Henry Havelock Ellis

British physician, writer and social reformer

Havelock Ellis
Ellis in 1913
Born	Henry Havelock Ellis (1859-02-02) February 2, 1859 Croydon, Surrey, England, United Kingdom
Died	8 July 1939(1939-07-08) (age 80) Hintlesham, Suffolk, England, United Kingdom
Nationality	British
Alma mater	King's College London
Class	Doctor eugenicist writer
Active years	1879−1931
Spouse(s)	Edith Ellis Interaction with other people Interaction with other people Read also: 33 Oscar Wilde quotes that are impossible to argue with (2 photos) (M. One thousand eight hundred ninety-one, died 1916)

Henry Havelock Ellis

(2 February 1859 – 8 July 1939) was an English physician, eugenicist, writer, progressive intellectual and social reformer who studied human sexuality.
He co-authored the first medical textbook in English on homosexuality in 1897, and also published works on various sexual practices and inclinations, and on the psychology of transgender people. He is attributed to [ by whom?
] with the introduction of the concepts of narcissism and autoeroticism, later adopted by psychoanalysis.

Ellis was an early researcher of psychedelic drugs and the author of one of the first written reports to the public of an experiment with mescaline, which he performed on himself in 1896. He supported eugenics and was one of the 16 vice-presidents of the Eugenics Society from 1909 to 1912. [1]

Early life and career[edit]

Ellis, the son of Edward Peppen Ellis and Susannah Mary Wheatley, was born in Croydon, Surrey (now part of Greater London). He had four sisters, none of whom were married. His father was a sea captain, his mother the daughter of a sea captain, and many other relatives lived at or near the sea. When he was seven years old, his father took him on one of his trips, during which they visited Sydney, Australia, Callao in Peru and Antwerp in Belgium. On his return, Ellis studied at a French and German college near Wimbledon, and then attended school in Mitcham.

In April 1875, Ellis sailed on his father's ship for Australia; Soon after arriving in Sydney he received a teaching position in a private school. After it was discovered that he had no training, he was fired and became a teacher for a family living a few miles from Carcoar. He spent a year there and then obtained a teaching position at Grafton Grammar School. The headmaster died and Ellis continued to attend school that year, but without success.

At the end of the year he returned to Sydney and, after three months' training, took charge of two part-time public primary schools, one at Sparks Creek, near Scone, New South Wales, and the other at Junction Creek. He lived in the school house on Sparks Creek for a year. In his autobiography, he wrote: “In Australia I found health in my body, I found peace of mind, my life’s task was revealed to me, I was able to decide on my professional calling, I became an artist in literature; these five points covered all the activities of my life in the world. Some of them I would undoubtedly have achieved without the help of the Australian environment, hardly all of them, and most of them I could never have achieved so completely if chance had not thrown me into the solitude of the Liverpool Ranges. » [2]

Havelock Ellis (Ellis, Havelock) (1859–1939), English psychologist and writer. Born on February 2, 1859 in Croydon near London in the family of a sea captain. Havelock read widely and in 1871 compiled his first book, The Precious Stones of the Bible. At the age of sixteen he went to Australia. Returned to England and spent seven years studying medicine at St. Thomas's Hospital. Ellis had a penchant for publishing and began with the Mermaid Series of Old Dramatics, a collection of works by Elizabethan and Restoration playwrights prepared by according to manuscripts. He began publishing the Contemporary Science Series, for which in 1889 he wrote the book The Criminal, the first criminological study in England. In the same year, he published the book The New Spirit, a study of the works of Whitman, Ibsen and Huysmans. During these same years, Ellis collected material for his monumental seven-volume work, Studies in the Psychology of Sex, 1898–1928. In 1894 he published the book Man and Woman, which he considered as an introduction to Research. Research on the psychology of gender was written mainly from a biological and anthropological point of view and was intended mainly for scientists. When Ellis's Sexual Perversions was published, the book was banned and the bookseller who distributed it was put on trial. The author never again attempted to publish the Studies in England. Subsequent volumes were published from 1901 in Philadelphia (Pennsylvania); the sixth volume was completed in 1910, and the final volume, Eonism and Supplementary Studies, was published in 1928. Although Ellis is known primarily as the author of works on sexology, he left a noticeable mark on literary criticism, sociology, and essayism. Among his works in these areas are Affirmations (1936), Nationalization of Health (1892) and The Task of Social Hygiene (1912), The Soul of Spain (1908), The World of Dreams (The World of Dreams, 1911) and A Study of British Genius, 1904. Ellis devoted the last years of his life to essays on sex education, topical journalism and the book My Life (My Life, 1939). Ellis died in Washbrook (Suffolk County) on July 8, 1939. On our book website you can download books by the author Henry Ellis in a variety of formats (epub, fb2, pdf, txt and many others). You can also read books online and for free on any device - iPad, iPhone, Android tablet, or on any specialized e-reader. The KnigoGid electronic library offers literature by Henry Ellis in genres.

Medicine and psychology[edit]

Ellis returned to England in April 1879. He decided to study sex and felt that his first step should be to qualify as a doctor. He studied at St Thomas's Hospital Medical School, now part of King's College London, but never had full-time medical practice. His studies were aided by a small inheritance,[3] as well as income from editing work on the Mermaids series, a lesser-known Elizabethan and Jacobean drama. [3] He joined the New Life Fellowship in 1883, meeting fellow social reformers Eleanor Marx, Edward Carpenter, and George Bernard Shaw.

English translation of Ellis's book Sexual Inversion

1897, co-authored with John Addington Symonds and originally published in German in 1896, was the first English medical textbook on homosexuality. [4] [5] It describes homosexual relationships between men, as well as the rape of teenagers. Ellis wrote the first objective study of homosexuality because he did not characterize it as a disease, immorality or crime. The work suggests that same-sex love has overcome age-related taboos as well as gender taboos. The first edition of the book was purchased by the executor of Simond's estate, who prohibited mention of Simond in the second edition. [6]

In 1897, a bookseller was prosecuted for possessing Ellis's book. Although the term homosexual

attributed to Ellis, [
citation needed
] he wrote in 1897: "'Homosexual' is a barbarous hybrid word, and I take no responsibility for it."
[7] In fact, the word homosexual
was coined in 1868 by the Hungarian writer Karl-Maria Kertbeny. [8]

Ellis may have developed the psychological concepts of autoeroticism and narcissism, which were later developed by Sigmund Freud. [9] Ellis's influence may have reached Radclyffe Hall, who was about 17 years old at the time of the publication of Sexual Inversion

"
She later called herself a sexual invert and wrote about women's "sexual inversions" in Miss Ogilvy Finds Herself
and
The Well of Loneliness
.
When Ellis withdrew as a star witness at the Well of Loneliness
, Norman Haire was scheduled to replace him, but there were no witnesses.[10]

Aeonism[edit]

Ellis studied what is now called transgender phenomena. Along with Magnus Hirschfeld, Havelock Ellis is considered an important figure in the history of sexology, establishing a new category that was separate and distinct from homosexuality. sexo-aesthetic inversion in 1913

to describe this phenomenon.
In 1920, he coined the term aeonism
, which he derived from the name of the historical figure Chevalier d'Eon. Ellis explained: [12]

On the psychic side, from my point of view, the Eonist embodies an extremely aesthetic attitude of imitation and identification with the object of admiration. It is normal for a man to identify with the woman he loves. The Aeonist goes too far in this identification, stimulated by the sensitive and feminine element in himself, which is associated with a rather defective male sexuality, which may be neurotic.

Ellis found aeonism to be an "extremely common anomaly", "next in frequency to homosexuality among sexual deviations", and classified it as "among the transitional or intermediate forms of sexuality". As in the Freudian tradition, Ellis postulated that "too close attachment to the mother" could promote aeonism, but also believed that it "probably causes some endocrine imbalance." [12]

Research

In 1897, he published the first medical manual on homosexuality in English, written earlier in collaboration with J. E. Symonds (who had already died in 1893).

The first volume of Studies in the Psychology of Sex, when published in Great Britain, shocked the Victorian public and became the subject of a high-profile lawsuit. During the hearing, the judge ruled that the supposed scientific value of the book was “merely a pretext invented for the purpose of selling obscenities”[1]. Ellis published subsequent volumes in the USA. This work examines in detail such aspects of human sexual behavior as same-sex attraction, masturbation and sexual deviations.

Ellis believed that sexual activity was a natural and healthy expression of human nature. He considered his task to be the demolition of all those layers of ignorance and prejudice that had accumulated around the “sexual secrets” by the beginning of the 20th century. With a general skeptical attitude towards psychoanalysis as an aesthetic phenomenon rather than a medical one, he maintained a relationship with S. Freud as “one of the greatest masters of thought”[2].

Ellis was one of the first (before Freud) to study autoeroticism and narcissism. He headed the Galton Institute, the largest association of eugenics adherents. As president of the World League for Sexual Reform (since 1928), he expressed radical ideas for his time that foreshadowed the concept of the sexual revolution[2]. In particular, he spoke out for gender equality and for systematic sex education for young people. He admired J.B. Shaw, joined the Fabian Society, and participated in a project to popularize 17th-century English drama.

Ellis on homosexuality

In 1896, a book written several years earlier with John Eddington Symonds, Sexual Inversion, was published in Germany .

). A year later, it was also published in England, but there it was prosecuted as “lustful, harmful, vicious, dirty, scandalous and obscene”[3]. This was the time when Oscar Wilde was just recently serving a criminal sentence for homosexuality. The book contained a scientific overview of all the facts known at that time regarding homosexual relations among animals, among “primitive” (uncivilized) peoples, in antiquity and in the era of Ellis’s day. Ellis himself described the life of his homosexual contemporaries as follows:

“These stories were obtained privately; their heroes are not inmates of prisons and insane asylums, in most cases they have never consulted a doctor regarding their... instincts. They lead the lives of ordinary and sometimes respected members of society."[4]

The radicalism of this presentation was that homosexuals were portrayed as normal people who differed from others mainly only in their sexual preferences. Ellis rejected the idea of homosexuality as a "degenerative disease",[3][5], immorality and crime. He viewed homosexuality as some innate property[5], which is actualized by life experience. Ellis was skeptical about the possibility of treating homosexuality. He considered marriages of “cured” homosexuals (“inverted”) to be unpromising, arguing that:

“The apparent change turns out to be shallow, the position of the inverted becomes even more unhappy than the original, both for himself and for his wife”[6].

At the same time, the recognition of homosexual unions as an alternative to marriage was too revolutionary for him, and he saw the ideal option for a homosexual to be abstinent:

“It is the ideal of chastity, and not normal sexuality, that should stand before the eyes of someone who is inverted from birth. He may not have the makings of an ordinary person, but perhaps he hides within himself the makings of a saint.”[7]

Much data on homosexuality is contained in Ellis's other works, especially in the seven-volume Studies in the Psychology of Sex. Late in his life, Ellis became highly influential in England and the United States. His books allowed discussion of sexuality, breaking the taboos of the Victorian era.

Marriage[edit]

Edith Lees and Havelock Ellis
In November 1891, aged 32, and reportedly still a virgin, Ellis married the English writer and women's rights supporter, Edith Lees. From the very beginning, their marriage was unconventional, since Edith Lees was openly gay. At the end of the honeymoon, Ellis returned to the bachelor rooms in Paddington. She lived in the Fellowship House. Their "open marriage" was a central theme of Ellis' autobiography My Life

. Ellis was reported to have had an affair with Margaret Sanger. [13]

According to Ellis in My Life

, his friends were very surprised that he was considered an expert on sex. Some knew that he reportedly suffered from impotence until he was 60 years old. He then discovered that he could be aroused by the sight of a woman urinating. Ellis called this "non-unity." After the death of his wife, Ellis began a relationship with Frenchwoman Françoise Lafitte.

Eugenics [edit]

Ellis was a supporter of eugenics. He was vice-president of the Society for Eugenic Education and wrote on the subject, among other things, in The Problem of Social Hygiene

After all, it seems obvious that a general system, whether private or public, by which all personal facts, biological and mental, normal and morbid, are duly and systematically recorded, must become inevitable if we are to have any real guidance in respect of those people who are most fit or most unfit to take part in the race.

A seemingly handsome man throws a coin to a beggar; a more sympathetic man builds an almshouse for him, so that he no longer has to beg; but perhaps the most radically sympathetic of all is the man who works to ensure that a beggar is not born.

It was clear in his early writings that Ellis agreed with the notion that there was a system of racial hierarchies and that non-Western cultures were considered "inferior races." [14] Before speaking openly about eugenic themes, he used the prevalence of homosexuality among these "inferior races" to point out the universality of the behavior. In his work Sexual inversions

, where Ellis presented numerous cases of homosexuality in Britain, he was always careful to mention the subject's race and the health of their "root", including their neuropathic conditions and the health of their parents. However, Ellis clearly stated that he did not believe that homosexuality was an issue that eugenics should actively address, as he felt that once the practice was accepted in society, people with homosexual tendencies would comfortably choose not to marry, and , thus, will cease to transmit “homosexual heredity”. [14]

During the debates at the Sociological Society, Ellis corresponded with the famous eugenicist Francis Galton, who was presenting a paper in support of restrictions on marriage. While Galton compared eugenics to the breeding of domestic animals, Ellis felt that great caution must be taken before applying eugenic rules to populations, since "we have not yet realized how subtle and far-reaching are the hereditary influences." [14]Instead, since, unlike domestic animals, humans are responsible for who they mate with, Ellis argued that greater emphasis should be placed on educating the public about how important this issue is. Thus, Ellis held much more moderate views than many modern eugenicists. In fact, Ellis also fundamentally disagreed with Galton's leading ideas that the limits of childbearing were the same as the limits of marriage. [15] Ellis believed that those who should not have offspring should be able to enjoy all the other benefits of marriage, and it was an intolerable burden to prohibit it. In his opinion, this is what led to eugenics being “misunderstood, ridiculed and viewed as a fad.” [15]

Throughout his life, Ellis was a member and later a member of the board of the Eugenics Society. In addition, he played a role in the General Committee of the First International Congress of Eugenics. [14]

Excerpt characterizing Ellis, Havelock

- So what? only? - he asked. - Well, so friendly, so friendly! Is this nonsense - with a ruler; but we are forever friends. She will love anyone, forever; but I don’t understand this, I’ll forget now. - Well, what then? - Yes, that’s how she loves me and you. - Natasha suddenly blushed, - well, you remember, before leaving... So she says that you forget all this... She said: I will always love him, and let him be free. It’s true that this is excellent, noble! - Yes Yes? very noble? Yes? - Natasha asked so seriously and excitedly that it was clear that what she was saying now, she had previously said with tears. Rostov thought about it. “I don’t take back my word on anything,” he said. - And then, Sonya is such a charm that what fool would refuse his happiness? “No, no,” Natasha screamed. “We’ve already talked about this with her.” We knew you would say this. But this is impossible, because, you know, if you say that - you consider yourself bound by the word, then it turns out that she seemed to say it on purpose. It turns out that you are still forcibly marrying her, and it turns out completely different. Rostov saw that all this was well thought out by them. Sonya amazed him with her beauty yesterday too. Today, having caught a glimpse of her, she seemed even better to him. She was a lovely 16-year-old girl, obviously loving him passionately (he did not doubt this for a minute). Why shouldn’t he love her now, and not even marry her, Rostov thought, but now there are so many other joys and activities! “Yes, they came up with this perfectly,” he thought, “we must remain free.” “Well, great,” he said, “we’ll talk later.” Oh, how glad I am for you! - he added. - Well, why didn’t you cheat on Boris? - asked the brother. - This is nonsense! – Natasha shouted laughing. “I don’t think about him or anyone else and I don’t want to know.” - That's how it is! So what are you doing? - I? – Natasha asked again, and a happy smile lit up her face. – Have you seen Duport? - No. – Have you seen the famous Duport the dancer? Well, you won't understand. That's what I am. – Natasha took her skirt, rounding her arms, as they dance, ran a few steps, turned over, made an entreche, kicked her leg against the leg and, standing on the very tips of her socks, walked a few steps. - Am I standing? after all, she said; but couldn’t help herself on her tiptoes. - So that’s what I am! I will never marry anyone, but will become a dancer. But do not tell anyone. Rostov laughed so loudly and cheerfully that Denisov from his room became envious, and Natasha could not resist laughing with him. - No, it’s good, isn’t it? – she kept saying. - Okay, don’t you want to marry Boris anymore? Natasha flushed. - I don’t want to marry anyone. I'll tell him the same thing when I see him. - That's how it is! - said Rostov. “Well, yes, it’s all nothing,” Natasha continued to chatter. – Why is Denisov good? – she asked. - Good. - Well, goodbye, get dressed. Is he scary, Denisov? - Why is it scary? – asked Nicholas. - No. Vaska is nice. - You call him Vaska - strange. And that he is very good? - Very good. - Well, come quickly and drink tea. Together. And Natasha stood on tiptoe and walked out of the room the way dancers do, but smiling the way only happy 15-year-old girls smile. Having met Sonya in the living room, Rostov blushed. He didn't know how to deal with her. Yesterday they kissed in the first minute of the joy of their date, but today they felt that it was impossible to do this; he felt that everyone, his mother and sisters, looked at him questioningly and expected from him how he would behave with her. He kissed her hand and called her you - Sonya. But their eyes, having met, said “you” to each other and kissed tenderly. With her gaze she asked him for forgiveness for the fact that at Natasha’s embassy she dared to remind him of his promise and thanked him for his love. With his gaze he thanked her for the offer of freedom and said that one way or another, he would never stop loving her, because it was impossible not to love her. “How strange it is,” said Vera, choosing a general moment of silence, “that Sonya and Nikolenka now met like strangers.” – Vera’s remark was fair, like all her comments; but like most of her remarks, everyone felt awkward, and not only Sonya, Nikolai and Natasha, but also the old countess, who was afraid of this son’s love for Sonya, which could deprive him of a brilliant party, also blushed like a girl. Denisov, to Rostov’s surprise, in a new uniform, pomaded and perfumed, appeared in the living room as dandy as he was in battle, and as amiable with ladies and gentlemen as Rostov had never expected to see him. Returning to Moscow from the army, Nikolai Rostov was accepted by his family as the best son, hero and beloved Nikolushka; relatives - as a sweet, pleasant and respectful young man; acquaintances - like a handsome hussar lieutenant, a deft dancer and one of the best grooms in Moscow. The Rostovs knew all of Moscow; this year the old count had enough money, because all his estates had been remortgaged, and therefore Nikolushka, having got his own trotter and the most fashionable leggings, special ones that no one else in Moscow had, and boots, the most fashionable, with the most pointed socks and little silver spurs, had a lot of fun. Rostov, returning home, experienced a pleasant feeling after some period of time trying on himself to the old living conditions. It seemed to him that he had matured and grown very much. Despair for failing to pass an exam according to the law of God, borrowing money from Gavrila for a cab driver, secret kisses with Sonya, he remembered all this as childishness, from which he was now immeasurably far away. Now he is a hussar lieutenant in a silver mentic, with a soldier's George, preparing his trotter to run, together with famous hunters, elderly, respectable. He knows a lady on the boulevard whom he goes to see in the evening. He conducted a mazurka at the Arkharovs’ ball, talked about the war with Field Marshal Kamensky, visited an English club, and was on friendly terms with a forty-year-old colonel whom Denisov introduced him to. His passion for the sovereign weakened somewhat in Moscow, since during this time he did not see him. But he often talked about the sovereign, about his love for him, making it felt that he was not telling everything yet, that there was something else in his feelings for the sovereign that could not be understood by everyone; and with all my heart he shared the general feeling of adoration in Moscow at that time for Emperor Alexander Pavlovich, who in Moscow at that time was given the name of an angel in the flesh. During this short stay of Rostov in Moscow, before leaving for the army, he did not become close, but on the contrary, broke up with Sonya. She was very pretty, sweet, and obviously passionately in love with him; but he was in that time of youth when there seems to be so much to do that there is no time to do it, and the young man is afraid to get involved - he values his freedom, which he needs for many other things. When he thought about Sonya during this new stay in Moscow, he said to himself: Eh! there will be many more, many more of these, somewhere, still unknown to me. I’ll still have time to make love when I want, but now there’s no time. In addition, it seemed to him that there was something humiliating for his courage in female society. He went to balls and sororities, pretending that he was doing it against his will. Running, an English club, carousing with Denisov, a trip there - that was another matter: it was befitting of a fine hussar.

Sexual attraction in youth[edit]

Ellis's 1933 book The Psychology of Sex

- one of many manifestations of his interest in human sexuality. In this book, he details how children can experience sexuality differently in terms of timing and intensity. He mentions that it used to be believed that people had no sexual desires at all during childhood. "If it can be asserted that the sex impulse does not have a normal existence at the beginning of life, then every manifestation of it during this period must be 'vicious,'" he adds. He continues by stating that even early in development and at lower levels of genital function, there is a wide range of variation in terms of sexual stimulation. He argues that the ability of some infants to produce genital reactions, regarded as "reflex signs of irritation" is not usually vividly remembered. Since the details of these manifestations are not remembered, it is impossible to define them as pleasant. However, Ellis argues that many people of both sexes can recall experiencing pleasurable sensations from the genitalia in childhood. “They are not suppressed (as is sometimes thought).” However, they are not usually mentioned by adults. Ellis argues that they are usually highlighted and remembered for the sole contrast of the intense encounter with any other ordinary experience.[16]

Ellis states that sexual self-stimulation is known to occur at an early age. He refers to authors such as Marc, Fonsagrives and Perez from France, who published their discoveries in the nineteenth century. These early ages are not strictly limited to those around puberty, as their results suggest. These authors cite cases of children of both sexes who masturbated from three to four years of age. Ellis refers to Robey's discovery that boys experience their first sexual feelings between the ages of five and fourteen. For girls, this age ranges from eight to nineteen years. In both sexes, these first sexual experiences are more likely to occur in later years than in earlier years. [17] Ellis then refers to G. W. Hamilton. Research has shown that twenty percent of men and fourteen percent of women experience pleasurable sensations with their genitals before the age of six. This is only complemented by Ellis's reference to studies by Katherine Davis, which showed that twenty to twenty-nine percent of boys and forty-nine to fifty-one percent of girls had masturbated by age eleven. However, in the next three years, the percentage of boys exceeded the percentage of girls.

Ellis also contributed to the idea of different levels of sexual arousal. He argues that it is a mistake to assume that all children are capable of experiencing genital arousal or pleasurable erotic sensations. He suggests cases in which an innocent child is led to believe that genital stimulation will result in a pleasurable erection. Some of these children may fail and may not experience this pleasure or erection until puberty. Thus, Ellis concludes that children have "a wide range of genital and sexual abilities." Ellis even views ancestry as a contributor to varying levels of sexual arousal, stating that children of "more unreliable heredity" and/or hypersexual parents are "more precociously aroused." [17]

Autoeroticism[edit]

Ellis's views on autoeroticism were very comprehensive, including much more than masturbation. Autoeroticism, according to Ellis, includes a wide range of phenomena. Ellis states in his book Explorations in the Psychology of Sex

1897, that autoeroticism ranges from erotic daydreams marked by passivity exhibited by the subject to "shameless attempts at sexual self-manipulation witnessed by madmen." [18]

Ellis also argues that autoerotic impulses can be enhanced by bodily processes such as menstrual flow. During this time, he says, women who would otherwise not feel strongly inclined toward autoeroticism intensify their masturbation patterns. However, this tendency is absent in women who are unaware of their sexual feelings and in the small percentage of women who suffer from a sexual or general disorder that results in a significant portion of "sexual anesthesia." [19]

Ellis also raises public concerns about how autoerotic tendencies affect marriages. He goes on to link autoeroticism with a decline in marriage rates. As these rates decline, he concludes that autoeroticism will only increase in both quantity and intensity for both men and women. Therefore, he argues, it is an important question for both the moralist and the physician to explore the psychological basis of these experiences and determine the attitude towards them. [20]

Smell[edit]

Ellis believed that the sense of smell, although ineffective over long distances, did contribute to sexual desire and therefore mate choice. In his 1905 book Sexual Selection in Man

Ellis argues that the sense of smell plays a role in sexual selection. [21] He argues that although we have evolved to have a great need for smell, we still rely on our sense of smell through sexual selection. The contribution of smell to sexual desire may even be enhanced in certain climates. Ellis argues that with warmer climates, there is an increased sensitivity to sexual and other positive olfactory sensations in the normal population. Because of this, he believes that people often admire smells in the East, especially in India, in "Jewish and Muslim countries." Ellis then goes on to describe the different odors of different races, noting that the Japanese race has the least intense body odor. [22] Ellis concludes his argument as follows: “In general it may be said that in the ordinary life of man odors play an important part and cause problems which are not uninteresting, but that their apparent role in actual sexual selection is comparatively small. . » [23]

Views on women and birth control[edit]

Ellis favored feminism from a eugenics perspective, believing that the expanded social, economic, and sexual choices that feminism provided for women would lead to women choosing partners who were more eugenically sound. [14] In his opinion, intelligent women will not choose and will not be forced to marry and reproduce with weak-minded men.

Ellis viewed birth control as simply a continuation of evolutionary progress, noting that natural progress had always consisted of increasing barriers to reproduction that resulted in fewer but much higher quality offspring. [15] From a eugenics perspective, birth control was an invaluable tool for the upliftment of the race. [15] However, Ellis noted that contraceptives should not be used randomly in a way that would have a detrimental effect by reducing fertility, but rather must be used purposefully to improve the quality of certain "supplies." He noted that, unfortunately, it was the “higher representatives” who knew and used contraceptives, while the “lower representatives” reproduced without checks. [15]Ellis addressed this problem by focusing on contraception in education, as this would help spread knowledge to the population he believed needed it most. Ellis argued that birth control was the only available way to make eugenic selection possible, since the only other option was abstinence from sexual intercourse for those who were "unfit." [15]

Views on sterilization[edit]

Ellis was strongly opposed to the idea of castration for eugenic purposes. In 1909, the cantonal asylum in Bern introduced regulations that allowed for the sterilization of those considered “unfit” and with strong sexual tendencies. [24] In a particular case, several men and women were castrated, including epileptics and pedophiles, some of whom voluntarily asked for it. Although the results were positive, as none of the subjects were found guilty of any sex crimes, Ellis remained a strong opponent of the practice. [24] His view of the origin of these drives was that sexual impulses are not located in the genitals, but rather in the brain. [24] Moreover, he argued that the gonads were an important source of internal secretions vital to the functioning of the body, and therefore their removal could seriously harm the patient. [24]

However, Ellis already witnessed an increase in the number of vasectomies and fallopian tube ligatures, which performed the same sterilization without removing the entire organ. In these cases Ellis was much more favorable, but still held the view that "sterilization of the unfit, if it is to be a practical and humane measure requiring general approval, must be voluntary on the part of the person subjected to it, and must never be compulsory." . "[24] His opposition to such a system was based not only on morality. Rather, Ellis also took into account the practicality of the situation, hypothesizing that if an already mentally disabled man was forced to undergo sterilization, he would only become more unstable and end up committing more antisocial acts.

Although Ellis never liked the idea of forced sterilization, he was willing to find ways around it. His focus was on the social goals of eugenics, and as a means to this Ellis was in no way opposed to “persuading” “volunteers” to undergo sterilization, depriving them of poor relief. [15] Although he preferred to persuade those he deemed unfit using education, Ellis supported coercion as a tool. Additionally, he supported adding ideas about eugenics and birth control to the education system to restructure society and promote social hygiene. [25] For Ellis, sterilization seemed to be the only eugenic tool that could be used on the mentally unfit. In fact, in his publication "Sterilization of the Unsuitable"

Ellis argued that even institutionalization could not guarantee complete prevention of childbearing between the unfit, and thus “the burden on society, not to mention the race, increases. any class of people... but what, I ask myself, is the practical alternative? » [24]

History of the study of homosexuality

Homosexuality has attracted the attention of scientists since antiquity. One of the first studies was conducted by Soranus of Ephesus, who classified homosexuality as a mental pathology[57].

Since the end of the 19th century, homosexuality has entered the sphere of attention of psychiatry and psychology. In 1886, psychiatrist Richard Krafft-Ebing described homosexuality as a “degenerative disease” in his famous work “Sexual Psychopathy.” From then on, this point of view became dominant in psychiatry until the process of depathologizing homosexuality began in the 1940s - 1970s. However, among Krafft-Ebing's contemporaries there were at least two prominent researchers who did not adhere to his point of view on the pathology of homosexuality: Havelock Ellis and Sigmund Freud.

Ellis on homosexuality

Henry Havelock Ellis (1859–1939), British physician and psychologist, was the leading sexologist of his time. In 1906, his book, co-authored with John Eddington Symonds, Sexual Inversion, was published in Germany .

). A year later, it was also published in England, but there it was prosecuted as “lustful, harmful, vicious, dirty, scandalous and obscene.”[58] This was the time when Oscar Wilde was just recently serving a criminal sentence for homosexuality. The book contained a scientific overview of all the facts known at that time regarding homosexual relations among animals, among “primitive” (uncivilized) peoples, in antiquity and in the era of Ellis’s day. Ellis himself described the life of his homosexual contemporaries as follows:

“These stories were obtained privately; their heroes are not inmates of prisons and insane asylums, in most cases they have never consulted a doctor regarding their... instincts. They lead the lives of ordinary and sometimes respected members of society."[59]

The radicalism of this presentation was that homosexuals were portrayed as normal people who differed from others mainly only in their sexual preferences. Ellis rejected the idea of homosexuality as a "degenerative disease", [58][60][61], immorality and crime. He viewed homosexuality as some innate property[60], which is actualized by life experience. Ellis was skeptical about the possibility of treating homosexuality. He considered marriages of “cured” homosexuals (“inverted”) to be unpromising, arguing that:

“The apparent change turns out to be shallow, the position of the inverted becomes even more unhappy than the original, both for himself and for his wife”[62].

At the same time, the recognition of homosexual unions as an alternative to marriage was too revolutionary for him, and he saw the ideal option for a homosexual to be abstinent:

“It is the ideal of chastity, and not normal sexuality, that should stand before the eyes of someone who is inverted from birth. He may not have the makings of an ordinary person, but perhaps he hides within himself the makings of a saint.”[63]

Freud on homosexuality

At the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, the Austrian psychiatrist and founder of psychoanalysis Sigmund Freud believed that all people are characterized by innate bisexuality[64], and heterosexuality and homosexuality are options for early childhood development. Freud did not view homosexuality as a disease. The following statement of his in a letter to one mother who asked to cure her homosexual son is widely known:

“Homosexuality, of course, is not an advantage, but it is not something to be ashamed of, it is not a vice, not a degradation, and it cannot be classified as a disease. We consider this a variation in sexual function, the cause of which is a certain delay in development"[65].

Freud believed that therapy for homosexuals should be aimed at correcting the mental discomfort that arises in them due to their sexual orientation (“dysphoria of sexual orientation”) and at the patient’s acceptance of his own “I” - regardless of whether a change in sexual orientation or No. In a letter to the same woman, Freud continued:

“Another question is whether the analysis can help your son in any way. If he is unhappy, nervous, torn by conflicts, he feels depressed in society, analysis can bring him harmony, peace of mind, full capacity, regardless of whether he remains a homosexual or changes.

Freud doubted the prospects for treating homosexuality; he said that “an attempt to transform... a homosexual into a heterosexual will most likely be unsuccessful”[66].

Kinsey Research

American biologist Alfred Kinsey, in his studies of human sexuality based on a sample of several thousand people in the 1940s and 1950s, proposed a seven-point sexuality scale (the so-called Kinsey scale), “emphasizing the continuity of gradations between exclusively heterosexual and exclusively homosexual personal histories.” 67]: the extreme points on this scale mark people with unambiguous preferences, and the intermediate points – those who are characterized by a combination of heterosexual and homosexual principles in one proportion or another. In development of this approach, the American psychiatrist Fritz Klein later developed the so-called sexual orientation grid, in which several parameters that are not entirely correlated with each other are laid out on a similar scale:

1. sexual attraction (preferred gender of sexual partners),

2. sexual behavior (gender of actual sexual partners),

3. erotic fantasies,

4. emotional preferences (what gender does the individual prefer to communicate with),

5. social preferences (who he actually spends more time with),

6. self-identification (how he defines his sexual identity),

7. lifestyle (a measure of a person’s involvement in a particular subculture).

Not coinciding with each other and manifesting themselves differently at different stages of life, these parameters lead to the impossibility or, at least, the difficulty of unambiguously dividing the human population into hetero-, homo- and bisexuals, as well as their quantitative calculation. In this regard, in the scientific literature, it has recently become common to use clarifying or narrower terms - for example, talking about homosexual orientation, homosexual behavior, homosexuality as a point on the “sexuality” subscale of the Kinsey scale, and so on.

Published in 1948, the Kinsey Reports shook up the rigid, binary, essentialist model of sexuality that had been accepted at the time, dividing people into two diametrically opposed groups: those who practiced “natural” heterosexual relationships and those who practiced “unnatural,” “pathological” homosexual relationships. At that time, the concept of three varieties of sexual orientations had not yet been accepted. The use of the Kinsey scale led its creator to the conclusion:

“Men do not represent two discrete [disparate] subpopulations - heterosexual and homosexual. The world is not divided into lambs and goats. A fundamental principle of taxonomy is that discrete categories are rarely observed in nature. […] Wildlife is a continuum that includes each and all of its aspects.”

Having received statistics on a significant number of people who had ever engaged in homosexual relationships or experienced homosexual attraction, Kinsey sought to refute homosexuality as a “pathological” personality trait. Kinsey's position was anti-essentialist. He rejected the importance of biological factors and heredity, emphasizing the role of culture and socialization in the formation of a homosexual or heterosexual model. Kinsey believed that the choice of a sexual partner is determined by tradition, social prohibitions, opportunities and even considerations of profit. Dr. Francis Mondimore, who has studied the historical and scientific problems of homosexuality, believes that this idea of \u200b\u200bits origins might have led Kinsey today to the constructivist camp[69].

Evelyn Hooker Research

Along with Alfred Kinsey, Evelyn Hooker is considered one of the most famous researchers of homosexuality. Significant results of her research were published in the work “Adaptability of Openly Homosexual Men” (1957)[70]. In this work, the psychological characteristics of heterosexuals and homosexuals were compared using clinical diagnostic tests Rorschach and TAT. Independent experts found that the level of psychological adaptation of the experiment participants did not differ, and were unable to determine which test results belonged to homosexuals. Evelyn Hooker's conclusion was that the concept of homosexuality as a mental illness must be abandoned.

Wolfenden Report

Simultaneously with Hooker's research in the United States, the results of the Wolfenden Report were published in Great Britain in 1957. - a study conducted by the British government, and bore the official title “Report of the Committee on Homosexual Offenses and Prostitution” [71]. As a result of studies carried out in 1954, the Committee found that “homosexuality cannot legally be considered a disease, since in many cases it is the only symptom and corresponds to complete mental health in all other respects.”[72]

Modern concepts

In the 20th century, understanding the problems of the formation of various individual personality traits, including the manifestations of sexuality in general and homosexuality in particular, proceeds through the prism and through the polemics of two fundamental approaches - essentialist and constructivist[73][74]. This controversy is reflected in the debate between biogenetism and sociogenetism and concerns the issue of biological and social determinants.

Currently, most experts do not oppose biological and social factors of influence to each other, but consider their impact on the development of manifestations of human individuality together. Thus, the famous Russian psychologist Lyudmila Sobchik, speaking about the formation of individual personality traits as a whole, writes:

“It is natural that any orthodox view - be it a biological or socio-historical approach in its pure form - results in absurdity, but in the context of the dialectical unity of opposites, taking into account the importance of each of them, it becomes possible to reduce these polar points of view to a holistic understanding of the object of study — personalities. By falling into one of the extremes, we inevitably follow the wrong path.”[75].

With regard to sexual orientation, the debate between essentialism and constructivism similarly implies in one case that it is determined solely by biological factors, in the other case that it is determined by cultural-social factors. On this issue, too, most studies no longer radically pit the two approaches against each other.

Essentialist approach

Essentialism is the philosophical view of unchangeable properties and qualities. The essentialist approach views sexuality as a fundamental, culturally indifferent characteristic, independent of the social influence of a biologically given drive[76][77], guided by impulses or instincts. Sexuality in this case is explained through correlation with a certain inner essence of a person, a natural basis or a universal model of behavior and is analyzed through a set of binary oppositions such as natural/unnatural, hidden/visible, base/superstructure, true/false, reality/interpretation, essence/manifestation and others[78].

The whole variety of sexual practices is differentiated and some of them are defined as “normal” or “healthy”, and others as “unnatural” or “perverted”. From this point of view, all sexuality appears as an extremely powerful but destructive and dangerous desire that can only be contained by formal social control and strict disciplinary techniques. This view is rooted in Judeo-Christian culture and has long been supported by psychiatry and classical social theory.

Homosexuality in the essentialist approach is understood as the essential opposite of heterosexuality - in modern times, arguments for such an understanding are sought not in biblical moral prohibitions, but in the biological (genetic) predetermination of this or that type of sexual behavior [77] [79]: by nature, every person is something or otherwise, and sociocultural influences are not able to change this state of affairs. Paradoxically, essentialism is the basis of the views of both radical opponents of homosexuality (who insist on the inherent inferiority of all who have it) and its defenders, who argue that it is impossible to punish for the inalienable, natural properties of a person.

Constructivist approach

Unlike the essentialist approach, the constructivist approach views the manifestations of sexuality as a construct created by culture and society.

According to sociologist and sexologist Igor Kon, the first formulation of constructivism in sexology was proposed by American sociologists John Gagnon and William Simon, who created the theory of sexual script (Gagnon and Simon, 1973; Gagnon 1990). In this theory, sexuality is based on certain biological premises, but is determined historically and culturally. Gagnon and Simon believe that erotic preferences arise from the specific stimuli and meanings offered by a culture. Most people in our culture consider sexual contact with a person of the same sex to be qualitatively different from contact with a person of the other sex, and categorize such behavior and its bearers as something special[80].

Another similar theory is the social psychological theory of labeling. According to this theory, homosexuality is associated with many negative qualities that form a stigma, label, or stigma due to the fact that homosexual people are viewed by society as a condemned minority. Stigmatization of homosexuals can take many forms, but in all cases it represents oppression and discrimination against a minority. Stigmatization leaves its mark on the psyche and self-awareness of the minority, giving rise to low self-esteem, neuroses and other psychological problems[80].

The most famous and outstanding theorist of social constructivism in matters of sexuality was the French philosopher Michel Foucault, who created the three-volume work “The History of Sexuality”[81]. In this work, he shows that Western culture is permeated with sexuality, and seeks to identify the reasons for various sexual practices and categorize them, to find the “truth of sex,” and to determine the identity and even the inner essence of a person through his sexual biography. Foucault finds that homosexual relations were categorized differently in different cultures and in different eras: for example, in some policies of ancient Greece of classical times, a certain type of homosexual relationship (between an adult man and an adolescent) was idealized as a social practice no less important than the institution of marriage between a man and a woman, and it was understood that the same man could participate in both types of relationships, and the question of a person’s personal erotic preferences was recognized as unimportant.

The modern understanding of homosexuality as a certain sexual orientation appears to Foucault as a product of his era and the picture of the world characteristic of this era - the episteme. Conclusions similar to those of Foucault were obtained in the second half of the 20th century by scientists who studied the forms of sexuality among peoples who were not influenced by Western civilization (primarily among the tribes of New Guinea[82]): homo- and heterosexual behavior among these peoples is significantly differ from those known and customary in Europe.

Foucault's ideas were continued in queer theory, to which feminist philosophy contributed. The main theorists of queer theory were Teresa de Lauretis, Elizabeth Gross and Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick. Queer theory made it possible to question fixed identities. The concept of queerness, which denoted otherness, implied a refusal to categorize people according to their sexual practices. Queer is not an objective natural reality, but an unfixed sexual identity[80].

Multifactorial approach

In modern science, the majority of researchers do not categorically oppose the influence of biological and socio-cultural factors on the formation of various manifestations of sexuality. It is accepted that each of these factors has its own influence on the development of sexual orientation. American sexologist Gary F. Kelly in the famous educational publication “Fundamentals of Modern Sexology” states in 2000 that theorists prefer a multifactorial model that takes into account all factors that can influence the formation of sexual orientation: biological, psychological and social (Haumann, 1995 ). It is considered likely that in each specific case there is a unique combination of factors influencing the formation of sexual orientation (Berger, Suesmatsu, & Ono, 1994)[83].

Francis Mondimore writes about this [84]:

“Sexual orientation follows so many biological “rules” that homosexuality cannot be considered solely a social “construct.” Critical developmental periods, hormonal processes, and differences in brain structure and function all point to a biological basis for sexual orientation. But, as Kinsey showed, people cannot be divided into “righteous and sinners.” Preference for people of the same sex, the opposite sex, or both sexes can manifest itself in different proportions. Unique life experiences interact with unique biological capabilities to shape an individual’s unique sexuality.”

The development of sexual orientations is considered by most modern researchers on the basis of biological prerequisites, but how exactly these prerequisites will manifest themselves in the life of a particular individual depends on the characteristics of his personal relationships with the outside world and the social environment. In this regard, describing various studies of the origin of homosexuality, Igor Kon makes the following generalization[85]:

“Thanks to biomedical research, we know immeasurably more today about the causes and associated factors of homosexuality than we did ten or twenty years ago. That is why scientists no longer care about the debate - heredity or upbringing... One person can be exclusively homo- or heterosexual, while another has only more or less flexible sexual preferences. There is no single homosexuality that is the same for all; there are diverse homosexualities. As the famous Dutch endocrinologist Louis Guren said, “If you asked me whether there is a biology of homosexuality, I would answer yes. But it is a biology that allows for multiple expressions of sexuality’ (Gooren, 1995, p.245).”

Origin

Early concepts of the origins of homosexuality often looked at childhood experiences. Freudian psychoanalytic hypotheses suggest the influence of early experiences in parent-child relationships. According to Freud, homosexuality in many men is a reaction to fear associated with the Oedipus complex. Currently, the vast majority of researchers reject the old psychoanalytic concepts. Studies of family relationships of homosexuals in a number of cases show unsatisfactory relationships with parents, however, these relationships do not affect the development of sexual orientation and, according to experts, are not the cause, but the consequence of manifestations of homosexuality[86].

Another widely held belief that has become a stereotype about homosexuality is the idea that homosexuality is the result of a child being molested by an adult of the same sex. In this regard, researchers state that the main indicator of possible homosexuality is not sexual actions, but a person’s feelings. Homosexual feelings and erotic fantasies, as a rule, precede same-sex relationships[86]. Many homosexuals say about their sexual orientation that they have always felt this way[87]. Sexual desires towards members of the same sex and corresponding fantasies, as a rule, arise even before puberty, often as early as 3-4 years [88][89][90].

Another, perhaps more convincing argument, researchers find in ancient history. A number of cultures around the world have had socially prescribed same-sex relationships between adult men and boys before adolescence. Despite intense homosexual experiences that preceded heterosexual relationships, most of these young people became heterosexual, married, and procreated as adults. Researchers view this fact as historical confirmation that early sexual experience does not have a decisive influence on later sexual orientation[91][92].

Since none of the concepts focusing on the influence of childhood experiences provided answers to the question of the determinants of sexual orientation, researchers turned to exploring the possibility of the influence of biological factors. A number of preliminary results have been obtained in this area, which do not yet provide a comprehensive answer. A number of professional associations of specialists have stated their position on the factors shaping sexual orientation.

The American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the National Association of Social Workers stated in 2006[56]:

There is currently no scientific consensus regarding the specific factors that cause individuals to become heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual, including possible biological, psychological, or social factors in parental sexual orientation. However, there is evidence indicating that the vast majority of lesbian and gay adults were raised by heterosexual parents, and the vast majority of children raised by gay and lesbian parents grow up to be heterosexual.

The Royal College of Psychiatrists (the main professional association for psychiatrists in the UK) stated in 2007[93]:

Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no independent evidence to support the assumption that upbringing or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person's fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation. It appears that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interaction of genetic factors and the early intrauterine environment. Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice.

The American Academy of Pediatrics stated in 2004[94]:

Sexual orientation is likely determined not by any single factor, but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences[95].

In recent decades, theories based on biology have received the approval of specialists. The American Academy of Pediatrics sets out the following hypotheses about the possible biological causes of homosexuality. The high incidence of homosexuality among monozygotic twins and the identification of clusters of homosexuality in family genealogies support biological models. There is some evidence that prenatal exposure to the male sex hormone androgen influences the development of sexual orientation, but postnatal concentrations of sex steroids are independent of sexual orientation. An association has been reported in men between homosexual orientation and a repeat region on the X chromosome. Some studies have identified neuroanatomical differences between homosexual and heterosexual individuals in sexually dimorphic brain regions[96]. Although there is ongoing debate regarding the origins of the diversity of human sexual orientations, there is no scientific evidence that poor upbringing, sexual seduction, or other adverse life events have an impact on sexual orientation.[96][97]

The American Psychological Association also states that “there are likely to be many reasons for a person's sexual orientation, and that the reasons may vary for different people.”[1]

Director of the Netherlands Brain Institute, neuroscientist Dick Swaab, believes that the presence or absence of homosexuality is inherent in a person even before his birth[98].

Psychedelics[edit]

Ellis was an early researcher of psychedelic drugs and the author of one of the first written reports to the public of an experiment with mescaline, which he performed on himself in 1896. During the day he drank a decoction of three echinocacti

(peyote).
on Good Friday alone in his apartment in Temple. During the experience, which lasted about 24 hours, he noted a variety of extremely vivid, complex, colorful, pleasant-smelling hallucinations consisting of both abstract geometric patterns and specific objects such as butterflies and other insects. He published an account of the experience
1898
Modern Review Mezcal: A New Artificial Paradise
).
[26] The title of the article refers to earlier work on the effects of mind-altering substances, the 1860 book Les Paradis artificiels
the French poet Charles Baudelaire (containing descriptions of experiments with opium and hashish).

Ellis was so impressed with the aesthetic quality of the experience that he gave some samples of peyote to the Irish poet W. B. Yeats, a member of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, an organization of which another mescaline researcher, Aleister Crowley, was also a member. [27]

Ellis, Henry Havelock

In 1897, he published the first medical manual on homosexuality in English, written earlier in collaboration with J. E. Symonds (who had already died in 1893).

Ellis on homosexuality

In 1896, a book co-authored with John Eddington Symonds, Sexual Inversion, was published in Germany .

)[3]. A year later, it was also published in England, but there it was prosecuted as “lustful, harmful, vicious, dirty, scandalous and obscene”[4]. This was the time when Oscar Wilde was just recently serving a criminal sentence for homosexuality. The book contained a scientific overview of all the facts known at that time regarding homosexual relations among animals, among “primitive” (uncivilized) peoples, in antiquity and in the era of Ellis’s day. Ellis himself described the life of his homosexual contemporaries as follows:

“These stories were obtained privately; their heroes are not inmates of prisons and insane asylums, in most cases they have never consulted a doctor regarding their... instincts. They lead the lives of ordinary and sometimes respected members of society."[5]

The radicalism of this presentation was that homosexuals were portrayed as normal people who differed from others mainly only in their sexual preferences. Ellis rejected the idea of homosexuality as a "degenerative disease",[4][6], immorality and crime. He viewed homosexuality as some innate property[6], which is actualized by life experience. Ellis was skeptical about the possibility of treating homosexuality. He considered marriages of “cured” homosexuals (“inverted”) to be unpromising, arguing that:

“The apparent change turns out to be shallow, the position of the inverted becomes even more unhappy than the original, both for himself and for his wife”[7].

At the same time, the recognition of homosexual unions as an alternative to marriage was too revolutionary for him, and he saw the ideal option for a homosexual to be abstinent:

“It is the ideal of chastity, and not normal sexuality, that should stand before the eyes of someone who is inverted from birth. He may not have the makings of an ordinary person, but perhaps he hides within himself the makings of a saint.”[8]

Works[edit]

Elmira Penitentiary Inmate Shows Four Head Images Outlaw
(1890)

Criminal
(1890)
New spirit
(1890)
Nationalization of health care
(1892)
Man and Woman: A Study of the Secondary and Tertiary Sexual Characteristics
(1894) (revised 1929)
translator: Germinal
(Zola) (1895) (republished 1933)
Das konträre Geschlechtsgefühl
(in German). Leipzig: Wiegand. 1896. p. .with J. A. Symonds
Studies in the Psychology of Sex (1897–1928), six volumes (listed below)
Research in the Psychology of Sex
. Volume 1 Evolution of modesty, phenomena of sexual periodicity, autoeroticism. 1897
Statements
(1898)
"Mezcal: the new artificial paradise". Modern Review
.
LXXIII
. 1898
Nineteenth century
(1900)
Research in the Psychology of Sex
. Volume 2 Sexual inversion. 1900
Research in the Psychology of Sex
. Volume 3 Analysis of sexual desire, love and pain, Sexual desire in women. 1903
Study of British Genius
(1904)
Research in the Psychology of Sex
. Volume 4 Sexual selection in humans. 1905
Research in the Psychology of Sex
. Volume 5 Erotic symbolism, The mechanism of detumescence, Mental state during pregnancy. 1906
Soul of Spain
(1908)
"Sterilization of the unfit". Eugenics Review
.
1
(3):203–06. 1909. PMC 2986668. PMID 21259474.
Research in the Psychology of Sex
. Volume 6 Sex in relation to society. 1910
The problem of the revival of the race
(1911)
The World of Dreams
(1911) (new edition 1926)
The task of social hygiene
. NY. 1912. p. 10.
"Birth control and eugenics". Eugenics Review
.
9
(1): 32–41. 1917. PMC 2942166. PMID 21259632.
The task of social hygiene
(1912)
Wartime Essays
. February 2006
Philosophy of conflict
(1919)
On Life and Sex: Essays on Love and Virtue
(1921)
Kanga Creek: an Australian idyll
. Press "Golden Cockerel". 1922
Little Essays on Love and Virtue
(1922)
Dance of Life
. 1923
Impressions and comments
. in 3 volumes. 1924
Sonnets with Spanish folk songs
(1925)
Aeonism and other additional studies
(1928)
Research in the Psychology of Sex Vol. 7
(1928)
The Art of Living
(1929) (selected and hosted by Mrs. S. Herbert)
More Essays on Love and Virtue
(1931)
ed.: James Hinton: Life in Nature
(1931)
Views and reviews
. 1932
Psychology of sex
. 1933
ed.: Imaginary Conversations and Poems: A Selection
, Walter Savage Landor (1933)
Chapman
(1934)
My confession
(1934)
Questions of our day
(1934)
From Rousseau to Proust
(1935)
Selected Essays
(1936)
Poems
(1937) (selected by John Gawsworth; pen name of T. Fitton Armstrong)
Love and Marriage
(1938) (with others)
My life
. Houghton Mufflin. 1939
Sex compatibility in marriage
(1939)
From Marlowe to Shaw
(1950) (edited by J. Gawsworth)
Genius of Europe
(1950)
Sex and Marriage
(1951) (ed. J. Gawsworth)
Unpublished letters from Havelock Ellis to Joseph Ishill
(1954)

Ellis Havelock

(1859-1939) - English doctor, psychologist, publicist and sexologist. One of the founders of sexology, supporter of the sexual revolution. Licentiate of Medicine, Surgery and Obstetrics from the Society of Apothecaries (1889, London). Member Royal College of Physicians (1936). He graduated from a private school in London. He worked as a teacher in Australia for four years. After returning to England (1879), he studied medicine and worked in a London hospital. Under the influence of B. Shaw, he was engaged in publishing activities aimed at popularizing English classical drama (1887-1889). In 1889-1914. published and edited a series of books devoted to the problems of modern science. In 1894 he began research on the problems of the psychology of sex. Supported in the scientific press Z. Freud's idea about the sexual etiology of hysteria. Established and maintained professional and friendly contacts with him, despite his critical attitude towards psychoanalysis. Considered 3. Freud one of the greatest masters of thought and noted his major contribution to changing people's attitudes towards sex. At the same time, in the article Psychoanalysis and Sex (1919), he proposed to accept the works of Z. Freud as a work of art, and not a scientific work. He introduced the concept of autoeroticism (1898) and, according to one version, the term narcissism. In 1897-1928. published an encyclopedic 7-volume work (the first volume in England and the rest in the USA): Studies in the Psychology of Sex, for which he was put on trial (1897). In 1928 (together with O. Forel and M. Hirschfeld) he co-founded the World League for Sexual Reforms created in Copenhagen, whose activities were aimed at humanizing, liberalizing and democratizing the entire sphere of people’s sexual life. He was the first president of this league. He studied a number of different sexual problems, including secondary sexual characteristics, the relationship between mother and child, the psychology of sexual contacts, issues of homosexuality, masturbation, frigidity, impotence, and many others. He emphasized the significant role of mental factors in people’s sexual lives. Contributed in every possible way to overcoming sexual ignorance. Some of his scientific works were banned by English censorship as obscene. Author of the books: Criminal (1890), Genius (1891), Man and Woman (1894), Sexual Inversion (1897), Sex in Relation to Society (1910), Erotic Rights of Woman (1918), Philosophy of Conflict and other wartime essays ( 1919), The playful function of sex (1921), Dance of life (1923), Marriage today and tomorrow (1929), Essay on love and virtue (1931), My life (1940), etc. V. I. Ovcharenko

Links[edit]

[1] The Eugenics Review archive
Ellis 1939, p. 139.
^ a b
Thomson 1968, p. 210.
Ellis & Symonds 1896.
Jump up ↑
White 1999, p. 66.
Duberman, Martin Bauml; Vitsin, Marfa; Chauncey Jr., George (ed.). Hidden from History: Reclaiming the Gay and Lesbian Past
. New American Library. item 1. ISBN 9780452010673.
Online dictionary of etymology at www.etymonline.com
Greenberg, Gary (2007). “Gay by choice? The Science of Sexual Identity". Mother Jones
.
Laplanche & Pontalis 1988, p. 45.
Souhami 1998, p. 197.
Ekins & King 2006, pp. 61-64.
^ a b
Ellis, Albert (2008) [1933].
Psychology of sex
. ISBN 978-1443735322.
"Margaret Sanger Papers Project". New York University Libraries Department
.
^ a b c d e
Crozier 2008.
^ B s d e g Ellis
1917, p. 35.
Jump up
↑ Ellis 1933, pp. 70–71.
^ a b
Ellis 1933, p. 71.
Jump up
↑ Ellis 1897, pp. 98–99.
Jump up
↑ Ellis 1897, p. 64.
Jump up
↑ Ellis 1897, p. 99.
Ellis 1905, p. 110.
Ellis 1905, p. 111.
Ellis 1905, p. 112.
^ B s d e
Ellis 1909, p . 203.
Ellis 1912, p. 10.
Ellis 1898.
Rudgley 1993. sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFRudgley1993 (help)
Jump up
↑ Wyndham 2012, p. 242.
"Ellis, sex book author, dies at 80". The Times
. Hammond, Indiana. paragraph 35 col A.
Jump up
↑ Wilson, 2021, p. 225.

Bibliography[edit]

Crozier, Ivan (2008). "Havelock Ellis, eugenicist." Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in the History and Philosophy of the Biological and Biomedical Sciences
.
39
(2): 187–94. DOI: 10.1016/j.shpsc.2008.03.002. ISSN 1369-8486. PMID 18534349.
Ekins, Richard; King, Dave (2006). The transgender phenomenon
. SAGE Publications. ISBN 978-0761971634.
Grosskurth, Phyllis (1980). Havelock Ellis: A Biography
. Allen Lane. ISBN 978-0713910711.
Laplanche, Jean; Pontalis, Jean-Bertrand (1988). The Language of Psychoanalysis
. Karnak Books. ISBN 978-0946439492.
Rudgley, Richard (1993). The Alchemy of Culture: Intoxicants in Society
.
British Press Museum. ISBN 978-0714117362. Rudgley, Richard (1993). The Alchemy of Culture: Intoxicants in Society
. British Press Museum. ISBN 978-0714117362.
Souhami, Diana (1998). Radcliffe Hall Trials
. Weidenfeld and Nicholson. ISBN 978-0297818250.
Thomson, Robert (1968). History of Pelican Psychology
(First ed.). Pelican. item 463. ISBN. 978-0140209044.
White, Chris (1999). Nineteenth-Century Letters on Homosexuality
. CRC Press. paragraph 66.
Wilson, Scott (2016). Resting Places: Burial Sites of Over 14,000 Famous Figures, 3rd ed
. McFarland. ISBN 978-1476625997.
Windham, Diana (2012). Norman Hair and the Study of Sex
. Sydney University Press. ISBN 978-1743320068.

Sources

[www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/185133/Havelock-Ellis Havelock Ellis] at Encyclopedia Britannica
↑ 12
[slovari.yandex.ru/havelock/History%20psychology/Ellis/2/ History of psychology in persons: Havelock Ellis](inaccessible link from 06/14/2016 (1857 days))
↑ 1 2
Kon I.S. - M.: ACT - Olympus, 2003. - ISBN 5-17-015194-2, 5-8195-0836-X.
Ibid. P. 68. Quoted. by: Mondimore Francis Mark. Homosexuality: A Natural History / Trans. from English L. Volodina. Ekaterinburg: U-Factoria, 2002, p. 74. ISBN 5-94799-085-7
↑ 1 2
Psychological encyclopedia. 2nd ed. / Ed. R. Corsini, A. Auerbach. - St. Petersburg: Peter, 2006. - 1096 p.: ill. ISBN 5-272-00018-8
Ellis H., Symonds J. Op. cit. P. 146. Quoted. by: Mondimore Francis Mark. Homosexuality: A Natural History / Trans. from English L. Volodina. Ekaterinburg: U-Factoria, 2002, p. 77. ISBN 5-94799-085-7
Ellis H., Symonds J. Op. cit. P. 147. Quoted. by: Mondimore Francis Mark. Homosexuality: A Natural History / Trans. from English L. Volodina. Ekaterinburg: U-Factoria, 2002, p. 78. ISBN 5-94799-085-7