At this point, indeed, we reach the most fundamental criticism to which the conception of “sexual abstinence” lies open.  Rohleder, an experienced physician and a recognized authority on questions of sexual pathology, has submitted the current views on “sexual abstinence” to a searching criticism in a lengthy and important paper.[95] He denies altogether that strict sexual abstinence exists at all.  “Sexual abstinence,” he points out, in any strict scenes of the term, must involve abstinence not merely from sexual intercourse but from auto-erotic manifestations, from masturbation, from homosexual acts, from all sexually perverse practices.  It must further involve a permanent abstention from indulgence in erotic imaginations and voluptuous reverie.  When, however, it is possible thus to render the whole psychic field a tabula rasa so far as sexual activity is concerned—­and if it fails to be so constantly and consistently there is no strict sexual abstinence—­then, Rohleder points out, we have to consider whether we are not in presence of a case of sexual anaesthesia, of anaphrodisia sexualis.  That is a question which is rarely, if ever, faced by those who discuss sexual abstinence.  It is, however, an extremely pertinent question, because, as Rohleder insists, if sexual anaesthesia exists the question of sexual abstinence falls to the ground, for we can only “abstain” from actions that are in our power.  Complete sexual anaesthesia is, however, so rare a state that it may be practically left out of consideration, and as the sexual impulse, if it exists, must by physiological necessity sometimes become active in some shape—­even if only, according to Freud’s view, by transformation into some morbid neurotic condition—­we reach the conclusion that “sexual abstinence” is strictly impossible.  Rohleder has met with a few cases in which there seemed to him no escape from the conclusion that sexual abstinence existed, but in all of these he subsequently found that he was mistaken, usually owing to the practice of masturbation, which he believes to be extremely common and very frequently accompanied by a persistent attempt to deceive the physician concerning its existence.  The only kind of “sexual abstinence” that exists is a partial and temporary abstinence.  Instead of saying, as some say, “Permanent abstinence is unnatural and cannot exist without physical and mental injury,” we ought to say, Rohleder believes, “Permanent abstinence is unnatural and has never existed.”

It is impossible not to feel as we contemplate this chaotic mass of opinions, that the whole discussion is revolving round a purely negative idea, and that fundamental fact is responsible for what at first seem to be startling conflicts of statement.  If indeed we were to eliminate what is commonly regarded as the religious and moral aspect of the matter—­an aspect, be it remembered, which has no bearing on the essential natural facts of the question—­we cannot fail to perceive that these ostentatious differences of conviction would be reduced within very narrow and trifling limits.