“It is remarkable that he did experience gratification that one time during the (forced) act. After the act he was overcome with nausea. One hour after the assault he again had coitus with the same woman and with her consent but that time he no longer experienced any satisfaction.” That proves that the orgasm depended on his abuse of force. The fear is fear of violence, the disgust is disgust of self, both coming into play so as to protect one against deeds incompatible with one’s ethical standards.
I know a large number of homosexuals who have actually confessed to me that they are able to have intercourse with women only while they are in a strong rage. But then they are in fear of themselves, so dangerous do they become. One subject confessed to me that he had nearly strangled his sexual partner. Other homosexuals feel an inexpressible rage just after coitus. In such cases the heterosexual act is associatively related to some criminal act. Some unconscious fancies depict and urge cutting up, strangling or beating the female companion. These men are extreme woman-haters and hatred is always deadly.
I reproduce here a single relevant observation:
55. Mr. H. K. is a well-known homosexual who prefers particularly males of low standing. The more powerfully built the men are the greater is his orgasm. He prefers to choose packers, furniture movers, expressmen and generally individuals of strong build. His greatest orgasm he experienced during intimacy with a member of an athletic club, a man who had a very small penis. He feels such a strong fear of women that he does not trust himself in a room alone with one. He does not remember having ever been sensuously stirred by a woman. Several times he tried intercourse with prostitutes but fled each time as soon as he found himself alone in the room with the woman. A cold sweat breaks out over his brow and he runs off precipitately as if pursued by a thousand demons. A short analysis over a few days revealed that this was a typical case of a criminal fancy, the subject having indulged for a long time in the onanistic fancy of strangling a woman. (“All women ought to be exterminated” ... is a favorite sentiment often expressed by this man.) In his phantasies he has also committed assaults on men, and the thought of ripping open the anus of a man has occurred to him already several times.
His fear of women is the fear he may forget himself and strangle one of them. But he is also afraid of men, that is, he also fears he may commit some assault on a man. Therefore he protects himself through choosing men of powerful physique. They should be stronger than he. Thus he feels assured that he will not be able to assault them. Lately he has been seeking a mannish woman who should also be stronger than he. Evidently he proposes to protect himself also in that case ... against himself. The homosexuality showed itself to be a flight from his criminal heterosexual tendencies.
Other homosexuals protect themselves against woman through disgust. How closely hatred, fear, and disgust stand in this connection may be seen in the following observation by Hirschfeld:
“A certain homosexual related to me that he is able to have intercourse with a woman but that immediately afterwards he is seized with a terrible anger against the woman and once after the act he spat at her in disgust; since that, in order to avoid consequences, he leaves the room as hastily as possible immediately after the ejaculation.
“How far the aversion may go is shown by the case of the homosexual Herzog von Praslin-Choiseul who at Paris in 1864 strangled post coitum his young bride, the daughter of General Sebastiani. It may be mentioned in this connection that by far the greater number of sadistic women who prevail upon masochistic males of grossest physical and mental type to carry out acts of violence upon them are in reality homosexual women with a sexual aversion to men. Professor Albert Eulenburg told me that all the alleged sadists among females whom he knows have proven themselves in reality to be homosexuals. I, too, know but three women among twelve sadists who deny homosexuality.” (Hirschfeld, loc. cit. p. 96).
First we learn that this homosexual, through fear of himself, runs off in the nick of time. The act of spitting may be the symbolic substitute for a more serious act. If additional testimony were needed to support the relevance of my conception, the case of the Duke von Praslin-Choiseul stands forth as the clearest proof one could wish. Plainly Hirschfeld, as usual, confuses here cause and effect. The Duke did not strangle his bride because he was homosexual,—he had taken flight in homosexuality, because he felt impelled to commit a “passion crime” and he tried to protect himself against his own wild instincts.
Particularly interesting from the criminologic-psychologic standpoint are the cases of epileptics who during the attack are diverted from their usual sexual path. The epileptic is a criminal who during the attack carries out some criminal deed. Ordinarily the deed is carried out in the phantasy, but here and there the epileptic commits overtly some deed of uncommon cruelty. During his epileptic attack the patient gives expression to his criminal trend. The attack is the equivalent of the crime. Readers interested in this important problem I must refer to my original study.[[3]] I have been much surprised that it has received so little attention on the part of neurologists and criminologists. It is the fate of psychoanalysts. The current fashion in science has decreed our ban, our works are overlooked and are neglected even when they are of fundamental significance, like my contribution on epilepsy.