This impulse to defile may occur, however, paradoxically, in certain forms of senile dementia; as in those cases recorded by Tamowsky1 and Krafft-Ebing,* in which women were compelled—one in a brightly lighted room, and in her ball-dress—to endure defecation and micturition into their mouths at the command of perverts of this filthy type.
An instance of pathological novelty in overt sex-acts, illustrating the same species of perversion, was brought before a criminal court in Vienna.* Count H., accompanied by a young girl, appeared in the garden of a hotel, and by his actions there gave public offence. He demanded of his companion that she kneel down before him, and implore him with folded hands. Then she was compelled to lick his boots. Finally, he demanded of her, publicly, an unheard-of thing: osculum ad nates; 4 and only desisted after she had sworn to do it at home.
4 The "unheard-of thing" is, alas, only too frequently heard in this country. I mean, of course, the vulgar and obscene expression representing the act. The case cited is rather useful from a sociological than psychopathic standpoint, as exemplifying the intolerant arrogance of the "born aristocrat" toward the plebeian.
The legal point involved in this case as indicating sadistic tendencies, though not necessarily mental incompetency, is the desire manifested to publicly humiliate the woman, no feature of sexual perversion apparently entering into it. In my view it would be both safe and rational to treat all such cases as those of simple cruelly arising from a purely vicious basis.
I have scarcely a doubt that very many cases coming under the notice of the Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals are of sadistic origin. The individual thus perverted, deterred by fear of legal consequences from making his attacks upon women, and finding stimulation, or satisfaction of his lust in the dying torture of the louier animals, naturally selects the latter, as not only offering readier means of concealment, but, in some instances, possibly, occasioning less offence to his own conscience.1 But sufficient has been said in reference to the sadistic impulse, both here and in the earlier portion of the work, to establish, pretty clearly, its relation to criminal law; amenability being determined by the degree of cruelly inflicted, and the evidence, or non-evidence, of psychopathic conditions present in each case. Broadly speaking, the sadist is a criminal, in some one of the degrees of crime; in proportion as the masochist is a non-criminal, in all its degrees; and to the extent the impulse to inflict pain is more frequently criminal than the impulse to suffer vain,
1 For numerous instances of these sadistic acts, see Hofmann, "Text-Book of Legal Medicine;" Lombroso, "Uomo delinquente;" Mantegazza, "Fisiologia del Piacere," and Krafft-Ebing, loc. cit., pp. 57, 58.