say about sexual inversion, there is good reason for us to feel uneasy
as to the present condition of our laws. And yet it might be argued
that anomalous desires are not always maladies, not always congenital,
not always psychical passions. In some cases they must surely be vices
deliberately adopted out of lustfulness, wanton curiosity, and seeking
after sensual refinements. The difficult question still remains
then--how to repress vice, without acting unjustly toward the naturally
abnormal, the unfortunate, and the irresponsible.
I pass now to the polemical writings of a man who maintains that
homosexual passions, even in their vicious aspects, ought not to be
punished except in the same degree and under the same conditions as the
normal passions of the majority.
VII.
LITERATURE--POLEMICAL.
It can hardly be said that inverted sexuality received a serious and
sympathetic treatment until a German jurist, named Karl Heinrich
Ulrichs, began his long warfare against what he considered to be
prejudice and ignorance upon a topic of the greatest moment to himself.
A native of Hanover, and writing at first under the assumed name of Numa
Numantius, he kept pouring out a series of polemical, analytical,
theoretical, and apologetical pamphlets between the years 1864 and 1870.
The most important of these works is a lengthy and comprehensive Essay
entitled "Memnon. Die Geschlechtsnatur des mannliebenden Urnings. Eine
naturwissenschaftliche Darstellung. Schleiz, 1868." Memnon may be used
as the text-book of its author's theories; but it is also necessary to
study earlier and later treatises--Inclusa, Formatrix, Vindex, Ara Spei,
Gladius Furens, Incubus, Argonauticus, Prometheus, Araxes, Kritische
Pfeile--in order to obtain a complete knowledge of his opinions, and to
master the whole mass of information he has brought together.
The object of Ulrichs in these miscellaneous writings is twofold. He
seeks to establish a theory of sexual inversion upon the basis of
natural science, proving that abnormal instincts are inborn and healthy
in a considerable percentage of human beings; that they do not owe their
origin to bad habits of any kind, to hereditary disease, or to wilful
depravity; that they are incapable in the majority of cases of being
extirpated or converted into normal channels; and that the men subject
to them are neither physically, intellectually, nor morally inferior to
normally constituted individuals. Having demonstrated these points to
his own satisfaction, and supported his views with a large induction of
instances and a respectable show of erudition, he proceeds to argue that
the present state of the law in many states of Europe is flagrantly
unjust to a class of innocent persons, who may indeed be regarded as
unfortunate and inconvenient, but who are guilty of nothing which
deserves reprobation and punishment. In this second and polemical branch
of his exposition, Ulrichs assumes, for his juristic starting-point,
that each human being is born with natural rights which legislation
ought not to infringe but protect. He does not attempt to confute the
utilitarian theory of jurisprudence, which regards laws as regulations
made by the majority in the supposed interests of society. Yet a large
amount of his reasoning is designed to invalidate utilitarian arguments
in favour of repression, by showing that no social evil ensues in those
countries which have placed abnormal sexuality upon the same footing as
the normal, and that the toleration of inverted passion threatens no
danger to the well-being of nations.
After this prelude, an abstract of Ulrichs' theory and his pleading may
be given, deduced from the comparative study of his numerous essays.
The right key to the solution of the problem is to be found in
physiology, in that obscure department of natural science which deals
with the evolution of sex. The embryo, as we are now aware, contains an
undetermined element of sex during the first months of pregnancy. This
is gradually worked up into male and female organs of procreation; and
these, when the age of puberty arrives, are generally accompanied by
corresponding male and female appetites. That is to say, the man in an
immense majority of cases desires the woman, and the woman desires the
man. Nature, so to speak, aims at differentiating the undecided foetus
into a human being of one or the other sex, the propagation of the
species being the main object of life. Still, as Aristotle puts it, and
as we observe in many of her operations, "Nature wishes, but has not
always the power": [Greek: hê physis bouletai men all' ou dynatai].
Consequently in respect of physical structure, there come to light
imperfect individuals, so-called hermaphrodites, whose sexual apparatus
is so far undetermined that many a real male has passed a portion of his
life under a mistake, has worn female clothes, and has cohabited by
preference with men. Likewise, in respect of spiritual nature, there
appear males who, notwithstanding their marked masculine organisation,
feel from the earliest childhood a sexual proclivity toward men, with a
corresponding indifference for women. In some of these abnormal, but
natural, beings, the appetite for men resembles the normal appetite of
men for women; in others it resembles the normal appetite of women for
men. That is to say, some prefer effeminate males, dressed in feminine
clothes and addicted to female occupations. Others prefer powerful
adults of an ultra-masculine stamp. A third class manifest their
predilection for healthy young men in the bloom of adolescence, between
nineteen and twenty. The attitude of such persons towards women also
varies. In genuine cases of inborn sexual inversion a positive horror is
felt when the woman has to be carnally known; and this horror is of the
same sort as that which normal men experience when they think of
cohabitation with a male.[55] In others the disinclination does not
amount to repugnance; but the abnormal man finds considerable difficulty
in stimulating himself to the sexual act with females, and derives a
very imperfect satisfaction from the same. A certain type of man, in the
last place, seems to be indifferent, desiring males at one time and
females at another.
In order to gain clearness in his exposition, Ulrichs has invented names
for these several species. The so-called hermaphrodite he dismisses with
the German designation of _Zwitter_. Imperfect individuals of this type
are not to be considered, because it is well known that the male or
female organs are never developed in one and the same body. It is also,
as we shall presently discover, an essential part of his theory to
regard the problem of inversion psychologically.
The normal man he calls _Dioning_, the abnormal man _Urning_. Among
Urnings, those who prefer effeminate males are christened by the name of
_Mannling_; those who prefer powerful and masculine adults receive the
name of _Weibling_; the Urning who cares for adolescents is styled a
_Zwischen-Urning_. Men who seemed to be indifferently attracted by both
sexes, he calls _Uranodioninge_. A genuine Dioning, who, from lack of
women, or under the influence of special circumstances, consorts with
persons of his own sex, is denominated _Uraniaster_. A genuine Urning,
who has put restraint upon his inborn impulse, who has forced himself to
cohabit with women, or has perhaps contracted marriage, is said to be
_Virilisirt_--a virilised Urning.
These outlandish names, though seemingly pedantic and superfluous, have
their technical value, and are necessary to the understanding of
Ulrichs' system. He is dealing exclusively with individuals classified
by common parlance as males without distinction. Ulrichs believes that
he can establish a real natural division between men proper, whom he
calls _Dioninge_, and males of an anomalous sexual development, whom he
calls _Urninge_. Having proceeded so far, he finds the necessity of
distinguishing three broad types of the Urning, and of making out the
crosses between Urning and Dioning, of which he also find three species.
It will appear in the sequel that whatever may be thought about his
psychological hypothesis, the nomenclature he has adopted is useful in
discussion, and corresponds to well-defined phenomena, of which we have
abundant information. The following table will make his analysis
sufficiently plain:--
{ (1) Man or Dioning ... Uraniaster, when
{ he has acquired the
{ tastes of the Urning.
{
The { { Mannling.
Human { (2) Urning { Weibling.
Male { { Zwischen-Urning.
{ { Virilised Urning.
{
{ (3) Uranodioning.
{ (4) Hermaphrodite.
Broadly speaking, the male includes two main species: Dioning and
Urning, men with normal and men with abnormal instincts. What, then,
constitutes the distinction between them? How are we justified in
regarding them as radically divergent?
Ulrichs replies that the phenomenon of sexual inversion is to be
explained by physiology, and particularly by the evolution of the
embryo.[56] Nature fails to complete her work regularly and in every
instance. Having succeeded in differentiating a male with full-formed
sexual organs from the undecided foetus, she does not always effect the
proper differentiation of that portion of the psychical being in which
resides the sexual appetite. There remains a female soul in a male body.
_Anima muliebris virili corpore inclusa_, is the formula adopted by
Ulrichs; and he quotes a passage from the "Vestiges of Creation," which
suggests that a male is a more advanced product of sexual evolution than
the female. The male instinct of sex is a more advanced product than the
female instinct. Consequently men appear whose body has been
differentiated as masculine, but whose sexual instinct has not
progressed beyond the feminine stage.
Ulrichs' own words ought to be cited upon this fundamental part of his
hypothesis, since he does not adopt the opinion that the Urning is a
Dioning arrested at a certain point of development; but rather that
there is an element of uncertainty attending the simultaneous evolution
of physical and psychical factors from the indeterminate ground-stuff.
"Sex," says he, "is only an affair of development. Up to a certain stage
of embryonic existence all living mammals are hermaphroditic. A certain
number of them advance to the condition of what I call man (Doining),
others to what I call woman (Dioningin), a third class become what I
call _Urning_ (including _Urningin_). It ensues therefrom that between
these three sexes there are no primary, but only secondary differences.
And yet true differences, constituting sexual species, exist as
facts."[57] Man, Woman, and Urning--the third being either a male or a
female in whom we observe a real and inborn, not an acquired or a
spurious, inversion of appetite--are consequently regarded by him as the
three main divisions of humanity viewed from the point of view of sex.
The embryonic ground-stuff in the case of each was homologous; but while
the two former, Man and Woman, have been normally differentiated, the
Urning's sexual instinct, owing to some imperfection in the process of
development, does not correspond to his or her sexual organs.
The line of division between the sexes, even in adult life, is a subtle
one; and the physical structure of men and women yields indubitable
signs of their emergence from a common ground-stuff. Perfect men have
rudimentary breasts. Perfect women carry a rudimentary penis in their
clitoris. The raphé of the scrotum shows where the aperture, common at
first to masculine and feminine beings, but afterwards only retained in
the female vulva, was closed up to form a male. Other anatomical details
of the same sort might be adduced. But these will suffice to make
thinking persons reflect upon the mysterious dubiety of what we call
sex. That gradual development, which ends in normal differentiation,
goes on very slowly. It is only at the age of puberty that a boy
distinguishes himself abruptly from a girl, by changing his voice and
growing hair on parts of the body where it is not usually found in
women. This being so, it is surely not surprising that the sexual
appetite should sometimes fail to be normally determined, or in other
words should be inverted.
Ulrichs maintains that the body of an Urning is masculine, his soul
feminine, so far as sex is concerned. Accordingly, though physically
unfitted for coition with men, he is imperatively drawn towards them by
a natural impulse. Opponents meet him with this objection: "Your
position is untenable. Body and soul constitute one inseparable entity."
So they do, replies Ulrichs; but the way in which these factors of the
person are combined in human beings differs extremely, as I can prove by
indisputable facts. The body of a male is visible to the eyes, is
mensurable and ponderable, is clearly marked in its specific organs. But
what we call his soul--his passions, inclinations, sensibilities,
emotional characteristics, sexual desires--eludes the observation of the
senses. This second factor, like the first, existed in the undetermined
stages of the foetus. And when I find that the soul, this element of
instinct and emotion and desire existing in a male, had been directed
in its sexual appetite from earliest boyhood towards persons of the male
sex, I have the right to qualify it with the attribute of femininity.
You assume that soul-sex is indissolubly connected and inevitably
derived from body-sex. The facts contradict you, as I can prove by
referring to the veracious autobiographies of Urnings and to known
phenomena regarding them.
Such is the theory of Ulrichs; and though we may not incline to his
peculiar mode of explaining the want of harmony between sexual organs
and sexual appetite in Urnings, there can be no doubt that in some way
or other their eccentric diathesis must be referred to the obscure
process of sexual differentiation.[58] Perhaps he antedates the moment
at which the aberration sometimes takes its origin, not accounting
sufficiently for imperative impressions made on the imagination or the
senses of boys during the years which precede puberty.
However this may be, the tendency to such inversion is certainly inborn
in an extremely large percentage of cases. That can be demonstrated from
the reports of persons whose instincts were directed to the male before
they knew what sex meant. It is worth extracting passages from these
confessions.[59] (1) "As a schoolboy of eight years, I sat near a
comrade rather older than myself; and how happy was I, when he touched
me. That was the first indefinite perception of an inclination which
remained a secret for me till my nineteenth year." (2) "Going back to my
seventh year, I had a lively feeling for a schoolfellow, two years older
than myself; I was happy when I could be as close as possible to him,
and in our games could place my head near to his private parts." (3) "At
ten years of age he had a romantic attachment for a comrade; and the
passion for people of his own sex became always more and more marked."
(4) Another confessed that "already at the age of four he used to dream
of handsome grooms." (5) A fifth said: "My passion for people of my own
sex awoke at the age of eight. I used to enjoy my brother's nakedness;
while bathing with other children, I took no interest at all in girls,
but felt the liveliest attraction toward boys." (6) A sixth dates his
experience from his sixth or seventh year. (7) A seventh remembers that
"while yet a boy, before the age of puberty, sleeping in the company of
a male agitated him to such an extent that he lay for hours awake." (8)
An eighth relates that "while three years old, I got possession of a
fashion book, cut out the pictures of men, and kissed them to tatters.
The pictures of women I did not care to look at." (9) A ninth goes back
to his thirteenth year, and a school friendship. (10) A tenth records
the same about his seventh year. (11) An eleventh says that his inverted
instincts awoke in early childhood, and that from his ninth year onward
he fell over and over again in love with adult men. (12) A twelfth spoke
as follows: "So far back as I can remember, I was always subject to
this passion. Quite as a child, young men made deeper impression on me
than women or girls. The earliest sensual perturbation of which I have
any recollection was excited by a tutor, when I was nine or ten, and my
greatest pleasure was to be allowed to ride astride upon his leg." (13)
A thirteenth: "From the earliest childhood I have been haunted by
visions of men, and only of men; never has a woman exercised the least
influence over me. At school I kept these instincts to myself, and lived
quite retired." (14) A fourteenth can recollect "receiving a distinctly
sensual impression at the age of four, when the man-servants caressed
him." (15) A fifteenth says that at the age of thirteen, together with
puberty, the inversion of appetite awoke in him. (16) A sixteenth
confesses that he felt an unconquerable desire for soldiers in his
thirteenth year. (17) A seventeenth remembers having always dreamed only
of men; and at school, he says, "when my comrades looked at pretty girls
and criticised them during our daily promenades, I could not comprehend
how they found anything to admire in such creatures." On the other hand,
the sight and touch of soldiers and strong fellows excited him
enormously. (18) An eighteenth dates the awakening of passion in him at
the age of eleven, when he saw a handsome man in church; and from that
time forward his instinct never altered. (19) A nineteenth fell in love
with an officer at the age of thirteen, and since then always desired
vigorous adult males. (20) A twentieth confessed to have begun to love
boys of his own age, sensually, while only eight years of age. (21) A
twenty-first records that, when he was eight, he began to crave after
the sight of naked men.
In addition to these cases a great many might be culled from the
writings of Ulrichs, who has published a full account from his own early
experience.[60] "I was fifteen years and ten and a half months old," he
says, "when the first erotic dream announced the arrival of puberty.
Never before that period had I known sexual gratification of any kind
whatever. The occurrence was therefore wholly normal. From a much
earlier time, however, I had been subject to emotions, partly romantic,
partly sensual, without any definite desire, and never for one and the
same young man. These aimless yearnings of the senses plagued me in my
solitary hours, and I could not overcome them. During my fifteenth year,
while at school at Detmold, the vague longing took a twofold shape.
First, I came across Norman's 'Säulenordnungen,' and there I was
vehemently attracted by the figure of a Greek god or hero, standing in
naked beauty. Secondly, while studying in my little room, or before
going to sleep, the thought used suddenly and irresistibly to rise up in
my mind--If only a soldier would clamber through the window and come
into my room! I then painted in my fancy the picture of a splendid
soldier of twenty to twenty-two years old. And yet I had no definite
idea of why I wanted him; nor had I ever come in contact with soldiers.
About two years after this, I happened to sit next a soldier in a
post-carriage. The contact with his thigh excited me to the highest
degree." Ulrichs also relates that in his tenth year he conceived an
enthusiastic and romantic friendship for a boy two years his senior.
That experiences of the kind are very common, every one who has at all
conversed with Urnings knows well. From private sources of
unquestionable veracity, these may be added. _A_ relates that, before
eight years old, reverie occurred to him during the day, and dreams at
night, of naked sailors. When he began to study Latin and Greek, he
dreamed of young gods, and at the age of fourteen, became deeply
enamoured of the photograph of the Praxitelian Erôs in the Vatican. He
had a great dislike for physical contact with girls; and with boys was
shy and reserved, indulging in no acts of sense. _B_ says that during
his tenderest boyhood, long before the age of puberty, he fell in love
with a young shepherd on one of his father's farms, for whom he was so
enthusiastic that the man had to be sent to a distant moor. _C_ at the
same early age, conceived a violent affection for a footman; _D_ for an
officer, who came to stay at his home; _E_ for the bridegroom of his
eldest sister.
In nearly all the cases here cited, the inverted sexual instinct sprang
up spontaneously. Only a few of the autobiographies record seduction by
an elder man as the origin of the affection. In none of them was it ever
wholly overcome. Only five out of the twenty-seven men married. Twenty
declare that, tortured by the sense of their dissimilarity to other
males, haunted by shame and fear, they forced themselves to frequent
public women soon after the age of puberty. Some found themselves
impotent. Others succeeded in accomplishing their object with
difficulty, or by means of evoking the images of men on whom their
affections were set. All, except one, concur in emphatically asserting
the superior attraction which men have always exercised for them over
women. Women leave them, if not altogether disgusted, yet cold and
indifferent. Men rouse their strongest sympathies and instincts. The one
exception just alluded to is what Ulrichs would call an Uranodioning.
The others are capable of friendship with women, some even of æsthetic
admiration, and the tenderest regard for them, but not of genuine sexual
desire. Their case is literally an inversion of the ordinary.
Some observations may be made on Ulrichs' theory. It is now recognised
by the leading authorities, medical and medico-juristic, in Germany, by
writers like Casper-Liman and Krafft-Ebing, that sexual inversion is
more often than not innate. So far, without discussing the physiological
or metaphysical explanations of this phenomenon, without considering
whether Ulrichs is right in his theory of _anima muliebris inclusa in
corpore virili_, or whether heredity, insanity, and similar general
conditions are to be held responsible for the fact, it may be taken as
admitted on all sides that the sexual diathesis in question is in a very
large number of instances congenital. But Ulrichs seems to claim too
much for the position he has won. He ignores the frequency of acquired
habits. He shuts his eyes to the force of fashion and depravity. He
reckons men like Horace and Ovid and Catullus, among the ancients, who
were clearly indifferent in their tastes (as indifferent as the modern
Turks) to the account of Uranodionings. In one word, he is so
enthusiastic for his physiological theory that he overlooks all other
aspects of the question. Nevertheless, he has acquired the right to an
impartial hearing, while pleading in defence of those who are
acknowledged by all investigators of the problem to be the subjects of
an inborn misplacement of the sexual appetite.
Let us turn, then, to the consideration of his arguments in favour of
freeing Urnings from the terrible legal penalties to which they are at
present subject, and, if this were possible, from the no less terrible
social condemnation to which they are exposed by the repugnance they
engender in the normally constituted majority. Dealing with these
exceptions to the kindly race of men and women, these unfortunates who
have no family ties knotted by bonds by mutual love, no children to
expect, no reciprocity of passion to enjoy, mankind, says Ulrichs, has
hitherto acted just in the same way as a herd of deer acts when it
drives the sickly and the weakly out to die in solitude; burdened with
contumely, and cut off from common sympathy.