with his parents, who forbad him to sleep with me. What followed is of some importance. Up till then, though certainly his affection seemed ardent, I had observed no sexual signs on his part. I had been quite frank with him as to mine. He was then 19, and I thought old enough to have things explained to him. Sleeping with him I had found peaceful and helpful, and more than once he told me that it greatly helped him. But after we were forbidden to sleep together, I found the passion in me more difficult to control, and it suddenly leaped out in him. We were still, however, rather ascetic, though we used to kiss each other, and we used to embrace naked. This produced emission not infrequently with me, but only once with him, though always powerful erection. I would not allow any friction. Perhaps this was a mistake. A more complete expression might have helped him.
"All my life I had been hungry for a complete response, and at one time the lad thought he could give it. He was then nearing 20. 'I have never been so happy in my life,' he said. It was a blow to me when I found he had mistaken his own feelings, but I was quite ready to accept what love he could give. I also never dreamed of any sort of insistence on sexual expression. With such love as he could give I was quite ready to make myself content. 'The true measure of love,' wrote a uranian schoolmaster to me once, 'is self-sacrifice'; not 'What will you give?' but 'What will you give up?' Not 'What will you do for him?' but 'What will you forego for his sake?' I quote this gladly, for the conventional English moralists regard an invert as a kind of deformed beast. I can only say that I tried to realize the ideal which these words express. No 'moralist' would have helped me one whit. The parents, also, separated us. They have done much harm by their mistake. How difficult it is for parents to allow freedom to their children! Their ideal is successful constraint, not free self-discovery. But in spite of them, and in spite of the separation, I know that my friend and I have helped each other.
"There is one fear parents have which I believe is unwarranted. As far as I have seen, I do not conclude that the early expression of homosexual love prevents heterosexual love from developing later. Where this love is a part of the individual's inborn nature, it will show itself. I do, however, believe that a noble homogenic love in early life will sometimes help a lad to avoid a low standard of heterogenic attachment. The Greeks did well, at their best time, in cultivating and ennobling the homogenic love. Amongst us, as can be understood by all who know the working of society taboos, it is the baser forms that are unhindered, the noblest forms that are debased.
"We urnings are, I think, dependent upon individual love. Many of us, I know, need to work for an individual to do our best. Is this the outcome of the woman in the uranian temperament? And the tragedy of our fate is that we whose souls vibrate only to the touch of the hand of Eros are faced with the fiercest taboo of all that can give our lives meaning. The other taboos have been given up one by one. Will not this, the last of the taboos, soon vanish? I have known lives darkened by it, weakened by it, crushed out by it. How long are the western moralists to maim and brand and persecute where they do not understand?"
The next case belongs to a totally different class from all the preceding histories. These—all British or American—were obtained privately; they are not the inmates of prisons or of asylums, and in most cases they have never consulted a physician concerning their abnormal instincts. They pass through life as ordinary, sometimes as honored, members of society. The following case, which happens to be that of an American, is acquainted with both the prison and the lunatic asylum. There are several points of interest in his history, and he illustrates the way in which sexual inversion can become a matter of medico-legal importance. I think, however, that I am justified in believing that the proportion of sexually inverted persons who reach the police-court or the lunatic asylum is not much larger in proportion to the number of sexually inverted persons among us than it is among my cases. For the documents on which I have founded the history of Guy Olmstead I am indebted to the kindness of Dr. Talbot, of Chicago, well known from his studies of abnormalities of the jaws and face, so often associated with nervous and mental abnormality. He knew the man who addressed to him the letters from which I here quote:—
HISTORY XXVI.—On the twenty-eighth of March, 1894, at noon, in the open street in Chicago, Guy T. Olmstead fired a revolver at a letter-carrier named William L. Clifford. He came up from behind, and deliberately fired four shots, the first entering Clifford's loins, the other three penetrating the back of his head, so that the man fell and was supposed to be fatally wounded. Olmstead made little attempt to escape, as a crowd rushed up with the usual cry of "Lynch him!" but waved his revolver, exclaiming: "I'll never be taken alive!" and when a police-officer disarmed him: "Don't take my gun; let me finish what I have to do." This was evidently an allusion, as will be seen later on, to an intention to destroy himself. He eagerly entered the prison-van, however, to escape the threatening mob.
Olmstead, who was 30 years of age, was born near Danville, Ill., in which city he lived for many years. Both parents were born in Illinois. His father, some twenty years ago, shot and nearly killed a wealthy coal operator, induced to commit the crime, it is said, by a secret organization of a hundred prominent citizens to whom the victim had made himself obnoxious by bringing suits against them for trivial causes. The victim became insane, but the criminal was never punished, and died a few years later at the age of 44. This man had another son who was considered peculiar.
Guy Olmstead began to show signs of sexual perversity at the age of 12. He was seduced (we are led to believe) by a man who occupied the same bedroom. Olmstead's early history is not clear from the data to hand. It appears that he began his career as a schoolteacher in Connecticut, and that he there married the daughter of a prosperous farmer; but shortly after he "fell in love" with her male cousin, whom he describes as a very handsome young man. This led to a separation from his wife, and he went West.
He was never considered perfectly sane, and from October, 1886, to May, 1889 he was in the Kankakee Insane Asylum. His illness was reported as of three years' duration, and caused by general ill-health; heredity doubtful, habits good, occupation that of a schoolteacher. His condition was diagnosed as paranoia. On admission he was irritable, alternately excited and depressed. He returned home in good condition.
At this period, and again when examined later, Olmstead's physical condition is described as, on the whole, normal and fairly good. Height, 5 feet 8 inches; weight, 159 pounds. Special senses normal; genitals abnormally small, with rudimentary penis. His head is asymmetrical, and is full at the occiput, slightly sunken at the bregma, and the forehead is low. His cephalic index is 78. The hair is sandy, and normal in amount over head, face, and body. His eyes are gray, small, and deeply set; the zygomæ are normal. The nose is large and very thin. There is arrested development of upper jaw. The ears are excessively developed and malformed. The face is very much lined, the nasolabial fissure is deeply cut, and there are well-marked horizontal wrinkles on the forehead, so that he looks at least ten years older than his actual age. The upper jaw is of partial V-shape, the lower well developed. The teeth and their tubercles and the alveolar process are normal. The breasts are full. The body is generally well developed; the hands and feet are large.
Olmstead's history is defective for some years after he left Kankakee. In October, 1892, we hear of him as a letter-carrier in Chicago. During the following summer he developed a passion for William Clifford, a fellow letter-carrier about his own age, also previously a schoolteacher, and regarded as one of the most reliable and efficient men in the service. For a time Clifford seems to have shared this passion, or to have submitted to it, but he quickly ended the relationship and urged his friend to undergo medical treatment, offering to pay the expenses himself. Olmstead continued to write letters of the most passionate description to Clifford, and followed him about constantly until the latter's life was made miserable. In December, 1893, Clifford placed the letters in the postmaster's hands, and Olmstead was requested to resign at once. Olmstead complained to the Civil Service Commission at Washington that he had been dismissed without cause, and also applied for reinstatement, but without success.
In the meanwhile, apparently on the advice of friends, he went into hospital, and in the middle of February, 1894, his testicles were removed. No report from the hospital is to hand.
