These relationships have been sometimes perceived and their meaning realized by a sort of mystical intuition.  We catch glimpses of such an insight now and again, first among the poets and later among the physicians of the Renaissance.  In 1664 Rolfincius, in his Ordo et Methods Generationi Partium etc., at the outset of the second Part devoted to the sexual organs of women, sets forth what ancient writers have said of the Eleusinian and other mysteries and the devotion and purity demanded of those who approached these sacred rites.  It is so also with us, he continues, in the rites of scientific investigation.  “We also operate with sacred things.  The organs of sex are to be held among sacred things.  They who approach these altars must come with devout minds.  Let the profane stand without, and the doors be closed.”  In those days, even for science, faith and intuition were alone possible.  It is only of recent years that the histologist’s microscope and the physiological chemist’s test-tube have furnished them with a rational basis.  It is no longer possible to cut Nature in two and assert that here she is pure and there impure.[50]

There thus appears to be no adequate ground for agreeing with those who consider that the proximity of the generative and excretory centres is “a stupid bungle of Nature’s.”  An association which is so ancient and primitive in Nature can only seem repulsive to those whose feelings have become morbidly unnatural.  It may further be remarked that the anus, which is the more aesthetically unattractive of the excretory centres, is comparatively remote from the sexual centre, and that, as R. Hellmann remarked many years ago in discussing this question (Ueber Geschlechtsfreiheit, p. 82):  “In the first place, freshly voided urine has nothing specially unpleasant about it, and in the second place, even if it had, we might reflect that a rosy mouth by no means loses its charm merely because it fails to invite a kiss at the moment when its possessor is vomiting.”

A clergyman writes suggesting that we may go further and find a positive advantage in this proximity:  “I am glad that you do not agree with the man who considered that Nature had bungled by using the genitals for urinary purposes; apart from teleological or theological grounds I could not follow that line of reasoning.  I think there is no need for disgust concerning the urinary organs, though I feel that the anus can never be attractive to the normal mind; but the anus is quite separate from the genitals.  I would suggest that the proximity serves a good end in making the organs more or less secret except at times of sexual emotion or to those in love.  The result is some degree of repulsion at ordinary times and a strong attraction at times of sexual activity.  Hence, the ordinary guarding of the parts, from fear of creating disgust, greatly increases their attractiveness at other times when sexual emotion is paramount.