That there is implanted in his being demands that cannot be restrained without injury to health. That restraint is followed by absorption of the elements of generation, producing effects not unlike the absorption of a virulent foreign element. That woman naturally has not so much passion as man, has not so much secretion, also has an outlet in menstruation, consequently has not the same demands nor the same injury if not gratified. Are these claims based upon truth? What are the facts from which to infer what men and women _naturally_ are? When woman _only_ is taught that virtue is the brightest jewel in her crown, when the popular verdict is that womanliness and modesty are synonyms for repression, when she lives in fear of maternity, and believes restraint on her part prevents vitality of life germs, when, too, erroneous habits pervert every function, how can we tell what is natural for her? Then, on the other hand, when man is taught that virtue is _not_ synonymous with manliness, when the passions are stimulated by unnatural habits of living, by impure conversation, thoughts, books and practices, can we say this strength of passion is purely natural and healthy? A. E. Newton says: “They who have never carefully noted the effects of alcoholic stimulants, of coffee, oysters, eggs, spices and animal food, as well as they who find pleasure in filthy conversations, can not surely, with any justness, charge _nature_ with the exuberance of their amatory desires.” We teach the girl _repression_, the boy _expression_, not simply by word and book, but the lessons are graven into their very being by all the traditions, prejudices and customs of society. What are some of the results of this theory? Notably, in the first place, we have what is called the “social evil.” Women, licensed by men, make a business of prostitution, selling their bodies that this demand--this _necessity_--of the male shall be supplied. In visiting these women, men simply yield to this supposed necessity of their nature; consequently commit no violation of law. Women not having the same demands, by entering this life, or even permitting the act once, violate the laws of their being; according to the social codes, perpetrate the greatest crime in the calendar! They become outcasts. If they fill their lives with noble and philanthropic deeds, this one sin is so foul and rank, is such an offense, they have little hope of remission, even from a just and all-loving God. Can the fact that men are upheld, their crime even condoned, while women, as partners in this terrible evil, are not only ostracised, but irretrievably lost, be explained in any other way?