cal
standpoint altogether illegitimate; "onanism" ought never to be used in
this connection, if only on the ground that Onan's device was not
auto-erotic, but was an early example of withdrawal before emission, or
_coitus interruptus_.

While the name that I have chosen may possibly not be the best, there
should be no question as to the importance of grouping all these phenomena
together. It seems to me that this field has rarely been viewed in a
scientifically sound and morally sane light, simply because it has not
been viewed as a whole. We have made it difficult so to view it by
directing our attention on the special group of auto-erotic facts--that
group included under masturbation--which was most easy to observe and
which in an extreme form came plainly under medical observation in
insanity and allied conditions, and we have wilfully torn this group of
facts away from the larger group to which it naturally belongs. The
questions which have been so widely, so diversely, and--it must
unfortunately be added--often so mischievously discussed, concerning the
nature and evils of masturbation are not seen in their true light and
proportions until we realize that masturbation is but a specialized form
of a tendency which in some form or in some degree normally affects not
only man, but all the higher animals. From a medical point of view it is
often convenient to regard masturbation as an isolated fact; but in order
to understand it we must bear in mind its relationships. In this study of
auto-erotism I shall frequently have occasion to refer to the old entity
of "masturbation," because it has been more carefully studied than any
other part of the auto-erotic field; but I hope it will always be borne in
mind that the psychological significance and even the medical diagnostic
value of masturbation cannot be appreciated unless we realize that it is
an artificial subdivision of a great group of natural facts.

The study of auto-erotism is far from being an unimportant or merely
curious study. Yet psychologists, medical and non-medical, almost without
exception, treat its manifestations--when they refer to them at all--in a
dogmatic and off-hand manner which is far from scientific. It is not
surprising, therefore, that the most widely divergent opinions are
expressed. Nor is it surprising that ignorant and chaotic notions among
the general population should lead to results that would be ludicrous if
they were not pathetic. To