by
medieval ascetic writers, who regarded woman as "a temple built over a
sewer," and from a very different standpoint it was concisely set forth by
Montaigne, who has doubtless contributed greatly to support this view of
the matter: "I find," he said, "that Venus, after all, is nothing more
than the pleasure of discharging our vessels, just as nature renders
pleasurable the discharges from other parts."[2] Luther, again, always
compared the sexual to the excretory impulse, and said that marriage was
just as necessary as the emission of urine. Sir Thomas More, also, in the
second book of _Utopia_, referring to the pleasure of evacuation, speaks
of that felt "when we do our natural easement, or when we be doing the act
of generation." This view would, however, scarcely deserve serious
consideration if various distinguished investigators, among whom Fere may
be specially mentioned, had not accepted it as the best and most accurate
definition of the sexual impulse. "The genesic need may be considered,"
writes Fere, "as a need of evacuation; the choice is determined by the
excitations which render the evacuation more agreeable."[3] Certain facts
observed in the lower animals tend to support this view; it is, therefore,
necessary, in the first place, to set forth the main results of
observation on this matter. Spallanzani had shown how the male frog during
coitus will undergo the most horrible mutilations, even decapitation, and
yet resolutely continue the act of intercourse, which lasts from four to
ten days, sitting on the back of the female and firmly clasping her with
his forelegs. Goltz confirmed Spallanzani's observations and threw new
light on the mechanism of the sexual instinct and the sexual act in the
frog. By removing various parts of the female frog Goltz found that every
part of the female was attractive to the male at pairing time, and that he
was not imposed on when parts of a male were substituted. By removing
various of the sense-organs of the male Goltz[4] further found that it was
not by any special organ, but by the whole of his sensitive system, that
this activity was set in action. If, however, the skin of the arms and of
the breast between was removed, no embrace took place; so that the sexual
sensations seemed to be exerted through this apparatus. When the
testicles were removed the embrace still took place. It could scarcely be
said that these observations demonstrated, or in any way indicated, that
t