harmless in normal persons, but not always so in abnormal
persons. Weber thought it had a useful influence in increasing
will-power. Tarnowsky said it is good in early manhood, but
likely to be unfavorable after twenty-five. Orlow replied that,
especially in youth, it is harmless, and a man should be as
chaste as his wife. Popow said that abstinence is good at all
ages and preserves the energy. Blumenau said that in adult age
abstinence is neither normal nor beneficial, and generally leads
to masturbation, though not generally to nervous disorders; but
that even masturbation is better than syphilis. Tschiriew saw no
harm in abstinence up to thirty, and thought sexual weakness more
likely to follow excess than abstinence. Tschish regarded
abstinence as beneficial rather than harmful up to twenty-five or
twenty-eight, but thought it difficult to decide after that age
when nervous alterations seem to be caused. Darkschewitcz
regarded abstinence as harmless up to twenty-five. Fraenkel said
it was harmless for most, but that for a considerable proportion
of people intercourse is a necessity. Erb's opinion is regarded
by Jacobsohn as standing alone; he placed the age below which
abstinence is harmless at twenty; after that age he regarded it
as injurious to health, seriously impeding work and capacity,
while in neurotic persons it leads to still more serious results.
Jacobsohn concludes that the general opinion of those answering
the inquiry may thus be expressed: "Youth should be abstinent.
Abstinence can in no way injure them; on the contrary, it is
beneficial. If our young people will remain abstinent and avoid
extra-conjugal intercourse they will maintain a high ideal of
love and preserve themselves from venereal diseases."

The harmlessness of sexual abstinence was likewise affirmed in
America in a resolution passed by the American Medical
Association in 1906. The proposition thus formally accepted was
thus worded: "Continence is not incompatible with health." It
ought to be generally realized that abstract propositions of this
kind are worthless, because they mean nothing. Every sane person,
when confronted by the demand to boldly affirm or deny the
proposition, "Continence is not incompatible with health," is
bound to affirm it. He might firmly believe that continence is