A Dispute on Dianism (1880’s)

Republished from our predecessor publication Lucifer the Light Bearer

Asceticism – W, 8/13/1886

“My kingdom is not of this world.” So a legendary hero is reported to have declared, and millions of his followers, in
their attempt to live the letter and spirit of this and many similar precepts, commands, and injunctions, did all they
could to make their own lives and the lives of their earthly brothers painful and unhappy. For ages asceticism was
rampant in Europe. From the fens and swamps of human ignorance rose the deadly miasma of Christian anti-naturalism.
In it virtue died, hope expired, health vanished, and hundreds of millions of human lives were swept into the awful,
cavernous mouth of plague. To suppress every natural instinct; to decry every natural pleasure; to crucify every
natural desire; to renounce every tender tie and obligation of human love and sympathy; to dwarf the intellect; to
ossify the heart; to starve and torture the body; to contemn the earth-home and its joys; to shun and slight its duties;
to torture and massacre all who could not accept this Christian scheme of folly and nature-hatred—and to do all this
that an objective heaven might be won by and for the insane devotee—this was Christianity: the Christianity of our
forefathers, the Christianity that has, through heredity, bequeathed to us this fateful inheritance of hypocrisy, sham
virtue, mock modesty, distrust of physical culture, and real or assumed hatred of pleasure. In those dark ages of
fear and faith, the natural was “carnal,” a “deadly sin,” tending to wean the soul from heaven’s love toward earth.
Good food, good clothing, comfortable homes, the sweet joys of human love, adornments, sports and games,
admiration of Nature’s beauties and sublimities—all, all these were to be eschewed by the true believer, for the
love of them or the desire for them was simply evidence of his sinful nature, of his depraved condition; and to
actually enjoy them was to jeopardize his immortal soul. Study of the universe was discouraged in every way
possible. What little literature remained was an unmeaning jumble of supernatural or anti-natural thought.

The verse-makers rhymed only of hell and heaven, of gods and devils, of sins and sorrows. The painters spread
upon the canvas only the gloomy imaginings and horrible conceptions of Christian theology. And, in fine, the
doctrines of total depravity, self-denial, and the carnality of joy well-nigh blotted the nations of Europe from the
map of the world and their peoples from among the races of men. Once it was a deadly sin to be happy in any
way. All pleasure was “carnal,” and the chief end of man was to glorify God. To a certain extent, we have outgrown
these ideas—but not wholly, nor nearly so. The last stronghold of this baleful superstition is our sexual nature.
Here it is yet firmly entrenched. Very many who have cast down all the other gods of Christianity still worship
this idol of sex-hatred. Study of our sexual system is looked upon with distrust or disgust by the great majority
of people. They still believe that ignorance is bliss, that “knowledge invites the fall of innocence.” Then there are
others who are more enlightened and who believe that we should know all that is possible about this most vitally
important part of our being, yet cling to the thought that the more nearly we can suppress and kill every sexual
feeling and impulse, the more safe, virtuous, healthy, and happy we shall be. This is a survival of the old gospel
that it is better to suppress than to train and guide; that denial of the joys of the body is evidence of refinement of
mind and sinlessness of soul. It is asserted that if we continue long enough in this way, the race will at last reach
a plane whereon all pleasures shall be purely intellectual or spiritual. In other words, these good people still cherish
—largely, no doubt, unconsciously—the old Galilean superstition. They are yet, in blood and aspiration, anti-natural.

They are trying to escape from this world, to flee the conditions of their existence. They mistake the evils that have
flowed from false teaching, from denial of liberty, from the subordination of woman, and from the consequent perversion
of sexuality, for the legitimate fruits of healthy, temperate, free association of the sexes. Inheriting the physical life,
the mental predilections, the moral limitations and prejudices of ancestors who, for more than a thousand years,
were distorted, degraded, withered, and poisoned under the awful Upas tree of Christian asceticism, it is little
wonder that the Alphites are deluded with the idea that the diseases produced by asceticism are to be eliminated
by a still larger dose of asceticism. When our good friend Mrs. Slenker first embraced the Alphite “philosophy,” she
went the full length of the tether, if I have not misread her writings, and took the position now occupied by Mrs.
Whitehead—that there should be no union save for propagative purposes. But her natural common sense soon
drew her out of this quagmire, and so we find her at this time contending with Mrs. Whitehead concerning the
present applicability of this principle, she holding that the race is not yet prepared for the exalted gospel of Alphaism.
Alphaism is “highest and best,” she still thinks, but we must “grant to poor human nature some favors, privileges,
and rights.” It is evident that Mrs. Slenker has not forgotten the fact that feelings and impulses change as we travel
along the pathway of life. She knows that the old man who can no longer take part in the active sports of youth is
both foolish and unjust when he says that his grandchildren shall not, or should not, do so; and she reasons likewise
in regard to this question. It seems to be different with Mrs. Whitehead. Mrs. Slenker admits that many women are
passional in their natures, and she adds, “for passion is not all confined to one sex, and thousands of women are
sexually intemperate from heredity and false training just as well as men are.” If Mrs. S. means by this simply that
men and women, both of them, are sexually intemperate, no one, I think, will deny the truth of her proposition. But
if she means that sexual passion, per se, and sexual intemperance are the same, she could not be more mistaken.
Sexual passion is as natural as the desire for food, and women are as strongly sexed as men, relatively to the
general health possessed by them as compared with men.

No doubt this will be denied by many—by millions of those who find keenest delight in love’s consummate union—
for it has been sedulously taught to them, and to their mothers, that all manifestation of passion is indecorous and
immodest, and that passion itself is evidence of the sinful nature inherited from mother Eve and is a consequence
of her “transgression.” For this denial of nature and for this pernicious hypocrisy, we are indebted to the Galilean
imposture. Had it not been for amativeness, never a child would have been born; and Mrs. Slenker, when she dreams
of Alpha abstinence, fails to consider that this element or force is not active only once in eight or ten years, nor only
as often as considerations of prudence will permit an addition to the family. Only among a people utterly exhausted
—overworked physically and mentally—might it be possible to put into practice, for a short period of time, the Alpha
principle, and then only because of the absence of normal conditions; because there was not vitality enough left
even for love endearments short of complete union, to say nothing of that itself. And this is nothing unusual: this
overworking of one set of faculties to such an extent that the normal use of the others is not possible for quite a
length of time. I very often find men and women who declare to me that they are so tired and worn out by their
physical labors when night or Sunday comes that they cannot read, cannot think. Here there is no balanced use
of muscle and brain, and the result is an imperfect man or woman. On the other side, we have the overworking of
the brain—of the student, of the business man—and this results in soft flesh, weak muscles, poor blood, and, in the
end, misery: physical, moral, and mental degeneracy. It is well to work hard, to think much—but not too hard, not
too much. And the Alphites will find that when they really and honestly try to make hard hand and brain work take
the place of all sexual association, save for procreative purposes, they are engaged in a work of unbalancing and
distorting which will end only in impotency and disaster.

And while nudity and much association otherwise, advocated by Mrs. S., are indispensable in bringing the passions
within the control of reason and in ministering to human happiness, such association, unless complemented by
temperate complete union, leads directly to impotence. Total denial, under these conditions, means, ultimately, total
inability—for most, and I think for all. But this whole question of Alphaism is a side issue. The two things absolutely
necessary in bringing about a better condition of society—in reducing excessive indulgence on the one hand and
equally excessive abstinence on the other—are these: 1st.—The overturning of the existing and the establishment
of a new industrial system, wherein each shall have all that he earns, and woman shall no longer be compelled to sell
herself for a night or for life to procure food, clothing, shelter, and the satisfaction of her love nature and her love of
the beautiful. 2nd.—The general recognition that woman should have the first and final word in all matters pertaining to
her sexual nature—whether she desires complete association only as a love manifestation, only for the sake of offspring,
or for both. And each woman, of course, to decide for herself—not for her sisters, nor they for her. The battle of today
is for the right to choose methods; after that is won, we can decide the relative merits of the methods—but not before.

Asceticism vs Indulgence – Albert Chavannes, 12/10/1886
[An answer to Elmina.]

Ever since I read in Lucifer the article by Mrs. Slenker, entitled “Asceticism,” I have wanted to answer it, but have
put it off for lack of time. Now, having a little leisure, I will make use of it to state wherein I differ from her. Upon
many points Mrs. Slenker and myself agree. We both believe in the pursuit of happiness untrammelled by any false
views of duty or the dictates of so-called morality, and we both believe that human happiness can be increased
by the proper blending of the male and female elements. But we differ in opinion in this: that Mrs. Slenker believes
—giving her own words—that “sexual passion yielded to and cultivated grows and increases far beyond the
means of gratifying it,” and on that account we should discourage it and teach it to be satisfied by the outlets
furnished by the practice of Dianaism; while I, on the other hand, believe that sexual passion yielded to and
cultivated creates legitimate means of gratifying itself, and thus enables us to increase the amount of human
happiness. This question, like all others, will eventually be settled by practical experience; but in the meantime
it is a subject of investigation and argument. Among the ever-increasing class of people who believe with us
that the blending of the male and female element is a legitimate means of procuring pleasant sensations are
found followers of what I may call three different schools. Some, like Mrs. Slenker, seek to attain this result by
the practice of Dianaism; the larger number believe in full indulgence, with proper means to prevent conception
when not desirable; while I, with a few others, believe that the best method is that known under the name of
Male Continence—a compromise, a middle course between Dianaism and full indulgence. I will now briefly
explain why I prefer that method to the others. What Mrs. Slenker calls the male and female elements I call
sexual magnetism, and hold that all the pleasure or benefit to be reaped from the association of the sexes
comes from the passing of this sexual magnetism from one to the other, and that it is this process which
Mrs. Slenker calls the blending of the sexual elements.

I hold that it is not the act of kissing, nor the holding of hands, nor the nude contact of the bodies which gives
pleasure in itself, but that these are only the modes by which this exchange is effected. On that account, when
the conditions are not favorable, we may kiss and find no pleasure in it, and close association, instead of giving
us pleasure, may cause the most unpleasant sensations. This proposition—that all pleasure and benefit of
sexual contact is due, not, as is usually supposed, to mechanical action or friction, but to the generation and
transfer of magnetism—compels the belief that sexual association, from its simplest form of the mere presence
of the individuals in the same room, passing through all the stages of holding hands, kissing, nude contact of
the body, to coition and ejection, are only instinctive means of increasing the amount of sexual magnetism
available for exchange, and thus increasing the number and vividness of the pleasant sensations; and that
procreation, which so often follows, is not the aim of the parties concerned, but a result provided by nature
for the maintenance of the race. And right here comes my objection to full indulgence. By listening to his
instinct instead of being controlled by his intelligence, the male, by the completion of the act, puts an end
to the blending of the male and female element, and the work of procreation commences. And if, as is
usually the case, the conditions for procreation are not favorable and the process is prevented by natural
or artificial causes, there is an unavoidable waste of a material which could have been used in the further
generation of sexual magnetism. So far I do not believe that Mrs. Slenker would find much objection to what
I have written. We would be agreed upon the benefit of the blending of sexual magnetism and the waste of
full indulgence except for procreation. But she would contend that the desired object can be best attained,
and with less risk, by Dianaism—that is, by the simple contact of the nude bodies, reserving the use of
the sexual organs for the work of procreation.

But Mrs. Slenker must admit that the sexual organs are the main seat of sexual passion, and that sexual
passion is due to an accumulation of sexual magnetism. Her own words are a proof of her belief. She
speaks of “man and woman full of passion, full of sexual fire, seeking modes of relief which are positively
appalling.” Now these modes of relief were clearly connected with the sexual organs, and their object was
to throw off something which, by its presence, was a disturbing element. It might be argued that in man it
was an accumulation of semen, but the same explanation would not hold good with woman. In her that
something is clearly not connected with procreation, and all the proofs point to the fact that it is an
accumulation of sexual magnetism. So far as I am concerned, such investigations as I have made have
led me to believe that there is no difference in the cause and nature of sexual passion and desire in
woman and in man, except that in man sexual association with woman is the only natural outlet, while
in woman maternity offers a chance of relief of which she naturally avails herself under certain conditions.
But when these conditions do not exist, the passions of men and women are due to the same cause
and can only be remedied by the same means. This cause is an accumulation of sexual magnetism,
greater in those persons of robust health and correct habits; and the relief is in sexual association,
which enables those persons to bestow on others the excess of their vitality and to receive the
overplus of others to their own advantage. If the proper blending of male and female elements, or
sexual magnetism, is conducive to pleasant sensations, and if the increase of pleasant sensations
is a legitimate pursuit of the human family, and if sexual magnetism accumulates in the sexual
organs, it seems to me the part of wisdom to retain their use for its proper accumulation and
distribution; and instead of discarding their use except for procreation, as Mrs. Slenker would have
us do, to educate them to the proper standard required for the desired result. After reading my
arguments, the question may fairly be asked: Is it practicable?

Are you not asking from the sexual organs work which was not ever intended for them? As to the first question,
the personal experience of many persons of both sexes in different parts of the Union proves it to be entirely
practicable, the best results being attained by the persons possessing the strongest constitutions and who have
cultivated perfect individual control. And the experience of the same persons goes to show that the sexual
organs are not only peculiarly fitted for the work required from them, but also especially benefited by it. The
immunity from womb diseases among the women of the Oneida Community was worthy of remark, and I
believe it is the universal testimony of both men and women who practice male continence that their sexual
organs have been much strengthened thereby. Probably male continence furnishes the best solution to the
questions propounded by Mrs. Slenker, especially “how all can have sexual satisfaction without being sexually
intemperate.” There is no standard of sexual temperance or intemperance; it can only be judged by results
upon individuals. We can say of a man or woman who has injured their health by sexual association that they
have been sexually intemperate, although they may have indulged at long intervals; while a man or woman
who suffers no evil result is temperate, although they may indulge ten times as often. Mrs. Slenker would
hardly admit that a person could be intemperate in Dianaism, and for my part I do not believe that a healthy
man or woman can be intemperate in male continence. But these questions will settle themselves when the
proper time arrives. For us, our part is to find out what is best for ourselves, leaving the responsibility of their
own conduct to those who will come after us. In conclusion, allow me to ask Mrs. Slenker one question.
How is it, if courtship is so much preferable to marriage, that widows and widowers ever marry—and not
only marry, but usually shorten their courtship as much as a proper regard for custom will allow? Which
shall we believe as to the comparative satisfaction experienced in courting and in close association:
their words or their actions?

Comments on Chavannes’ Article – Elmina’s Correspondent, 1/14/1887

I have never seen an article written in opposition to the Diana theory so full of Dianism as the letter of Albert
Chavannes in Lucifer of December 10. I hardly see anything in it to reply to; the reply seems to me to be simply
to add facts that he does not take into account. I shall only attempt, first, to throw out suggestions as to what
he has stated. We need integral cultivation for our highest development. If the sexual part of our nature is
cultivated properly, and not out of proportion, it is all right. The question here, then, is whether there is at
present a tendency toward an abnormally great cultivation of sexual feeling, either as a whole or with regard
to any of its manifestations. Alphism claims that there is such a tendency, derived from perverted action
through many generations; and Dianism claims that such tendency is chiefly, if not wholly, with regard to
the passional or electric manifestation. That comes up under the head of reserved topics. Alphism and
Dianism both claim that in emission “there is an unavoidable waste of material which could have been
used in the future generation of sexual magnetism,” and thus fully agree with the position taken by Mr.
C. The only question between us here is as to the best mode of obtaining sexual equilibration. The male
continence theory is that the result may be advantageously obtained by that mode. We admit that this is
so as compared with the old methods, and we admit that the burden of proof rests upon us to show that
Diana contact is a more advantageous method than male continence. That, too, I reserve. We also admit
that sexual passion is due to an accumulation of sexual magnetism. When maternity is wise, that is the
most natural relief. When maternity is not wise, Dianism provides another mode of relief, equally effective
if ample opportunity is given; and especially provides the ounce of prevention which will effectually prevent
such an accumulation of sexual magnetism as will demand relief.

Here I find the first and only positive misapprehension of the Diana view, and it is this misapprehension which
creates the only positive difference between us, even here. Dianism does not discard the use of the sexual
organs except for procreation, but asks that they shall be restricted to their proper use. That leaves open the
question whether male continence is a proper use. Dianism says no—reasons reserved—and says that the
proper use, when maternity is not wise, is the production and diffusion of affectional sexual feeling. Whether
this diffusion shall be accomplished by direct external contact of the sexual organs, or by other contact which
shall indirectly diffuse the magnetism, is a question to be decided in each individual case and at each individual
time. We say that there is proof that this mode of diffusion is practicable and efficient; and if so, it leaves
us, as before, only to show that it is better than the method of male continence. The paragraphs in which
experience—especially at Oneida—is appealed to merely compare it with experience under the old method,
and upon that question we are both on the same side. We agree also that what constitutes intemperance
can only be judged by results, although to some extent reason ought to be appealed to. We must look to
remote as well as proximate results; and sometimes, as in the case of the amount of food a starving man
may properly eat, we cannot wait for the results before our decision. But I do not admit that there may not
be intemperance in Dianism. We only claim that truly cultivated persons, under proper circumstances, would
have no inducement to be intemperate in Dianism. Probably the same could be said for male continence.
So we do not insist upon any special advantage there, except as to matters thus far reserved. As to the
concluding query: those who have had sexual contact and experienced its advantages, and who know
how next to impossible it is to have that outside of marriage, might well be expected to wish to shorten
the time of courtship—independent of all reasons connected with the habits of men and the desire of
women who love them to grant them every favor they properly can.

This brings me to the general consideration of the reserved topics; and these have been so fully gone into
in Diana itself, so far as publication on such a subject is safe, that I shall not attempt to add much here. The
first great point against male continence is that there is no safe preventive of conception. On that question
the burden of proof rests upon the defenders of male continence; and I have the advantage that the only
way they can disprove my assertion is by stating what is a safe preventive. If they do that—whether through
the public press, through sealed letters, or even through the express—they violate the law, and thus their
mouths are sealed. To be sure, such a law can only be properly spoken of with a big “D,” but it illustrates
the difficulty of discussing, in public or in private, the only points in dispute between us. If that “be careful”
law could be wiped out, I could bring forward evidence which I consider overwhelming in support of my
proposition. But I must let it rest here upon my say-so. It is then beyond contradiction that a woman who
consents to be a partner in male continence runs the danger of impregnation—no forethought or action of
her own saving her from what is so often a fearful peril. All the agony of dreaded anticipation, and the
occasional doom resulting in abortion, must be put in the scale against the “pleasant sensations” of the
few hours of male continence. When we add that those pleasant sensations, to one who has had sufficient
experience in entire nude contact to appreciate it, are very nearly equaled without internal contact, and
that internal contact restores the equilibrium sufficiently sooner to make up the difference—losing in time
even more than is gained in intensity—we see that, even if there were (as there is not) a safe preventive,
the advantage would still be in favor of the Diana method. This is with reference to the physical alone;
and the universal testimony is that the affection connected with nude contact is incomparably greater
than that which originates in, or finds satisfaction through, male continence.

Man’s Advantage – Henry Addis, 6/17/1892

Dianism is doing a great work for woman’s release from the burden of childbearing and unwilling submission
to man’s lust. Women, as well as men, suffer from sex starvation, but their unequal opportunities put women at
a very great disadvantage in this respect. Although she may know that she is starving sexually and may have
considerable knowledge of Dianistic methods, yet she is not allowed to make her needs known to some congenial
man, nor even to try to gain what she may by a simple companionship. Man, on the other hand, may see a woman
who, to his mind, is so constituted as to afford him just such exchange of magnetism as will be of the greatest
advantage to him. Society permits him to make advances to her, and by fair means or foul to accomplish, if he
can, the object, the desire for which prompted his advances. I have no objection to a man gaining the confidence
of a woman for the purpose of benefiting himself, if in so doing he does not injure her. On the contrary, I am in
favor of a public opinion that will allow men and women alike to express mutual desires toward each other, and
put no barrier in the way of any woman making her wish for a closer relationship known to any man when she
believes that relationship would benefit her. I am a Dianist in theory and would be in practice were circumstances
favorable. Being a Dianist, I of course advocate abstinence from the sex orgasm except for the purpose of
reproduction. Close observation and conversation with others convince me that if women were on equal footing
with men, Dianism would be practiced to a far greater extent than now. For instance, I know women who have
imbibed Dianistic ideas and who, were they free from Madam Grundy’s thraldom, would talk freely with some
man of their acquaintance on these subjects, and the consequence would be the profitable practice of Dianism
by two at least. On the other hand, I know men who would practice Dianism were some woman whom they
respect free to express her desires; but not knowing her thoughts and not being content to starve sexually,
man continues to indulge in the old-time practices, modified to the extent of his ability, while keeping his
theories from the other party concerned. And thus I could go on enumerating causes why Dianism and
other means of social purity and of woman’s emancipation from sex-slavery are greatly retarded by the
advantage which is accorded man in these matters.

Thus we are forced to the conclusion that the great and first step in woman’s emancipation from sex-slavery
is in according her equal privileges with man in making her needs known. And it should be the effort of every
advocate of woman’s emancipation to encourage her, by their own conduct as well as by constant advocacy,
to claim and to exercise every right which man himself claims and which woman may want. Line upon line and
precept upon precept, but above all the practical carrying out of advocated theories, is the way to accomplish
the much-desired end.

Another Advocate of Dianism – Thomas Lees, 8/12/1892

ED. LUCIFER:—Among the many excellent reformatory articles in every number of LUCIFER was one entitled
“Man’s Advantage,” contributed by Henry Addis in No. 32, which struck me as worthy of thought, particularly his
advocacy of Dianism. Diana, a pamphlet published by Eliza Burns of N.Y., and sold, I believe, by you, should be
obtained by every sexual reformer and used by men as a good missionary document. A new theory is set forth
by the author, which deserves closer attention among liberals, and is worthy of being reduced to practice, as in no
other way can its merits be determined. Diana points the way to higher moral grounds. If, as some claim, complete
sexual satisfaction is not obtained by its practice, there are many to whom it is satisfactory, and still many more
yet unfamiliar with the theory to whom it would, I believe, prove a blessing, whether married or single. The ladies
owe a vote of thanks to Henry for his manly championship of “Dianism” and woman’s right to make her love
manifest, should she so desire. I know of but few greater injustices committed by civilized society than debarring
unmarried women from all sexual interchange, while married ones, and men whether married or not, can run wild
in so doing. Compelling a woman, no matter how strong her sex nature, to pass through life untouched by man
—even as suggested in Diana—without branding her as immoral, is to me refined cruelty based on man’s one-
sided injustice. Mr. Addis, speaking as a Dianist, says, “Close observation and conversation with others convince
me that if women were on equal footing with men, ‘Dianism’ would be practiced to a far greater extent than now.”
There is but little doubt of this equality of the sexes coming some day; the sooner the better, say I. For while the
present inequality reigns and this double standard of morality is permitted to remain in force, can justice be done
women, or a much higher state of morality be obtained? Friends, read the article “Man’s Advantage” over again;
study “Dianism”; give it a trial. No harm can come from it; per contra, much good may. Whether equality of the sexes
would lead to woman’s proposing to man, or is desirable, I do not care to discuss at this time. My sympathies now,
and at all times, are for the champions of freedom, particularly for the one now undergoing imprisonment for
championing the cause of freethought, free speech, free press, and free postal laws, that you, I, and all of us
may enjoy the blessing this progress through freedom brings.

The Pittsburgh Problem – Diana, 12/16/1892

Your correspondents, H. E. Allen and G. W. Harper, surely cannot attribute to Dianism the evil which is attracting so
much attention at Pittsburgh, even with their ideas of what Dianism really is. On the other hand, I think I may rightly
charge it upon the theories they advocate, and may properly ask them what they propose to do about it. Let us see
what that problem is. Men in Pittsburgh whose sexual appetite is from “four” to forty times as great as any other
cerebral faculty, and who are utterly controlled by it, have fostered and supported with their money a traffic in
women’s bodies, not only inducing women living there to embark in it for a livelihood, but attracting other women
from abroad. The city government undertook to regulate the evil by passing an ordinance against it; but those
whose duty it was to enforce the law allowed it to remain a dead letter, lest these poor men should “suffer in
health” or lose “tone and character.” With this additional advantage in their favor—a sympathy great enough to
defy the law—the class of prostitutes became more and more numerous. At last, perhaps stimulated by a similar
attack upon the same class in other cities, the ministers of Pittsburgh demanded of the mayor that he enforce
the law and drive this class of women out from their homes into the streets. The mayor, under protest but in
obedience to the law, issued the order. The women, who have been from the first acting in good faith, ask that
they shall not be thus dealt with. The question is: What ought the city authorities of Pittsburgh to do about it?
Should they enforce the law, and in the first days of winter deprive this class of women of their homes and their
only present means of livelihood? Or should they repeal the law and adopt less stringent measures—and if so,
what? If it were true that the sexual appetite demands such gratification, some provision ought to be made for
those who have no means of such gratification in their home lives; and it is for those who insist that such is the
natural law to devise some other plan if they object to that which now exists and which has existed in all ages
of the world. A class of women who contribute to the public health by their self-sacrifice should be honored and
encouraged, instead of being driven out from their homes at a few hours’ notice.

Here is an opportunity for Messrs. Allen and Harper to point out a way for carrying their theories into effect without
trampling women under foot. Dianism has no share in this responsibility. While it does not teach the repression of
any natural faculty, but rather the proper cultivation of all, it asserts that this class of women are not benefiting the
community, and that the men who patronize them are not benefiting themselves either physically or morally. On the
contrary, it asserts that such use of the sexual faculty, whether in or out of marriage, is an abuse of sexuality. As a
question of science, it stops right there. But as a question of humanity, we should take into consideration long generations
of perversion encouraged by false teachings of physicians and physiologists. Although Mr. Allen may be correct in
saying that “almost every acknowledged physician and physiologist” at this day teaches that natural appetites should
never be repressed, there are many who now teach that an appetite which condemns woman to prostitution is not
a natural appetite. I am free to say, then, that while theoretically I condemn prostitution, I do not believe we should
continue to trample under foot those who have been driven into that calling by man’s injustice and selfishness.

Dianism vs. Budlongism – Elmina Drake Slenker, 1/20/1893

While appreciating the liberalism of a reverend who dares discuss sex in a free paper like LUCIFER, I must perforce
defend the child of my adoption, “Diana.” It is true I did not write the book, but I have borne most of the odium accruing
from its publication. I have lost friends, money, reputation, and husband, but count the world well lost so that truth
and right prevail. And I have yet to hear the first real argument or proof against Dianism—against the theory of no
sex-intercourse save for propagation. As to “natural desires,” nature is much what she is educated to be. Nearly all
of us have a natural desire for stimulants—especially alcoholic beverages, wine and beer, tea and coffee—and yet
I hold that we are better off without any of them. Probably there are few men who have not a “natural desire” to engage
in illegitimate sex with women. Not many men pass through a whole life without feeling this desire at some time or
other. But reason forbids them yielding to it, and they restrain. We have reiterated again and again that we are dead
set against anyone “starving to death their sexual nature.” We want men and women, boys and girls, to be together
everywhere—to walk, play, read, study, and live together. We want to wipe out all purely male organizations—Free
Masons, Oddfellows, G.A.R. societies, and everything else that is so selfish as to shut out the mothers, wives, daughters,
and sisters from their natural companions. We want perfect sexual equality everywhere, from the presidential chair
to the home circle. If there should be any natural ruler, it would be the mother. The Rev. C. J. Budlong says: “Sexual
intercourse between a man and woman who truly and purely love each other is honorable and right in every sense.”
Now I hold this to be a mistake. Pure love may exist where every principle of right makes sexual relations a wrong. In
England it is wrong to marry one’s wife’s sister, and no matter how pure the love, law says no; and we must respect law
and public opinion more or less, or be ostracized. A married man ceases to love his wife and “purely and truly” loves
another man’s wife, and she loves him. To yield to this love, sexually, cannot be right and honorable “in every sense.”
You can think of hundreds of cases where love does not admit of full fruition save in the Diana sense of the term.

Our friend thinks this “natural desire” should be gratified. If so, there should be a way provided whereby all should
receive satisfaction, and no one’s sexual nature be “starved to death.” If we separate all husbands and wives who
have ceased to “purely and truly love each other,” and count up the widows, widowers, bachelors and maids, old
and young, and seamen, soldiers, and travelers—we shall find an immense army of people who are compelled to
starve sexually. Compelled by circumstances, many of which are beyond their control. But the love nature of each
one of these needs gratifying just as much as does the “natural desire” of the few loving married ones. Dianism says
to this vast crowd of outsiders: Love wherever you can and whomever you can. If you cannot be where you have
personal access to a beloved one, write letters full of magnetic affection and sympathy, and thus keep in rapport
with them. Love one, or love a dozen—but no coition save for propagation. Not because it is a sin or a crime, but
because it is a waste of vital force and a misapplication of love’s “natural desires.” Diana is especially written for
the married. It will do away with all need for contraceptives, as well as ninety-nine one-hundredths of sexual diseases.
Seduction, age of consent controversies, infanticide, and “holy virgin mothers” will all cease to be once Diana rules
the world. Of the 100,000 families of working men in Glasgow, Scotland, 41,000 live in a single room. In that single
room are gathered father, mother, sons, and daughters. They live so because their wages are too small to afford
better accommodation. Half the men and women are now out of work and cannot make even the smallest wages.
Glasgow is known the world over as the nearest modern approach to ancient Sodom for bestial vice.

And of all these thousands, how many are there who “truly and purely love each other,” and would not be far better
off to love Dianawise than as our friend advises? There are now 90,000 idle workmen in the East End of London.
Would not fewer and better children be best for them? You may claim that we are cutting off marital pleasures, but
we know that we are adding to them tenfold. A little comfortable home, with a child or two when parents can afford
it—and love all the time. What a paradise in comparison with 60,000 inhabitants crowded into 930 common lodging
houses, as it now is in London, and New York City fast arriving at the same condition. If our friend can find a better
way out of the sexual puzzle than this “abominable” Diana abstinence, we shall be glad of his solution.

Dianism Vindicated – Caeca, 1/27/1893

“He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.” — Bible I have been deeply interested
in the discussion of Dianism now going on in LUCIFER, for it must and will do good. But the trouble with Mr. Allen and
Mr. Caldwell is that they do not know what Dianism is. Mr. Caldwell’s definition of Dianism, in his second paragraph,
is one of his own invention and is not a definition of Dianism at all. But in his third paragraph he gives a much better
definition. He says: “The association of the sexes, without loss of self-respect, might wisely be commendable, provided
the motives, tendencies, and results were helpful and elevating.” Now that is precisely what the advocates of Dianism
claim for it. They do not pursue any methods to prevent the legitimate results of physical union, because they know
that the results of intimate sex association on the Diana plane are good—and only good. For the past seven years I
have been a close observer of its effects on those who have practiced it, and I have never known a single instance in
which anyone was injured in the manner stated by Mr. Caldwell, or in any way. But I have known of a number of cases
where physical health has been much improved, the mental faculties cleared and quickened, and a few cases in which
persons have been snatched from the very jaws of the grave. Humanity has always crucified its saviors, and this one
is no exception. No, Mr. Caldwell, Dianism is not “a vile invention of lust,” but is one of the grandest discoveries ever
made by man. It is the only thing that will solve the problem of the social evil, or prostitution; because when men and
women shall have learned of the beautiful results of Dianism, houses of ill fame, so called, will no longer exist, but will
be closed for want of patronage. In saying that “Diana association excites passion, congests the blood in the organs of
generation,” and that “in natural, sensible union this congested state is speedily relieved,” Mr. Caldwell echoes the
sentiment of every libertine, of every patron of houses of prostitution, and of every brutal husband who violates the
person of his unwilling wife—inflicting upon her more of the burden of undesired maternity than she can bear, peopling
the world with physical and mental imbeciles. They all say they must have relief. But if anyone will practice the pure
teachings of Dianism, they will soon learn that it gives all the “relief” that any reasonable person needs, and does no
violence or wrong to any. By earnest investigation, honestly pursued, Mr. Caldwell can learn that Dianism, instead of
being the vile thing his brain has conjured up, may yet be discovered as “the stone which the builders heretofore
rejected,” and may yet become the head of the corner in the great moral temple of humanity yet to be built.