And so far as theoretical solutions are concerned I believe that Mr. Edward Carpenter[19] comes nearest to the truth. Nature is deliberate in creating not uniformity but variety, and I doubt if the world would continue if there were only normal men in it. The homosexual has his place, within restrictions, as has the celibate or the sexless type. The real truth, I feel to be, is that few men are wholly masculine or women feminine, and that somewhere, in comparative degrees, homosexuality is in us all. It may become so excessive as to be a disease, or so feeble as to create that unaesthetic, bourgeoise type, which is an unpleasant symptom of super-normality. We enter the realm of pure conjecture if we attempt to inquire the purpose for which this type has been deliberately created. And I can only record my own entirely unproveable, but definite opinion, that the human race, in the far ages ahead, will return, by a spiral process, to the bisexual species from which I believe it has come. If this is so, the homosexual is apparently a prototype, a preliminary attempt of nature to combine both sex-natures in one individual. And with all his present imperfections, I believe that there are evidences which go strongly to support this conjecture. Chapter 9: The Sexless Class There is little that need be written on this subject, not because it is devoid of interest, but because it raises no vital sex problem. The number of sexless people is small, though apparently increasing. It may be questioned whether there are any really sexless people--individuals, i.e. whose sex-nature is non-existent. Probably in most of these cases sex, for some reason or other, is there, dormant but positive. But it is convenient so to classify those in whom, for some reason, the sex-force has never yet been stirred. It must be remembered that this class is quite distinct from the religious celibate. The celibate has all the sexual ardour for his religious or humanitarian devotion. The sexless man or woman is cold, intellectually aloof, and generally critical. There are only two considerations calling for remarks on this interesting psychological problem. The first is that we must not allow the great body of normal opinion to label such people as unnatural, and as having no part to play in the community. They have, on the contrary, an important role. Their intellectual ability is in itself a great asset, particularly in abstract and critical directions. And in all sex questions they should, and frequently have, an impartial outlook, for the very reason that they can view sex from a detached standpoint.