where the law against homosexuality is severe, it abounds also, probably to a much greater extent than in France; it certainly asserts itself more vigorously; a far greater number of cases have been recorded than in any other country, and the German literature of homosexuality is very extensive, often issued in popular form, and sometimes enthusiastically eulogistic.' In England the law is exceptionally severe; yet, according to the evidence of those who have an international acquaintance with these matters, homosexuality is fully as prevalent as on the Continent; some would say that it is more so. cannot, therefore, be said, that legislative enactments have very much influence on the prevalence of homosexuality. The chief effect seems to be that the attempt at suppression arouses the finer minds among sexual inverts to undertake the enthusiastic defence of homosexuality, while coarser minds are stimulated to cynical bravado.2 It But, while the law has had no more influence in repressing abnormal sexuality than, wherever it has tried to do so, it has had in repressing the normal sexual instinct, it has served to foster another offence. What is called blackmailing in England, chantage in France, erpressung in Germany-in other words, the extortion of money by threats of exposing some real or fictitious offence-finds its chief field of activity in connection with homosexuality. No doubt the removal of the penalty against simple homosexuality does not abolish blackmailing, as the existence of this kind of chantage in France shows, but it renders its success less probable. On all these grounds, and taking into consideration the fact that the tendency of modern legislation generally, and 1 Krafft-Ebing's Psychopathia Sexualis cannot fairly be regarded as eulogistic or popular in form; it has however, had a very wide and unrestricted sale. 2A man with homosexual habits told J. A. Symonds that he would be sorry to see the English law changed, as then he would find no pleasure in his practices. the consensus of authoritative opinion in all countries, are in this direction, I am of opinion that neither "sodomy" (i.e., immissio membri in anum hominis vel mulieris) nor "gross indecency" ought to be penal offences, except under certain special circumstances. That is to say that if two persons of either or both sexes, having reached years of discretion,' privately consent to practise some perverted mode of sexual relationship, the law cannot be called upon to interfere. It should be the function of the law in this matter to prevent violence, to protect the young, and to preserve public order and decency. Whatever laws are laid down beyond this must be left to the individuals themselves, to the moralist and to social opinion. At the same time, and while such a modification in the law seems to be reasonable, the change effected would be less considerable than may appear at first sight. In a very large proportion indeed of cases boys are involved. It is instructive to observe that in Legludic's 246 cases (including victims and aggressors together) in France, 127, or more than half, were between the ages of 10 and 20, and 82, or exactly one-third, were between the ages of 10 and 14. A A very considerable field of operation is thus still left for the law, whatever proportion of cases may meet with no other penalty than social opinion. That, however, social opinion-law or no law-will speak with no uncertain voice is very evident. I have already referred to the state of things in France, where the law has been placed on what must be regarded as a satisfactory basis for very nearly a century. Opinion in England may be gauged by the almost unspeakable disgust which from time to time (as during the trial of Oscar Wilde) finds expression in the newspapers. I do 'Krafft-Ebing would place this age not under 16, the age at which in England girls may legally consent to normal sexual intercourse (Psychopathia Sexualis, 1893, p. 419). It certainly should not be lower. 2 I am willing to admit that in this particular case the social reaction may have been somewhat excessive, and it has produced, especially abroad, not know whether it has been pointed out that in the evolution of culture the popular attitude towards homosexuality has passed through three different stages, roughly corresponding to the stages of savagery, barbarism, and civilisation. At first it is primarily an aspect of economics, a question of under- or over-population; and is forbidden or allowed accordingly. Then (as throughout the Middle Ages from the time of Justinian) it becomes primarily a matter of religion, and thus an act of sacrilege. Now we hear little either of its economic aspects or of its sacrilegiousness; it is for us primarily a disgusting abomination, i.e., a matter of taste, of æsthetics; and, while unspeakably ugly to the majority, it is proclaimed as beautiful by a small minority. I do not know that we need find fault with this æsthetic method of judging homosexuality. But it scarcely lends itself to legal purposes. To indulge in violent denunciation of the disgusting nature of homosexuality, and to measure the sentence by the disgust aroused, or to regret, as one English judge is reported to have regretted when giving sentence, that "gross indecency" is not punishable by death, is to import utterly foreign considerations into the matter. The judges who yield to this temptation. would certainly never allow themselves to be consciously influenced on the bench by their political opinions. æsthetical opinions are quite as foreign to law as political opinions. An act does not become criminal because it is disgusting. To eat excrement, as Moll remarks, is extremely disgusting, but it is not criminal. The con Yet fusion which thus exists, even in the legal mind, between the disgusting and the criminal is additional evidence of the undesirability of the legal penalty for simple homosexuality. At the same time it shows that social opinion a rebounding wave of indignation, equally excessive, which finds expression, for instance, in the following dedication in Le Cycle Patibulaire (1896) of Georges Eekhoud, a leading Belgian novelist: "A Monsieur Oscar Wilde, au Poète et au martyr Païen, torturé au nom de le Justice et de la Virtu Protestantes." is most amply adequate to deal with the manifestations of inverted sexuality. So much for the legal aspects of sexual inversion. But, while there can be no doubt about the amply adequate character of the existing social reaction to all manifestations of perverted sexuality, the question still remains how far not merely the law, but also the state of public opinion, should be modified in the light of such a psychological study as we have here undertaken. It is clear this public opinion, moulded chiefly or entirely with reference to gross vice, tends to be unduly violent in its reaction. What, then, is the reasonable attitude of society towards the congenital sexual invert? It seems to lie in the avoidance of two extremes. On the one hand, it cannot be expected to tolerate the invert who flouts his perversion in its face and assumes that, because he would rather take his pleasure with a soldier or a policeman than with their sisters, he is of finer clay than the vulgar herd. On the other, it might well refrain from crushing with undiscerning ignorance beneath a burden of shame the subject of an abnormality which, as we have seen, has not been found incapable of fine uses. Inversion is an aberration from the usual course of nature. But the clash of contending elements which must often mark the history of such a deviation results now and again-by no means infrequently-in nobler activities than those yielded by the vast majority who are born to consume the fruits of the earth. It bears for the most part its penalty in the structure of its own organism. We are bound to protect the helpless members of society against the invert. If we go further, and seek to destroy the invert himself before he has sinned against society, we exceed the warrant of reason, and in so doing we may, perhaps, destroy also those children of the spirit which possess sometimes a greater worth than the children of the flesh. Here we may leave this question of sexual inversion. In dealing with it I have sought to avoid that attitude of moral superiority which is so common in the literature of this subject, and have refrained from pointing out how loathsome this phenomenon is, or how hideous that. Such an attitude is as much out of place in scientific investigation as it is in judicial investigation, and may well be left to the amateur. The physician who feels nothing but disgust at the sight of disease is unlikely to bring either succour to his patients or instruction to his pupils. That the investigation we have here pursued is not only profitable to us in succouring the social organism and its members, but also in bringing light into the region of sexual psychology, is now, I hope, clear to every reader who has followed me to this point. There are a multitude of social questions which we cannot face squarely and honestly unless we possess such precise knowledge as has been here brought together concerning the part played by the homosexual tendency in human life. Moreover, the study of this perverted tendency stretches beyond itself;— "O'er that art Which you say adds to Nature, is an art Pathology is but physiology working under new conditions. The stream of Nature still flows into the bent channel of sexual inversion, and still runs according to law. We have not wasted our time in this toilsome excursion. With the knowledge here gained we are the better equipped to enter upon the study of the wider questions of sex. |