Our investigations have proven that homosexuality has no uniform psychogenesis. But all cases showed an archaic emphasis on bisexuality. Although I speak of regressive manifestations I should not care to see that conception confused with the notion of “hereditary taint” or of “degeneration.” For my investigations of artists have convinced me that they present the same tendencies as the homosexuals. They, too, are neurotics. In fact, the number of homosexual artists, even of homosexual persons of rare genius, as given by Hirschfeld, is impressive. I hold the view that every great creative work has been and is being achieved through these regressions. It is as if nature attempted to rejuvenate herself and once more to absorb creative energy by dipping down into the primordial source of all energy. It might be more proper, perhaps, to speak of them as dégénérés supérieurs, in the sense of Magnan. It seems to me that true degeneration, as seen in the stigmata of physical decay, and which manifests itself in an insufficient adjustment to the ethical requirements of society, represents rather the terminal point of an exhausted stem, gravitating downwards, while the neurotic represents a progression. Degeneration and regressions certainly have a great deal in common. But similar causes often bring on varying results. I need refer only to the well-known laws of inbreeding, for instance. The summation of good qualities through the intermarriage of relatives may lead to the birth of a true genius, but the same step causes more or less degeneration by reinforcing morbid tendencies.
I see in such an atavistic tendency the predisposition to homosexuality, common to all neurotics. Perhaps organic changes, such as I have found in more or less pronounced form in most homosexuals also play a certain rôle. Persons of pronounced bisexual type do not necessarily become homosexual, but this does not disprove that the organic condition may be a factor. Here is where I agree with Hirschfeld’s “intermediate sex” theory. But beyond this point our standpoints diverge. The organic factors remain yet to be investigated. We are but at the beginning of our studies of organic bisexuality. The ascertainment of unilateral hermaphroditism, it seems to me, will play a particularly important rôle in future investigations. Already the data obtained through the examination of large groups of persons, for which the World War furnished me an opportunity, impressed me with the fact, that contrary sexual Anlage is to be found particularly often on the left side of the body. (In men this shows itself in the form of unilateral gynecomasty, scant hair growth, asymmetry of the face, the left side being more pronouncedly of feminine type.) The finding of infantile features must also be considered of significance in the diagnosis of an organic predisposition to homosexuality.
These interesting facts do not relieve us of the need of establishing the psychogenesis of homosexuality on a sound basis. But the multitude of conditions which may lead to homosexuality admit no hard-and-fast line. Every case is a problem of its own; these are the very cases where we must carefully individualize and guard ourselves against hindering future research by laying down any hard-and-fast rules.
A question which no investigator of sexual problems has thus far satisfactorily answered, now suggests itself: Why is it that homosexuality and particularly male homosexuality has become the object of such terrific social abhorrence? Why is our penal code so backward in that respect?
We can understand the reasons for that only in the light of the historic aspect of the problem. It is a striking fact that although female homosexuality always appears along with the male, it is not nearly so abhorred but is rather tolerated under the cover of silence. Austria is the only European country in which sexual intimacy between women is a penal offence. Probably the difference in this attitude bears some relation to the problem of reproduction, since man, as the fertilizing agent, plays a more active rôle than the woman.[[47]] The seed, that most precious possession with which a man may fructify several women, must not be squandered.
The decided struggle against homosexuality began energetically with Judaism. Monosexualism developed with monotheism. The Bible hardly refers to homosexuality. The blessings of children, of reproduction, the advantage of numbers were the needs to which the sexual cravings had to be subordinated. There is, therefore, justification for the contention that Judaism has fought against homosexuality,—impelled by social motives. On the other hand it was also an account of another set of social motives that, in Greece, homosexuality was not only tolerated but permitted and even expressly introduced. Aristotle is of the opinion that in accordance with their customs and beliefs the Dorians expressly intended to limit the increase in population through the encouragement of boy love and the separation of women from society.[[48]] But that in itself would not explain the high regard in which homosexuality was held in ancient Greece.
I refer those interested in the subject to the interesting work of a philologist, Prof. E. Bethe.[[49]]
Like many other philosophers and investigators of history, Bethe falls into the error of pointing to the Christian church as the agent responsible for the newer orientation in sexual matters. In the first place these writers overlook the fact that the new attitude had set in already with Judaism. Secondly, they fail to see that religions are, themselves, but the result of social conditions. Religious teachings always adjust themselves to the social needs of their day and even fulfill them. Religious formulæ prove meaningless only to the progressive, emancipated, free and forward-striving persons, the imperatives of religion are superfluous only for those above the average. The crowds must cling to religious formulæ and will always need sexual inhibitions of a religious character.
Sexuality is changing all the time, it undergoes progressive refinement. No careful observer can deny that fact. More and more of our instinctive cravings are gradually throttled. But when the process of repression becomes too severe there are regressions such as we have witnessed in the agitation for free love of the last decades and in the current more frank discussion of sexual matters. But if all signs do not fail the high tide of the agitation for sexual freedom has passed and the wave of that agitation is receding. Pioneers in the movement for sexual freedom are beginning to uphold monogamy; and the problem of population made pressing by the World War does not favor the abandonment of the current social and legal proscriptions against homosexuality. On the contrary. There is likely to be in the near future a stronger revulsion against homosexuality inasmuch as society finds itself compelled to revert at all costs back to the Old Testament attitude of fostering reproduction.
I have already pointed out that the secondary sexual characters are becoming more strongly accentuated through culture. The prehistoric stage was probably characterized by an undifferentiated sexual feeling, such as Max Dessoir ascribes to the pre-adolescent stage. The polar tension between male and female has increased! That explains the difference between the old Greek and the modern attitude towards homosexuality. The Greek was a bisexual being. He was capable of loving his friend and wife and woman slave alongside the boy. The modern homosexual, carrying within him the bisexual instincts of the most archaic developmental stage, finds himself confronted with another sex-attitude. He is confronted, so to speak, with the need of making a new choice, and therefore he seeks always the type to which he himself belongs, the man who is a woman, or the woman who is a man. Exceptions do not disprove this rule. But in proportion as the polar tension between the sexes increases, the basic antagonism between man and woman also grows. As we have seen—the last case was particularly instructive in that regard—the homosexual, who apparently stands above that struggle, is inspired from within by a feeling-attitude of extreme hatred. He hates woman with such deadly antagonism that the fear of his own passion makes him avoid woman. His hatred is a will of annihilation. But that feeling involves its polar alternative: love to the point of self-annihilation, a willingness to be utterly humbled. Subject No. 83 gives us a history clearly illustrating this interplay of forces.