In support of this view the authoress proceeds to point out that the decollete constantly reappears in feminine clothing, never in male; that missionaries experience great difficulty in persuading women to cover themselves; that, while women accept with facility an examination by male doctors, men cannot force themselves to accept examination by a woman doctor, etc. (These and similar points had already been independently brought forward by Sergi, Archivio di Psichiatria, vol. xiii, 1892.)

It cannot be said that Madame Renooz’s arguments will all bear examination, if only on the ground that nakedness by no means involves absence of modesty, but the point of view which she expresses is one which usually fails to gain recognition, though it probably contains an important element of truth.  It is quite true, as Stendhal said, that modesty is very largely taught; from the earliest years, a girl child is trained to show a modesty which she quickly begins really to feel.  This fact cannot fail to strike any one who reads the histories of pseudo-hermaphroditic persons, really males, who have from infancy been brought up in the belief that they are girls, and who show, and feel, all the shrinking reticence and blushing modesty of their supposed sex.  But when the error is discovered, and they are restored to their proper sex, this is quickly changed, and they exhibit all the boldness of masculinity. (See e.g., Neugebauer, “Beobachtungen aus dem Gebiete des Scheinzwittertumes,” Jahrbuch fuer Sexuelle Zwischenstufen, Jahrgang iv, 1902, esp. p. 92.) At the same time this is only one thread in the tangled skein with which we are here concerned.  The mass of facts which meets us when we turn to the study of modesty in women cannot be dismissed as a group of artificially-imposed customs.  They gain rather than lose in importance if we have to realize that the organic sexual demands of women, calling for coyness in courtship, lead to the temporary suppression of another feminine instinct of opposite, though doubtless allied, nature.

But these somewhat conflicting, though not really contradictory, statements serve to bring out the fact that a woman’s modesty is often an incalculable element.  The woman who, under some circumstances and at some times, is extreme in her reticences, under other circumstances or at other times, may be extreme in her abandonment.  Not that her modesty is an artificial garment, which she throws off or on at will.  It is organic, but like the snail’s shell, it sometimes forms an impenetrable covering, and sometimes glides off almost altogether.  A man’s modesty is more rigid, with little tendency to deviate toward either extreme.  Thus it is, that, when uninstructed, a man is apt to be impatient with a woman’s reticences, and yet shocked at her abandonments.

The significance of our inquiry becomes greater when we reflect that to the reticences of sexual modesty, in their progression, expansion, and complication, we largely owe, not only the refinement and development of the sexual emotions,—­“la pudeur” as Guyau remarked, “a civilise l’amour”—­but the subtle and pervading part which the sexual instinct has played in the evolution of all human culture.