The origin of the first, the æsthetic aspect, is easily seen. It is quite clear that in the investigation of the inmost secrets of a person’s life (and particularly of a life which has become so entangled and complicated that the help of another is sought for its restoration to ‘mental tidiness’) there must emerge frequently much that the patient finds unpleasant to relate. When we remember that a neurosis often (perhaps always) occurs as a result of the patient’s inability to adjust his instinctive demands to the opportunities of his environment, it becomes clear that in the investigation of his history discussion is inevitable of mental events in which the fundamental instincts have played a great part. Now, of those important instinctive impulses, it is obvious that in a civilised community few are so often thwarted, deliberately repressed, or otherwise obstructed as the powerful one of sex. It therefore follows that in a large number of cases the discussion of sexual matters becomes unavoidable. Some critics have seized on this point as the weak spot against which to launch their attacks, descanting upon the unpleasantness, even the nauseousness, of such discussion. Not all of them, however, make it clear whether in their opinion it is the patient or the doctor who should be shielded from such unpleasant experiences. If the latter, the verdict of society would probably be that the sooner a man requiring such protection was excused not only from these uncongenial duties, but from all medical obligations whatever, the better for the community. If the former, it may be pointed out that every reasonable person will agree that the man who does not tell the whole truth to his doctor or his lawyer is a fool. Furthermore, even under present conditions, if it be considered advisable in the interests of the patient’s bodily health, the doctor does not hesitate to ask, and the patient to answer, questions about the most intimate matters, some of them literally and not merely metaphorically nauseous. We may therefore dismiss the æsthetic objection as unworthy of the consideration either of a conscientious doctor, or of a reasonable patient. We may turn now to what we have designated the social aspect of the objection. It should need little explanation. There has arisen a convention, subscribed to consciously or unconsciously by many, that the doctor shall ask and the patient answer quite freely questions relating to the patient’s bodily well-being, but that any unusual mental occurrences must be considered the patient’s private affair into which it is not the business of the doctor to pry.