trouble is his love for the parent, and that this love must be sacrificed, and the attachment broken, in order that the desire for normal sexuality may be cultivated.

The other solution is sublimation. That is to say, express your abnormal desire, but on a higher level and in a different form. In fact, Freud traces many of the glories of our civilization to this technic, employed unconsciously as a rule. For instance, a man may be a sadist; his desire is to cut other people with a knife. Let him, then, become a surgeon, and cut people creatively instead of destructively.

Another man is an exhibitionist. He wants to display himself publicly. Let him become an actor.

A third has intense curiosity; he would, if he expressed this desire unsublimated, become a Peeping Tom. Let him become a scientist, intent on looking into the unknown.

Against this viewpoint of Freud’s, Dr. Jung, the psychologist of Zurich, brings a barrage of criticism. He says, first, that while these expressions of the child have every appearance of sexuality, they cannot be sexual, because as a rule true sexuality does not awaken in a child until puberty. And he says, second, that the desire for incest is relatively rare: since, naturally, when it comes to sexuality, a man desires a young woman and not an old.

While these criticisms seem to me well-founded, great credit must nevertheless go to Freud for having shown us that these sexual manifestations are not necessarily rooted in innate depravity and sinfulness, but appear as natural expressions in the development of everyone. For while it is true that not many children have sexual feeling before puberty, on the other hand in the cases of men and women who practice perversions it is usually found that the habit originated in childhood, and was not broken when puberty dawned.

I will reserve the treatment of the abnormal for a later chapter.

THE THIRD SEX

Edward Carpenter of England has advanced the theory that there is a third sex, which is hermaphroditic, or bi-sexual. He would place this sex as midway between man and woman and having some of the same characteristics of both. This does not mean that the third sex is physically hermaphroditic. While such people exist, they are relatively rare. It merely means men who have much of the woman in them, and women who have much of the masculine. However, often this shows in some physical characteristic, as an effeminate voice in a man, a growth of hair on a woman’s chin, a manner of walking, etc.

Edward Carpenter believes that this third sex was the one which, because it could not follow the beaten path, gave birth to philosophy, religion, art, law and invention. As he pictures it, in the savage tribe there would be a man who felt himself so different from the rest of the men and so much more akin to the women, that he would evade in every manner joining in the masculine occupations of hunting and fighting. He would stay home with the women and justify this by becoming the shaman or medicine-man, the first doctor and mystic. Thus he would have time for brooding, and in this way cultivate his imagination, and bring forth new theory and new arts.

That there is some basis for this theory is obvious. The founders of religion are usually pictured as more or less hermaphroditic in nature. Jesus, for instance, is shown as not only aggressive, courageous and self-assertive in the true masculine way, but also as gentle, loving, forgiving, merciful or feminine. He speaks of himself as the hen who would have gathered its brood under its protecting wings; and he tells his disciples to eat of his body in the form of the bread. (It is the mother who gives her body to her child to eat.)

We find, too, this hermaphroditic quality in some of the great artists and poets. Walt Whitman, our American poet, is a good example. He was powerfully built, robust, healthy and overflowing with vitality, so masculine that it is related that Lincoln said of him, “There goes a man”; yet he was as tender as a woman. He nursed personally thousands of soldiers in the Civil War, and their feeling was that he gave them a kind of mother love.

But there have been other great men, not artists or religious leaders, who were similar. Lincoln, for instance, had the brooding tenderness and the deep sympathy which we associate with the mother.

However, the implication in Carpenter’s theory is that it isn’t just a matter of mental qualities, but also sexual; that the third sex has some of the sexual feeling and need of both sexes, and that this is an explanation of the cause of homosexuality.

The facts, however, are against the Carpenter theory. One finds, in practice, that there are homosexual men aggressively masculine, and with hardly a trace of the feminine about them; and, on the other hand, more or less effeminate men whose sexuality is absolutely normal.

Moreover, there is a deeper explanation for the man who couldn’t go out and fight and hunt with the other men, and for the woman who hated the agricultural and house duties of other women. According to Jung, there are two great types, the extraverted and the introverted.

These types appear, he believes, as differentiations of the two basic and primary instincts, that of self-preservation and that of race-propagation, or, in other words, the ego-instinct and the sexual. We are, evidently, born into the one type or the other, just as we are born into the one sex or the other.

The sexual instinct, unconsciously, of course, leads toward the propagation of the species; the urge of nature is for reproduction so that the race can go on. And hence this instinct leads to marriage, the establishment of the family, and finally that of the tribe and nation. And it leads too to all the activities connected with these things. The men must fight to protect their women and children or to bring them more prosperity and power; they must hunt to bring food. The women must bring up the children, make and preserve the home, engage in activities like cooking, spinning, weaving, agriculture.

The sexual instinct leads them to activities, to the general run of common life; and in its higher development to the ideal of the brotherhood of man, democracy, etc.

The ego-instinct leads to contrary things. It is the opposite to the sexual instinct. Both instincts are natural and exist in everyone: for if it is natural to mate and to seek the good of others, it is equally natural to defend and develop oneself. However, the opposing types arise, according to Jung, because we are born with one instinct or the other predominant.

The ego-instinct makes one think of oneself. And while this self-concentration appears first as selfishness, as egotism, as setting oneself above and against others; in its development it leads further. It leads to withdrawing from others, in order to brood, to study, to develop the imagination. It leads to introverting, going into oneself.

It was this type then that produced the first shaman and medicine-man. For in order to give birth to art, or philosophy, or discovery and invention, one must seclude oneself from others, and enter the world of the imagination. Naturally, the introvert in the savage tribe felt himself different from others. He was not concerned with activity, with hunting, fighting, mating, having children; he was concerned with his own ideas and emotions, with the pictures that loomed up in his mind and which he felt compelled to scratch out on stone or bone; with an unseen world which he saw as one of gods and demons; with religion and invention.

The tribe doubtless thought him strange and abnormal; but not necessarily effeminate. He secured his place by the results he produced, so that, in the common mind, he became linked with the supernatural. In fact, up to very recent years, the world held as more or less sacred its religious leaders and artists, its doctors and great students.

The introvert dreams the future which the extravert lives. Our whole structure of civilization, with its sciences, its arts, its inventions, and even its manners and habits, was built up by extraverts who made use of the great discoveries of introverts.

It may be seen at a glance that the problem of sexuality differs for the two types. If the extraverted, or active, type is rooted in the sexual-instinct, naturally it is the more sexual type; whereas the introverted type, rooted in the ego-instinct, is less so. However, we must remember that the types are rarely pure; both instincts exist in every one of us, only in the extravert the one is accented, in the introvert, the other.

But quite aside from the problem of type, there is the problem of bi-sexuality. To Jung this is a mental and emotional matter, rather than a physical. In other words, just as in all of us exist the ego and sexual instincts, just so there exist in all of us the masculine and feminine principles.

In the recent fight for Women’s Rights, there were those women who enlightened us by saying that men and women are fundamentally alike, that there must be a single standard of morality or immorality, that women could do the work of men, etc. On the other hand, the so-called he-men of America are fond of affirming that they are red-blooded and masculine through and through. Neither of these statements can bear much scrutiny.

According to Jung, the masculine and feminine are not only opposing physical structures, but opposing principles.

The masculine tendency is to spend, the feminine to retain. This may be seen in the sexual act itself.

Man, in his true nature, is the gambler, the adventurer, the one who strays to new fields, who fights, who is more or less reckless, and who tends, therefore, toward the new and the radical. Men have been our great pioneers whether along extraverted or introverted lines, whether in giving us great new ideas or arts, or in exploration, tearing down and rebuilding, leading peoples to new forms of government, etc.

Woman, on the other hand, in her true nature is cautious, wants to keep things as they are, looks for safety. A woman who had been radical in her youth told a friend of mine that getting children made her a conservative. This was natural. All the womanly qualities of patience, love, loyalty and devotion are necessary in bringing up children; and naturally she wants that security and rock of changelessness that her task may not be broken up. Woman tends, therefore, to be the conservative. While man rushes out to grasp the new, she safeguards the heritage of the past.

It is not curious, therefore, that just a few days before the general strike broke out in England, one of the most radical acts that nation has known, there was a great parade of women of every rank protesting against strikes—or, in other words, a demand that the vast problem be worked out along conservative and safe lines.

However, while these two principles of the masculine and feminine are mutually opposed, we find on close study that they co-exist in each one of us. It would seem as if each human being had in him the whole of human nature, and that whole is not only the qualities of aggression, of self-assertion, of recklessness and courage, but also the qualities of tenderness, devotion, patience, etc. Put differently, while the bodies of man and woman differ from each other sexually, they are fundamentally the same body; so, too, while a man is more masculine than a woman, and she more feminine than a man, each has, though in less degree, the traits of the other.

This is one explanation of how men and women attract each other. A man who was, say, sixty percent masculine and forty feminine, would be apt to be attracted by his opposite, a woman sixty percent feminine and forty masculine. A man extremely feminine would seek a woman extremely masculine, and so on. And obviously enough, the percentage of either principle in a man or woman would have some effect on the sexuality. A more feminine man would lack aggressiveness and assertiveness, and be more passive; a more masculine woman would want to take the upper hand.

With this understanding of the mixed natures of man and woman we may better comprehend the art of love.

THE ART OF LOVE

Havelock Ellis, the great English student of sexuality, and a pioneer in that field, coined the phrase.

The sexual act, he maintains, is not a simple matter; it is part of an art, the art of lovemaking. This is based on the fact that, normally, the woman is more slow than the man to respond to sexual stimulus, and must be aroused. The man is swift, ready and active; the woman slow, unresponsive and passive. In order to bring her full response, there must be an interval of wooing. And it is this, from Havelock Ellis’s point of view, which makes sexuality a beautiful and a human thing, raising the act, in his mind, to something almost sacramental, something in which the poetry and mystery of existence participate.

While sexuality in its origin was merely an instinct aiming at generation and reproduction, like every other instinct it has been turned into an art by man and become a rich part of his life. Eating, too, is an instinctive performance; yet very few find satisfaction in eating alone and in a plain way. Man, at his best, has raised eating to a joyous affair, where people not only share the food, but share each other’s society. Even the food itself may be prepared and served in an artistic manner and in pleasant surroundings.

So, too, sexuality, according to Havelock Ellis, has become an end in itself: the joyous union of man and woman in the mystery of love. For instance, he says, in India the art is well known, and the act often prolonged for hours. The West he finds backward in both the knowledge and the practice of this art.

The sexual act he divides into two parts: the forepleasure and the act itself. The forepleasure is the preparation and wooing. It summarizes, according to him, all those so-called childish things which taken separately are called perversions. As we have seen, the child goes through every phase: sucking, rubbing, looking, exhibiting, caressing, etc., and in various ways. These, according to Ellis’s studies, are found in the sexual act wherever it is practiced as an art. And he finds them natural and good insofar as they contribute toward the complete arousal of the woman and the final act itself.

They become perversions only, he says, where they are ends in themselves. A man, for instance, who cares mainly for expression of the mouth has a perverted sexuality; but if this is merely a step toward complete sexuality, it is part of the natural process and enhances the act.

In short, in the sexual act as an art the man and woman relive their whole development from the stage of suckling to the act itself.

Havelock Ellis also maintains that the positions assumed by the man and woman need not be the so-called normal, but any that is found satisfactory. In fact, he believes that a sense of equality between the sexes may be cultivated by the man assuming what is usually the woman’s position.

However, there are those who do not accept completely some of these contentions. Recently, a well-known New York psychologist said before a large audience that he and his colleagues in investigating a large number of cases, found a surprising proportion of sensitive people who had no interest in the sexual act itself, but only in certain phases of the forepleasure. These people were, he said, found to be normal in every other way, and he advocated lifting off the stigma of shame which still attaches to such acts.

What Jung says in this connection is that it isn’t the form of the sexuality that matters, but rather the attitude we have toward the sexual. And, if we bear in mind the mixed nature of men and women, that some men are more feminine, for instance, and some women more masculine, it will readily be understood that sexuality means different things to different people. With some the forepleasure is negligible, with others it is the chief thing. Some women are like men, swift and immediate; some men like women, slow and passive. It remains in each case for those concerned to find their own way.

SEXUALITY AND THE FOUR FUNCTIONS

But if sexuality means one thing to the introvert, and another to the extravert, if also it means one thing to man and another to woman, there are still other sharply marked differences of meaning, which lead one to believe that in the matter of sexuality no one has a right to lay down a general morality, a general rule of conduct. If it is wrong for a so-called pure person to rule that all other persons must be pure, it is equally wrong for those to whom sexuality is necessary to rule that everyone must have sexual expression.

Before, however, going further in these differences of meaning, let us look more closely at the difference between introvert and extravert in reaction to sexuality.

If the extraverted attitude springs from the sexual instinct, it is natural that in the average extravert, who has not, due to bad teaching, distorted his nature, the sexual development has been normal and reached a more or less strong maturity. But with the introvert it is different. Since the introverted attitude arises from the ego-instinct, the development is more along the lines of thought, idea, philosophy, art, etc., and the sexual as a rule remains undeveloped. If it is undeveloped, it is, in fact, childish.

In other words, what Freud explains as fixations, due to attachment to the parent, Jung explains as simply that side of the nature which is still undeveloped. Introverts who in many ways are highly developed, may, at the same time, remain children when it comes to sexuality.

The question then arises: Is it better to suppress the sexuality of the introvert altogether, since the only kind he is capable of has an air of perverseness about it, is perhaps auto-erotic, or concentrated on the forepleasure, or wrong in some other way? Certainly you can’t demand of a child what you demand of an adult; and neither can you demand of an undeveloped function what you demand of one fully matured.

On the other hand the repression of the sexual instinct may be a dangerous thing, in this connection the dream of an introvert is illuminating. He was a man highly developed along mental lines, a man, in fact, of some prominence; but he experienced great difficulty in his sexuality. It was characterized as over-impulsive and more or less passive. He wanted to play a more or less feminine part toward the women.

Because of his high integrity he felt that this was wrong, and so attempted to suppress his sexuality altogether. Then he developed symptoms; strange feelings in his head, a sense of weakness in his legs. He had the following dream:

He and his wife were at Coney Island, going about with three people of a cruder type. Two of these were men, and one a woman. The woman fainted on the street, and no one knew what to do for her. A man then rushed out of the building, took hold of her, and began an infantile stimulation. She revived at once.

The dream is easily understood. He and his wife stood for the higher side of himself, the developed or introverted side; the three low-brows and rough-necks were the undeveloped side. Coney Island suggests some attempt at expressing the lower and undeveloped side. Since this undeveloped side was the extraverted, or sexual, the two men and the woman represented this side; and the woman suggests that part of his sexuality which is more or less feminine and passive.

She faints. That is, he develops the symptoms. The man who rushes out to help he connected with an uncle of his who was noted for his common sense. In other words, his common sense tells him: Cure her by any means possible. See, if I do this for her, she revives. Better that than to be sick, to develop symptoms.

No code of morality could have helped this man. He had as an introvert to realize and accept the fact that his sexuality was still childish, and to realize also that he had to begin with it at the point where it actually was if he ever wanted to develop it to something higher and better.

I do not mean to imply here that all introverts are so infantile in their sexuality. There are those introverts who began early to develop this side also, and have reached a fair maturity. However, it is more often the other way round.

But if there is this distinction to be made, there are yet others to show how individual a matter sexuality may be.

For while we have the two main types of introvert and extravert based on the two major instincts, we have also the four types based on the functions. In other words, a man may not only be an extravert or introvert, but also a thinking type, a feeling type, an intuitive type or a sensational type.

According to Jung, these four functions of thinking, feeling, intuition and sensation constitute the make-up of the psyche; and each of us tends to accent one of them at the expense of the others.

The thinking type is one of the most easily discernible. He takes thought, he thinks things out; he thinks before he acts. He is apt to be logical, deliberate, fairly sure of himself, even dogmatic. He usually lives by a system of thought he has worked out, and which he tries to force upon others. He has strong opinions, because he has arrived at them by sure-footed thinking. If he is extraverted he is the good executive, the engineer, the lawyer; if introverted, the philosopher and certain types of scientist. The thinking type is found mostly among men; in Jung’s opinion thinking is a masculine function.

The feeling type is usually found among women; though there have been men, and great ones, who were of this type: notably Goethe, Wagner and Walt Whitman. The feeling type, normally, is not good at thinking, is, in fact, opposed to thinking, since thinking a thing out is the opposite of feeling it out. Feeling, itself, is a reaction of like and dislike and is a delicate adjustment to the fitness of things. The values of the extraverted feeling woman are almost purely external. In choosing a husband she aims rather at the correct thing than at the deeper qualities. The man who has wealth, position, and who dresses according to the style, who has good company manners and is worldly is apt to appeal to her. Her feelings are appeased by him; she isn’t “jarred” or made to feel his unfitness for the world she lives in. She “likes” him. Her opinions on things are according to the styles of the moment. She desires everything to move along harmoniously, without any unpleasantness. She is not deep, but she keeps society afloat by her ease and attempt to bring everything into harmony.

The introverted feeling woman is one of the silent women. Her feelings form into long moods, which persist sometimes for days. She suffers quietly and cannot express herself. She has no language for these moods.

Feeling, by the way, must not be confused with emotion. Emotion, as Jung points out, is a feeling-sensation; that is, it is at the same time both mental and physical; something instinctive, which we share with the animals. An emotion of joy, for instance, not only is perceived mentally, a state of happiness, but also is felt physically: the pulse goes faster, the cheeks become flushed, etc. But feeling is something separated more or less from sensation and developed into an independent function.

The developed feeling person feels her likes and dislikes, or her moods, as something mental, which no more affect the body than developed thinking in the thinking type. Thinking, as we know, can be very cool and detached where it is pure and mature.

Thinking and feeling then are developed and consciously controlled functions; where, on the other hand, intuition and sensation are inborn and uncontrollable by consciousness.

The intuitive type, works by those instantaneous flashes of insight which we call intuitions. These may be in the nature of hunches, or in the nature of an ability to see the hidden character of others; or it may have to do with far off things. Intuitives sometimes know events happening at a distance; as the sickness of a relative, or something even more startling. Though Goethe was a feeling type, he was also very intuitive. One summer night he called his man-servant into his room. The weather was sultry, brooding and ominous. Goethe said: “At this moment there is an earthquake taking place far off.” Some weeks later came the news of the great Lisbon earthquake. He had known it to the minute. An intuitive I know was in Virginia when he dreamed vividly that his brother in Texas had been killed by a Negro and that a messenger had come with a telegram bidding his return to Texas. The next morning the messenger came. It is by intuition that the painter sees the soul of the sitter, and reveals the hidden nature in his picture.

The intuitive type is the noble, or what has been called, the spiritual type. Just as the two conscious functions of thinking and feeling are in opposition to each other, so the two unconscious functions of intuition and sensation are in opposition; for intuition is the least earthy function, sensation (the senses, sexuality) the most earthy or animal.

The intuitive, because he sees into the core of things, sees better than anyone else the possibility of things. He can see the man in the child; the growth of a new movement in politics or science or labor or business; the development of new ideas and their importance for the human race. If such a man is extraverted, he hurls himself into new tendencies, and then as soon as they are about to come to harvest, he is no longer interested, and turns to new possibilities. He is the pioneer who opens up the wilderness, but does not stay to enjoy the cities that spring up. He sows, but he rarely reaps.

If he is introverted he brings forth out of himself great new ideas or works of art. A good example is Nietzsche.

The sensational type is of the earth, earthy. His main function is sensation; the taste, the scent, the sound, the touch and the look of things. He is highly sensuous, and is constantly seeking new sensations. He is very realistic, and opposed to anything noble or idealistic. He is often the actor, the acrobat, the sensualist.

If he is introverted he gets his sensations through imagining strange pictures of an inverted world, such as the world depicted in the prose and poetry of Edgar Allan Poe.

This is, of course, not a complete setting forth of the types; but merely enough to come to some understanding of their differing sexual reactions.

If a man or woman is an extraverted thinking or feeling type, the sexuality is apt to be normal. It is apt to be governed by what the world considers good form. That is to say, it is probably monogamous, done at regular intervals, and often without glamor.

But when we come to the intuitives and the sensationals, everything is quite otherwise. The intuitive is usually in strong opposition to the sensational. To him sexuality is apt to appear as something low, animal and disgusting. He himself is often without desire, and cannot understand the need of it in others.

It is true that sometimes an individual by deep development transcends the groove of his type, and in this way some intuitives are able finally to develop their sexuality; but, on the contrary, it is sometimes dangerous doctrine to ask an intuitive to be sexual. Intuitives who do this often violate their natures, and so produce symptoms or become ill. They are apt to oscillate between periods of intuition and that of sensation, and when they are on the sensational side they are tempted to make an orgy of it. Sensitive intuitive artists get drunk and go on debauches: women of this type behave somewhat like prostitutes.

The Freudians err therefore in their doctrine that sexuality is good for everyone. It is not good for certain of the intuitives. In fact, many men and women of this type live on in the full bloom of their power without knowing a sexual life.

On the other hand, since sexuality permeates the life of the senses and is all bound up with them, the sensational usually needs and has a full sexual life. The men are apt to be Casanovas and flit from woman to woman. Sensations, as we know, if repeated, soon tire us. We long for new ones. So in a life that depends on sensations and sensational happenings, soon an appetite develops for something still more strange, more unexpected, more flavorous. Ordinary sexuality may, to the sensational, soon lose its zest, and he hungers for things abnormal and unheard of. In this way, he may develop from one stage to another of the perversions, not because of a fixation on the mother, or even, in his case, because of an undeveloped function (since sensation is his developed function), but merely because sensation itself demands more and different sensations, and the ordinary round is soon exhausted.

It is said of the sensational that if he can’t get a good sensation, he will get a bad one; if he can’t get one of pleasure, he will take one of pain. It is like the poet Keats putting pepper in his mouth so that the wine would taste the cooler.

There is not much to say about it. In every civilized country certain classes of people are looked upon as outside the general code, as in a class apart. Thus we have the conceptions of Bohemia, of Red Light districts, and we even exempt from the usual censure certain types of actors and actresses in a recognition that what we call morality means little to them.

What stands out clearly in noting these differences of reaction, is that no one type should legislate the morality of the other types. If it is perfectly clear to anyone that a code erected by the extraverted sensational type would be ruinous to the rest of the population, it should also be clear by inference that the thinking type can’t legislate for the sensational, nor the extravert for the introvert.

What we come down to finally is that sexuality, like religion, is an individual matter, and must be found by the individual according to his needs and his nature.

MISPLACED ENERGY

However, it should not be taken for granted that perverse sexuality is, in itself, good. Nothing that is raw and undeveloped is as good as that which is strong and mature. On the other hand, a seed cannot by magic suddenly become a beautiful flower. It must pass through the dark stage of being in the muck and manure, and only painfully and slowly, step by step, will it develop to the flower. This appears to be a law of nature, and we can say of the development of man, that his evolution began in the “mud and slime of things,” and that in the myriad ages that have passed, he has not yet attained full manhood.

When we look at some of the dark things that the race has gone through, we cannot call them “good,” but often we must admit that they were necessary. So, too, with this matter of sexuality: it cannot always be arranged according to what we think is best.

Nevertheless, there are many cases of what might be called sick or false sexuality. It would appear, according to Jung, that anyone who neglects a function or gift which he should be developing, is apt to go astray sexually. In other words, our energy craves the outlets provided for it by our innate character. If a man, for instance, was born an artist, that is not something he can escape. Art is the natural outlet of much of his energy. But if, because of his training, or say, his belief that art is an idle matter and not manly enough, he should turn from this gift, then a certain amount of his energy goes idle.

Idle energy, so Jung has found, usually descends to the sexual zone; and the young man finds himself with an unnatural and excessive sexual craving. Since this is more than the normal sexual desire, it is apt to take abnormal form; and the man becomes by an irresistible compulsion, a homosexual.

His homosexuality is not an innate thing; it is a symptom. It is misplaced energy. The cure, of course, is for him to take up his art. His sexuality then will become quite normal.

There is the case of the young woman who not only had an incessant and excessive sexual craving, but who desired any and every man she met. It took all her strength to hide her feelings, for she was well-bred, sensitive, and with a high standard. She went to a noted analyst who discovered that she was the rare case of a woman who belonged to the thinking type. But thinking in her circle was not favored when it came to women. She had therefore neglected to develop her intellect, and as soon as she began to do so, the symptom disappeared and she became quite normal.

It should be clear from these cases that wherever perverse sexuality appears, there is need of an investigation. It is necessary to discover if it isn’t a case of misplaced energy. Indeed, one may say offhand, that all excessive cases are of this nature, as for instance, a marked sadism (sexual cruelty), a marked homosexuality, a too great sexual desire. Such cases need the treatment of a psycho-analyst.

However, if energy may be misplaced to the sexual zone, it may also be misplaced from the sexual zone. This is particularly true in this country, because of our Puritan tradition. It was no longer ago than my own childhood that a vast array of American children were taught that sex is a bad thing; that to think in sexual terms was evil, that to commit sexual acts was wicked; and that sexuality existed solely for the purpose of propagating the species. It was whispered about that auto-erotism led to insanity or loss of manhood. Words like gonorrhea and syphilis were not mentioned, and ignorance in sexual matters was not only disastrous, but, one might say, criminal. There were women who came to marriage without any inkling of how children were born; there were boys who doubtless did go insane from the practice of auto-eroticism, not because the practice hurt them, but because of the shame and fear attached to their “secret sin.”

This darkness has not wholly vanished yet, though much light has appeared. It is natural that many sensitive people, growing up in such an atmosphere, should repress their sexuality. In certain cases this might do no harm; an intuitive woman, for instance, might be all the better for it. But since sexuality is a powerful instinct which needs in the end its own natural expression, the repression of it, in many cases, would mean that sexual energy was misplaced away from the sexual zone, and produced a symptom.

Perhaps the simplest way of saying it is this, that whatever we attempt to repress in ourselves we tend to repress in others. If we have cut off the glow of life in ourselves, we come under a compulsion sometimes to cut off others in the same way. This is where the misplaced sexual energy goes. We become crusaders, we go out and fight vice wherever it shows its head, we censor art, we bring about prohibition. We become persecutors, driven by a kind of madness, thus poisoning our own lives and the lives of others.

But since sexuality is a social instinct, and is at the root of love, its repression may lead to something equally fanatic, but of a different nature. The crusading spirit, instead of being prohibitive, calls the world to salvation. The revivalist appears, or the bringer of a new religion, or the founder of a sect. There is a feverish attempt to convert and to “save the world.”

America is full of it. Great waves of sexualized religious fervor sweep over the country. Any means may be used: the revivalist may use jazz bands and slang, do the Charleston on his platform, paint primitive pictures of hellfire and damnation, broadcast his violent sermons, shame people into conversion, and arouse a whole community to hysteria.

To anyone with a discerning eye, the performance is false on the face of it. It is a lot of misplaced sexual energy gone wrong and running like a high fever.

A mild case of it which came under an analyst’s observation shows the trouble clearly enough. The man in question felt that he had a message to broadcast to the people, which would bring them to a better life. The scheme, however, was actually of a cheap nature, which he admitted, on criticism, but could not give up nevertheless. It was as if he had to do it. The key-dream which showed the situation was as follows:

An advertising man of his acquaintance had set out to put up the highest advertising sign in the world. This was being built on a prairie, so that it could be seen from immense distances. It was already so high that the dreamer could not see the top of it. On rope-hung scaffoldings many men were at work on the sign. At the bottom of the sign was a moat of water. Closing time came, and the men immediately leaped from their scaffoldings like frogs into the water below.

His scheme is shown up as not a real attempt to help others, but as a matter of self advertising, a stunt. More than this, the energy which put up the sign, namely, the men at work on it, leaps down like frogs. Frogs, as a rule, have a sexual significance; and sometimes mean auto-erotism.

In short, the energy behind his attempt to save the world is misplaced sexuality, and that sexuality of an infantile nature. His compulsion left him when he gained the proper sexual expression.

However, if repression of sexuality is a bad thing, temporary abstinence is sometimes good. Not only are men and women able, at times, to go without sexuality for relatively long periods but, in certain cases, and at certain times, this has the highest value.

In many savage tribes, on the night before the warriors went out to battle, the men were not allowed to have any contact with women. Doubtless this was done that their energy might remain unimpaired, and that their warlike fervor might not be softened with any of the feelings of love.

In fact, in times of crisis, it would appear that there can be a displacement of sexual energy which is beneficial. When men are under the unusual strain of a great task, abstinence often seems to help. Their whole energy becomes transformed into the task, which they can now do with greater freedom. Naturally, this is a detour, a forced march, and not a way of living.

We find often in the case of great artists, that before beginning work on their masterpieces, they withdraw from sexual experience. Balzac, for instance, always cut himself off from society, put on a monk’s robe and secluded himself until the task was accomplished. It is obvious what the monk’s robe meant: it was a temporary renunciation of love as well as of the world.

THE COMMON SENSE OF IT

We now come to the common sense of it. Undoubtedly in a great number of cases of perversion and other sexual trouble, we need not search for the cause in a mother-attachment, an incest-wish, or an undeveloped function. The cause is often of a relatively simple nature.

Perhaps at the top of the list we may put woman’s fear of being impregnated, of conceiving and bearing a child; a fear which a man who loves his wife often shares with her. Such fears are sometimes morbid, and are part of a general fear of life. Women who are made, as it were, to be mothers, may be evading their life-work and refusing pain and responsibility. That is quite possible.

But, on the other hand, if we look at the matter in the light of common sense, we see, first, that to an imaginative person, the fear is perfectly natural, just as a perfectly natural fear may spring up in a man as he goes into battle; and that, second, circumstances may justify and deepen the fear to a point where it becomes a deterrent to normal sexuality. For instance, poverty might make it impossible for the parents to support children, or more than the one or two already born. Or the woman’s health or structure may be such as to make child-bearing a grave danger.

Of course “birth control” is urged for such people; the use of contraceptives. However, not only are such things sometimes unreliable, but certain types of people find their use exceedingly unpleasant, turning what should be a joyous union, a spontaneous act, into something mechanical and self-conscious. Besides that, if the fear of impregnation is great, the use of contraceptives does not abolish it.

It is no wonder then that very many married people turn from normal sexuality to something that comes under the heading of perversions. The whole aim is to get the glow and satisfaction by any means rather than that of normal entrance. Naturally, if either of the couple concerned is strongly normal in his sexual desire, there is a loss here; but whether that loss is as great as the loss through worry and fear, is open to question.

There is no use denying that when man ceased to regard the sexual act as purely animal, for propagation purposes, and made an art of it, he turned aside from nature; just as he has turned aside when he invented the wheel or used fire for cooking. Those who argue that nature’s way is best should return to the jungle. But if we agree that man may refashion not only his environment but his mind and his character, then we must admit that he may also refashion his sexuality.

As Jung said, it isn’t the form of the sexuality, but the attitude we have toward the sexual. If it is an expression of mutual love, an endearment of life, an art, something that brings a greater beauty to life, and riches otherwise missing, surely it is both right and good. And even if it is a necessary outlet for something not so good, but which is undeveloped, and needs development, at least it is a preventive of sometimes serious disorder.

Certainly the ideal of Havelock Ellis is the highest, that sexuality should be the art of love, and that the forepleasure should culminate in the act itself; and it is true also that in many cases the fear of impregnation may be conquered, and that the self-control of the man may shield the woman. It is also true that often the use of contraceptives may cease to seem unnatural. But how legislate in the matter? Prohibition does not prohibit; and there is no way of making a couple, in the privacy of their own lives, observe an external standard. What is far better is to allow each couple to find their own moral law with reference to sexuality. If they know they are living up to something good, they should be courageous enough not to be ashamed of it.

If the fear of impregnation is woman’s chief fear, that of man’s is often the fear of impotence. Many men, through lack of experience sexually or for some other reason, have this fear. This, too, may be morbid. It may originate in the fear of life itself; an inability to break through in the world; a feeling of failure, of “not being a man.” Or it may be due to undeveloped sexuality. But if we look at the matter sensibly we may see that often it is not due to any such cause, but to something more simple. For instance, it might be caused by either of two opposite teachings: the one, that sexuality in itself is a bad thing, the other, the gossip of men, that a man isn’t a man unless he is sexually virile.

If a man believes the first, he must always connect with sexuality something evil and low, and if he is at all religious he may feel that he is harming his soul, or even damning it, if he has sexual pleasure. Such an inhibition in itself would be enough to cripple his sexual expression, for the very essence of sexuality, like love, is that it casts out fear. The sexual feeling in a man brings courage and aggressiveness.

On the other hand, if a man believes that he is unmanly unless he is virile, and that other men, if they knew of it, would think him a eunuch or womanly, he might (and many do) feel it incumbent upon himself to prove, over and over again, that he is a man. But it is foreign to the sexual act to use it to prove anything. If it is not a joy, and a self-forgetfulness, it is nothing. Hence, the man trying to prove his case, is apt to turn out exactly as he fears.

There must be a change of attitude. In some men virility of character is combined with sexual virility; in other men, it is not. If we remember the distinction between extravert and introvert, we may understand that some men may be outwardly weak, but inwardly giants, giants of intellect or of art; and doubtless many of these men, by their virility of thought or of creativeness, have made the world itself more virile. It is said of Michelangelo that he was not normal sexually, yet his mighty torsos in marble, his colossal painting of the Last Judgment could only have been produced by a giant of character.

There is no single test for what constitutes manhood. With some sexuality would play a large part, with others not. What is important is that a man be true to himself, and if his sexuality is of an inferior or undeveloped order, that he acknowledge it as such and so bring it to a better development. He may then discover, when he ceases to strain after lifting himself by his bootstraps, that, with the disappearance of fear, he is actually more sexually powerful than he thought.

Another great cause for perversion or unsuccessful sexuality, which is also perfectly obvious, is mismating. Between sensitive people, sexuality amounts to very little unless the couple are also mates. A man may find that his wife, however fond of her he may be, does not stimulate that side of his nature; or the woman may make the same discovery of her husband. Without the natural means of attraction, other means are sought for. Some employ drink to stimulate them; others resort to perversions.

There is also the case of a woman, brought to an analyst’s attention, who did not love her husband, but was madly in love with another man. If, in intercourse with her husband, she thought of him as the other man and so pictured him, the sexuality was successful.

However, this forcible mating of the mismated is not often good; and indeed if the physical antipathy is strong enough, it may not even be possible. In such cases, often enough, another of the simple, but great problems, comes up. It is that either of divorce or of polygamy.

Is man naturally polygamous? That is a question hard to answer. I rather think that the introvert is more monogamous, the extravert more polygamous. The introvert tends to go deep with everything; to concentrate more and more on a few things; and he is the same in his relationships. They tend to be few, but to be rather intense. When it comes to marriage, this concentration is apt to exclude every woman but his wife.

With the extravert it is different. Since his attention goes out from himself to the world, since his interest is easily aroused, his relationships are apt to multiply. They are not often deep, but they are swift and easy, and without great trouble he can pass, if he is sexual, from one woman to another.

Now it seems to me (though I know this question is still up in the air) that woman is less polygamous than man. To man sexuality is in every way a lighter matter. To begin with, he is more swiftly and more easily satisfied, and, moreover, he has for himself few consequences to fear. It is apparent that the woman, more slow to respond, gives a great depth in the response when it finally comes, and the man who has the key to her must take on an overwhelming value. Not only that, but her nature connects the sexual act with child-bearing, and this at once gives the whole matter a more serious coloring. She may, in time, disconnect the sexual act from that of child-bearing, but it still remains more intense and more serious than for a man. For this reason, and especially if the man is the father of her children, his value is such that she concentrates on him with possessiveness, and this tends toward monogamy.

However, woman’s lack of economic independence in the past, her great dependence on man, may have been a large factor in the problem; and, indeed, today it is not rare to find women who claim the same freedom that men have often claimed, and who are polyandrous in their relationships.

It would seem, again, that the matter should be relegated for solution to the individuals concerned; and so far as the State is concerned that either divorce should be made easy, or extra-marital relations allowed for good cause.

As a matter of fact, with the attitude now prevailing, there is much needless suffering. I remember the case of a man who married the girl of his choice when they were both very young. He was a man absorbed in his business to such an extent as not to be aware of any sexual need. He was content to have a wife who ran the home, was his companion in his travels, and helped receive his guests. They were very fond of each other, but had no sexual relationship.

He told his wife everything. He discussed his business and personal problems with her; and everything went well until he became so successful that a trust bought out his business. As soon as he relaxed, he was aware that he had not known the full joy of living. It was not surprising that at that very time, he met an independent and very attractive woman, and that he fell madly in love with her. He was quite intoxicated; life suddenly had become an intense affair, full of glamour. He was irresistibly drawn into an affair with her, and what was more, he found her so delightful a person, that it appeared to him that the relationship would become permanent.

However, his old fondness for his wife was unabated. Their many years together, their complete candor with each other, had given their relationship an enduring basis. He knew, nevertheless, that if his wife got wind of his new relationship, it would quite wreck her life. She was puritanic, she believed in monogamy, and she trusted him completely.

He attempted to evade the matter; to get time off by giving business excuses; but she soon became suspicious, and deeply troubled. She knew he was hiding something, and feared that it was exactly as it was.

Finally, in his dilemma, he came to an analyst. After hearing the case, the analyst asked him:

“Can you give up the other woman?”

The poor man was lost in his thoughts for several minutes. Then he looked up, and spoke slowly:

“No, I cannot. I should rather die.”

Such tragedies are hidden in our present system of inelastic monogamy. Had the wife been brought up to a more sensible attitude, or had either of them been taught the value of sexuality in their youth, the tragedy might have been avoided.

Certainly there is one thing that every couple must take into consideration; and that is, that the nature of either may undergo a change so divergent from the other, as to cause the need of a genuine readjustment. But if people take this into consideration, they cannot but be less possessive of one another; and, indeed, too great concentration on each other is usually an evil in marriage. For one thing, it often leads to the feeling of staleness, and this in turn either leads to artificial stimulants, to perversions in the sexuality, or it may end in a break.

One of the essentials in most marriages is occasional separation, and diverse interests and relationships.

It will be seen then that from the standpoint of common sense there are many reasons for abnormal or unsuccessful sexuality besides those that are due to deeper causes.

SOME THINGS TO DO

As I said in the beginning, it is time for this dark cloud of ignorance and prejudice and fear which we call the sexual problem, to roll away. This can only come about by a passionate realization of the principle of difference. There are different kinds of people, and it takes all kinds to make a world. We cannot legislate a sexual code, whether the law we make says, “Thou shalt not,” or even “Thou shalt,” without violating the natures and needs of large sections of the population. What it comes down to, finally, is the individual. It is he who must be studied, and it is he who must find his own path.

Doubtless we shall not come to a true sexual morality until our education includes the psychological study of children. Until the child is known, his hidden need is not apparent. If he is an introvert, he should not be developed, as he is today, particularly in this country, along extraverted lines that are against his bent. And if he is an extraverted sensational, we cannot demand the same standard of him as we could of an intuitive.

But even these type differences are insufficient for our study. The child, after all, is himself, and therefore in some ways different from all others. His problem is always unique, and must often be solved in new and unique ways.

But since a change in our education which would include the technic of modern psycho-analysis, is still far off; all that we can do in the meantime is to spread the new knowledge and new insight, so as to break down the old prejudices, shames and fears, and put new weapons into the hands of parents.

It is often difficult for parents to be candid with their children concerning sexuality, especially if their own attitude is vague or prejudiced. Where the difficulty is too great, the child should be turned over to a trusted friend or teacher for enlightenment and guidance.

The first step in gaining the confidence of the child is to give him a good attitude. Nothing that he tells will be used against him; there will be an attempt to understand all. Besides that, he should be told that the problem is practically universal, and the things that he does, if at all, are not so much sins as bits of childishness which may, in many cases, be overcome.

When he has learned to speak freely, he may, for instance, for the problem is general, say that he practices auto-erotism. In this case, if the child is still under the age of puberty, he can be told that it may become a habit and later on give him considerable trouble, and that it is something he should attempt to overcome. He is to report progress and should not mind confessing a slip.

Most children are amenable to such treatment, and overcome the habit. In a few cases, this appears impossible, and some deeper cause should be looked for. For instance, the child is afraid of the dark, and uses auto-erotism to quiet himself and soothe himself to sleep. In that case, it would be better, of course, that there was a light in his room, or someone remained near him while he was trying to sleep. Or it may be found that he has contracted the habit as a substitution for some other gratification. He may, for example, have a craving for candy which a too-wise parent has entirely tabooed for him. The cure is candy, by all means.

It will often be found that the hidden cause is as simple as the foregoing, and that the cure is equally simple.

However, if the child is at puberty, if he is adolescing, the problem is more difficult. In many cases, if the boy is shown that such a habit may make it difficult later on to be normal sexually, he will break it, and by a vigorous life avoid the problem. But there are cases which refuse to yield to such common sense, and either such a child needs an analysis, or, as one of our noted psychologists thinks, he may be permitted a limited expression until he gets past the dangerous years. In such a case, he must be warned against excess, to limiting himself only to overwhelming desire.

This may seem like a poor way of handling the matter; but unfortunately we have here “not a theory, but a condition.” Actually if the boy is scared off, he may merely go on practicing the habit in private and with no restraint; or if he has become afraid of that, may turn to homosexuality or seek out a woman or a girl. Since this is not a mere child’s problem, since it is known that the run of men who go off on long expeditions, or sea voyages, or live in camps where there are no women, resort to such practices, we can hardly expect highly-sexed boys to observe a higher code.

The best thing, of course, would be a psycho-analysis at the hands of a perfectly competent analyst. In that case a deep and hidden cause might be found, such as those outlined in the earlier part of this booklet. Where some boys find a kind of outlet in athletics and in general activities, such a boy might, for example, find an outlet in creating some form of art. He might be gifted as a painter or poet or writer of fiction. In many cases, this is the cure, until he is old enough to handle his sexual problem in the way best suited to him.

When it comes to adults, there is very little to be said. It would seem, for instance, as though homosexuality ran counter to the best tendencies of this age. Why this should be so is not apparent. When Greece was at her height, and that height was great, homosexuality was held in high esteem and practiced, along with normal sexuality, by the most enlightened and developed men. The Greeks practiced bi-sexuality and were a great nation, with production of marvelous ideas and deathless art. Yet today homosexuality runs against the grain.

It may be, of course, that, in the end, no man completes himself, except through woman. The rise of woman has made her all the more man’s counterpart and complement. It is more or less through woman that man is able to develop his true individuality. And it may be that man must honor the symbol of woman, as well as the woman herself, by guiding his desire toward her, and fulfilling himself also physically through her love.

But, however true this may be, there is a certain percentage of men, relatively small, who seem more like the victims, than the willing practicers, of homosexuality. The overwhelming prejudice against them, the fact that they are mocked or shunned like pariahs, the sense they have that they cannot escape their doom, the often effeminate traits which give them away, make them as a rule pitiable objects. It is true that sometimes they turn, as a driven animal turns, and stand at bay, flaunting their difference in the face of the world; but as a rule it is the opposite.

Certainly, at least, such cases are for the psycho-analyst’s study, rather than for the world’s contempt. There are cases which, as I have noted, can be cured; since they are psychological in origin; but there are other cases which still defy our insight.

But however reprehensible any given practice may be, when it comes to adults there is very little legislation that can be done. They can, and will, and do follow individual paths. One can only enlighten them on the meaning of their acts. It is only in such excessive cases as that of the seducer of young girls or the sadist who harms others that the State can step in and put a stop to it.

Another aspect of the problem which must be included in this review is that of prostitution and sexual disease. Is prostitution an evil, or will its abolishment lead to more promiscuity? That, too, is a difficult question, and by no means answerable in a simple way. It does, however, seem apparent that prostitution is an evil, and that its gradual elimination is leading to a greater promiscuity.

The obvious evil of prostitution is that, as a rule, it brings sexuality down to its animal basis, and thus destroys one of the beauties and joys of life. Its further evil is that it turns women again into chattels. And finally, of course, it is a breeding ground for disease.

Naturally, a part of the education in sexuality should include a knowledge of the diseases of sex. This, in itself, especially among the young, tends to curb the impulse toward promiscuity, or at least to limit it to “petting” rather than to full sexuality.

Nevertheless, we must admit the fact that there is a growing promiscuity, along with a change of attitude on the whole sexual problem. Whether this is a passing phase, and due to the revolt of youth against the old puritanism, or whether the future will look upon sexuality with new eyes, we cannot really know. However, those who fear that the institution of marriage will soon totter on its foundation have not, I think, a very deep insight into man. Human nature has much in it of restlessness, of desire for change, and for experiment, but as a rule it has more on the side of inertia, with a deep craving for security and comfort. Everything in man that loves to settle down and be secure makes also for monogamous marriage. That, for most people, is the only safe center in the world, the cave or retreat, the cavern of comfort. Beside that, of course, so long as children are born into the world, just so long will the run of people find much of the meaning of life in their children’s growth and success. This is the powerful force that keeps parents together, even where their tastes and their very natures are incompatible.

LOVE

The love of man for woman and woman for man,

It is not often love....

When the married couple kiss do they drink the music of each other’s souls,

Are they moved to unspeakable reverence and adoration,

Would they renounce the world for the good of the beloved?

No, kisses are become to them a routine and a duty:

They find each other’s bodies at midnight as they find breakfast in the morning:

And they fill the idle hours with games, shows, rides and liquor,

All to escape from one another....

I have thoughts of a love that might be:

Of a love that is the tender caress of forehead and cheeks with barely lingering hands:

Of a love that opens the skies at midnight for silent flight,

Flight far, with wings, in one another’s arms....

These lovers shall mean as much to each other as they mean to themselves:

Their tenderness shall melt down irritations:

Their passion shall surcharge tasks with meaning....

Not alone shall the man find God in himself,

But in the beloved shall he find him, and in the sight of the beloved shall he adore him....

—Songs for the New Age.

That still remains the ideal. To the couple who have found such meaning in each other, sexuality, as Havelock Ellis shows, becomes the art of love, and the union is one of joy and mystery, revealing the greatness of life.

The ideal of that sexuality remains also as Havelock Ellis states it. As I have said several times, he divides the sexual act into the forepleasure and the act itself. The forepleasure is a summarizing of many of those things looked upon as infantile and perverse, but which, as part of the art of love, become means of endearment and arousal, and lead finally to the complete consummation.

It is well, even for those who have difficulty in the matter, to keep this ideal before them as something finally capable of attainment. For, while the various items of the forepleasure may become ends in themselves, and this unavoidably because of the lack of development or the person’s type, it should not be forgotten that things undeveloped should finally be developed, so that marriage may become more complete and love deeper.

NOTE

The reader who wants to pursue the matter further, would do well to read Havelock Ellis’s Psychology of Sex, particularly volume six, which contains the famous chapter on The Art of Love.

He may also gain much by reading Freud’s General Introduction to Psycho-Analysis.

Finally, if he is interested in going more deeply into the psychology of Jung, the problems of introvert vs. extravert, and the types, he is referred to Little Blue Book No. 978 (The Psychology of Jung), Little Blue Book No. 980 (How I Psycho-Analyzed Myself) and Little Blue Book No. 985 (A Psycho-Analysis of America).

Transcriber’s Note

Some inconsistencies in spelling, hyphenation, and punctuation have been retained.

p. 53: changed “genuie” to “genuine” (a genuine readjustment)