Necessary or Harmless?--That an individual
may suffer for years an involuntary seminal loss as frequently as once
a month without apparently suffering very great injury, seems to be
a settled fact with physicians of extensive experience, and is well
confirmed by observation; yet there are those who suffer severely from
losses no more frequent than this. But when seminal losses occur more
frequently than once a month, they will certainly ultimate in great
injury, even though immediate ill effects are not noticed, as in
exceptional cases they may not be. If argument is necessary to sustain
this position, as it hardly seems to be, we would refer to the fact
that seminal losses do not occur in those who are, and always have been,
continent both mentally and physically, when such rare individuals can
be found. They occur the most rarely in those who the most nearly
approach the standard of perfect chastity; so that whenever they occur,
they may be taken as evidence of some form of sexual excess. This fact
clearly shows that losses of this kind are not natural.

Emission not Necessary to Health.--If it be argued that an occasional
emission is necessary to relieve the overloaded seminal vesicles, we
reply, the same argument has been used as an apology for unchastity;
but it is equally worthless in both instances. It might be as well argued
that vomiting is a necessary physiological and healthful act, and
should occur with regularity, because a person may so overload his
stomach as to make the act necessary as a remedial measure. Vomiting
is a diseased action, a pathological process, and is occasioned by the
voluntary transgression of the individual. Hence, it is as unnecessary
as gluttony, and must be wasteful of vitality, even though rendered
necessary under some circumstances. So with emissions. If a person
allows his mind to dwell upon unchaste subjects, indulges in erotic
dreams, and riots in mental lasciviousness, he may render an emission
almost necessary as a remedial effort. Nevertheless, he will suffer
from the loss of the vital fluid just the same as though he had not,
by his own concupiscence, rendered it in some degree necessary. And
as it would have been infinitely better for him to have retained and
digested food in his stomach instead of ejecting it--provided it were
wholesome food--so it would have been better for him to have retained
in his system the seminal fluid, which would have been disposed of by
the sy