Transcriber’s Notes
Obvious typographical errors have been silently corrected. Variations
in hyphenation and accents have been standardised but all other
spelling and punctuation remains unchanged.
Italics are represented thus _italic_.
The footnotes have been placed at the end of the book.
Excerpts from the Professional Press on the work of DR. WM. STEKEL
We have lacked thus far a systematic clinical application of Freudian
analysis. Stekel’s work fills this need.
_Jung_, in MEDIZ. KLINIK.
* * * * *
... A standard work; a milestone in the psychiatric and
psycho-therapeutic literature.
Geh. Sanitätsrat _Dr. Gerster_, in DIE NEUE GENERATION.
* * * * *
It would be regrettable if the work did not attract fully the
attention of the scientific world; its deep sobriety and the fulness
of its details render it a treasury of information, primarily for
the physician, but, in large measure, of interest also to the
educationist, the minister, the teacher and, not least, to the student
of criminology....
_Horch_, in ARCHIV F. KRIMINALOGIE.
* * * * *
These case histories will be read with great interest by everyone,
including those who are inclined to maintain a sceptical attitude
towards psychoanalysis.
_Eulenburg_, in MEDIZINISCHE KLINIK.
* * * * *
Stekel’s work teaches practitioners a great many things they did not
know before, particularly about the significance of psychology and
sexual science in the practice of medicine.
_Hitschmann_, in INTERNAT. ZEITSCHRIFT F. PSYCHOANALYSE.
* * * * *
It is Stekel’s extraordinary merit that he compels us to take into
account a pressing mass of data which he brings to light with a
scientific zeal which is unfortunately still rare,—facts and
observations so penetrating, so true to life that these often render
unnecessary any formal statement of the obvious deductions which flow
from them.
DIE NEUE GENERATION.
* * * * *
The most modern problems are considered, new viewpoints are brought
out, while the excesses in the technique and interpretation of the
earlier stages of psychoanalysis are avoided.
_Kermauner_, in WIENER KLINISCHE WOCHENSCHRIFT.
* * * * *
All in all, Stekel’s is a work for which I bespeak the widest interest
not only among physicians, but also among jurists, educationists,
sociologists and ministers. Only an understanding of the mental life of
the individual will yield a proper view of our social life.
_Liepmann_, in ZEITSCHRIFT F. SEXUALWISSENSCH.
* * * * *
The work is a treasury for all who have occasion to probe the depths
of human life and should be a source of considerable information and
stimulus to every jurist who takes in earnest his professional duties.
Geh. Justizrat _Dr. Horch_, in ARCHIV F. KRIMINALOGIE.
* * * * *
It does not matter from what angle the work of Stekel is approached.
Any consideration of it reveals rich material. Stekel is a writer
who handles his subjects in a lavish manner; lavish, but with that
restraint which bends all to the urgency of his themes. He evidently
approaches his clinical work with the same exuberant interest. There
he reaps through psychoanalysis a rich harvest of results. He has
collected these results and presented them for the dissemination of
such knowledge of the sexual disturbances as he thus obtained. Facts
are there in great number. They cannot be gainsaid. Stekel’s own
evaluation of such facts and his earnest plea for their consideration,
both by the medical profession and by the society of men and women
where these facts exist, can speak only for themselves to the truly
conscientious reader. There is not much in these books that the
psychotherapeutist can afford to pass over.
NEW YORK MEDICAL JOURNAL.
BI-SEXUAL LOVE
THE HOMOSEXUAL NEUROSIS
BY
DR. WILLIAM STEKEL
(VIENNA)
_Authorized translation by_
JAMES S. VAN TESLAAR, M.D.
(For sale only to Members of the
Medical Profession.)
[Illustration]
BOSTON
RICHARD G. BADGER
THE GORHAM PRESS
COPYRIGHT, 1922, BY RICHARD G. BADGER
All Rights Reserved
Made in the United States of America
The Gorham Press, Boston, U. S. A.
_Preface_
The present work is the English version of a part of one of the volumes
in the author’s massive series of clinical studies bearing the generic
title, _Disorders of the Instincts and Emotions_ and covering the
whole range of the so-called _Parapathic Maladies_. The translation
represents approximately one-half of the _Homosexualität_ of the volume
entitled _Onanie und Homosexualität_, and bearing the sub-title, _Die
Homosexuelle Neurose_. The balance of the _Homosexual Neurosis_ and the
author’s clinical study of _Autoerotism_ are also translated and will
appear shortly.
It is the author’s intention, and mine as his translator, to issue
an English version of all the volumes in this comprehensive series.
In addition to the subjects covered in the present volume and in the
two volumes to follow shortly, the _Disorders of the Instincts and
the Emotions_ include the _Anxiety States_, _Female Frigidity_, _Male
Impotence_, _Infantilism_ (including _Exhibitionism_ and _Fetichism_),
the _Compulsion Neuroses_ and _Morbid Doubts_. The range of the
subjects and the plan of the volumes already published show that the
series as conceived by the author forms a complete clinical account of
the psychogenetic disorders, and represents the most recent development
of scientific research. Since the genetic study of these parapathic
maladies involves a thorough understanding of the facts of sexual life
Dr. Stekel’s works on the _Disorders of the Instincts and the Emotions_
constitute incidentally the latest practical reference Handbook of
Sexual Science in the light of our newer knowledge and should prove
also on that score of inestimable value to the medical and the allied
learned professions.
The absence of formal systematic instruction in the Principles and
Practice of Psychoanalysis in spite of the wide interest that the
subject has deservedly aroused in our midst is highly regrettable,
the more so since the lack of systematic instruction in our country
deprives the older practitioners as well as the oncoming generations of
physicians of an opportunity to familiarize themselves with this most
important branch of therapy. Even though the curriculum of instruction
in our schools, and particularly in our medical colleges, is admittedly
burdened with a bewildering plethora of other branches of instruction,
it is inconceivable that our colleges, our hospitals and psychiatric
institutes, and our other institutions of higher learning will long
continue to neglect a subject of such vital importance as psychotherapy
and re-education, now that the subject has been placed, at last, upon
a solid basis through the application of the psychobiotic and genetic
methods of approach. But it will probably take considerable time before
competent instruction to fill the need will be available.
It appears therefore highly desirable that an English version of Dr.
Stekel’s works should make their appearance at this time. For in the
absence of formal instruction his clinical studies form an excellent
substitute, perhaps the most suitable means available for post-graduate
instruction in the clinical aspects of Psychoanalysis. And should
systematic courses be made available in the near future, in response to
the urgent need, our instructors and students alike will undoubtedly
find the Stekel series most valuable aids for study and guidance.
In a letter received from Dr. Stekel while this work was going through
the press he states that a new edition of _Onanie und Homosexualität_
is being issued in the original, bearing a dedication to the present
translator.
v. T.
Brookline, Mass.
CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
I Krafft-Ebing considers onanism the cause of homosexuality—Confusion
of cause and effect—The
views of Krafft-Ebing—The views of Moll—of
Havelock Ellis—of Bloch—of Magnus Hirschfeld—How
is the diagnosis established?—The fundamental
bisexuality of all persons—Relation of
neurosis and homosexuality—The family of the
homosexual—The views of Bloch on the problem—The
influence of the psyche on the organism—Wish
as active factor of the psyche—My theory—
The theories of Kiernan, Chevalier and Lombroso—The
neurotic as a retrograded type—Early
awakening of sexuality 11
II The development of sexuality—-the bisexual ideal
of all persons—The fundamental law of sexuality—The
rôle of homosexuality in neurosis—Womanly
men and mannish women—Gerontophilia—Love
of prostitutes—The significance of sexual
symbols—Various masks of homosexuality—Transvestites—A
case of Transvestism—The significance
of the hose as a symbol—Love at first sight—The
critical age—The pleasure seeker—The
case of a man passive through the critical age—Neurotic
types of homosexuality—The Don
Juan type—Psychoanalysis of a Don Juan—Passionate
falling in love during advanced age,
significant—Analysis of a Don Juan 53
III Diagnosis of Satyriasis—Priapism—A case of Satyriasis—A
second case of Satyriasis—A case of
nymphomania—Proof that the cravings represented
by this condition are traceable to the ungratified
homosexual instinct 129
IV Description of Don Juan types who are satisfied
with conquest and forego physical possession—An
unlucky hero, whose love adventures are interfered
with by gastric derangements—A would-be
Messalina who hesitates on account of vomiting
spells—Influence of religion on neurosis 175
V Resistance of homosexuals against cure and their
pride in their condition—Acquired vs. inherited—Insanity
and alcoholism betray the inner man—Three
cases by Colla illustrating behavior during
alcoholic intoxication—Observations of Numa
Prætonis—The case of Hugo Deutsch—Views of
Juliusburger—Two personal observations—A case
of Moll—Views of Fleischmann and Naecke—A
personal observation—Bloch on woman haters 241
VI May disgust produce the homosexual attitude?
Cases by Krafft-Ebing, Fleischmann, Ziemcke—Observation
(personal) and case by Bloch—Late
trauma as cause of homosexuality—Personal
observation of a case of late homosexuality—Two
cases by Bloch—Further discussion of the
problem—A case of Pfister’s with the analysis
of several dreams 279
VII Erotism and sexuality—The motive power of unfulfilled
wishes—The male protest—The relations
of the homosexual to his mother—Hirschfeld’s
schematic outline—Infantile impressions—Influence
of the stronger parent—Letter of an
expert 331
Index 353
I
Krafft-Ebing considers Onanism the Cause of Homosexuality—Confusion
of Cause and Effect—The Views of Krafft-Ebing—The Views of Moll—of
Havelock Ellis—of Bloch—of Magnus Hirschfeld—How is the Diagnosis
established?—The fundamental Bisexuality of all Persons—Relation
of Neurosis and Homosexuality—The Family of the Homosexual—The
Views of Bloch on the Problem—The Influence of the Psyche on the
Organism—Wish as active Factor of the Psyche—My theory—The Theories
of Kiernan, Chevalier and Lombroso—The Neurotic as a retrograded
type—Early awakening of sexuality.
_Leben—ist das nicht gerade ein Andersseinwollen, als die Natur
ist?—Nietzsche._
BI-SEXUAL LOVE
I
_Living,—is it not the will to be otherwise than nature
is?—Nietzsche._
That there are preeminent physicians who earnestly look upon
masturbation as the cause of homosexuality seems hardly believable. It
would be as proper to consider masturbation the cause of sexuality.
We have shown elsewhere that onanism may be the result of ungratified
homosexual trends. At times it may stand as a substitute for some
homosexual act. It then replaces for a time the adequate temporary form
of sexual gratification. I state “temporary form,” because the sexual
object itself does not remain permanently the same and the sexual
directive goals,—to use the excellent expression of _Hans Blüher_[1]
are often abandoned. The false notion that onanism is responsible for
homosexuality has been preconized by _Krafft-Ebing_, whose great
authority in matters of sexual psychopathology persists to this day.
His services are significant, indeed, and we must observe that he
has at last accepted the view of _Hirschfeld_ that homosexuality is
inborn,—that there is an acquired and a hereditary homosexuality.[2]
But in the last (14th) edition of _Krafft-Ebing’s_ work, which has
appeared in 1912, his editor, _Alfred Fuchs_, preserves the statement
about onanism at the head of the chapter and he even underscores the
contentions of his great teacher on this particular subject.[3]
My work proves that we must abandon the merely descriptive method of
sexual research. The subject’s first account is only a statement of
the manifest content of his consciousness concerning his paraphilia.
We must look into the latent content, into the unconscious and
quasi-conscious forces involved. The descriptive form of sexual
research must be replaced by the psychological, in keeping with the
spirit of our times. In no other field does analysis so convincingly
and completely prove its claims.
What was the status of the subject before the advent of analysis?
_Krafft-Ebing_ originally looked upon homosexuality as the result
of a hereditary transmission, a hypothesis not corroborated by the
observations of subsequent investigators. Certain circumstances favor
an outcropping in manifest form of the latent homosexuality common
to all persons,—a fact which complicates this problem. Environment
also comes into play. An environment such as is furnished by some
nervous or psychopathic parents naturally plays a role. This subject we
shall take up later. The alleged hereditary transmission is supposed
to show itself in the homosexual through the early awakening of the
sexual instinct and by the appearance of masturbation during early
childhood. But we know that the homosexuals share this peculiarity
with all others, especially with neurotic persons. A strong flaring
up of instinct is not the consequence but the cause of the neurosis.
But according to _Krafft-Ebing_ masturbation during childhood is
the cause of homo-or pseudo-homosexuality breaking forth at a later
period. “Nothing is more likely,” he states, “than masturbation, so to
disturb and occasionally thwart all noble emotions at the source as
they arise spontaneously out of the sexual feeling.[4] The habit robs
the nascent feeling of charm and beauty leaving behind only the husk
of grossly animal craving for sexual gratification. An individual, so
thwarted, attains the age of maturity lacking the esthetic, ideal, pure
and undefiled longing which leads to the other sex. At the same time
the heat of sensuous passion cools off while the inclination towards
the other sex is significantly weakened. This deficiency embraces the
morals, the ethics, the character, the phantasy and the disposition
of the youthful masturbator as well as his emotional and instinctive
life and holds true of both sexes, occasionally reducing to zero the
yearning after the opposite sex, so that in the end masturbation is
preferred to every other form of gratification.”
Imagine the injurious effect of such statements upon the masturbating
youth; particularly when he reads that the best way to combat
homosexuality is to fight against masturbation (p. 336, _loc. cit._).
The great investigator has confused here cause and effect. The
masturbators avoid the path leading to woman not because they
masturbate. They indulge in the habit because the path towards
womanhood is closed to them. For many persons masturbation is the only
available method of sexual gratification. Persons with a strongly
accentuated homosexual tendency often find no other path open at all,
particularly when the intercourse with woman becomes impossible for
them on account of some definite traumatic incidents, such as we shall
discuss fully later.
Masturbation is never _the cause_ of homosexuality. Homosexuals do not
contract the habit early, as _Krafft-Ebing_ claims,—it is an early,
a very early habit of all persons—and that without any exception.
The homosexuals do not forget their childhood onanism because there
are other, more painful memories for them to repress and drive out
of memory. Again we shall speak fully of that later. More important
for the present is the question: how does homosexuality arise? Is the
condition hereditary or acquired? Is it something fatally predetermined
or is it only the result of certain definite constellations of the
family circle? May it be ascribed to a hereditary taint? _Krafft-Ebing_
was at first of the latter opinion and propounded the thesis that
“we may doubt whether a person of the same sex ever has a sensuous
attraction for a normally predisposed individual,” but later he changed
this opinion fundamentally and expressed the conviction that there is
an inborn homosexuality though the condition is found only among the
hereditarily predisposed.
He propounded the following theses:
“1. The sexual life of such persons manifests itself as a rule very
precociously and consequently, is of abnormal strength. Not rarely the
peculiar attraction for members of the same sex which in itself marks
the abnormal direction of the sexual instinct is associated with other
perverse manifestations.
“2. The spiritual love of these persons is frequently an exalted
dreaming just as their sexual instinct as a whole penetrates their
consciousness with a peculiar and even compulsive strength.
“3. In addition to the functional signs of degeneration manifested
in the contrary sexual instinct often there are found also other
functional and frequently also anatomic stigmata of degeneration.
“4. Neuroses are present (hysteria, neurasthenia, epileptoid states,
etc.). Neurasthenia, transitional or chronic, is nearly always
manifest. This is usually a constitutional state induced by inborn
conditions. It is awakened and sustained through masturbation or
compulsory abstinence.”[5]
These statements are relatively milder and here the ideal traits
of homosexuality are also given some recognition, although—as we
know well—all without exception are addicted to masturbation.
_Krafft-Ebing_ does not know that all artists are neurotics and that
neurosis stands in intimate connection with creative ability. He also
makes a distinction between true and false homosexuality,—bisexuality
(psychic hermaphroditism) and other forms, as described by
_Hirschfeld_.[6]
_Krafft-Ebing_ points out a certain relationship between homosexuality
and neurosis. But since he still preserves the concept of degeneration,
he is forced in the end to admit that homosexuality may also appear in
the normal and is not necessarily a morbidity.
_Moll_, to whom we owe the first great comprehensive work on
homosexuality, is of an entirely different opinion. He states:
“Considering the sexual instinct not as a means for the attainment of
pleasure but as standing in the service of procreation we must look
upon exclusive homosexuality as belonging to the realm of pathology.”
(_Die kontraere Sexualempfindung_, Berlin, 1899, 3rd edn.) This is an
untenable argument. _For there is no procreative instinct as such,
only a sexual instinct._ Science is not concerned with the study of
purposiveness, it is interested in the ascertainment of facts. Science
must not and cannot be placed in the service of teleology. At any
rate _Moll_ is inclined to look upon homosexuality as a neurosis:
he claims to have found in recent years a growing tendency among
investigators to establish a border province between mental health and
disease, “and into that realm have been relegated many cases of psychic
degeneration—I may mention, for instance, certain compulsory neuroses.
I believe it is proper that we should place in the same category the
contrary sexual feeling.” (_Loc. cit._ p. 435.) He refers here to
_Westphal_ who compares homosexuality to moral insanity.[7]
Notwithstanding _Moll’s_ opinion we must state that most modern
investigators declare that they have examined many homosexuals whom
they have found normal or have at least designated as normal.
_Havelock Ellis_ and _Albert Moll_[8] very appropriately state in their
last joint work:
“_Naecke_ has repeatedly maintained that the homosexuals are perfectly
healthy and aside from their specific deviation may be normal in
every respect. We have always maintained this view although, contrary
to _Naecke_, we assume that _homosexuality is very frequently found
in intimate association with minor nervous states_. We agree with
_Hirschfeld_ that heredity plays a rôle in no more than 25 per cent
of the cases of homosexuality and that, although a neuropathic
background may be present in homosexuality, the degenerative factor
plays but a small role.” These authors find the hypothesis that every
person’s constitution combines the male and female elements a keen
concept though rather hypothetical. “But still it is undoubtedly
justified, if we look upon homosexuality as an inborn anomaly or, to
speak more correctly, as an anomaly resting on constitutional traits,
which if morbid, are so only in _Virchow’s_ sense, according to whom
pathology is not the science of diseases but of deviations, so that the
homosexual may be as healthy as the color blind. Inborn homosexuality
ranks on the level of a biologic variation: it is a variation,
representing perhaps an incomplete phase of sexual differentiation,
but bearing no discernible relationship to any morbid condition of the
individual.”
I am inclined to doubt this view. What proof have we that the
homosexual is perfectly healthy when any criterion of health we may
accept must be artificial? On this point we have only the statements of
the involved persons to rely upon. All describe themselves as healthy.
Do not advanced psychopaths do the same? They lack any feeling of
illness. This seems to be characteristic of homosexuals in particular.
They want their condition to be looked upon as normal. They claim to
be in good health, seldom wish to change their condition, and usually
do not call for medical advice unless they come into conflict with the
law and find themselves in danger. The authors themselves very properly
remark: “As to the men, the homosexuals prefer to hold themselves as
normal and endeavor to justify that contention. Those who struggle
against their instinctive craving, who look upon their conduct as
peculiar or so much as entertain any doubts about it, are in the
minority,—less than 20 per cent.”
Naturally the large number of homosexual physicians have always tried
to convince their observers that they are normal and that they do
not differ from other persons in any other way. But all unprejudiced
observers have to admit the presence of numerous neurotic traits in
connection with homosexuality. This I have undertaken to prove _sine
ira et studio_ having met numberless homosexuals and having become
very closely acquainted with many of them. _I have never yet found a
homosexual who was not a neurotic._ He is necessarily that, as I shall
later prove. He must be neurotic, the same as the heterosexual, who
struggles to overcome and repress a vast portion of homosexual longing
with him. _Havelock Ellis_ and _Moll_ as well as _Krafft-Ebing_ also
lay stress upon the tendency to neurasthenia. But who nowadays is not
neurasthenic? is a question frequently heard. Such an unprejudiced
investigator as _Iwan Bloch_ becomes convinced and recognizes an
inborn homosexuality which must not be conceived as a morbidity. For a
long time _Bloch_ preconized a different view but changed his opinion
convinced by _Hirschfeld’s_ work and through his own professional
contact with homosexuals. He is now a believer in the theory of
inborn homosexuality having been led to this view particularly by the
statements of the homosexuals. Later we shall prove how unreliable such
statements must be. At any rate so keen an observer as _Bloch_ could
not fail to note the striking percentage of neurotic homosexuals. But
he thought they were nervous because “homosexuality acts upon them as
a psychic trauma.” Further he states: “According to my investigations
and observations the _relationship between health and disease among
homosexuals is originally the same as among heterosexuals_ and in time,
on account of the social and individual isolation of the homosexuals,
acting like a psychic trauma, morbidity becomes accentuated; usually we
encounter nervous complaints and difficulties of an acquired character,
and we note the development of a typical ‘homosexual neurasthenia,’
which may readily enough lead some superficial observers to confuse
_post hoc_ with _propter hoc_.” Undoubtedly the dangers of homosexual
activity favor the development of anxiety states. But such nervous
states are found also in cases showing no predisposition towards
anxiety, and anxiety states are encountered without any relation to
homosexuality.
_Magnus Hirschfeld_ places himself with all the weight of his
personality and experience squarely in favor of the contention that
homosexuality is a normal state. His investigations touching upon
this field are numerous. We also owe to his labors that great work on
the subject: _Die Homosexualitaet des Mannes und des Weibes_. (The
Homosexuality of Man and of Woman, Verlag L. Marcus, Berlin, SW, 61.)
No investigator interested in this subject can neglect this fundamental
and exhaustive treatment of it. Subsuming the views of _Hirschfeld_
we may state: There is a genuine inborn homosexuality which must not
be looked upon as a morbidity. This homosexuality should be confused
neither with bisexuality nor with pseudo-homosexuality. _Hirschfeld_,
too, has changed his views in the course of time. He had conceived
homosexuality as a sexual intermediary stage between man and woman and
proposed the famous term: _the third sex_. As is well known all persons
are bisexual. _Hirschfeld_ looked for the well known physical stigmata
of bisexuality among the homosexuals. He found among men enlargement of
the breasts, female hips, delicate skin, etc., and among women growth
of facial hair, male, energetic traits, etc. In his work entitled, _Der
Urnische Mensch_, he maintained: “A homosexual not differing bodily,
physically and mentally from the full grown man I have not found among
1500 subjects and I am therefore disposed to doubt the occurrence
until I shall meet such an individual.” But in his more recent work
he declares: “The androgynic type of man and the gynandric type of
woman are not necessarily homosexual. There are types of persons which
may be described as eunuchoid,—they give the impression of castrated
persons without having undergone the operation,—they possess female
bodies, high voice and beardless face. Generally there is azoospermia,
frequently anorchia. There are corresponding types in the female
sex,—persons with bodies showing many masculine traits. These marked
womanly men and mannish women are often considered homosexual, but
it is not uncommon to find them completely heterosexual inasmuch as
they find complementary individuals among the types belonging to the
opposite sex. The types which attract them are also androgynous.”[9]
_Hirschfeld_ does not admit the influence of latent homosexuality in
the choice of this androgenic type. A homosexual whose condition is
not manifest he does not recognize. His ground for diagnosis is no
longer similarity of bodily traits when compared with the opposite
sex. The determining factor for _Hirschfeld_ is only the subject’s
feeling. _If he is homosexually inclined (particularly if so disposed
from childhood), the subject is homosexual._ _Hirschfeld’s_ own
statement is as follows: “The determining factor in the diagnosis
of homosexuality remains as before the contrary feeling proper; the
diagnosis is strongly supported by a negative attitude towards the
other sex, as well as by altero-sexual episodes, although these two
features in themselves are not capable of establishing the diagnosis.”
Since _Bloch_ also admits that there are many virile homosexuals with
bodily structures wholly male, it follows that the organic diagnosis
of homosexuality is altogether unreliable. _Hans Blüher_, a reliable
expert on homosexuality, also recognizes the pure homosexual, which he
calls the “male hero” type, whose character and habitus is completely
male, thus differing from the second type, the “woman-like invert”
(_invertierter Weibling_). The latent homosexual he considers a
third type. (Vid. _Die drei Grundformen der Homosexualitaet: Eine
sexuologische Studie._ Jahrbuch f. sexuelle Zwischenstuffen, vol. XIII).
Let us repeat and underscore the far-fetched feature of this
method of diagnosis. According to it _there is no objective means
for ascertaining homosexuality. The only diagnostic guide is the
homosexual’s declaration that he has always felt homosexually inclined
and that he is indifferent towards the other sex._
The analyst is well qualified to recognise the utter weakness of such
a diagnostic guide. We meet continually persons who claim to know
themselves thoroughly; they claim that they have investigated their own
state very conscientiously but after a few weeks, often only after a
few days (illustrations will be fully given in this book) the subject
must admit that he did not know himself, that, in fact, he had avoided
knowing himself. _All persons lie about sexual matters and deceive
themselves in the first place._ All play _Vogel-strauss-politik_, the
ostrich.
_All neurotics falsify their life history or at least retouch it._ They
simply forget the facts which do not suit their system of thinking. We
must also bear in mind _Havelock Ellis’_ statement that the homosexuals
prefer to consider themselves as normal. Similarly the childhood
history is distorted consciously or unconsciously and a life history is
reconstructed (in retrospect) from which all heterosexual episodes have
been eliminated.
Psychoanalysis has proven that all homosexuals, without exception,
show heterosexual tendencies in early life. There is no exception to
this rule. _There are no monosexual persons!_ The heterosexual period
stretches far into puberty. _All persons are bisexual._ But persons
repress either the homosexual or the heterosexual components on
account of certain motives or because they are compelled by particular
circumstances and consequently act as if they were monosexual. Even
the “male hero” (_Maennerheld_) type and _Hirschfeld’s_ “genuine”
homosexual is only apparently monosexual. A glance through the
confessions disclosed by all writers is enough to convince one of
this fact. _Hirschfeld_ himself points out that it is to the credit
of psychoanalysis that it has revealed the transitory heterosexual
cravings of the homosexual.
_The instinct of the homosexual originally is not exclusively directed
towards the same sex. Originally the homosexual is also bisexual._
But he represses his heterosexuality just as the heterosexual must
repress his homosexuality. _Blüher_ who is unwilling to recognise a
pathogenesis of homosexuality for the ‘male hero’ type, contends that
one could claim with equal relevance that there is a pathogenesis of
heterosexuality.
That is a fact. Every monosexuality is other than normal or natural.
_Nature has created us bisexual beings and requires us to act as
bisexual beings._ The purely heterosexual is always a neurotic in a
certain sense, that is, the repression of the homosexual components
already creates a predisposition to neurosis, or is in itself a
neurotic trait shared by every normal person. The psychology of
paranoia, for whose investigation we are indebted to the genius of
_Freud_, shows us the extreme result of this process of repression on
one side, just as homosexuality shows us the other side of the same
process.
There is no homosexual who is not more or less neurotic, that condition
being due to the repression of the heterosexuality. The repression
is a purely psychic process and has nothing to do with degeneration.
Homosexuality is not a product of degeneration in the ordinary sense.
It is a neurosis and displays the etiology of a neurosis, as we shall
prove later.
I revert to _Hirschfeld_. Regarding the relationship of neurosis and
homosexuality he states:
“1. Pronounced physical and mental stigmata of degeneration are
relatively rare among homosexual men and women; at any rate such signs
are not more frequent in proportion to the total number of homosexuals
than among the heterosexuals of both sexes.
“2. On the other hand we find frequently and not merely as a result
of homosexuality, _a greater instability of the nervous system_
(frequently shown in the periodic character of endogenous temperamental
instability) (_endogene Stimmungsschwankungen_).
“3. The family of the homosexual often contains a larger number of
nervous persons and such as deviate from the normal sexual type.
(_Hirschfeld_, _l.c._, _p._ 338).
_Hirschfeld_ also emphasizes the labile character of the nervous system
among homosexuals pointing to the large number of abnormal sexual
types in the family of the homosexual. That undoubtedly is a correct
observation. It may be explained in two ways: (1) as the result of
heredity; (2) as a consequence of a common environment. The extent to
which these two factors are at work in particular instances may be
ascertained only on the basis of specific inquiries.
I can state from my own professional experience that the parents of
homosexuals always show abnormal character traits. With remarkable
frequency male homosexuals have mothers who are melancholic, or
subject to depressions or who are advanced hystericals. All gradations
are found, from the emotional, domineering type of woman to the
solitary, quiet, submissive woman who becomes a prey to melancholia
and eventually must be interned in some institution. Urlinds show just
as frequently a pathologic father, a home tyrant, a drinker, morphine
fiend, dissolute fellow, ‘lady killer,’ epileptic or hysterical. We
will determine later to what extent such parents influence psychically
their offspring and the attitude of the children towards them. Careful
investigation of life histories will make the subject plain.
How do the various writers explain the rise of homosexuality? We have
mentioned already that _Hirschfeld_ and all investigators deriving
their inspiration from him hold to the theory that homosexuality is
inborn. According to them, therefore, it is part of inexorable fate,
like the law of the planets....
But _Bloch_ finds the condition baffling in spite of all the
explanations furnished by _Hirschfeld_ and reverting to the latter’s
chemical theory (_andrin_ and _gynecin_) he concludes:
“(1) The so-called ‘undifferentiated’ stage of the sexual instinct
(_Max Dessoir_) is often eliminated when the sexual instinct becomes
directed towards a definite particular sex among heterosexuals or
homosexuals before the advent of puberty. Homosexuality shows a
definite, clear direction of the sexual instinct towards the same sex
long before puberty.
“2. A comprehensive theory of homosexuality must also explain the
extreme cases, particularly male homosexuality coupled with complete
virility.
“3. Sexual parts and genital glands cannot determine homosexuality
in those possessing typical normal male genitalia and testicles;
neither can the brain itself be the determining factor in genuine
homosexuality, because homosexuality cannot be rooted out by the
strongest conscious and unconscious heterosexual influences brought to
bear upon thought and phantasy,—the condition developing in spite of
such influences.
“4. Since as a predisposition (not as sexual instinct) homosexuality
appears long before puberty and before the actual functioning of
the respective genital glands, it suggests that in homosexuals some
physiologic action pertaining to ‘sexuality’ but not necessarily
related to the functioning of the genital glands undergoes some subtle
change as the result of which the sexual instinct is turned from its
goal.
“5. The condition suggests chemical changes, alterations in the chemism
of sexual tension, the latter being fairly independent of the activity
of the sexual glands proper, as is shown by the fact that it may be
preserved among eunuchs and others who undergo castration.” (_Bloch_,
_loc. cit._ p. 589).
Further he states: “In my opinion the anatomic contradiction, the
biologic monstrosity of a womanly, or unmanly psyche in a typical male
body or a womanly-unmanly sexual psyche in the presence of normally
appearing and functioning male genitalia can be solved only if we take
into consideration this intercurrent third factor. The latter may be
traceable to some embryonal disturbance in the sexual chemism. That
would also explain why homosexuality often appears in the midst of
healthy families as a singular manifestation, having no relation to
any possible hereditary transmission or degenerative taint. On the
other hand, the contention of _v. Roemer_ that homosexuality is a
regenerative process has hardly any points to support it. The root of
the riddle of homosexuality lies here. At least I conceive it to be a
riddle. With my theory I endeavor to cover merely the facts and the
probable physiologic relationship of homosexuality with particular
reference to the biologic aspect of the problem and to do it more
closely than the previous theories have done it. But my theory does
not attempt to explain the ultimate origin of the relatively frequent
condition known as homosexuality.
“I do not claim to be able to penetrate into the last ultimate causes.
This remains a riddle to be solved. But from the standpoint of
culture and procreation homosexuality appears to be a meaningless and
purposeless dysteleological manifestation, like many another natural
appearance, such as, for instance, the vermiform appendix in man. In a
former chapter I have already pointed out that the progress of culture
has been in the direction of a sharper differentiation of sexes, that
the antithesis male and female, becomes progressively sharper. Sexual
indifference, genital transition-forms are of primitive character and
_Eduard v. Mayer_ is correct when he holds that homosexuality was
much more widespread during the prehistoric age than it is today and
considers it as common, genetically, as heterosexual love. Through
heredity, adjustment and differentiation, culture has progressively
repressed the homosexual leanings.” (_Bloch_, _loc. cit._ p. 590.)
Concerning these novel theories of homosexuality I must remark: _It
is not correct that the homosexuals before puberty show an exclusive
definite inclination towards their own sex and only towards their
own._ The truth is that like all other persons, the homosexuals
show a bisexual period (the undifferentiated stage of _Max Dessoir_)
before puberty. Only they forget their heterosexual experiences. The
truth is that a comprehensive theory of homosexuality ought to explain
also the extreme cases, specifically male homosexuality coupled with
complete preservation of vitality and female homosexuality with the
preservation of all feminine characters. Such cases are covered neither
by _Hirschfeld’s_ theory nor by that of _Bloch_. The third point is
equally pertinent. It cannot be a question of brain and genital gland.
Chemical influences are likely, but difficult to prove.
The baffling feature of the problem is due to the fact that the attempt
has been made to explain all cases of homosexuality on the basis of a
single plan.
As a matter of fact homosexuality may develop in a number of ways and
each one must be taken into consideration. That the genital glands
play a role in homosexuality seems to me very likely. But while these
influences may be suspected they cannot be proven. What I am able to
prove on the basis of my data are the psychic factors.
Nor must we forget that not only does the body influence the mind,
but that the reverse is also true: the psyche builds up the body
in accordance with its predispositions. We find that the artist’s
physiognomy differs from that of the artisan, and the physician’s
differs from that of the attorney. The mind also models the body.
A man who feels himself woman-like and who longs to be a woman will
unconsciously adopt woman’s ways and imitate woman. In the course of
time even his appearance will be womanly. Possibly—that agrees with my
view—the transformation is conditioned by glandular changes. We may
presuppose that, but the notion appertains to the realm of hypothesis,
which I prefer to avoid.
All writers seem to neglect the powerful role of the psychic factors.
These factors may seem unreal to the upholder of mechanistic
theories. Unfortunately most physicians underestimate the power of
the unconscious wish as a plastic and synthesising energy within the
human organism. The wish to be a man may raise boys to manliness;
the wish to remain a child hinders development towards adulthood;
the wish to be a woman makes for femininity. Any one familiar with
_Pawlow’s_ investigations of the ‘conditioned reflex’ will readily see
that certain particular wishes may exert a definite influence upon
the activity of the genital glands. The wishes are certainly capable
of influencing the appearance, action, activity and features of the
individual.
When a boy acts like a girl, it does not necessarily mean that he has
that kind of a predisposition. It may only signify his identification
with his mother or with a sister.
Very clearly on this point is the testimony of a case of which I find
an account in _Hirschfeld’s_ book.
A homosexual woman writes: “I was born in the country, where my father
owned a large estate, and there I was brought up till my 14th year.
I was the youngest. My oldest brother had girlish ways about him and
was mother’s pet rather than father’s, whose favorite child, in turn,
was my eldest sister. On my part I am the thorough image of my father
in all character traits and in my sensuous predisposition as well. In
later years father had often said: ‘With you and Ludwig (the elder
brother) nature made a mistake; you should have been a boy and Ludwig
a girl.’ Nevertheless I am certain that father knew nothing about
homosexuality, also that my brother was not homosexual. My peculiar
predisposition showed itself already while I was a child, for it was
always my greatest desire to be a boy. As a child two or three years
of age, I put on some of father’s clothes, played with his cap and
promenaded around the yard with his walking stick.” (_Hirschfeld_,
_loc. cit._, p. 43).
We see clearly that this young woman identified herself with her
father. She wanted to be a man like her father.
The remarks of _Ulrichs_ (_vid. Inclusa_, p. 27 ffl.) may be understood
in the same sense: “As a child the urning shows an unmistakable
predisposition towards girlish occupations, intercourse with girls,
girlish games, and playing with dolls. Such a child is very sorry
that it is not ‘boy-like’ to play with dolls, that Santa Claus does
not bring him also dolls and that he is not allowed to play with his
sister’s dolls. Such a child shows interest in sewing, knitting and
cutting, in the soft and delicate texture of girls’ clothes, such as
he, too, would like to wear, and in the colored silks and ribbons
of which he delights to abstract some specimens as keepsakes. He
avoids contact with boys, he avoids their plays and games. The play
horse leaves him indifferent. Soldier games, so much in favor with
boys do not attract him. He avoids all boyish rough plays, such as
snow-balling. He likes ordinary ball games but only with girls. He
throws the ball with the girl’s light and stilted arm movement not
with a boy’s free and powerful arm swing. Any one who has occasion
to observe a boy urning and does it carefully may verify these or
similar peculiarities. Is that all only imagination? I had observed
in myself long ago the peculiarities mentioned above and, moreover,
they always impressed me, although I did not at first recognize their
female character. In 1854 I related the facts to a relative of mine,
intimating that they must have some bearing on my sexuality. He scorned
the idea and I yielded to his opinion at the time. But in 1862 I took
up that matter again with him: meanwhile I had had opportunity to
observe other urnings and I noted that the female _habitus_ recurred
in every one, although not precisely with the same particular features.
But the female _habitus_ differs also among women with regard to
certain details. In my case, as a boy of 10 or 12 years of age, how
often my dear mother sighed as she exclaimed: ‘Karl, you are not like
other boys.’ How often she warned me: ‘You will grow up a queer fellow,
if nothing worse!’” (_Hirschfeld_, _l. c._ p. 117).
What do these fine observations prove? Any one who understands the
playful character of children, their early directed psyche, must
recognise that such conduct results through the influence of a wish.
No—these observations do not prove at all that the contrary sexual
feeling is innate. _Hirschfeld_ contends: “these accounts (referring
to previous statements) show a remarkable absence of tenderness among
the urning girls. An expert thoroughly familiar with their psyche, not
without reason states that we must watch the girl who passes carelessly
by a looking glass without stopping in front of it when dressing and
we must watch the boy who clings with pleasure to the looking glass
returning to it again and again, for thereby both betray early their
homosexual nature.” (_Hirschfeld_, _loc. cit._ p. 119). I see nothing
in these statements but an attempt on his part to differ from the
other colleagues.
Finally I turn to my own conception of homosexuality, formulated, on
the basis of psychoanalytic data and as an outgrowth of the teachings
of _Freud_.
_All persons originally are bisexual in their predisposition. There
is no exception to this rule. Normal persons show a distinct bisexual
period up to the age of puberty. The heterosexual then represses his
homosexuality. He also sublimates a portion of his homosexual cravings
in friendship, nationalism, social endeavors, gatherings, etc. If this
sublimation fails him he becomes neurotic. Since no person overcomes
completely his homosexual tendencies, every one carries within himself
the predisposition to neurosis. The stronger the repression, the
stronger is also the neurotic reaction which may be powerful enough in
its extreme form to lead to paranoia_ (Freud’s theory of paranoia). _If
the heterosexuality is repressed, homosexuality comes to the forefront.
In the case of the homosexual the repressed and incompletely conquered
heterosexuality furnishes the disposition towards neurosis. The more
thoroughly his heterosexuality is sublimated the more completely the
homosexual presents the picture of a normal healthy person. He then
resembles the normal heterosexual. But like the normal hetero__sexual
individual, even the “male hero” type displays a permanent latent
disposition to neurosis._