the sake of money, and became depraved morally, so that, in more mature years, they have fallen so low that they take pleasure in being male prostitutes.
2. Under circumstances analogous to those of I, 1,—as a remuneration to another for having allowed active pederasty.
II. As a pathological phenomenon:—
1. In individuals affected with contrary sexual instinct, with endurance of pain and disgust, as a return to men for the bestowal of sexual favors.
2. In urnings who feel toward men like women, out of desire and lust. In such female-men there is horror feminæ and absolute incapability for sexual intercourse with women. Character and inclinations are feminine.
The empirical facts that have been gathered by legal medicine and psychiatry are all included in this classification. Before the court of medical science, it would be necessary to prove that a man belonged to one of the above categories in order to carry the conviction that he was a pederast.
In the life and character of Dr. S., one searches in vain for signs which place him in one of the categories of active pederasts which science has established. He is neither one forced to sexual abstinence, nor one made impotent for women by debauchery; neither is he congenitally male-loving, nor alienated from women by masturbation, and attracted to men through continuance of sexual desire; and, finally, he is not sexually perverse as a result of severe mental disease.
In fact, the general conditions necessary for the occurrence of pederasty are wanting in him,—moral imbecility or moral depravity, on the one hand, and inordinate sexual desire, on the other.
It is likewise impossible to classify the accomplice, G., in any of the empirical categories of passive pederasty; for he possesses neither the peculiarities of the male prostitute nor the clinical marks of effemination; and he has not the anthropological and clinical stigmata of the female-man. He is, in fact, the very opposite of all this.
In order to make a pederastic relation between the two plausible medico-scientifically, it would be requisite for Dr. S. to present the antecedents and marks of the active pederasts of I, 2, and G., those of the passive pederasts of II, 1 or 2.
The assumption lying at the basis of the verdict is, from a psychological stand-point, legally untenable.
With the same right, every man might be considered a pederast. It remains to consider whether the explanations given by Dr. S. and G. of their remarkable friendship are psychologically valid.
Psychologically it is not without parallel that so sentimental and eccentric a man as S.—without any sexual excitement whatever—should entertain a transcendental friendship. It suffices to recall the friendship of school-girls, the self-sacrificing friendship of sentimental young persons
