non-sentimental community of interests in certain practical affairs, and very gradually widened into an intellectual and sympathetic friendship.  M.O. had no secrets from this woman.  After a full and prolonged consideration of all sides of the matter they married.  Since that event he has had no sexual relations except with his wife.  With her they are not passionate, but they are animated by the strong desire for children.  Of the parental instinct he had become aware several years before this.

M.O. believes that no moral stigma should be attached to homosexuality until it can be proved to result from the vicious life of a free moral agent,—­and of this he has no expectation.  He believes that much of its danger and unhappiness would be prevented by a thorough yet discreet sex-education, such as should be given to all children, whether normal or abnormal.

FOOTNOTES: 

[124] Thus Godard described the little boys in Cairo as amusing themselves indifferently either with boys or girls in sexual play. (Egypte et Palestine, 1867, p. 105.) The same thing may be observed in England and elsewhere.

[125] Thus, of the Duc d’Orleans, in the seventeenth century, as described in Bouchard’s Confessions, one of my correspondents writes:  “This prince was of the same mind as Campanella, who, in the Citta del Sole, laid it down that young men ought to be freely admitted to women for the avoidance of sexual aberrations.  Aretino and Berni enable us to comprehend the sexual immorality of males congregated together in the courts of Roman prelates.”  The homosexuality of youth was also well recognized among the Romans, but they adopted the contrary course and provided means to gratify it, as the existence of the concubinus, referred to by Catullus, clearly shows.

[126] “Our Public Schools:  their Methods and Morals.” New Review, July, 1893.

[127] Max Dessoir, “Zuer Psychologie der Vita Sexualis,” Allgemeine Zeitschrift fuer Psychiatrie, 1894, H. 5.

[128] F.H.A.  Marshall, The Physiology of Reproduction, 1910, pp. 650-8.

[129] Iwan Bloch, in The Sexual Life of Our Time, makes this distinction as between “homosexuality” (corresponding to inversion) and “pseudo-homosexuality.”  According to the terminology I have accepted, the term “pseudo-homosexuality” would be unnecessary and incorrect.  More recently (Die Prostitution, Bd. i, 1912, p. 103) Bloch has preferred, in place of pseudo-homosexuality, the more satisfactory term, “secondary homosexuality.”

[130] See, for instance, Hirschfeld’s reasonable discussion of the matter, Die Homosexualitaet, ch. xvii.

[131] Alfred Fuchs, who edited Krafft-Ebing’s Psychopathia Sexualis after the latter’s death, distinguishes between congenital homosexuality, manifesting itself from the first without external stimulation, and homosexuality on a basis of inborn disposition needing special external influences to arouse it (Jahrbuch fuer sexuelle Zwischenstufen, Bd. iv, 1902, p. 181).