life, may they rightly continue to live in intimacy after the point has
been reached at which they know they ought not to have any more
children? It is at this point that people of unquestionable moral
earnestness differ acutely, I am compelled to take my stand with those
who believe that sexual intimacy is right and good in itself as an
expression of affection. It has, as a matter of fact, a good many other
consequences than the production of children. It constitutes a bond of
very great worth between two persons. It is in many interesting ways
beneficial to a woman's physical system; and it brings to men a general
balance and repose of being which is of enormous value. I believe, in
fact, that in actual experience it does justify itself as a method
of expressing affection.

The alternative for thousands of couples is not merely the cessation of
sexual intimacy, but also abstinence from all the endearing intimacies
which are natural and spontaneous in married life. They must not only
sleep apart, but in many ways live apart. And this not only means pain
of heart such as would take a very great deal to justify it, but also
often leads to serious nervous trouble because of the strain which it
involves. I have insisted again and again in these pages that
continence is perfectly possible for unmarried men. But continence for
a man living in the same house with a woman whom he loves, and with
whom he has had experience of sexual intimacy, is a very different
thing. It is possible for some--perhaps for many, and without serious
loss. But for many others it is not possible except on terms which lead
to serious nervous trouble. And for such persons, and on the terms I
have indicated, I believe conception control to be the better way.

As to how that control should be achieved I have no special fitness to
speak. I would advise any couple, faced by the problem, to consult some