Note 3 — I

This view of Krafft-Ebing is by no means “antiquated.” It is still maintained by Stier (Zur Aetiologie des kontraeren Sexualgefuehls. Monatschrf. f. Psych, u. Neurol., vol. XXXII, 1914) and very energetically criticised (ibid.) by Hirschfeld and Burchard. “It is inconceivable,” state the above named authors, “how Stier can ascribe an etiologic significance to onanism in connection with homosexuality. Its distribution, ubiquitous—in the opinion of most specialists, would permit one to hold masturbation responsible for any other sexual development as well.” According to Stier, early and long-continued onanism (especially mutual) is harmful because “it does away with the feeling of shame in connection with one’s sexual organs and makes for readier handling even by the uncorrupted adult.” Fleischmann also finds 33 excessive onanists among 60 inverts and concludes (Beitr. zur Lehre der kontraeren Sexualempfindung, Zeitschr. f. d. ges. Neur. u. Psychol., vol. VII, 1911) that “like alcoholism, masturbation must influence the development of the perversion.” Many of his patients mentioned the habit in a casual relation. We know well that the sense of guilt is attached to the habit of masturbation. But Fleischmann sees in that a proof. “Onanism plays a role in the development of the sexual perversion,” he argues, “because it rouses an increased sexual excitability while the will power is weakened by it at the same time and there follows a progressive wandering of the sexual instinct away from the normal sexual aim and object.”