The decided struggle against homosexuality began energetically with Judaism. Monosexualism developed with monotheism. The Bible hardly refers to homosexuality. The blessings of children, of reproduction, the advantage of numbers were the needs to which the sexual cravings had to be subordinated. There is, therefore, justification for the contention that Judaism has fought against homosexuality,—impelled by social motives. On the other hand it was also an account of another set of social motives that, in Greece, homosexuality was not only tolerated but permitted and even expressly introduced. _Aristotle_ is of the opinion that in accordance with their customs and beliefs the Dorians expressly intended to limit the increase in population through the encouragement of boy love and the separation of women from society.[48] But that in itself would not explain the high regard in which homosexuality was held in ancient Greece. I refer those interested in the subject to the interesting work of a philologist, Prof. _E. Bethe_.[49] Like many other philosophers and investigators of history, _Bethe_ falls into the error of pointing to the Christian church as the agent responsible for the newer orientation in sexual matters. In the first place these writers overlook the fact that the new attitude had set in already with Judaism. Secondly, they fail to see that religions are, themselves, but the result of social conditions. Religious teachings always adjust themselves to the social needs of their day and even fulfill them. Religious formulæ prove meaningless only to the progressive, emancipated, free and forward-striving persons, the imperatives of religion are superfluous only for those above the average. The crowds must cling to religious formulæ and will always need sexual inhibitions of a religious character. Sexuality is changing all the time, it undergoes progressive refinement. No careful observer can deny that fact. More and more of our instinctive cravings are gradually throttled. But when the process of repression becomes too severe there are regressions such as we have witnessed in the agitation for free love of the last decades and in the current more frank discussion of sexual matters. But if all signs do not fail the high tide of the agitation for sexual freedom has passed and the wave of that agitation is receding. Pioneers in the movement for sexual freedom are beginning to uphold monogamy; and the problem of population made pressing by the World War does not favor the abandonment of the current social and legal proscriptions against homosexuality. On the contrary. There is likely to be in the near future a stronger revulsion against homosexuality inasmuch as society finds itself compelled to revert at all costs back to the Old Testament attitude of fostering reproduction.