from an old boy, that in those days they used to talk things over by the fireside, and think there must be something very choice in a sin that braved so much.  Dr. ——­ went, and, under ——­, we never spoke of such things.  Curiosity died down, and the thing itself, I believe, was lessened.  We were told to warn new boys of the dangers to health and morals of such offences, lest the innocent should be caught in ignorance.  I have only spoken to a few; I think the great thing is not to put it in boys’ heads.  I have noticed solitary faults most commonly, and then I tell the boy how he is physically weakening himself.  If you notice, it is puppies that seem to go against Nature, but grown dogs, never.  So, if two small boys acted thus, I should think it merely an instinctive feeling after Nature, which would amend itself.  Many here would consider it a heinous sin, but those who think such things sins make them sins.  I have seen, in the old days, most delightful little children sent away, branded with infamy, and scarce knowing why—­you might as well expel a boy for scratching his head when it itched.  I am sure the soundest way is to treat it as a doctor would, and explain to the boy the physical effects of over-indulgence of any sort.  When it is combated from the monkish standpoint, the evil becomes an epidemic.”  I am, however, far from anxious to indorse the policy of ignoring the sexual phenomena of youth.  It is not the speaking about such things that should be called in question, but the wisdom and good sense of the speaker.  We ought to expect a head-master to possess both an adequate acquaintance with the nature of the phenomena of auto-erotism and homosexuality, and a reasonable amount of tact in dealing with boys; he may then fairly be trusted to exercise his own judgment.  It may be doubted whether boys should be made too alive to the existence of sexual phenomena; there can be no doubt about their teachers.  The same is, of course, true as regards girls, among whom the same phenomena, though less obtrusive, are not less liable to occur.

As to whether masturbation is more common in one sex than the other, there have been considerable differences of opinion.  Tissot considered it more prevalent among women; Christian believed it commoner among men; Deslandes and Iwan Bloch hold that there are no sexual differences, and Garnier was doubtful.  Lawson Tait, in his Diseases of Women, stated his opinion that in England, while very common among boys, it is relatively rare among women, and then usually taught.  Spitzka, in America, also found it relatively rare among women, and Dana considers it commoner in boys than in girls or adults.[307] Moll is inclined to think that masturbation is less common in women and girls than in the male sex.  Rohleder believes that after puberty, when it is equally common in both sexes, it is more frequently found in men, but that women masturbate with more passion and imaginative fervor.[308] Kellogg, in America, says it is equally