From the erotic viewpoint it makes no difference whether a woman is well dressed or not or even tidy, provided her ill-dressed condition does not interfere with her physical health. A woman in rags wielding a hoe or a rake or even a spade may be just as radiant and have just as fine and attractive physique as a lady in silks. It is a fallacy to suppose that erotic attractiveness consists only in the cosmetic art. This motive to keep herself in the pink of visual perfection appeals only to sight, and is at bottom more egoistic-social than erotic, however much the woman may think she is making an erotic impression by her appearance. The conscious appeal to sight is frequently only an overcompensation for her erotically unsatisfied condition. As sight is only distant or vicarious _touch_, it is evident that the visual appeal is only a substitute touch appeal. That a woman with a homely face may be erotically attractive then is no paradox. The beautiful face is only the symbol of the “skin you love to touch.” The visible symbol may be absent and yet the kinesthetic quality be present. Furthermore all lovers who take pleasure from the sight of beautiful lines of the human form are only vicariating for kinesthetic sensations. The original sculptor is the caressing hand. § 62 In modern human civilized life instincts in general, even irrespective of the sex of the person in whom they are manifested, are the worst possible guides. The love instinct is also among the worst, simply because its present-day vestiges are so overlaid with restrictions and conventions that it cannot be seen clearly. It has been so inhibited that it needs an apologist. When looking at the two broad divisions of egoistic-social and love instincts, one has to have demonstrated the essential superiority of the love instinct and its far greater ability to cause happiness, health, and, in the deepest sense, success. Over two thousand years ago Aristotle saw, and said, that the greatest satisfaction comes from fullest use of all one’s powers. Today we are beginning to realize, after the study of the ductless glands, that there is a kind of reaction in the body not mediated by nerves, as are muscular reactions, and that we have, in the hormones, a mode of interaction between the parts of the body that has been as yet unnoted by physiologist and psychologist alike, an interaction that places marriage in the forefront as a necessity not only for health but for the fullest development of our latent powers. § 63