Studies in the Psychology of Sex, Volume 6: Sex in Relation to SocietyEllis, Havelock
Science
Studies in the Psychology of Sex, Volume 6: Sex in Relation to Society
Ellis, Havelock
Sex; Sex (Psychology)
There thus appears to be no adequate ground for agreeing with
those who consider that the proximity of the generative and
excretory centres is "a stupid bungle of Nature's." An
association which is so ancient and primitive in Nature can only
seem repulsive to those whose feelings have become morbidly
unnatural. It may further be remarked that the anus, which is the
more æsthetically unattractive of the excretory centres, is
comparatively remote from the sexual centre, and that, as R.
Hellmann remarked many years ago in discussing this question
(_Ueber Geschlechtsfreiheit_, p. 82): "In the first place,
freshly voided urine has nothing specially unpleasant about it,
and in the second place, even if it had, we might reflect that a
rosy mouth by no means loses its charm merely because it fails to
invite a kiss at the moment when its possessor is vomiting."
A clergyman writes suggesting that we may go further and find a
positive advantage in this proximity: "I am glad that you do not
agree with the man who considered that Nature had bungled by
using the genitals for urinary purposes; apart from teleological
or theological grounds I could not follow that line of reasoning.
I think there is no need for disgust concerning the urinary
organs, though I feel that the anus can never be attractive to
the normal mind; but the anus is quite separate from the
genitals. I would suggest that the proximity serves a good end in
making the organs more or less secret except at times of sexual
emotion or to those in love. The result is some degree of
repulsion at ordinary times and a strong attraction at times of
sexual activity. Hence, the ordinary guarding of the parts, from
fear of creating disgust, greatly increases their attractiveness
at other times when sexual emotion is paramount. Further, the
feeling of disgust itself is merely the result of habit and
sentiment, however useful it may be, and according to Scripture
everything is clean and good. The ascetic feeling of repulsion,
if we go back to origin, is due to other than Christian
influence. Christianity came out of Judaism which had no sense of
the impurity of marriage, for 'unclean' in the Old Testament
simply means 'sacred.' The ascetic side of the religion of
Christianity is no part of the religion of Christ as it came from
the hands of its Founder, and the modern feeling on this matter
is a lingering remnant of the heresy of the Manichæans." I may
add, however, that, as Northcote points out (_Christianity and
Sex Problems_, p. 14), side by side in the Old Testament with the
frank recognition of sexuality, there is a circle of ideas
revealing the feeling of impurity in sex and of shame in
connection with it. Christianity inherited this mixed feeling. It
has really been a widespread and almost universal feeling among
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account