Even the physician who is often called upon for advice about things pertaining to the psychological phase of sex, prudishly ignores the mightiest of human instincts which is so intimately related to human weal and woe. He is conversant with the sexual question by virtue of its anatomical and physiological knowledge, and he is well aware of its hygienic, sociological and ethical importance. But when he is to furnish enlightenment on psychic or pedagogic questions of sex, he is embarrassed because of a lack of knowledge of sex psychology. The great teachers in our medical schools, who ought to impart to their pupils all their knowledge about the nature of things concerning Love that they have gathered in their long and extensive experience, seem either to consider Love a subject too sacred for physiological and psychological analysis, or are really afraid to arouse the anger of the zealots who made of the sanctuary of sex-attraction a “noli me tangere.” Only the writers of fiction and poetry are allowed to approach the sanctuary of Love, because with their abnormal imagination they sang dithyrambs on this natural sentiment and morbidly transformed it into a supernatural, obscure phenomenon. The hyperaesthetic writers of this morbid fiction are encouraged to continue their practice of elevating the natural sentiment of love to the height of a fetich, which only the lover is capable of understanding. The scientist who dared to analyze this sentiment, so important to the human race, and tried to enlighten us about the nature of the attraction of the sexes, was met with the cry, “To the Tarpeian rock.” The unbiased observer was declared incapable of feeling and comprehending this natural sentiment. Even philosophers, such as Schopenhauer, Hartman and Spencer, though they touched upon the subject only from a philosophical point of view, without probing it with the anatomist’s scalpel, have been decried as heartless and soulless cynics whom nature denied the possession of this sublimest of sentiments, because they dared to attack the majesty of Love. No wonder, therefore, that no other physical function has been treated with so stepmotherly a regard and scant attention as the important instinct of the preservation of the species, no wonder that no other physiological phenomenon has been approached with such hesitancy as the study of love in man. The works on physiology and gynaecology are significantly silent on the subject of this important sentiment, and the practitioner who so often has to deal with the pathological side of love looks in vain for light in his text-books.