The same remark has since been
made by Stanley Hall.[335] Practically, also, as John Hunter pointed out,
there is more probability of excess in masturbation than in coitus.
Whether, as some have asserted, masturbation involves a greater nervous
effort than coitus is more doubtful.[336] It thus seems somewhat
misleading to assert that masturbation has no more injurious effect than
coitus.[337]
Reviewing the general question of the supposed grave symptoms and signs
of masturbation, and its pernicious results, we may reach the conclusion
that in the case of moderate masturbation in healthy, well-born
individuals, no seriously pernicious results necessarily follow.[338] With
regard to the general signs, we may accept, as concerns both sexes, what
the Obstetrical and Gynecological Society of Berlin decided in 1861, in a
discussion of it in women, that there are none which can be regarded as
reliable.[339]
We may conclude finally, with Clouston, that the opposing views on the
subject may be simply explained by the fact that the writers on both sides
have ignored or insufficiently recognized the influence of heredity and
temperament. They have done precisely what so many unscientific writers on
inebriety have continued to do unto the present day, when describing the
terrible results of alcohol without pointing out that the chief factor in
such cases has not been the alcohol, but the organization on which the
alcohol acted.
Pages:
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462