circumstances associated with certain stages of human development. Dr. Post’s argument, as I have said, is open to another objection. Free sexual intercourse previous to marriage is quite a different thing from promiscuity, the most genuine form of which is prostitution. But prostitution is rare among peoples living in a state of nature and unaffected by foreign influence.[367] It is contrary to woman’s natural feelings as involving a suppression of individual inclinations. In free sexual intercourse there is selection; a woman has for one man, or for several men, a preference which generally makes the connections more durable. Nowhere are unmarried people of both sexes less restrained than among the savage nations of India and Indo-China. Yet among these savage nations there is no promiscuity. Among the Toungtha, for instance, according to Captain Lewin, prostitution is not understood, and, when explained, it is regarded by them with abhorrence. “They draw rightly a strong distinction between a woman prostituting herself habitually as a means of livelihood, and the intercourse by mutual consent of two members of opposite sexes, leading, as it generally does, to marriage.”[368] Among the Tipperahs,[369] Oráons,[370] and Kolyas[371], unmarried girls may cohabit freely with young men, but are never found living promiscuously with them. Among the Dyaks on the Batang Lupar, too, unchastity is not rare, but a woman usually confines herself to one lover. “Should the girl prove with child,” says Sir Spenser St. John, “it is an understanding between them that they marry”; and the men seldom, by denying the paternity, refuse to fulfil their engagements.[372] Again, in Tonga, it was considered disgraceful for a girl to change lovers often. And in Scotland, prior to the Reformation, there was a practice called “hand-fasting,” which certainly may be characterized as unrestrained freedom before marriage, but not as promiscuity. “At the public fairs,” the Rev. Ch. Rogers states, “men selected female companions with whom to cohabit for a year. At the expiry of this period both parties were accounted free; they might either unite in marriage or live singly.”[373] The attempt to explain free intercourse between unmarried people as a relic of a primitive condition of general promiscuity or rather, to infer the latter from the former, must thus, in every respect, be considered a complete failure. * * * * * Sir John Lubbock thinks that his hypothesis of “communal marriage” derives additional support from some curious customs, which he interprets as acts of expiation for individual marriage. “In many cases,” he says, “the exclusive possession of a wife could only be legally acquired by a temporary recognition of the pre-existing communal rights.”[374]