Main  Contacts  
Table of contents
CONTENTS
ANALYSIS OF THE SEXUAL IMPULSE-1
ANALYSIS OF THE SEXUAL IMPULSE-2
ANALYSIS OF THE SEXUAL IMPULSE-3
ANALYSIS OF THE SEXUAL IMPULSE-4
ANALYSIS OF THE SEXUAL IMPULSE-5
ANALYSIS OF THE SEXUAL IMPULSE-6
ANALYSIS OF THE SEXUAL IMPULSE-7
ANALYSIS OF THE SEXUAL IMPULSE-8
ANALYSIS OF THE SEXUAL IMPULSE-9
ANALYSIS OF THE SEXUAL IMPULSE-10
FOOTNOTES
LOVE AND PAIN-1.1
LOVE AND PAIN-1.2
LOVE AND PAIN-1.3
LOVE AND PAIN-1.4
LOVE AND PAIN-1.5
LOVE AND PAIN-1.6
LOVE AND PAIN-2.1
LOVE AND PAIN-2.2
LOVE AND PAIN-2.3
LOVE AND PAIN-2.4
LOVE AND PAIN-3.1
LOVE AND PAIN-3.2
LOVE AND PAIN-3.3
LOVE AND PAIN-3.4
LOVE AND PAIN-4
LOVE AND PAIN-5.1
LOVE AND PAIN-5.2
LOVE AND PAIN-6.1
LOVE AND PAIN-6.2
LOVE AND PAIN-7
THE SEXUAL IMPULSE IN WOMEN-1.1
THE SEXUAL IMPULSE IN WOMEN-1.2
THE SEXUAL IMPULSE IN WOMEN-1.3
THE SEXUAL IMPULSE IN WOMEN-1.4
THE SEXUAL IMPULSE IN WOMEN-1.5
THE SEXUAL IMPULSE IN WOMEN-1.6
THE SEXUAL IMPULSE IN WOMEN-2.1
THE SEXUAL IMPULSE IN WOMEN-2.2
THE SEXUAL IMPULSE IN WOMEN-2.3
THE SEXUAL IMPULSE IN WOMEN-3
APPENDIX A-1
APPENDIX A-2-3
APPENDIX B HISTORY-1
APPENDIX B HISTORY-2
APPENDIX B HISTORY-3-4-5-6-7
APPENDIX B HISTORY-8-9-10
APPENDIX B HISTORY-11-12
APPENDIX B HISTORY-13
APPENDIX B HISTORY-14-15
APPENDIX B HISTORY-16
APPENDIX B HISTORY-17
APPENDIX B HISTORY-18
APPENDIX B HISTORY-19
INDEX OF AUTHORS

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 

the sexual impulse is dependent on the need of evacuation. Professor 

Tarchanoff, of St. Petersburg, however, made an experiment which seemed to 

be crucial. He took several hundred frogs (_Rana temporaria_), nearly all 

in the act of coitus, and in the first place repeated Goltz's experiments. 

He removed the heart; but this led to no direct or indirect stoppage of 

coitus, nor did removal of the lungs, parts of the liver, the spleen, the 

intestines, the stomach, or the kidneys. In the same way even careful 

removal of both testicles had no result. But on removing the seminal 

receptacles coitus was immediately or very shortly stopped, and not 

renewed. Thus, Tarchanoff concluded that in frogs, and possibly therefore 

in mammals, the seminal receptacles are the starting-point of the 

centripetal impulse which by reflex action sets in motion the complicated 

apparatus of sexual activity.[5] A few years later the question was again 

taken up by Steinach, of Prague. Granting that Tarchanoff's experiments 

are reliable as regards the frog, Steinach points out that we may still 

ask whether in mammals the integrity of the seminal receptacles is bound 

up with the preservation of sexual excitability. This cannot be taken for 

granted, nor can we assume that the seminal receptacles of the frog are 

homologous with the seminal vesicles of mammals. In order to test the 

question, Steinach chose the white rat, as possessing large seminal 

vesicles and a very developed sexual impulse. He found that removal of the 

seminal sacs led to no decrease in the intensity of the sexual impulse; 

the sexual act was still repeated with the same frequency and the same 

vigor. But these receptacles, Steinach proceeded to argue, do not really 

contain semen, but a special secretion of their own; they are anatomically 

quite unlike the seminal receptacles of the frog; so that no doubt is thus 

thrown on Tarchanoff's observations. Steinach remarked, however, that 

one's faith is rather shaken by the fact that in the _Esculenta_, which 

in sexual life closely resembles _Rana temporaria_, there are no seminal 

receptacles. He therefore repeated Tarchanoff's experiments, and found 

that the seminal receptacles were empty before coitus, only becoming 

gradually filled during coitus; it could not, therefore, be argued that 

the sexual impulse started from the receptacles. He then extirpated the 

seminal receptacles, avoiding hemorrhage as far as possible, and found 

that, in the majority of cases so operated on, coitus still continued for 

from five to seven days, and in the minority for a longer time. He 

therefore concluded, with Goltz, that it is from the swollen testicles, 

not from the seminal receptacles, that the impulse first starts. Goltz 

himself pointed out that the fact that the removal of the testicles did 


Page 3 from 5:  Back   1   2  [3]  4   5   Forward