Martinus: Livets Bog, vol. 5, sect. 1738

1738. What then is this divine will, and what is happening before our very eyes in the form of supposed sexual debauchery? Indeed, here we are now compelled – just as in the entire remaining part of our research – to go to the speech of life itself. Studying dogmas, the Bible or other well-known sacred books is no longer of any use. They are books on morality for only a specific, limited section or area of the highest fire – precisely the part of it that has the sole task of promoting reproduction. Here the history of sexual life is therefore set forth only in a way that is biased in favour of this section. In relation to other aspects of this divine fire, these traditional books and moral traditions are therefore bound to fail completely.
What then does dispassionate Nature or life's own direct speech tell us about the sexual life of the terrestrial human being? The first fact is that traditional moral concepts regarding sexual life can no longer dam up the evolution of this life. There are more and more people who infringe traditional morality. None of the moral commandments or restraints set up by human beings can come close to damming up this infringement or so-called "debauchery". The next major fact is that the sexual force appears in a state that is so colossally over-proportioned that the part of this force that is used for reproduction is but negligibly small. If people were to consider how small a percentage of all instances of sexual intercourse results in reproduction, they would be extremely surprised. It can be no exaggeration, indeed, it would be a low estimate, to say that within marriage alone there would normally be no more than one fertilisation for every fiftieth intercourse. There are 52 weeks in a year, and it cannot be unnatural to reckon on one sexual connection or sexual act per week for a normal, sexually mature married couple. But this sexual life can result in only one fertilisation or one child per year. Here we do not take into account twins, triplets, quadruplets or quintuplets, since these are exceptions and are therefore insignificant in a general analysis. But even if we included these exceptions, it would not change the ratio to any significant extent. That fertilisation also constitutes only a very small number in comparison to the number of times unmarried people have intercourse during their sexual life is established as fact through the millions upon millions of contraceptives that are manufactured and used. So here the over-proportioned state of the sexual organ function is evident. But of what use is this enormous, over-proportioned sexual force, which is not used for fertilisation or the reproduction of mankind? What about the 98 per cent of intercourses within marriage that cannot result in fertilisation? What about the millions of intercourses within the sphere of unmarried people that cannot result in fertilisation either? What about the enormous percentage of infertile sexual acts that occur within marriages in which there is only one child or two? If we reckon on 15 years of fertility within such a marriage, the fertilisation ratio will be 1 to 779 for a marriage with one child, and 2 to 778 for a marriage with two children. What is the purpose of this huge, over-proportioned organ function or force? It cannot be merely in order to bring about fertilisation, which is of course merely a negligible, minor detail in this huge, psychic process. The fact is, however, established here that it is to just as great an extent in order to satisfy a hunger that dwells within the individual in the same way as the purely nutritional hunger does. It demands satisfaction just as this latter hunger does. The sexual organ function in the living being is thus a mental or spiritual counterpart to the purely physical process of hunger and satiation. The highest fire is a cosmic system of nutrition.