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).