Sexual continence : [a plea for sexual continence in the unmarried, an argument in defense of the single standard of sexual morals, a reply to Dr. W.J. Robinson's statement that 'absolute continence is injurious to the male'] / by J.P. Warbasse.
- James Peter Warbasse
- Date:
- 1911
Licence: In copyright
Credit: Sexual continence : [a plea for sexual continence in the unmarried, an argument in defense of the single standard of sexual morals, a reply to Dr. W.J. Robinson's statement that 'absolute continence is injurious to the male'] / by J.P. Warbasse. Source: Wellcome Collection.
Provider: This material has been provided by The Royal College of Surgeons of England. The original may be consulted at The Royal College of Surgeons of England.
3/8
![A Plea for Sexual Continence in the Unmarried; an Argument in Defense of the Single Standard of Sexual Morals; a Reply to Dr. W. J. Robinson’s.statement that “Absolute Continence is Injurious to the Male.” BY J. P. WARBASSE, M.D., NEW YORK. There is much speculation, if not much discussion, upon the prevalent double standard of sexual morals and the effects of continence upon continent individuals. What is sexual continence? The general interpretation applied to this term is that it means abstinence from coitus, especially in an individual capable of performing such an act. This, I think, is an utterly wrong interpretation. Physiologically and socially, sexual continence means abstinence from those stimuli, received thru all the senses and engendered in the mind, which result in libidinous turgescence of the organs of copulation. There is an unscientific tendency to take out of the sexual functions the act of copulation and treat it as an isolated entity. As a matter of fact, it is but one link in a chain of sexual pheno- mena. This understanding is important because many persons are misled by the conventional definition, and often do themselves physical harm. A young man and woman who repeatedly indulge themselves in amorous caresses to the point of creating a high degree of sexual excitement, and then part without coitus, may regard themselves as continent, but in the light of physiology and pathology they are neither continent nor wise. The con- tinence which they have respected is a fetich. The greater should not be confused with the lesser. The man who drinks brandy and soda, with the idea of going as far as he can, is not slaking his thirst, he is getting drunk. Sexual continence is not com- patible with sexual excitement. This whole question of sexual love has been confused by breaking it up into sections. The great and fundamental sexual joys, inherent in communion with an object of love, by thought, word, look, or touch, stimulating with rapture the higher centers, and infusing the mind with gratification, are all a part of the sexual chain, altho no libidinous impulses arise. Very easily from one state may the stimulations pass on to the next, the next, and the next, until the great sexual act is complete, and a babe lies nestled at its mother’s breast. To start the chain of impulses [' “The Double Standard of Morality and the Effects of Continence on Each Sex.” Critic and Guide, Feb. iQU.]](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b22460664_0005.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
