It is a vast question, and I am glad to think of it. I know only that lustful relations and mutilation are equally bad and sinful. But the latter, mutilation, is worse. In sensual practices there is no pride but shame: but in mutilation there is no shame -men are even proud of having suddenly broken God's law to deliver themselves from temptation and struggle. It is one's heart one should castrate; then external mutilation would be unnecessary. But mutilation of one's members will not deliver us from temptation. People are caught in this snare because it is quite impossible to slay in one's heart the sex lust alone -one must destroy all lusts, one must so love God that one hates all the vanities of life. And this is a long road. And here it appears as though, once for all, by a short road, one can liberate oneself from the most evident and humiliating sin. But the pity is that by such short cuts one often does not attain one's destination, but instead falls into a swamp. *****
Marriage of course is good and necessary for the continuation of the race; but if people marry for this purpose, it is incumbent on them that they should feel in themselves the power of education their children not to become parasites but the servants of men and God. And for this it is necessary that they have the power of living not by the labor of others but by their own labor -giving more to men than they take. Whereas we have the burgess idea that one may marry only when one has firmly established oneself on other people's necks, that is, when one "has the mean." Just the reverse is wanted. Only he should marry who is able to live and educate his child without "having means." Such parents alone can educate their children well. *****
