The common sense of sex James Oppenheim 1353 downloads.pdf

The Project Gutenberg eBook of The common sense of sex
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you
will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.

Title: The common sense of sex

Author: James Oppenheim

Editor: E. Haldeman-Julius

Release date: September 7, 2025 [eBook #76836]

Language: English

Original publication: Girard: Haldeman-Julius Company, 1926

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/76836

Credits: Tim Miller, Daniel Lowe, and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was
produced from images generously made available by The
Internet Archive)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE COMMON
SENSE OF SEX ***

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)

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE COMMON
SENSE OF SEX ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
States without permission and without paying copyright royalties.
Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license,
apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic
works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and
trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not
be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of
the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the Project
Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for copies of this
eBook, complying with the trademark license is very easy. You may
use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative
works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg eBooks
may be modified and printed and given away—you may do practically
ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S.
copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license,
especially commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG™ LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or
any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
Gutenberg License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing
Project Gutenberg electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg electronic
work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept
all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
all copies of Project Gutenberg electronic works in your possession. If
you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg
electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this
agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom
you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people
who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg electronic
works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the

collection of Project Gutenberg electronic works. Nearly all the
individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the
United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in
the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
that you will support the Project Gutenberg mission of promoting free
access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg works
in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project
Gutenberg name associated with the work. You can easily comply with
the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format
with its attached full Project Gutenberg License when you share it
without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
other Project Gutenberg work. The Foundation makes no
representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
access to, the full Project Gutenberg License must appear prominently
whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg work (any work on which
the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase
“Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed,
viewed, copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United
States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it
away or re-use it under the terms of the Project

Gutenberg™ License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United
States, you will have to check the laws of the country
where you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is derived
from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a
notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright
holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United
States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or
providing access to a work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”
associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with
the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain
permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg
trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg License for all works posted
with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of
this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide
access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg work in a format

other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official
version posted on the official Project Gutenberg website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of
obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg electronic works provided
that:

• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the
use of Project Gutenberg works calculated using the method you
already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the
owner of the Project Gutenberg trademark, but he has agreed to donate
royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days
following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to
prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly
marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information about
donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”

• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does
not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You
must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works
possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all
access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.

• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the

electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
receipt of the work.

• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution
of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™
electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth
in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the
Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in
Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend
considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and
proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the
Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may be
stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete,
inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES -
Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in
paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation,
the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party
distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this
agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and
expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO
REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH
OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE
FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY
DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE

LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT,
CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES
EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you
discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it,
you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by
sending a written explanation to the person you received the work
from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return
the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that
provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a
replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work
electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to
give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu
of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a
refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in
paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If
any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law
of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any
provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the
Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the
Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any
volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution
of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability,

costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly
from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a)
distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg work, (b) alteration,
modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg work,
and (c) any Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project
Gutenberg

Project Gutenberg is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg’s goals
and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg collection will remain freely
available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and
permanent future for Project Gutenberg and future generations. To
learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and
the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state
of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue
Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is
64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S.
federal laws and your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 41 Watchung Plaza
#516, Montclair NJ 07042, USA, +1 (862) 621-9288. Email contact
links and up to date contact information can be found at the
Foundation’s website and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without
widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small
donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax
exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States.
Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable
effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these
requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have
not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular
state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other

ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg
electronic works

Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg
concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project
Gutenberg eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility:
www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg, including
how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.