Case 83. C., aged 37; of a badly tainted family; of small mental endowment; plagiocephalic. At fifteen his attention was attracted by aprons hung out to dry. He bound them about himself and masturbated behind the fence. From that time he could not see aprons without repeating the act. If any one—no matter whether man or woman—with an apron on came near him, he was compelled to run after the person. In order to free him from this constant stealing of aprons, he was sent as a marine in his sixteenth year. In this calling he saw no aprons, and had continual rest. When, at nineteen, he returned home, he was again compelled to steal aprons, and, as a result, got into serious complications, and was several times locked up. He sought to free himself of his weakness by a sojourn of several years in a cloister. When he came out, he was just as bad as before. As a result of a new theft, he underwent a medico-legal examination, and was committed to an asylum. He never stole anything but aprons. It was a pleasure to him to revel in the memory of the first apron he ever stole. His dreams were filled with aprons. He occasionally used the memory of his thefts to make coitus possible, or for masturbation. (Charcot and Magnan, Arch. de neurolog., 1882, Nr. 12.)
In a case reported by Lombroso (“Amori anomali precoci nei pazzi,” Arch. di psich., 1883, p. 17), analogous to those of this series, a boy of very bad heredity, at the age of four, had erections and great sexual excitement at the sight of white garments, particularly underclothing. He was lustfully excited by handling and crumpling them. At the age of ten he began to masturbate at the sight of white, starched linen. He seems to have been affected with moral insanity, and was executed for murder.
The following case of petticoat-fetichism is combined with peculiar circumstances:—
Case 84. Z., aged 35; official; the only child of a nervous mother and healthy father. From childhood he was “nervous,” and at the consultation his neuropathic eyes, delicate, slender body, fine features, very thin voice, and sparse growth of beard attracted attention. The patient presents nothing abnormal except symptoms of slight neurasthenia. Genitals and sexual functions normal. Patient states that he has only masturbated four or five times, and that when he was very young. As early as at the age of thirteen, the patient was powerfully excited sexually by the sight of wet female dresses; while the same dresses, when dry, had no effect upon him. His greatest delight was to look at women with wet garments in the rain. If he met a woman having a pleasing face under such circumstances, he experienced an intense feeling of lustful pleasure, had erection, and felt impelled to perform coitus. He states that he has never had any desire to wet female dresses or to throw water on women. He can give no explanation of the origin of his peculiarity.
It is possible that, in this case, the sexual instinct was first awakened by the sight of a woman as she exposed her charms by raising her skirts in wet weather. The obscure instinct, not yet conscious of its object, then became directed to the wet garments, as in other cases.
Lovers of female handkerchiefs are frequent, and, therefore, important forensically. As to the frequency of handkerchief-fetichism, it may be remarked that the handkerchief is the one article of feminine attire which, outside of intimate association, is most frequently displayed, and which, with its warmth from the person and specific odors, may by accident fall into the hands of others. The frequency of early association of lustful feelings with the idea of a handkerchief, which may always be presumed to have occurred in such cases of fetichism, probably is due to this.
Case 85. A baker’s assistant, aged 32, single, previously of good repute, was discovered stealing a handkerchief from a lady. In sincere remorse, he confessed that he had stolen from eighty to ninety such handkerchiefs. He had cared only for handkerchiefs, and, indeed, only for those belonging to young women attractive to him. In his outward appearance the culprit presents nothing peculiar. He dresses himself with much taste. His conduct is peculiar, anxious, depressed, and unmanly, and he often lapses into whining and tears. Lack of self-reliance, weakness of comprehension, and slowness of perception and reflection, are noticeable. One of his sisters is epileptic. He lives in good circumstances; was never severely sick; developed well. In relating his history, he shows weakness of memory and lack of clearness; calculation is hard for him, though when young he learned and comprehended easily. His anxious, uncertain state of mind gives rise to a suspicion of onanism. The culprit confessed that he had been given to this practice excessively since his nineteenth year. For some years, as a result of his vice, he had suffered with depression, lassitude, trembling of the limbs, pain in the back, and disinclination for work. Frequently a depressed, anxious state of mind came over him, in which he avoided people. He had exaggerated, fantastic notions about the results of sexual intercourse with women, and could not bring himself to indulge in it. Of late, however, he had thought of marriage. With great remorse and in a weak-minded way, X. now confessed that six months before, while in a crowd, he became violently excited sexually at the sight of a pretty young girl, and was compelled to crowd up against her. He felt an impulse to compensate himself for the want of a more complete satisfaction of his sexual excitement, by stealing her handkerchief. Thereafter, as soon as he came near attractive females, with violent sexual excitement, palpitation of the heart, erection and impetus coeundi, the impulse would seize him to crowd up against them and, faute de mieux, steal their handkerchiefs. Although the consciousness of his criminal act never left him for a moment, he was unable to make any resistance to the impulse. During the act he felt an anxiety which was in part due to his inordinate sexual impulse, and partly to the fear of detection. The medico-legal opinion rightly gave weight to the congenital mental enfeeblement and the pernicious influence of masturbation, and referred the abnormal impulses to a perverse sexual impulse, calling attention to the presence of an interesting and well-known physiological connection between the olfactory and sexual senses. The inability to resist the pathological impulse was recognized. X. was not punished. (Zippe, Wiener Med. Wochenschrift, 1879, Nr. 23.)
I am indebted to the kindness of Dr. Fritsch, of Vienna, for further facts concerning this handkerchief-fetichist, who was again arrested in August, 1890, in the act of taking a handkerchief from a lady’s pocket:—
On searching his house, four hundred and forty-six ladies’ handkerchiefs were found. He stated that he had burned besides two bundles of them. In the course of the examination, it was further shown that X. had been punished with imprisonment for fourteen days, in 1883, for stealing twenty-seven handkerchiefs, and again with imprisonment for three weeks, in 1886, for a similar crime. Concerning his relatives, nothing more could be learned than that his father was subject to congestions, and that a brother’s daughter was weak-minded and constitutionally neuropathic. X. had married in 1879, and embarked in an independent business, and in 1881 he made an assignment. Soon after that, his wife, who could not live with him, and with whom he did not perform his marital duty (denied by X.), demanded a divorce. Thereafter he lived as assistant baker to his brother. He complained bitterly of an impulse for ladies’ handkerchiefs, but when opportunity offered, unfortunately, he could not resist it. In the act he experienced a feeling of delight, and felt as if some one were forcing him to it. Sometimes he could restrain himself, but, when the lady was pleasing to him, he yielded to the first impulse. He would be wet with sweat, partly from fear of detection, and partly on account of the impulse to perform the act. He says he has been sensually excited, by the sight of handkerchiefs belonging to women, since puberty. He cannot recall the exact circumstances of this fetichistic association. The sensual excitement, occasioned by the sight of a lady with a handkerchief hanging out of her pocket, had constantly increased. This had repeatedly caused erection, but never ejaculation. After his twenty-first year, he says, he had inclination to normal sexual indulgence, and had coitus without difficulty without ideas of handkerchiefs. With increasing fetichism, the appropriation of handkerchiefs had afforded him much more satisfaction than coitus. The appropriation of the handkerchief of a lady attractive to him was the same to him as intercourse with her would have been. In the act he had true orgasm.
If he could not gain possession of the handkerchief he desired, he would become painfully excited, tremble, and sweat all over. He kept separate the handkerchiefs of ladies particularly pleasing to him, and reveled in the sight of them, taking great pleasure in it. The odor of them also gave him great delight, though he states that it was really the odor peculiar to the linen, and not the perfume, which excited him sensually. He had masturbated but very seldom.