CHAPTER II.
THE MEANING OF PURITY I We live in a world in which, as we nowadays begin to realise, we find two antagonistic streams of traditional platitude concerning the question of sexual purity, both flowing from the far past.
The people who embody one of these streams of tradition, basing themselves on old-fashioned physiology, assume, though they may not always assert, that the sexual products are excretions, to be dealt with summarily like other excretions.

That is an ancient view and it was accepted by such wise philosophers of old times as Montaigne and Sir Thomas More.

It had, moreover, the hearty support of so eminent a theological authority as Luther, who on this ground preached early marriage to men and women alike.
It is still a popular view, sometimes expressed in the crudest terms, and often by people who, not following Luther's example, use it to defend prostitution, though they generally exclude women from its operation, as a sex to whom it fails to apply and by whom it is not required.
But on the other hand we have another stream of platitude.

On this side there is usually little attempt either to deny or to affirm the theory of the opposing party, though they would contradict its conclusions.

Their theory, if they have one, would usually seem to be that sexual activity is a response to stimulation from without or from within, so that if there is no stimulation there will be no sexual manifestation.