actical 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,