calm unconcerned manner in which we discuss any biologic or social question, but it must be done. There is no way out of it. And we must not be afraid to go wherever investigation may lead us. There must be no shrinking back from our logical conclusions, be they what they may. Our sole criterion must be-human happiness. If we should find that absolute sexual license, that unrestricted, riotous promiscuity would best contribute toward human happiness, then we should not be afraid to say so; and unrestricted promiscuity should be our ideal. If we think that free unions. or temporary marriages or a modified. monogamy will be most conducive to human happiness, we should say so; and if we find that rigid monogamy in the absolute sense of the term, without any extra-marital relations on the part of either sex, will best contribute to the happiness of mankind, or the greatest happiness of the greatest number, then we should not be afraid to say so. In short, we should not be afraid to advocate that system of sexual relations, whatever it may be, which in our opinion would contribute most to human happiness.

Whether on account of hereditary influences or strictly orthodox early training or very early marriage or other circumstances, but as an ideal, as an abstract desideratum, the truly monogamic marriage appeals to me more than any other system of sexual relations. The truly monogamic couple, where the man and the woman go chaste to the marriage bed, and go thru life in mutual love and respect, these feelings growing stronger as the years pass by, finding full satisfaction in each other, without any desire for any other man or woman-what nobler, what more appealing idea can one

conjure up? Nor is it an utterly unrealizable ideal, for the sneers of the cynics to the contrary, there are such couples, even at the present time, and even in our largest Babylons. They may not constitute a large percentage, but that they do exist and live most happily demonstrates that the ideal is not a chimera and is not altogether outside the bounds of practical realization. tion. In my practice, to encounter a man who has had no sexual relations until his wedding night, and no extramarital relations whatever, is not such a great rarity.

How do I know that my patients tell me the truth, when they assure me of their strictly and exclusively marital relations? Because, I know. Because my patients tell me the truth. They come of their own free will and acaccord, they want to be helped, they know that I look at sexual matters from the same calm dispassionate viewpoint that I regard a headache, or dyspepsia, or a broken leg, they know that I am not a hypocrite or a moralist preacher, and they tell me their sexual histories with the same ease and frankness as they would the history of any of their other troubles. They do not hesitate to disclose to me their perversions-why should they lie about their normal relations before or extra-marital relations after marriage? No, I can have confidence in the statements of my patients. And I repeat, the strictly chaste and monogamic man is not such a rarity, at least in this country and in England. And if marriage could be consummated at an early age, say at the age of eighteen to twenty-two, such cases would be much more frequent. The strictly monogamic ideal, I repeat, is not an absurdity, not a chimera. And they are to be envied who can attain that

ideal and live happily under it.

But that ideal is not applicable to all mankind. Many of our troubles arise from our stupid attempts to measure all men and all women by the same standard. The man with an uncontrollably powerful sexuality would like to see all restrictive laws or opinions smashed to pieces and he looks with contempt at the pious impotent weakling; the latter looks at the former with hatred and would like to have him incarcerated. The moderate normal man knows that both are wrong, both abnormal, but he also knows that neither can help his opinions, for they are both influenced by their feelings, by their physical condition. An examination of a man's testicular glands, prostate and seminal vesicles would often shed much light on the why of his speaking and writing. That strict ideal, I said, is not applicable to all mankind. Ante-nuptially, for instance, it is becoming more and more difficult to live up to that ideal. It is even questionable if, with the late marriages, it is desirable that men should live up to it. And to preach at men, to insist that they should remain chaste until their marriage, when that marriage takes place when they are thirty, thirty-five years or even older, is absurd. I am not sure that such preaching may not even be designated as criminal. For if people really followed the advice of our moral preachers, the results would in many cases prove disastrous. I repeat what I have said so many times before: an impotent man is a more pitiable man than a venereally infected man. [For a fuller discussion of this point, see the author's "Sexual Problems of Today," Chapter: "The Relations of the Sexes or Man's Inhumanity to Woman."]

So much for the unmarried man, the bachelor. We now come to the married man. To even venture to suggest that strict monogamy is not applicable, suitable, healthy or even possible for all men, is a risky undertaking indeed. You run the risk not only of being branded as immoral and depraved by the ignorant and wellmeaning fools, who do not know, and do not wish to learn, the difference between the discussion of a thing and its advocacy, but you run a greater risk: you run the risk of having your work, to which you have given your best and most earnest thought, declared obscene and unmailable by our ignorant and autocratic obscurantist censors, who do not know the difference between obscenity and a high class scientific discussion of a sexual subject.

But I believe the time has come to brave the misunderstandings of the stupid and the wrath of the vicious, and to tell the truth as we see it, regardless of consequences. And with the truth as our sole guide, we will say that it is impossible for some men to live a strictly monogamic life and we have therefore no right to demand of them strict compliance with a strictly monogamic standard.

A number of men complained to me bitterly and with deep self-reproach of their complete lack of libido for and complete impotentia coeundi with their wives. Of course I do not speak here of cases where the man and woman are mismated, where the woman has some disagreeable pelvic disease, or a bad odor from the mouth, or where the man has a dislike for his wife. Such cases are so common as to be commonplace and vulgar. No, I refer to cases where the man loved his wife, loved her fully, solely and sin

cerely, would have suffered to the end. in silence rather than to cause her any pain, would rather have castrated himself than to part from his wife-and still complained that he had neither desire for his wife nor any ability to perform the act with her. He had a desire for another woman; not any woman in particular, just a woman. And it was not viciousness on the man's part—for he fought against it, and he came to be treated for his affliction. And with another woman he was perfectly potent. And the strangest part-strange to one who has not made a study of the subject, but not strange to him who has come in contact with a number of such cases-of it is, that after short temporary relations with other women both the man's potentia and his libido for his wife return with all their former, if not even with greater, vigor.

Now, in a case like this, what shall we do? Shall we insist upon the man's remaining true to his marriage vows, in spite of the fact that this may lead to his and his wife's illness and misery, home disruption and divorce? The uncompromising moralist, who believes that man was made for morals and not morals for man, and who is in our opinion very frequently very immoral, because heartless and cruel, will answer: Yes, he dare not break his marriage vows. We will very gently whisper: Yes, he dare, and for his own and his wife's happiness, he shall. If the wife is wise, she will whisper this advice herself.

There is another class of cases. A man comes to us and tells us that he loves his wife, attends to his marital duties normally, his libido and his power are unimpaired, and still he does not feel satisfied; he feels tired. after the act, and disinclined to work;

the feeling of springiness and buoyancy that he used to have is entirely lacking. If he is a man doing creative work, he complains of a lack of "inspiration." And some men become actually unable to work. If they force themselves, the work is of poor quality, mechanical, artificial. A temporary change sometimes works wonders. What shall we do? What shall we do? Shall we sacrifice the man's work and talent at the altar of an artificial man-made morality? The answer will depend upon who the answerer is-a narrow medievalist or a modern thinker.

The strictly monogamic standard is not a chimera, not an abstract ideal impossible of realization in practice; it is being lived up to now, and the cases in which it is followed are not such exceptional rarities.

Ante-nuptial chastity in man is quite feasible in a society in which marriages take place early.

Under our present economic and social conditions when men marry at the age of thirty, thirty-five and later, chastity in men is not feasible, not advisable and not desirable.

We are confronted in practice with certain cases in which the man's libido and potentia, either one or both, are partially or completely lost as far as the wife is concerned. Their libido and potentia is normal toward other women, and a temporary change often renders their feelings normal towards their own wives. In such cases we are morally justified in recommending such a change.

There is a class of cases where the man, without losing his libido or potentia, gets a feeling of unconquerable ennui or tiredness or dulness, with regard to his life partner. A temporary separation or change generally effects a cure in such cases.

There are certain men doing creative work to whom an occasional new relation seems absolutely necessary, in order that they may do their best work. There are men of powerful sexuality, whom the wife alone, tho perfectly normal, cannot fully satisfy. While normal, her sexuality is much below that of the man. What are we to do in such cases?

There are men who, on account of certain psychological peculiarities, cannot live in permanent union with any one person; are not fit to be married men. Such people live happily in temporary unions with congenial or similarly constituted women, and such temporary unions are therefore the proper thing for them.

If the above premises and theses are correct, the following conclusions may be enunciated:

The monogamic system of marriage will probably survive in the future as the dominant system. The family will in the future, as in the present, form the basic unit of society, for a happy, harmonious family is the best environment for the proper bringing up of children, for the proper development of character. Of course it is possible that the state institutions for the care of children in the future will be of a much higher character than the institutions of the present. But the institutions with which we are familiar do not inspire us with very great expectations in this respect. A good home is superior to the best institution or asylum or pension or dormitory, and no substitute has yet been found for mother love and father love.

Whether or not the people will still solemnize their marriages with religious or legal ceremonies is a matter of minor importance. One thing is certain marriage will not be such a

practically indissoluble arrangement or contract as it is now. There is not any question in my mind that on the petition of both parties a divorce or dissolution to marriage will be granted without further ceremony. The two persons who have to live together are the best judges as to whether they want to continue to live together or not. And when there are no children to be taken care of, a simple declaration by husband and wife, repeated perhaps after a lapse of three or six months, should be and will be quite sufficient for the termination of the marriage contract. the state has nothing to say. When there are children the state will make sure that they will be properly cared for and provided for, before a divorce. is granted.

Here

Cases where only one party demands a divorce will have to be carefully studied by a commission, which will include in its personnel physicians and psychiatrists, and every case will be decided on its merits. But adultery will certainly not be the only reason for granting a divorce, as it is in so many states now. Perhaps adultery will be considered the least important reason for the granting of a divorce. Of course, women of the future state of society being economically independent, the question of alimony will not possess the same importance that it does now. Perhaps it will not enter into the question at all.

Monogamy, while being the prevalent system, will not be surrounded with the rigid and iron-clad rules of the present day, will not be so absolute in its applications as it is theoretically supposed to be now, and occasional departures from it will not be accompanied by the odium and legal punishments of the present. The mass of

the people being more familiar with the truths of physiology and psychology, occasional straying from the straight and narrow path of rigid monogamy will not be frowned upon by the wife. Perhaps it will be encouraged by her.

Ante-nuptially no reproach will be attached to sexual relationships. Prostitution being a coarse and unsanitary institution, relationships of a different character will come into vogue where the health of both the man and the woman will be as secure and as safe

guarded as it is in the legal marriage. As no odium will be attached to such relations, no secrecy will be required and all sanitary precautions will be readily carried out, should such sanitary precautions be needed at that time. For we believe that in the future, prostitution being non-existent and individual prophylaxis having been in use for years, venereal disease will have disappeared from the face of

they would meet only occasionally. They would have to guard against having children, but the measures for the prevention of conception are easily taught and easily carried out.

Men and women who, for one reason or another, will be unable or unwilling to enter into any permanent. union or to have any children, will enter into free temporary unions, openly and frankly, and they will not be ostracized or even frowned upon for so doing. In short, if the truth is to be told, free relations, in the future, will not be considered a crime, vice, or sin. For it will be recognized that for some men or women it is the only form of sexual relationship possible, either psychically or physiologically.

I have spoken only of the morality of the male. Because it is his morality that presents vexing problems. Because I still maintain that the female is essentially monandrous, and if properly mated she presents no sexual problem. There is a small minority who are polyandrous in their instincts, who have unconquerable sexual passions. They will enjoy the same liberties that men do. . This will also apply to unmarried women or to women who are married to impotent men. They They will possess the same rights and privileges as will be enjoyed by the men of the future state of society.

ual immorality, would indicate a moral myopia where sex questions are concerned, which limits his vision, and forces him to see objects out of their proper proportions.

From no point of view can the mere gratification of the senses, be regarded