5. Violation of Individuals Under the Age of Fourteen.
(Austrian Statutes, § 128, 132; Austrian Abridgment, § 189, 1913; German Statutes, § 174, 1763)
By violation of sexually immature individuals, the jurist understands all the possible immoral acts with persons under fourteen years of age that are not comprehended in the term rape. The term violation, in the legal sense of the word, comprehends the most horrible perversions and acts, which are possible only to a man who is controlled by lust and morally weak, and, as is usually the case, lacking in sexual power.
A common feature of these crimes, committed on persons that are more or less children, is that they are unmanly, childish, and often silly. It is a fact that such acts, with exceptions in pathological cases, like those of imbeciles, paretics, and senile dements, are almost exclusively committed by young men who lack courage or have no faith in their virility; or by roués who have, to some extent, lost their virility. It is psychologically incomprehensible that an adult of full virility, and mentally sound, should indulge in sexual abuses with children.
The imagination of debauchees, in actively or passively picturing the immoral acts, is exceedingly lively; and that the following enumeration of the sexual acts of this kind known to law exhausts all the possibilities is questionable. Most frequently the abuse consists of sexual handling (under some circumstances, flagellation[[137]]), active manustupration, or seducing children by inducing them to perform onanism, or lustful handling, on the seducer. Less frequent acts are cunnilingus, irrumare on boys or girls, pædicatio puellarum, coitus inter femora, and exhibition.
In a case which Maschka reports (“Handb.,” iii, p. 174), a young man had naked girls, from eight to twelve years old, dance about in his room, and urinate before him, until he ejaculated. Not infrequently boys are abused by sensual women, who undertake to bring about conjunctio membrorum with them, in order to satisfy themselves by means of friction or onanism.[[138]]
Tardieu saw one of the most disgusting examples. A servant, in company with her lover, masturbated children intrusted to them, performed cunnilingus with a girl of seven, and introduced parsnips and potatoes into her vagina, and put similar things into the rectum of a baby of two years!
Case 185. Z., aged 62; deeply tainted, masturbator. He states he has never had coitus, but has frequently practiced fellatio. He is in an asylum, on account of paranoia. It had been his greatest pleasure to entice girls, aged from ten to fourteen years, and practice cunnilingus and other vile acts with them. In these acts he had orgasm and ejaculation. Masturbation did not give him the same satisfaction, and induced ejaculation only with difficulty. Faute de mieux he also practiced fellatio with men; occasionally an exhibitionist. Phimosis; asymmetrical cranium. (Pelanda, Arch. di Psichiatria, x. fascic. 3, 4.)
Case 186. X., priest, aged 40. He was accused of enticing girls, aged from ten to thirteen, undressing and fondling them lustfully, and finally masturbating. He is tainted, and has been an onanist from childhood; morally imbecile; always very excitable sexually. Head somewhat small. Penis unusually large; indications of hypospadiasis. (Pelanda, loc. cit.)
Case 187. K., aged 23; laborer. He was accused and convicted of repeatedly enticing boys, and now and then girls, to an out-of-the-way place, and practicing abuses with them (mutual masturbation, fellatio puerorum, fondling of the genitals of the girls).
K. is an imbecile, and physically deformed, being scarcely 1.5 metres tall; cranium rachitic and hydrocephalic; teeth bad,—furrowed, defective, and irregular. Large lips, idiotic expression, stuttering speech, and an awkward attitude complete the picture of psycho-physical degeneration. K. behaves like a child discovered in some mischievous act. Scarcely any growth of beard. Genitals well and normally developed. He has a superficial consciousness of having done something improper, but he is unconscious of the moral, social, and legal significance of his crimes.
K. comes of a drunken father, and a mother who became insane from the abuse of her husband, and died in an asylum. In his babyhood the boy was almost blinded by corneal ulcers, and, after his sixth year, he grew up with an almoner, and later with difficulty earned his living as an organ-grinder. His brother is good for nothing, and the culprit himself was considered a surly, quarrelsome, evil, moody, irritable man. The opinion emphasized the intellectual, moral, and physical defect of the culprit.
Unfortunately it must be admitted that the most revolting of these crimes are done by sane individuals who, by reason of satiety in normal sexual indulgence, lasciviousness, and brutality, and not seldom during intoxication, forget that they are human beings.
A great number of these cases, however, certainly depend upon pathological states. This is particularly true where old men become the seducers of children.[[139]]
I agree with Kirn, who, under all circumstances, in cases of this kind, holds a mental examination to be always necessary; since, frequently enough, a re-awakened, perverse, abnormally intense, and uncontrollable sexual desire is shown to be one of the manifestations of a senile dementia.
6. Unnatural Abuse—Sodomy.[[140]]
(Austrian Statutes, § 129; Abridgment, § 190; German Statutes, § 175.)
(a) Violation of Animals—Bestiality.[[141]]
Violation of animals, monstrous and revolting as it seems to mankind, is by no means always due to psycho-pathological conditions. Low morality and great sexual desire, with lack of opportunity of natural indulgence, are the principal motives of this unnatural means of sexual satisfaction, which is resorted to by women as well as by men.
To Polak we owe the knowledge that in Persia bestiality is frequently practiced because of the delusion that it cures gonorrhœa; just as in Europe an idea is still prevalent that intercourse with children heals venereal disease.
Experience teaches that bestiality with cows and horses is none too infrequent. Occasionally the acts may be undertaken with goats, bitches, and, as a case of Tardieu’s and one by Schauenstein show (Lehrb., p. 125), with hens.
The action of Frederick the Great, in the case of a cavalryman who had committed bestiality with a mare, is well known: “The fellow is a beast, and shall be reduced to the infantry.”
The intercourse of females with beasts is limited to dogs. A monstrous example of the moral depravity in large cities is related by Maschka (“Handb.,” iii),—the case of a Parisian female who showed herself in the sexual act with a trained bull-dog, to a secret circle of roués, at 10 francs a head.
There has been, heretofore, but little legal consideration of the mental condition in those given to violation of animals. In several cases known to the writer, the individuals were weak-minded. In Schauenstein’s case there was insanity.
The following case of bestiality is one that was certainly conditioned by disease. He was an epileptic. In this case the desire for animals appeared as an equivalent of the normal sexual desire:—
Case 188. X., peasant, aged 40; Greek-Catholic. Father and mother were hard drinkers. Since his fifth year patient has had epileptic convulsions,—i.e., he falls down unconscious, lies still two or three minutes, and then gets up and runs wildly about with staring eyes. Sexuality was first manifested at seventeen. The patient had inclinations neither for women nor for men, but for animals (birds, horses, etc.). He had intercourse with hens and ducks, and later with horses and cows. Never any onanism.
The patient paints pictures of saints; is of very limited intelligence. For years, religious paranoia, with states of ecstasy. He has an “unspeakable” love for the Virgin, for whom he would sacrifice his life. Taken to hospital, he proves to be free from infirmity and signs of degeneration.
He had always had an aversion for women. In a single attempt at coitus with a woman he was impotent, but with animals he was always potent. He is ashamed before women; coitus with women he regards almost as a sin. (Kowalewsky, Jahrb. f. Psychiatrie, vii, Heft 3.)
Case 189. On the afternoon of September 23, 1889, W., aged 16, shoemaker’s apprentice, caught a goose in a neighbor’s garden, and committed bestiality on the fowl until the neighbor approached. On being accused by the neighbor, W. said, “Is there anything wrong with the goose?” and then went away. At his examination he confessed the act, but excused himself on the ground of temporary loss of mind. Since a severe illness, in his twelfth year, he several times a month had attacks, with heat in his head, in which he was intensely excited sexually, could not help himself, and did not know what he did. He had done the act in such an attack. He answered for himself in the same way at the trial, and stated that he knew nothing of the species facti except from the statements of the neighbor. His father states that W., who comes of a healthy family, has always been sickly since an attack of scarlatina in his fifth year, and that, at the age of twelve, he had a febrile cerebral disease. W. had a good reputation, learned well in school, and, later, helped his father in his work. He was not given to masturbation.
The medical examination revealed no intellectual or moral defect. The physical examination revealed normal genitals; penis relatively greatly developed; marked exaggeration of the patellar reflexes. In other respects, negative result.
The history of the condition at the time of the deed was not to be depended upon. There was no history of previous attacks of mental disturbance, and there were none during the six weeks of observation. There was no perversion of the vita sexualis. The medical opinion allowed the possibility that some organic cause (cerebral congestion), dependent upon cerebral disease, may have exercised an influence at the time of the commission of the criminal act. (From the opinion of Dr. Fritsch, of Vienna.)
Case 190. Impulsive Sodomy.—A., aged 16; gardener’s boy; born out of wedlock; father, unknown; mother, deeply tainted, hystero-epileptic. A. has a deformed, asymmetrical cranium, and deformity and asymmetry of the bones of the face; the whole skeleton is also deformed, asymmetrical, and small. From childhood he was a masturbator; always morose, apathetic, and fond of solitude; very irritable, and pathological in his emotional reaction. He is imbecile, probably much reduced physically by masturbation, and neurasthenic. Besides, he presents hysteropathic symptoms (limitation of the visual field, dyschromatopsia; diminution of the senses of smell, taste, and hearing on the right side; anæsthesia of the right testicle, clavus, etc.).
A. is convicted of having committed masturbation and sodomy on dogs and rabbits. When twelve years old he saw how boys masturbated a dog. He imitated it, and thereafter he could not keep from abusing dogs, cats, and rabbits in this vile manner. Much more frequently, however, he committed sodomy on female rabbits,—the only animal that had a charm for him. At dusk he was accustomed to repair to his master’s rabbit-pen, in order to gratify his vile desire. Rabbits with torn rectums were repeatedly found. The act of bestiality was always done in the same manner. There were actual attacks which came on every eight weeks, always in the evening, and always in the same way. A. would become very uncomfortable, and have a feeling as if some one were pounding his head. He felt as if losing his reason. He struggled against the imperative idea of committing sodomy with the rabbits, and thus had an increasing feeling of fear and intensification of headache, until it became unbearable. At the height of the attack there was sound of bells, cold perspiration, trembling of the knees, and, finally, loss of resistive power, and impulsive performance of the perverse act. As soon as this was done, he lost all anxiety; the nervous cycle was completed, and he was again master of himself, deeply ashamed of the deed, and fearful of the return of an attack. A. states that, in such a condition, if called upon to choose between a woman and a female rabbit, he could make choice only of the latter. In the intervals, of all domestic animals, he is partial only to rabbits. In his exceptional states simple caressing or kissing, etc., of the rabbit suffices, as a rule, to afford him sexual satisfaction; but sometimes he has, when doing this, such furor sexualis that he is forced to wildly perform sodomy on the animal.
The acts of bestiality mentioned are the only acts which afford him sexual satisfaction, and they constitute the only manner in which he is capable of sexual indulgence. A. states that, in the act, he never had a lustful feeling, but satisfaction, inasmuch as he was thus freed from the painful condition into which he was brought by the imperative impulse.
The medical evidence easily proved that this human monster was a psychically degenerate, irresponsible invalid, and not a criminal. (Boeteau, La France médicale, 38th year, No. 38.)
The following case seems to be devoid of a psychopathic basis:—
Case 191. Sodomy.—In a provincial town a man was caught in intercourse with a hen. He was thirty years old, and of high social position. The chickens had been dying one after another, and the man causing it had been searched for a long time. To the question of the judge, as to the reason for such an act, the accused said that his genitals were so small that coitus with women was impossible. Medical examination showed that the genitals were actually extremely small. The man was mentally entirely sound.
There were no statements concerning any abnormalities at the time of puberty, etc. (Gyurkovechky, “Männl. Impotenz,” 1889, p. 82.)
(b) With Persons of the Same Sex—Pederasty; Sodomy in its Strict Sense.
German law takes cognizance of unnatural sexual relations only between men; Austrian, between those of the same sex; and, therefore, unnatural relations between women are punishable.
Among the immoralities between men, pederasty (immissio penis in anum) claims the principal interest. Indeed, the jurist thought only of this perversity of sexual activity; and, according to the opinions of distinguished interpreters of the law (Oppenhoff, “Stgsb.,” Berlin, 1872, p. 324, and Rudolf and Stenglein, “D. Strafgesb. f. d. Deutsche Reich,” 1881, p. 423), immissio penis in corpus vivum belongs to the criminal act covered by § 175.
According to this interpretation, legal punishment would not follow other improper acts between male persons, so long as they were not complicated with offense to public decency, with force, or undertaken with boys under the age of fourteen. Of late this interpretation has again been abandoned, and the crime of unnatural abuse between men has been assumed when merely acts similar to cohabitation were performed.[[142]]
The study of contrary sexual instinct has placed male love of males in a very different light from that in which it, and particularly pederasty, stood at the time the statutes were framed. The fact that there is no doubt about the pathological basis of many cases of contrary sexual instinct shows that pederasty may also be the act of an irresponsible person, and makes it necessary, in court, to examine not merely the deed, but also the mental condition of the perpetrator.
The principles laid down previously must also be adhered to here. Not the deed, but only an anthropological and clinical judgment of the perpetrator can permit a decision as to whether we have to do with a perversity deserving punishment, or with an abnormal perversion of the mental and sexual life, which, under certain circumstances, excludes punishment. The next legal question to settle is whether the contrary sexual feeling is congenital or acquired; and, in the latter case, whether it is abnormal perversion or moral perversity.
Congenital contrary sexual instinct occurs only in predisposed (tainted) individuals, as a partial manifestation of a defect evidenced by anatomical or functional abnormalities, or both. The case becomes clearer, and the diagnosis more certain, if the individual, in character and disposition, seems to correspond entirely with his sexual peculiarity; and if the inclination toward persons of the opposite sex is entirely wanting, and horror of sexual intercourse with them is felt; and if the individual, in the impulses to satisfy the contrary sexual instinct, shows other anomalies of the sexual sphere, such as more pronounced degeneration in the form of periodicity of the impulse and impulsive conduct, and is a neuropathic and psychopathic person.
Another question concerns the mental condition of the urning. If this be such as to remove the possibility of moral responsibility, then the pederast is not a criminal, but an irresponsible insane person. This condition in congenital urnings is apparently less frequent than another. As a rule, these cases present elementary psychical disturbances, which do not remove responsibility. But this does not settle the question of the responsibility of the urning. The sexual instinct is one of the most powerful organic needs. There is no law that looks upon its satisfaction outside of marriage as punishable in itself; if the urning feels perversely, it is not his fault, but the fault of a condition natural to him. His sexual instinct may be æsthetically very repugnant, but, from his stand-point, it is natural. And, too, in the majority of these unfortunates, the perverse sexual instinct is abnormally intense, and their consciousness recognizes it as nothing unnatural. Thus they fail to have moral and æsthetic ideas to assist them in resisting the instinct. Innumerable normally constituted men are in a position to overcome the desire for satisfaction of their libido without suffering from it in health. Many neuropathic individuals,—and urnings are almost always neuropathic,—on the contrary, become nervously ill when they do not satisfy the sexual desire, either as Nature prompts or in a way that is for them perverse.
The majority of urnings are in a painful situation. On the one hand, there is an impulse toward persons of their own sex that is abnormally intense, the satisfaction of which has a good effect, and is natural to them; on the other, is public sentiment which stigmatizes their acts, and the law which threatens them with punishment. Before them lies mental despair,—even insanity and suicide,—at the very least, nervous disease; behind them, shame, loss of position, etc. It cannot be doubted that, under these circumstances, states of necessity and compulsion may be created by the unfortunate natural disposition and constitution. Society and the law should understand these facts. The former must pity, and not despise, such unfortunates; the latter must cease to punish them,—at least, while they remain within the limits which are set for the activity of their sexual instinct.
As a confirmation of these opinions and demands concerning these step-children of Nature, it is permissible to reproduce here the memorial of an urning to the author. The writer of the following lines is a man of high position in London:—
“You have no idea what a constant struggle we all—particularly those of us that have the most mind and finest feelings—have to endure, and how we suffer under the prevailing false ideas about us and our so-called immorality.
“Your opinion that the phenomenon under consideration is primarily due to a congenital ‘pathological’ disposition will, perhaps, make it possible to overcome existing prejudices, and awaken pity for poor, ‘abnormal’ men, instead of the present repugnance and contempt. Much as I believe that the opinion expressed by you is exceedingly beneficial to us, I am still compelled, in the interest of science, to repudiate the word ‘pathological’; and you will permit me to express a few thoughts with respect of it.
“Under all circumstances the phenomenon is anomalous; but the word ‘pathological’ conveys another meaning, which I cannot think suits this phenomenon; at least, as I have had occasion to observe it in very many cases. I will allow, a priori, that, among urnings, a far higher proportion of cases of insanity, of nervous exhaustion, etc., may be observed than in other normal men. Does this increased nervousness necessarily depend upon the character of urningism, or is it not, in the majority of cases, to be ascribed to the effect of the laws and the prejudices of society, which prohibit the indulgence of their sexual desires, depending on a congenital peculiarity, while others are not thus restrained?
“The youthful urning, when he feels the first sexual promptings and näively expresses them to his comrades, soon finds that he is not understood; he shrinks into himself. If he tell his parents or teacher what moves him, that which is as natural to him as swimming is to a fish is described as wrong and sinful, and he is told it must be fought and overcome at any price. Then an inner conflict begins, a powerful repression of sexual inclinations; and the more the natural satisfaction of desire is repressed, the more lively the fancy becomes, and paints the very pictures that the wish is to banish. The more energetic the character that carries on this inner conflict, the more the whole nervous system must suffer. Such a powerful repression of an instinct so deeply implanted in us, in my opinion, develops the abnormal symptoms which are observed in many urnings; but this does not necessarily follow from the urning’s disposition.
“Some continue the conflict for a longer or shorter time, and thus injure themselves; others at last come to the knowledge that the powerful instinct born in them cannot possibly be sinful, and, therefore, they cease to try to do the impossible,—the repression of the instinct. Then, however, begin constant suffering and excitement. When a normal man seeks satisfaction of sexual inclination, he knows how to find it easily; it is not so with the urning. He sees men that attract him, but he dares not say—nay, not even betray by a look—what his feelings are. He thinks that he alone of all the world has such abnormal feelings. Naturally he seeks the society of young men; but he does not venture to confide in them. Thus he comes to provide himself with a satisfaction that he cannot otherwise obtain. Onanism is practiced inordinately, and followed by all the evil results of that vice. When, after a time, the nervous system has been injured, the abnormality is again not the result of urningism, but it is produced by the onanism to which the urning resorts, as a result of the public sentiment that denies him opportunity to satisfy the sexual instinct that is natural to him.
“Or, let us suppose the urning has had the rare fortune to soon find a person like himself; or, that he has been introduced by an experienced friend to the events of the world of urnings. Then he is spared much of the inner conflict; but, at the same time, fearful cares and anxieties follow his footsteps. Now he knows that he is not the only one in the world that has such abnormal feelings; he opens his eyes and wonders that he meets so many of his kind in all social circles and in all callings; he also learns that, in the world of urnings, as in the other, there is prostitution, and that men as well as women can be bought. Thus there is no longer any want of opportunity for sexual satisfaction. But here how differently the experience is gained from that obtained in the normal manner of sexual indulgence!
“Let us consider the happiest case. After longing all one’s life, the friend of like feeling is found. But he cannot be approached openly, as a lover approaches the girl he loves. In constant fear, both must conceal their relations; nay, even intimacy that might easily excite suspicion—especially should they not be of like age, or should they belong to different classes—must be kept from the world. Thus, even in this relation, is forged a chain of anxiety and fear that the secret will be betrayed or discovered, which leaves them no joy in the indulgence. The slightest thing that would not affect others makes them tremble with fear that suspicion might be excited and the secret discovered, and destroy social position and business. Could this constant anxiety and care be endured without leaving a trace, without exerting an influence on the entire nervous system?
“Another less fortunate man does not find a friend of like feeling, but falls into the hands of a handsome man, who sought him until the secret was discovered. Now the most refined blackmail is extorted. The unfortunate, persecuted man, brought to the alternative of paying or of losing his social position, and bringing disgrace on himself and his family, pays; and the more he gives, the more voracious the vampire becomes; until at last there remains nothing but absolute financial ruin or dishonor. Who can wonder that nerves are not equal to such a terrible struggle!
“They give way; insanity comes on; and the miserable man at last finds the rest in an asylum that he could not find in the world. Another, in the same situation, driven to despair, finds relief in suicide. It cannot be known how many of the suicides of young men are to be attributed to this combination of circumstances.
“I do not think that I am in error when I declare that at least one-half of the suicides of young men are due to such conditions. Even in those cases where urnings are not persecuted by a heartless villain, but where a happy relation between two men exists, discovery, or even the fear of it, very often leads to suicide. How many officers, how many soldiers, having such relations with their subordinates or companions, in the moment when they have believed themselves discovered, have sought to escape the threatened disgrace by means of a bullet! And it is the same in all callings.
“Therefore, if it must be admitted that, among urnings, more mental abnormalities and more insanity are actually observed than among other men, yet this does not prove that the mental disturbance is a necessary accompaniment of the urning’s condition, and that the latter induces the former.
“According to my firm conviction, by far the greater number of cases of mental disturbance or abnormal disposition observed in urnings are not to be attributed to the sexual anomaly; but they are caused by the existing notions concerning urnings, and the resulting laws, and dominant public sentiment concerning the anomaly. Any one with an adequate idea of the mental and moral suffering, of the anxiety and care, that the urning must endure; of the constant hypocrisy and secrecy he must practice, in order to conceal his inner instinct; of the difficulties that meet him in satisfying his natural desire,—can only be surprised that more insanity and nervous disturbance does not occur in urnings. The greater part of these abnormal states would not be developed, if the urning, like another, could find a simple and easy way in which to satisfy his sexual desire,—if he were not forever troubled by these anxieties!”
De lege lata, as far as the urning is concerned, the paragraph with reference to pederasty must not be applied without the proof of actual pederasty; and psychical and somatic abnormalities must be examined by experts with respect of an estimate in the individual of the question of guilt.
De lege ferenda, the urnings wish a repeal of the paragraphs. The jurist could not consent to this, if he were to remember that pederasty is much more frequently a disgusting vice than the result of physical and mental infirmity; and that, moreover, many urnings, though driven to sexual acts with their own sex, are yet in nowise compelled to indulge in pederasty,—a sexual act which, under all circumstances, must stand as cynical, disgusting, and, when passive, as certainly injurious. Whether for reasons of expediency (difficulty of fixing the guilt, encouragement of blackmail, etc.), it would not be opportune to strike from the statutes the legal punishment of the male-loving man, and to protect youth by the use of the paragraphs concerning sexual abuses, is a future question for jurists.
What has been said concerning congenital contrary sexuality and its relation to the law is also applicable to the acquired abnormality. The accompanying neurosis or psychosis should have much diagnostic and forensic weight with reference to the question of guilt.
It only remains to describe acquired non-pathological pederasty,—one of the saddest pages in the history of human delinquencies:—
Cultivated Pederasty.[[143]]
The motives that bring to pederasty a man originally normal sexually and of sound mind are various. It is used temporarily as a means of sexual satisfaction faute de mieux,—as in infrequent cases of bestiality,—where abstinence from normal sexual indulgence is a necessity.[[144]] It thus occurs on ship-board during long voyages, in prisons, in baths, etc. It is highly probable that, among men subjected to such conditions, there are single individuals of low morals and great sensuality, or actual urnings, who seduce the others. Lust, imitation, and desire further their purpose.
The strength of the sexual instinct is most markedly shown by the fact that such circumstances are sufficient to overcome repugnance for the unnatural act.
Another category of pederasts is made up of old roues that have become supersatiated in normal sexual indulgence, and who find in pederasty a means of exciting sensual pleasure, the act being a new method of stimulation. Thus they temporarily renew their power, that has been psychically and physically reduced to so low a state. The new sexual situation makes them, so to speak, relatively potent, and makes pleasure possible that is no longer possible in normal intercourse. In time power to indulge in pederasty is also lost. The individual may thus finally be reduced to passive pederasty as a stimulus to make possible temporary active pederasty; just as, occasionally, flagellation or looking on at obscene acts (Maschka’s case of mutilation of animals) is resorted to for the same purpose.
The termination of sexual activity expresses itself in all kinds of abuse of children,—cunnilingus, fellare, and other enormities.
This kind of pederasts is the most dangerous, since they deal mostly with boys, and ruin them in body and soul.
In reference to this, the experiences of Tarnowsky (op. cit., p. 53 et seq.), gathered from the society of St. Petersburg, are terrible. The places where pederasty is cultivated are Institutes. Old roués and urnings play the rôle of seducers. At first it is difficult for the person to carry out the disgusting act. Fancy is made to assist by calling up the image of a woman. Gradually, with practice, the unnatural act becomes easy, and at last the individual, like one injured by masturbation, becomes relatively impotent for women, and lustful enough to find pleasure in the perverse act. Such individuals, under certain circumstances, give themselves for money.
As Tardieu, Hofmann, Simon, and Taylor show, such individuals are not infrequently found in large cities. From numerous statements made to me by urnings, it is learned that actual prostitution and houses of prostitution for male-loving men exist in large cities. The arts of coquetry used by these male prostitutes are noteworthy,—ornament, perfumes, feminine styles of dress, etc., to attract pederasts and urnings. This imitation of feminine peculiarities is spontaneous and unconscious in congenital cases, and in many acquired cases of (abnormal) contrary sexual instinct.
The following lines are of interest to the psychologist, and offer the officers of the law important facts concerning the social life and practice of pederasts:—
Coffignon, “La Corruption à Paris,” p. 327, divides active pederasts into “amateurs,” “entreteneurs,” and “souteneurs.”
The “amateurs” (“rivettes”) are debauched persons, but also frequently congenitally perverse sexually, of position and fortune, who are forced to guard themselves against detection in the gratification of their homo-sexual desires. For this purpose they visit brothels, lodging-houses, or the private houses of female prostitutes, who are usually on good terms with male prostitutes. Thus they escape blackmail.
Some of these “amateurs” are cunning enough to indulge their vile desires in public places. They thus run the risk of arrest, but, in a large city, little risk of blackmail. Danger is said to add to their secret pleasure.
The “entreteneurs” are old sinners who, even with the danger of falling into the hands of blackmailers, cannot deny themselves the pleasure of keeping a (male) mistress.
The “souteneurs” are pederasts that have been punished, who keep their “jesus,” whom they send out to entice customers (“faire chanter les rivettes”), and who then, at the right moment, if possible, appear for the purpose of plucking the victim.
Not infrequently they live together in bands, the members, in accordance with individual desire, living together as husbands and wives. In such bands there are formal marriages, betrothals, banquets, and introductions of brides and grooms into their apartments.
These “souteneurs” attach their “jesus” to themselves.
The passive pederasts are “petits jesus,” “jesus,” or “aunts.”
The “petits jesus” are lost, depraved children, whom accident places in the hands of active pederasts, who seduce them, and reveal to them the horrible means of earning a livelihood, either as “entretenus” or as male street-walkers, with or without “souteneurs.”
The most suitable and promising “petits jesus” are given into the hands of persons who instruct these children in the art of female dress and manner. Gradually they then seek to emancipate themselves from their teachers and masters, in order to become “femmes entretenues”; and not infrequently by means of anonymous denunciation of their “souteneurs” to the police.
It is the object of the “souteneur” and the “petit jesus” to make the latter appear young, as long as possible, by means of all the arts of the toilet.
The limit of age is about twenty-five years; then they all become “jesus” and “femmes entretenues” and are then sustained by several “souteneurs.” The “jesus” fall into three categories: “filles gallantes,” i.e., those that have fallen again into the hands of a “souteneur”; “pierreuses” (ordinary street-walkers, like their female colleagues); and “domestics.”
The “domestics” hire out to active pederasts, either to gratify their desires or to obtain “petits jesus” for them.
A sub-group of these “domestics” is formed by such of them as enter the service of “petits jesus” as “femmes de chambre.” The principal object of these “domestics” is to use their positions to obtain compromising knowledge, with which they later practice blackmail, and thus assure themselves ease in their old age.
The most horrible class of active pederasts is made up of the “aunts,”—i.e., the “souteneurs” of (male) prostitutes,—who, though normal sexually, are morally depraved, and practice pederasty (passive) only for gain, or for the purpose of blackmail.
The wealthy “amateurs” have their reunions and places of meeting, where the passive ones appear in female attire, and horrible orgies take place. The waiters, musicians, etc., at such gatherings, are all pederasts. The “filles gallantes” do not venture, except during the carnival, to show themselves on the street in female dress; but they know how to lend to their appearance something indicative of their calling, by means of style of dress, etc. They entice by means of gesture, peculiar movements of the hands, etc., and lead their victims to hotels, baths, or brothels.
What the author says of blackmail is generally known. There are cases where pederasts have allowed their entire fortune to be wrung from them.
The following notice from a Berlin (National?) newspaper, of February, 1884, which fell into my hands by accident, seems suited to show something of the life and customs of urnings:—
“The Woman-Haters’ Ball.—Almost every social element of Berlin has its social reunions,—the fat, the bald-headed, the young,—and why not the woman-haters? This species of men, so interesting psychologically and none too edifying, had a great ball to-day. ‘Grand Vienna Mask-Ball,’—so ran the notice. The sale of tickets was very rigorous; they wish to be very exclusive. Their rendezvous was a well-known dance-hall. We enter the hall about midnight. The graceful dancing is to the strains of a fine orchestra. Thick tobacco-smoke, veiling the gas-lights, does not allow the details of the moving mass to become obvious; only during the pause between the dances can we obtain a closer view. The masks are by far in the majority; black dress-coats and ball-gowns are seen only now and then.
“But what is that? The lady in rose-tarletan, that just now passed us, has a lighted cigar in the corner of her mouth, and puffs like a trooper; and she also wears a small, blonde beard, lightly painted out. And yet she is talking with a very décolleté ‘angel’ in tricots, who stands there, with bare arms folded behind her, likewise smoking. The two voices are masculine, and the conversation is likewise very masculine; it is about the ‘d— tobacco, that permits no air.’ Two men in female attire. A conventional clown stands there, against a pillar, in soft conversation with a ballet-dancer, with his arm around her faultless waist. She has a blonde ‘Titus-head,’ sharp-cut profile, and apparently a voluptuous form. The brilliant ear-rings, the necklace with a medallion, the full, round shoulders and arms, do not permit a doubt of her ‘genuineness,’ until, with a sudden movement, she disengages herself from the embracing arm, and, yawning, moves away, saying, in a deep bass, ‘Emile, you are too tiresome to-day!’ The ballet-dancer is also a male!
“Suspicious now, we look about further. We almost suspect that here the world is topsy-turvy; for here goes, or, rather, trips, a man—no, no man at all, even though he wears a carefully trained moustache. The well-curled hair; the powdered and painted face with the blackened eyebrows; the golden ear-rings; the bouquet of flowers reaching from the left shoulder to the breast, ornamenting the elegant black gown; the golden bracelets on the wrists; the elegant fan in the white-gloved hand,—all these things are anything but masculine. And how he toys with the fan! How he dances and turns, and trips and lisps! And yet kindly Nature made this doll a man. He is a salesman in a great millinery store, and the ballet-dancer mentioned is his ‘colleague.’
“At a little corner-table there seems to be a great social circle. Several elderly gentlemen press around a group of décolleté ladies, who sit over a glass of wine and—in the spirit of fun—make jokes that are none too delicate. Who are these three ladies? ‘Ladies!’ laughs my knowing friend. ‘Well, the one on the right, with the brown hair and the short, fancy dress, is called “Butterrieke,” and he is a hair-dresser; the second one—the blonde in a singer’s costume, with the necklace of pearls—is known here by the name of “Miss Ella of the tight-rope,” and he is a ladies’ tailor; and the third,—that is the widely-celebrated “Lottie.”
“But that person cannot possibly be a man? That waist, that bust, those classic arms, the whole air and person are markedly feminine!
“I am told that ‘Lottie’ was once a book-keeper. To-day she, or, rather, he, is exclusively ‘Lottie,’ and takes pleasure in deceiving men about his sex as long as possible. ‘Lottie’ is singing a song that would hardly do for a drawing-room, in a high voice, acquired by years of practice, which many a soprano might envy. ‘Lottie’ has also ‘worked’ as a female comedian. Now the quondam book-keeper has so entered into the female rôle that he appears on the street in female attire almost exclusively, and, as the people with whom he lodges state, uses an embroidered night-dress.
“On closer examination of the assembly, to my astonishment, I discover acquaintances on all hands: my shoemaker, whom I should have taken for anything but a woman-hater—he is a ‘troubadour,’ with sword and plume; and his ‘Leonora,’ in the costume of a bride, is accustomed to place my favorite brand of cigars before me in a certain cigar-store. ‘Leonora,’ who, during an intermission, removes her gloves, I recognize with certainty by her large, blue hands. Right! There is my haberdasher, also; he moves about in a questionable costume as Bacchus, and is the swain of a repugnantly bedecked Diana, who works as a waiter in a beer-restaurant. The real ‘ladies’ of the ball cannot be described here. They associate only with one another, and avoid the woman-hating men; and the latter are exclusive, and amuse themselves, absolutely ignoring the charms of the women.”
These facts deserve the careful attention of the police, who should be placed in a position to cope with male prostitution, as they now do with that of women.
Male prostitution is certainly much more dangerous to society than that of females; it is the darkest stain on the history of humanity.
From the statements of a high police official of Berlin, I learn that the police of Berlin are conversant with the male demi-monde of the German Capital, and do all they can to suppress blackmail among pederasts,—a practice which often does not stop short of murder.
The foregoing facts justify the wish that the law-maker of the future may, for reasons of utility, at least, abandon the prosecution of pederasty.
With reference to this point, it is worthy of note that the French Code does not punish it so long as it does not become an offense to public decency. Probably for politico-legal reasons, the new Italian Penal Code passes over the crime of unnatural abuse in silence, as do the statutes of Holland and, as far as I know, Belgium and Spain.
In how far such cultivated pederasts are to be regarded as mentally and morally sound may remain an open question. The majority of them suffer with genital neuroses. At least, in these cases, there are the stages of transition to acquired pathological contrary sexual instinct. The responsibility of these individuals, who are certainly much lower than the women who prostitute themselves, in general cannot be questioned.
The various categories of male-loving men, with respect of the manner of sexual indulgence, may be thus characterized in general:—
The congenital urning becomes a pederast only exceptionally, and eventually resorts to it after having practiced and exhausted all the possible immoral acts with males. Passive pederasty is for him the ideally and practically adequate form of the sexual act. He practices active pederasty only to please another. The most important point here is the congenital and unchangeable perversion of the sexual instinct.
It is otherwise with the pederast by cultivation. He has once acted normally sexually, or, at least, had normal inclinations, and occasionally has intercourse with the opposite sex. His sexual perversity is neither congenital nor unchangeable. He begins with pederasty and ends in other perverse sexual acts, induced by weakness of the centres for erection and ejaculation. At the height of his power, his sexual desire is not for passive, but for active pederasty. He yields himself to passive pederasty only to please another; for money, in the rôle of a male prostitute; or as a means, when virility is declining, to make active pederasty still occasionally possible.
A horrible act, that must be alluded to, in conclusion, is pædicatio mulierum,[[145]] and even uxorum. Sensual individuals sometimes do it with hardened prostitutes, or even with their wives. Tardieu gives examples where men, usually practicing coitus, sometimes indulged in pederasty with their wives. Occasionally fear of a repetition of pregnancy may induce the man to perform, and the woman to tolerate, the act.
Case 192. Imputation of pederasty that was not proved. Résumé from the legal proceedings:—
On May 30, 1888, Dr. S., chemist, of H., in an anonymous letter, was accused by his step-father of having immoral relations with G., aged 19, the son of a butcher. Dr. S. received the letter, and, astounded by its contents, hastened to his lawyer, who promised to proceed discreetly in the matter, and to ascertain from the authorities whether he would be publicly prosecuted.
On the next morning, G., who lived in the house of Dr. S., was arrested. At the time he was sick with gonorrhœa and orchitis. Dr. S. tried to induce the authorities to release G., and advised caution, but he was refused. In his statement to the judge, S. said that he became acquainted with G. on the street, three years previously, and then saw no more of him until the fall of 1887, when he met him in his father’s shop. After November G. supplied Dr. S.’s kitchen with meat,—coming in the evening to get the order, and bringing the meats the next morning. Thus S. gradually became well acquainted with G., and came to have a very friendly feeling for him. When S. fell ill and was, for the most part, confined to his bed until the middle of May, 1888, G. gave him so much attention that S. and his wife were much attracted to him on account of his harmless, child-like, and happy disposition. Dr. S. showed and explained to him his collection of curiosities, and they spent the evenings pleasantly together, the wife also being usually present; besides, S. and G. experimented in making sausages, jelly, etc. In February, 1888, G. fell ill with gonorrhœa. Dr. S., being his friend, and having studied medicine for several terms, took care of G., procured medicine for him, etc. In May, G. being still sick, and, for several reasons, inclined to leave home, S. and his wife took him into their own home to care for him. S. denied the truth of all the suspicions that had been raised by this relation, and defended himself by pointing to his life of previous respectability, his education, and to the fact that G., at the time, was suffering with a disgusting, contagious disease, and that he himself had a painful affection (nephritic calculus, with occasional attacks of colic).
Opposed to this statement of Dr. S.’s must be mentioned the facts that were brought out in court, and which led to conviction in the first trial.
The relation of S. to G. had, by reason of its obviousness, given cause for remark by private individuals, as well as by those in public houses. G. spent almost all his evenings with S.’s family, and, finally, came to be quite at home there. They took walks together. Once, while out on such a walk, S. said to G. that he was a pretty fellow, and that he (S.) was very fond of him. On the same occasion, there was also talk of sexual matters, and also of pederasty. S. said he touched on these subjects only to warn G. With reference to the intercourse at home, it was proved that occasionally S., while sitting on a sofa, embraced G., and kissed him. This happened in the presence of the wife, as well as of the servant-girls. When G. was ill with gonorrhœa, S. instructed him in the method of using a syringe, and, at the time, took the penis in his hand. G. testified that S., in answer to his question why he was so fond of him, said, “I don’t know, myself.” When, one day, G. remained away, S., with tears in his eyes, complained of it to him when he returned. S. also told him that his marriage was unhappy, and, in tears, begged G. not to leave him; that he must take the place of his wife.
From all this resulted the just accusation, that the relation between the culprits had a sexual direction. The fact that all was open and known to everybody, according to the complaint, did not speak for the harmlessness of the relation, but more for the intensity of the passion of S. The spotless life of the accused was allowed, as well as his honesty and gentleness. The probability of an unhappy marriage, and that S. was of a very sensual nature, was shown.
During the course of the trial, G. was repeatedly examined by the medical experts. He is scarcely of medium size, pale, and of powerful frame; penis and testicles are very perfectly developed (large).
In consonance with the accusation, it was found that the anus was pathologically changed, in that there were no wrinkles in the skin about it and the sphincter was relaxed; and it was presumed that these changes pointed to the probability of passive pederasty.
The conviction was based on these facts. The judgment passed recognized that the relation that existed between the culprits did not necessarily point to unnatural abuses, any more than did the physical conditions found on the person of G.
However, by reason of the combination of the two facts, the court was convinced of the guilt of both culprits, and held it proved: “That the abnormal condition of G.’s anus had been caused by the frequently repeated introduction of the penis of S., and that G. voluntarily permitted the performance of this immoral act on himself.”
Thus the conditions of § 175, R. St. G. B., seemed to be covered. In passing sentence, there was consideration of S.’s education, which made him appear to be G.’s seducer; in G.’s case, this fact and his youth were given weight; and the previous respectability of both was held in view. Thus Dr. S. was sentenced to imprisonment for eight months, and G. for four months.
The culprits appealed to the Supreme Court at Leipzig, and prepared themselves, in case the appeal should be denied, to collect evidence sufficient to call for a new trial.
They subjected themselves to examination and observation by distinguished experts. The latter declared that G.’s anus presented no signs of indulgence in passive pederasty.
Since it seemed of importance to those interested to make clear the psychological aspect of the case, which was not touched on at the trial, the author was intrusted with the examination and observation of Dr. S. and G.
Results of the Personal Examination, from December 11 to 13, 1888, in Graz.—Dr. S., aged 37; two years married, without children. Ex-Director of the City Laboratory of H. He comes of a father who is said to have been nervous, owing to great activity; who had an apoplectic attack in his fifty-seventh year, and died, at the age of sixty-seven, of another attack of apoplexy. His mother is living, and is described as a strong person, who has been nervous for years. Her mother reached quite an old age, and is said to have died of a cerebellar tumor. A brother of the mother’s father is said to have been a drinker. The paternal grandfather died early, of softening of the brain.
Dr. S. has two brothers, who are in perfect health.
He states that he is of nervous temperament, and has been of strong constitution. After articular rheumatism, which he had in his fourteenth year, he suffered with great nervousness for some months. Thereafter he often suffered with rheumatic pains, palpitation, and shortness of breath. These symptoms gradually disappeared with sea-bathing. Seven years ago he had gonorrhœa. This disease became chronic, and for a long time caused bladder-difficulty.
In 1887 he had his first attack of renal colic, and he had such attacks repeatedly during the winter of 1887 and 1888, until May 16, 1888, when quite a large renal calculus was passed. Since then his condition had been quite satisfactory. While suffering with stone, during coitus, at the moment of ejaculation, he felt severe pain in the urethra, and the same pain on urinating.
With reference to his life, S. states that he attended the Gymnasium until he was fourteen, but after that, owing to the results of his severe illness, he studied privately. He then spent four years in a drug-store, and then studied medicine for six semesters at the University, serving, in the war of 1870, as a voluntary hospital assistant. Since he had no certificate of graduation from the Gymnasium, he gave up the study of medicine, and obtained the degree of doctor of philosophy. Then he served in the Museum of Minerals in K., and later as assistant in the Mineralogical Institute of H. Thereafter he made special studies in the chemistry of food-stuffs, and five years ago became Director of the City Laboratory.
He makes all these statements in a prompt, precise manner, and does not think long about his answers; so that one is more and more led to think that he is a man who loves and speaks the truth,—the more, since, on the following day, his statements are identical. With reference to his vita sexualis, Dr. S., in a modest, delicate, and open way, states that, in his eleventh year, he began to have a knowledge of the difference of the sexes, and for some time, until his fourteenth year, was given to onanism. He first had coitus at eighteen, and thereafter indulged moderately. His sensual desire had never been very great, but, until lately, the sexual act had been normal in every way, and accompanied by gratifying pleasurable feeling and full virility. Since his marriage, two years ago, he had cohabited with his wife exclusively. He had married his wife out of love, and still loved her, having coitus with her at least several times a week. The wife, who was also at hand, confirmed these statements.
All cross-questioning with reference to a perversion of sexual feeling toward men Dr. S. answered repeatedly in the negative, to repeated examination, and that without contradiction or any thought of the answers. Even when, in order to trap him, he is told that the proof of a perverse sexual instinct would be of avail in the trial, he sticks to his statements. One gains the important impression that S. has not the slightest knowledge of the facts of male-love. Thus it is learned that his lascivious dreams have never been about men; that he is interested only in female nudity; that he liked to dance with ladies, etc. No traces of any kind of sexual inclination for his own sex can be discovered in S. With reference to his relations with G., Dr. S. expresses himself exactly as he did at his examination before the court. In explanation of his partiality for G., he can only say that he is nervous, and a man of feeling and great sensibility, and very sensitive to friendliness. During his illness he had felt very lonesome and depressed; his wife had frequently been with her parents; and thus it had happened that he had become friendly with G., who was so gentle and kind. He still had a weakness for him, and felt remarkably quiet and contented while in his society.
He had had two such close friendships previously: when he was yet a student, with a corps-brother, a Dr. A. whom he also embraced and kissed; later, with a Baron M. When it happened that he could not see him for a few days, he became depressed, and even cried.
He also had a similar feeling and attachment for animals. Thus he had a poodle that died a short time ago, mourned like a member of the family; and he had often kissed the animal. (On relating this, the tears came to his eyes.) His brother confirmed these statements, with the remark, with reference to his brother’s remarkable friendship for A. and M., that in these instances there was not the slightest suspicion of sexual coloring or relation. Too, the most careful and detailed examination of Dr. S. gave not the slightest reason for such a presumption.
He states that he never had the slightest sensual feeling for G., to say nothing of erection or sensual desire. His partiality for G., which bordered on jealousy, S. explained as due merely to his sentimental temperament and his inordinate friendship. G. was still as dear to him as if he were his son.
It is worthy of note that S. stated that when G. told him about his love-adventures with girls, it had hurt him only because G. was in danger of injuring himself and ruining his health by dissipation. He had never felt hurt himself by this. If he knew a good girl for G. he would be glad to rejoice with him, and do all he could to promote their marriage.
S. states that it was first in the course of his legal examination that he saw how he had been careless in his intercourse with G., by causing gossip. His openness he explained as due to the innocence of the friendship.
It is worthy of note that S.’s wife never noticed anything suspicious in the intercourse between her husband and G., though the most simple wife would instinctively notice anything of that nature. Mrs. S. had also made no opposition to receiving G. into the house. On this point she remarked that the guest-chamber in which G. lay ill, was on the second floor, while the living apartments were on the fourth; and, further, that S. never associated alone with G. as long as he was in the house. She states that she is convinced of her husband’s innocence, and that she loves him as before.
Dr. S. states freely that formerly he had often kissed G., and talked with him about sexual matters. G. was much given to women, and in friendship he had often warned him about sexual dissipation, particularly when G., as often happened, did not look well. He had once said that G. was a handsome fellow; it was in a perfectly harmless relation.
The kissing of G. had been due to inordinate friendship, when G. had shown him some particular attention, or pleased him especially. In the act he had never had any sexual feeling. Too, when he had now and then dreamed of G., it was in a perfectly harmless way.
It appeared of great importance to the author to form also an opinion of G.’s personality. On December 12th, the desired opportunity was given, and G. was carefully examined.
G. is a young man, aged 20, of delicate build, whose development corresponds with his years; and he appears to be neuropathic and sensual. The genitals are normal and well developed. The author thinks he may be permitted to pass over the condition of the anus, as he does not feel called upon to pass judgment upon it. With prolonged association with G., one gets the impression that he is a harmless, kind, and artless man, who is light-minded, but not morally depraved. Nothing in his dress or manner indicates perverse sexual feeling. There cannot be the slightest suspicion that he is a male courtesan.
When G. is introduced in medias res, he states that S. and he, feeling their innocence, had told the matter as it actually was, and on this the whole trial had been based.
At first, S.’s friendship, and especially the kissing, had seemed remarkable, even to him. Later he had convinced himself that it was merely friendship, and had then thought no more about it.
G. had looked upon S. as a father-like friend; for he was so unselfish, and loved him so.
The expression “handsome fellow” was made when G. had a love-affair, and when S. expressed his fears about a happy future for G. At that time S. had comforted him, and said that his (G.’s) appearance was pleasing, and that he would make an eligible match.
Once S. had complained to him (G.) that his wife was inclined to drink, and burst into tears. G. was touched by his friend’s unhappiness. On this occasion S. had kissed him, and begged for his friendship, and asked him to visit him frequently.
S. had never spontaneously directed the conversation to sexual matters. G. once asked what pederasty was, of which he had heard much while in England; and S. had explained it to him.
G. acknowledges that he is sensual. At the age of twelve he had been made acquainted with sexual matters by school-mates. He had never masturbated, had first had coitus at the age of eighteen, and had since visited brothels frequently. He had never felt any inclination for his own sex, and had never experienced any sexual excitement when S. kissed him. He had always had pleasure in coitus normally performed. His lascivious dreams had always been of women. With indignation, and pointing to his descent from a healthy and respectable family, he repels the insinuation of having been given to passive pederasty. Until the gossip about them came to his ears, he had been innocent and devoid of suspicion. The anal anomalies he tries to explain in the same way that he did at the trial. Auto-masturbation in ano he denies.
It should be noted that Mr. J. S. claims to be no less astonished by the charge against his brother of male-love than those more closely associated with him. Yet he could not understand what attached his brother to G.; and all the explanations which S. made to him concerning his relation to G. were vain.
The author took the trouble to observe Dr. S. and G., in a natural way, while they were dining, in company with S.’s brother and Mrs. S., in Graz. This observation revealed not the slightest sign of improper friendship.
The general impression which Dr. S. made on me was that of a nervous, sanguine, somewhat overstrained individual, but, at the same time, kind, open-hearted, and very emotional.
Dr. S. is physically strong, somewhat corpulent, with a symmetrical, brachycephalic cranium. The genitals are well developed; the penis somewhat bellied; the prepuce somewhat hypertrophied.
Opinion.—Pederasty is, unfortunately, not infrequent among mankind to-day; but still, occurring among the peoples of Europe, it is an unusual, perverse, and even monstrous manner of sexual gratification. It presumes a congenital or acquired perversion of the sexual instinct, and, at the same time, defect of moral sense that is either original or acquired, as a result of pathological influences.
Medico-legal science is thoroughly conversant with the physical and psychical conditions from which this aberration of the sexual instinct arises; and in the concrete and doubtful case it seems requisite to ascertain whether these empirical, subjective conditions necessary for pederasty are present. Too, it is essential to distinguish between active and passive pederasty.
Active pederasty occurs:—
I. As a non-pathological phenomenon:—
1. As a means of sexual gratification, in case of great sexual desire, with enforced abstinence from natural sexual intercourse.
2. In old debauchees, who have become satiated with normal sexual intercourse, and more or less impotent, and also morally depraved; and who resort to pederasty, in order to excite their lust with this new stimulus, and aid their virility, that has sunk so low psychically and physically.
3. Traditionally, among certain barbarous races that are devoid of morality.
II. As a pathological phenomenon:—
1. Upon the basis of congenital contrary sexual instinct, with repugnance for sexual intercourse with women, or even absolute incapability of it. But, as even Casper knew, pederasty, under such conditions, is very infrequent. The so-called urning satisfies himself with a man by means of passive or mutual onanism, or by means of coitus-like acts (e.g., coitus inter femora); and he resorts to pederasty only very exceptionally, as a result of intense sexual desire, or with a low or lowered moral sense, out of desire to please another.
2. On the basis of acquired contrary sexual instinct:—
(a) As a result of long years of onanism, which finally causes impotence for women with continuance of intense sexual desire.
(b) As a result of severe mental disease (senile dementia, brain-softening of the insane, etc.), in which, as experience teaches, an inversion of the sexual instinct may take place.
Passive pederasty occurs:—
I. As a non-pathological phenomenon:—
1. In individuals of the lowest class, who, having had the misfortune to be seduced in boyhood by debauchees, endured pain and disgust for the sake of money, and became depraved morally, so that, in more mature years, they have fallen so low that they take pleasure in being male prostitutes.
2. Under circumstances analogous to those of I, 1,—as a remuneration to another for having allowed active pederasty.
II. As a pathological phenomenon:—
1. In individuals affected with contrary sexual instinct, with endurance of pain and disgust, as a return to men for the bestowal of sexual favors.
2. In urnings who feel toward men like women, out of desire and lust. In such female-men there is horror feminæ and absolute incapability for sexual intercourse with women. Character and inclinations are feminine.
The empirical facts that have been gathered by legal medicine and psychiatry are all included in this classification. Before the court of medical science, it would be necessary to prove that a man belonged to one of the above categories in order to carry the conviction that he was a pederast.
In the life and character of Dr. S., one searches in vain for signs which place him in one of the categories of active pederasts which science has established. He is neither one forced to sexual abstinence, nor one made impotent for women by debauchery; neither is he congenitally male-loving, nor alienated from women by masturbation, and attracted to men through continuance of sexual desire; and, finally, he is not sexually perverse as a result of severe mental disease.
In fact, the general conditions necessary for the occurrence of pederasty are wanting in him,—moral imbecility or moral depravity, on the one hand, and inordinate sexual desire, on the other.
It is likewise impossible to classify the accomplice, G., in any of the empirical categories of passive pederasty; for he possesses neither the peculiarities of the male prostitute nor the clinical marks of effemination; and he has not the anthropological and clinical stigmata of the female-man. He is, in fact, the very opposite of all this.
In order to make a pederastic relation between the two plausible medico-scientifically, it would be requisite for Dr. S. to present the antecedents and marks of the active pederasts of I, 2, and G., those of the passive pederasts of II, 1 or 2.
The assumption lying at the basis of the verdict is, from a psychological stand-point, legally untenable.
With the same right, every man might be considered a pederast. It remains to consider whether the explanations given by Dr. S. and G. of their remarkable friendship are psychologically valid.
Psychologically it is not without parallel that so sentimental and eccentric a man as S.—without any sexual excitement whatever—should entertain a transcendental friendship. It suffices to recall the friendship of school-girls, the self-sacrificing friendship of sentimental young persons in general, and the partiality which this sensitive man sometimes showed even for domestic animals,—where no one would think of sodomy. With S.’s mental character, extraordinary friendship for the youth G. may be easily comprehended. The openness of this friendship permits the conclusion that it was innocent, much rather than that it depended upon sensual passion.
The defendants succeeded in obtaining a new trial. The new trial took place on March 7, 1890. There was much evidence presented in favor of the accused.
The previous moral life of S. was generally acknowledged. The Sister of Charity who cared for G. in S.’s house, never noticed anything suspicious in the intercourse between S. and G. S.’s former friends testified to his morality, his deep friendship, and his habit of kissing them on meeting or leaving them. The anal abnormalities previously found on G. were no longer present. Experts called by the court allowed the possibility that they had been due simply to digital manipulations; their diagnostic value in any case was contested by the experts called by the defense.
The court recognized that the imputed crime had not been proved, and exonerated the defendants.
Lesbian Love.[[146]]
Where the sexual intercourse is between adults, its legal importance is very slight; it could come into consideration only in Austria. In connection with urningism, this phenomenon is of anthropological and clinical value. The relation is the same, mutatis mutandis, as between men. Lesbian love does not seem to approach urningism in frequency. The majority of female urnings do not act in obedience to an innate impulse, but they are developed under conditions analogous to those which produce the urning by cultivation.
These “forbidden friendships” flourish especially in penal institutions for females.
Kraussold (op. cit.) reports: “The female prisoners often have such friendships, which, when possible, extend to mutual manustupration.
“But temporary manual gratification is not the only purpose of such friendships. They are made to be enduring,—entered into systematically, so to speak,—and intense jealousy and a passion for love are developed which could scarcely be surpassed between persons of opposite sex. When the friend of one prisoner is merely smiled at by another, there are often the most violent scenes of jealousy, and even beatings.
“When the violent prisoner has been put in irons, in accordance with the prison-regulations, she says ‘she has had a child by her friend.’”
We are indebted to Parent-Duchatelet (“De la prostitution,” 1857, vol. i, p. 159) for interesting communications concerning Lesbian love.
According to this experienced author, repugnance for the most disgusting and perverse acts (coitus in axilla, inter mammæ, etc.) which men perform on prostitutes is not infrequently responsible for driving these unfortunate creatures to Lesbian love. From his statements it is seen that it is essentially prostitutes of great sensuality who, unsatisfied with intercourse with impotent or perverse men, and impelled by their disgusting practices, come to indulge in it.
Besides these, there are prostitutes who let themselves be known as given to tribadism; persons who have been in prisons for years, and in these hot-beds of Lesbian love, ex abstinentia, acquired this vice.
It is interesting to know that prostitutes hate those who practice tribadism,—just as men abhor pederasts; but female prisoners do not regard the vice as indecent.
Parent mentions the case of a prostitute who, while intoxicated, tried to force another to Lesbian love. The latter became so enraged that she denounced the indecent woman to the police. Taxil (op. cit. p. 166, 170) reports similar instances.
Mantegazza (“Anthropol. culturhistorische Studien,” p. 97) also finds that sexual intercourse between women has especially the significance of a vice which arises on the basis of unsatisfied hyperæsthesia sexualis.
In many cases of this kind, however, aside from congenital contrary sexual instinct, one gains the impression that, just as in men (vide supra), the cultivated vice gradually leads to acquired contrary sexual instinct, with repugnance for sexual intercourse with the opposite sex.
At least Parent’s cases were probably of this nature. The correspondence with the lover was quite as sentimental and exaggerated in tone as it is between lovers of the opposite sex; unfaithfulness and separation broke the heart of the one abandoned; jealousy was unbridled, and led to bloody revenge. The following cases of Lesbian love, by Mantegazza, are certainly pathological, and possibly examples of congenital contrary sexual instinct:—
1. On July 5, 1777, a woman was brought before a court in London, who, dressed as a man, had been married to three different women. She was recognized as a woman, and sentenced to imprisonment for six months.
2. In 1773, another woman, dressed as a man, courted a girl, and asked for her hand; but the trick did not succeed.
3. Two women lived together as man and wife for thirty years. On her death-bed the “husband” confessed her secret to those about her.
Coffignon (op. cit., p. 301) makes later statements worthy of notice.
He reports that this vice is, of late, quite the fashion,—partly owing to novels on the subject, and partly as a result of excessive work on sewing-machines, the sleeping of female servants in the same bed, seduction in schools by depraved pupils, or seduction of daughters by perverse servants.
The author declares that this vice (“saphism”) is met more frequently among ladies of the aristocracy and prostitutes.
He does not differentiate physiological and pathological cases, nor, among the latter, the acquired and congenital cases. The details of a few cases, which are certainly pathological, correspond exactly with the facts that are known about men of contrary sexuality.
The saphists have their places of meeting, recognize each other by peculiar glances, carriage, etc. Saphistic pairs like to dress and ornament themselves alike, etc. They are then called “petites sœurs” (little sisters).
7. Necrophilia.[[147]]
(Austrian Statutes, § 306.)
This horrible kind of sexual indulgence is so monstrous that the presumption of a psychopathic state is, under all circumstances, justified; and Maschka’s recommendation, that the mental condition of the perpetrator should always be investigated, is well founded. In any case, an abnormal and decidedly perverse sensuality is required to overcome the natural repugnance which man has for a corpse, and permit a feeling of pleasure to be experienced in sexual congress with a cadaver.
Unfortunately, in the majority of the cases reported, the mental condition was not examined; so that the question whether necrophilia is compatible with mental soundness must remain open. But any one having knowledge of the horrible aberrations of the sexual instinct would not venture, without further consideration, to answer the question in the negative.