If total abstainers from every kind of sexual erethism should sometimes become neurasthenic, this fact would not prove yet that the nervous trouble was caused by total abstinence from the gross sexual gratification. Even the man about town may become neurasthenic for lack of the gratification of the impulse of permanent mating. The apologists of promiscuous intercourse forget or are ignorant of the fact that the impulse of permanent mating in normal men and women cannot be satisfied by promiscuity. The craving for a permanent mate, home and family unconsciously demands gratification even from him who leads a promiscuous sexual life. If this impulse is not gratified, as in cranky old bachelors or hysterical old maids, it may lead to severe attacks of neurasthenia. Such cases will not be cured by the association with venal women or by promiscuous sensuality, but they may be cured by a permanent mate, home, and family life. Hence the cure of the total abstainer from his nervousness by marriage is again no proof against total abstinence. The cause of the trouble may have been the unsatisfied impulse of permanent mating which has been now satisfied by marriage. Promiscuous relations would not have cured the neurasthenia, but marriage with its accompanying emotional tones. There is, therefore, no valid proof of the harmfulness of total abstinence in a healthy individual without a hereditary taint. If total abstinence ever harmed anybody, the patient was either a congenial weakling or has acquired his lack of resistance through indulgence in early eroticism. A perfectly healthy man is never injured by abstinence. At least there is no sufficient proof that it ever did. But there are unmistakable proofs that total abstinence does not harm the individual. The best proof is furnished by many chaste and healthy women. Few women seem to suffer from total abstinence. The rejoinder that woman’s sexual desires are very feeble, that the female sex has no sexual needs, that it is more or less frigid, are mere masculine assertions without objective proofs. Women writers, who ought to know best the feelings of their own sex, claim just the opposite. Johanna Elberskirchen (in Sexualempfindung bei Weib und Mann) has well satirized the masculine impertinence which tries to teach woman what her emotions are or are not. The fact that many a young woman runs the risk, in the present state of sex-morality, of ruining her entire future by the indulgence in extra-marital sexuality, under conditions where pecuniary or other considerations are entirely out of the question, would tend to show that the sexual impulse is by no means so weak in women, as many would lead us to believe. It is simply incomprehensible that the female sexual needs should be less urgent than those of the male sex. Woman has by far the greater part of labor in the sex-performance. With the ejaculation the man’s biological part is at an end. He may leave now the scene of his activity, while