There is not the slightest shadow of support in any teachings of physiology or hygiene for the double standard of morality of the sexes. There is no reason why a moral wrong in the woman should be a justifiable necessity with the man. From no medical studies and investigations anywhere attainable, would the physical necessity of sowing of “wild oats” for a young man hold good. No one will deny that, as far as the gentler sex is concerned, continence (at least between the age of sixteen to thirty-five) is compatible with health, then the general belief of young men that sensual indulgence is necessary for healthy manhood, has no justification in physiology. Purity is as little injurious to a man as to a woman. It is a most absurd and erroneous teaching that, unless inclination is gratified, a man’s health will suffer. The instinct of generation has been compared with the instinct of hunger and thirst, and as the latter must be satisfied, so must the former be gratified. But there is no proper parallelism between these two instincts. Food and drink are vital necessities of the organism from the first day of conception, to replace the stuffs consumed in the metabolism of the vital functions. The generative instinct appears a number of years after birth, hence does not serve any vital necessity. This instinct could, if at all, only be compared with the instinct of micturition or defecation, and the relief of the physical pressure in the generative organs is brought about by the self-regulating action of nocturnal emissions. It may be more natural and agreeable for a healthy man and woman, after they have reached a certain age, to indulge in the exercise of their organs of generation at reasonable intervals, than to abstain from it. But to proclaim that this abstinence, compatible with health in women, is injurious to men, is sheer absurdity.