The expression “bondage” is not to be construed to mean J. S. Mill’s “Bondage of Woman.” What Mill designates with this expression are laws and customs, social and historical facts. Here, however, we always speak of facts having peculiar individual motives that even conflict with prevalent customs and laws.
[80]. Perhaps the most important element is, that by the habit of submission a kind of mechanical obedience, without consciousness of its motives, which operates with automatic certainty, may be established, having no opposing motives to contend with, because it lies beyond the threshold of consciousness; and it may be used by the dominant individual like an inanimate instrument.
[81]. Sexual bondage, of course, plays a rôle in all literatures. Indeed, for the poet, the extraordinary manifestations of the sexual life that are not perverse form a rich and open field. The most celebrated description of masculine “bondage” is that by Abbé Prévost, “Mano Lescault.” An excellent description of feminine “bondage” is that of “Leone Leoni,” by George Sand. But first of all comes Kleist’s “Käthchen von Heilbronn,” who himself called it the counterpart of (sadistic) “Penthesilea.” Halm’s “Griseldis” and many other similar poems also belong here.
[82]. Cases may occur in which the sexual bondage is expressed in the same acts that are common in masochism. When rough men whip their wives, and the latter suffer for love, without, however, having a desire for blows, we have a pseudo form of bondage that may simulate masochism.
[83]. It is very interesting, and dependent upon the nature of bondage and masochism, which essentially correspond in external effects, that to illustrate the former certain playful, metaphorical expressions are in general use; such as “slavery,” “to bear chains,” “bound,” “to hold the whip over,” “to harness to the triumphal car,” “to lie at the feet,” “hen-pecked,” etc.,—all things which, literally carried out, form the objects of the masochist’s desire. Such similes are frequently used in daily life and have become trite. They are derived from the language of poetry. Poetry has always recognized, within the general idea of the passion of love, the element of dependence in the lover, who practices self-sacrifice spontaneously or of necessity. The facts of “bondage” have also always presented themselves to the poetical imagination. When the poet chooses such expressions as those mentioned, to picture the dependence of the lover in striking similes, he proceeds exactly as does the masochist, who, to intensify the idea of his dependence (his ultimate aim), creates such situations in reality. In ancient poetry, the expression “domina” is used to signify the loved one, with a preference for the simile of “casting in chains” (e.g., Horace, Od. iv, 11). From antiquity through all the centuries to our own times (comp. Grillparzer, “Ottokar,” Act v: “To rule is sweet, almost as sweet as to obey”), the poetry of love is filled with similar phrases and similes. The history of the word “mistress” is also interesting. But poetry reacts on life. It is probable that the courtly chivalry of the Middle Ages arose in this way. In its reverence for women as “mistresses” in society and in individual love-relations; its transference of the relations of feudalism and vassalage to the relation between the knight and his lady; its submission to all feminine whims; its love-tests and vows; its duty of obedience to every command of the lady,—in all this, chivalry appears as a systematic, poetical development of the “bondage” of love. Certain extreme manifestations, like the deeds and suffering of Ulrich von Lichtenstein or Pierre Vidal in the service of their ladies; or the practice of the fraternity of the “Galois” in France, whose members sought martyrdom in love and subjected themselves to all kinds of suffering,—these clearly have a masochistic character, and demonstrate the natural transformation of one phenomenon into the other.
[84]. If it be considered that, as shown above, “sexual bondage” is a phenomenon observed much more frequently and in a more pronounced degree in the female sex than in the male, the thought arises that masochism (if not always, at least as a rule) is an inheritance of the “bondage” of feminine experience. Thus it comes into a relation—though distant—with contrary sexual instinct, as a transference to the male of a perversion really belonging to the female. This conception of masochism as a rudimentary contrary sexual instinct, as a partial effemination, here affecting only the secondary sexual character of the vita sexualis (a theory still more unconditionally expressed in the sixth edition of this work) finds its support in the statements of the subjects of Case 44 and Case 50, who present other features of effemination, and give as their ideal a relatively old woman who seeks and wins them; and, further, in the fact that the (potent) masochist prefers the rôle of succubus, as shown by statements referring to this.
It must, however, be emphasized that “bondage” also plays no unimportant rôle in the masculine vita sexualis, and that masochism in man may also be explained without any such transference of feminine elements. It must also be remembered here that masochism, as well as its counterpart, sadism, occurs in irregular combination with contrary sexual instinct.
[85]. Of course, both have to contend with opposing ethical and æsthetic motives in foro interno. After these have been overcome and sadism appears, it immediately comes in conflict with the law. This is not the case with masochism; which accounts for the greater frequency of masochistic acts. But the instinct of self-preservation and fear of pain oppose the realization of the latter. The practical significance of masochism lies only in its relations to psychical impotence; while that of sadism lies beyond that, and is principally forensic.
[86]. Every attempt to explain the facts of either sadism or masochism, owing to the close connection of the two phenomena demonstrated here, must also be suited to explain the other perversion. An attempt to offer an explanation of sadism, by J. G. Kiernan (Chicago) (vide “Psychological Aspects of the Sexual Appetite,” Alienist and Neurologist, St. Louis, April, 1891) meets this requirement, and for this reason may be briefly mentioned here. Kiernan, who has several authorities in Anglo-American literature for his theory, starts from the assumption of several naturalists (Dallinger, Drysdale, Rolph, Cleukowsky) which conceives the so-called conjugation, a sexual act in certain low forms of animal life, to be cannibalism, a devouring of the partner in the act. He brings into immediate connection with this the well-known facts that at the time of sexual union crabs tear limbs from their bodies and spiders bite off the heads of the males, and other sadistic acts performed by rutting animals with their consorts. From this he passes to lust-murder and other lustful acts of cruelty in man, and assumes that hunger and the sexual appetite are, in their origin, identical; that the sexual cannibalism of lower forms of animal life has an influence in higher forms and in man, and that sadism is an example of atavism.
This explanation of sadism would, of course, also explain masochism; for if the origin of sexual intercourse is to be sought in cannibalistic processes, then both the survival of one sex and the destruction of the other would fulfill the purpose of nature, and thus the instinctive desire to be the victim would be explained. But it must be stated in objection that the basis of this reasoning is insufficient. The extremely complicated process of conjugation in lower organisms, into which science has really penetrated only during the last few years, is by no means to be regarded as simply a devouring of one individual by another (comp. Weismann, Die Bedeutung der Sexuellen Fortpflanzung für die Selectionstheorie, p. 51, Jena, 1886).