Freud, Sigmund (1912-061/1921.en): Masturbation

Orisinal Articles

Translated specially for The Critic and Guide
MASTURBATION

By Prof. Sigmund Freud, M.D., Vienna
Translated by Eden Paul, M.D.
Gentlemen:

The older members of this eirele will remember that a
few years ago we attempted a collective discussion—what
wur American colleagues term a “symposium”—of this topic
uf masturbation. On that occasion the divergency of opinions
was so extreme, that we could not venture to publish our
proceedings. Since then, however, we (the same individuals
with some new accessions) have been in uninterrupted con-
tact with the facts of experience. This contact, and a con-
tinuous interchange of ideas, have greatly clarified our views
and have enabled us to reach a common platform. Now,
thereiore, the venture of publication seems less hazardous.

Undeniabiy, there are stili differences of opinion. But my
impression is that upon this subject of masturbation our
agreement is stronger and more far-reaching than our differ-
ence. Apparent contraditions are in many instances due
mcrely to ıhe multiplicity of outlooks from which the phe-
numena have been regarded. Really, in most instances, we
are concerne] with views which are perfectly compatible.

Permit me to summarize the various points as to which
we are respectively agreed and disagreed.

I. Points of Agreement.
As to ihe significance of the fantasies which accom-
ay or represent the masturbatory act.
As to tlie sienificance of the sense of guilt associated
with masturbation, whatever the source of this sense of guilt
may be.

3. As to the impracticability of any qualitative decision
concerning the harmlulness of masturbation. (In this respect,
complete agreement is lacking.)

II. Points of Disagreement.

t. As to tie dlenial that masturbation has a somatic ele-
ment among its direct ellects.

2. As 10 the rejeeiion of the idea that masturbation is
harmful per se.

3. As to the origin of the sense of guilt; which some of
yon wonll derive directly from the inadequacy of the grati-
fieation, whilst others consider that social factors, or the exist-
ing mvol of the individnal, are contributory eauses.

4. As to the universality of masturbation in children.

328 URITIC AND GUIDE September, 1921

III Points Where Uncertainty Prevails,

1. As to the mechanism of the noxious effects of mastur-
bation, if such there be.

2. As to the etiological relationship of masturbation to
the actual neuroses.

In most of the matters which are still at issue between
us, we owe the formulation of the «differences ol outlook to
the critical acumen of our colleague. W. Stekel. whose studies
are based upon independent experience. Unquestionably
there remains much for subsequent observers to ascertain.
much for subseqitent investigators to clear up; but we are
entitled to claim that our work has been generously conceived
and honestly conducted, and that we have laid foundations
upon which our successors will be able to build.

You must not expeet much trom my own contributions
to the questions under discussion. You know my preference
for the fragmentary treatment of a topie; for concentration
upon the points that seem to be best established. I have
nothing new to offer. I bring no solutions. AI I can attempt
is to repeat what I have already maintained; to defend these
earlier views against the attacks which have been levelled
against them by some uf you; and to add a few ubservations
which have occurred to me while listening to your discourses.

It is well known that I have classified masturbation under
three heads, according to the age at which it oceurs:

1. Masturbation in Infaney, including all the autoerotic
procedures which furnish sexual gratification.

2. Masturbation in Childhood, which issues directly out
of the previous kind, and has already undergone fixation upon
delinite erogenic zones.

3. Puberal Masturbatiun, which may follow immediately
upon No. 2, or may be separated from it by a latent period.

In many of the papers contributed to this disenssion
there has not, in my opinion, been an adeqmate recognition ol
this classification by age-incidence, Ordinary medical ter-
minology involves an assumption of the unity of masturba-
tion, and this has in many instauces led to generalisation in
cases where a (ifferentiation of age-epochs would have been
more appropriate. I deplore, also, that we have given le
attention to masturbation in the female than to masturbation
in the male. It seems to me that the former is werthy of
special study, and that in the case of masturbation in the
female great emphasis must be laid upen (he modifieations
that occur at different age

I now come tn tlie objeetions which Reiller has put for-
ward against my teleological argument for the universality
of masturbation in infants. I admit that I must abandon this
argument. If there shomld be another edition of my Sexzal
Theory, the relevant passage will be omitted. 1 shall renounce
the attempt to divine Nature's intentions, and shall cuntent
myself with deseribing the facts.

ORIGINAL ARTICLES 32%

Furthiermore, I consider both ingenious and important
Reitler's abservation that the aim of certain characteristics of
the genital apparatus that are peculiar to the human species
would appear to be the prevention of sexual intercourse dur-
ing childhood, But objections occur to me. The partial cio-
sure of the genital passage by the hymen in the female, and
the absence in the male of the penis bone which contributes
to the efliciency of erection in other mammals, are merely
directed against the act of coitus, and not against sexual
excitement in general. In my opinion, Reitler takes far too
human a view of the teleology of nature, conceiving nature to
work deliberately like man for the attainment of a single spe-
cific end. As far as we can judge, in the processes of nature, a
number of ends are as a rule aimed at simultaneously—the
pursuit of one end does not exelude the pursuit of others.

If we are to speak of nature’s actions in the terms we
apply to the actions of mankind, we must say that nature
appears to us to be what in man we should term inconsistent.
In my opinion, therefore, Reitler should lay less stress upon
his own telcological arguments. There are objections to the
utilisation of teleology as a heuristic hypothesis; we can
never be certain in individual instances whether we have to
do with a “harmony” or with a “disharmony.” It is just as
when we drive a nail into a wall; we never know beforehand
whether the point will encounter a stone or an interstice.

As regards the connection of masturbation and of noc-
turnal emissions with the causation of what is termed neuras-
thenia, I find myself in agreement with many of you and in con-
fliet wirh Stekel. Subject to a limitation presently to be men-
tioned, I maintain as against him my earlier expressed views.
I see nothing to necessitate the abandonment of a distinction
between actual neuroses and psychoneuroses; and in the case
of the iormer I can only conceive of the genesis of the symp-
toms as depentent upon toxic influences. My colleague
Stekel tends, in my opinion, greatly to overestimate in this
matter the importance of psychie causation. I still hold to
the opinion formed fifteen years ago, that the two actual
neuroses, neurasthenia and anxiety neurosis (perhaps true
hypochundria must be classed as a third actual neurosis),
form the somat ıbstratum of the psychoneuroses; so that,
to put the matter in general terms, the kernel of the psycho-
neurotic symptoms--the grain of sand at the centre of the
pearl—is constituted by a somatic sexual manifestation. Cer-
tainly this is plainer in the case of anxiety neurosis and its
relationship to hysteria, than in the case of neurasthenia, for
in the case of the last-nameil «lisease careful psychoanalytical
investigations are still lacking. Anxiety neurosis, as you have
all been able to ascertain for yourselves, is fundamentally a
fragment of ungratified coitu scitement, coming to light as
an anxiety symptom, or constituting the nucleus of a hysteri-
cal sumptom-formation.

330 CrITIC AND GUIDE September, 1921

Stekel shares with a number of writers who do not belong
to the psychoanalytic school the tendency to reject the mor-
phological differentiations which we have established within
the confused domain of the neuroses, and to class them ali
under one head—such as that of psychasthenia. We have
frequently controverted his views in this respect; and we
confidently expect that the morphologico-elinical differentiae
will prove of great value, as still imperfectly understood indi-
cations of processes that are essentially distinet. He is right in
assuring us ihat in the so-called neurasthenics he never fails
to discover the same complexes and confliets that he discovers
in other neurotics; but this argument does not touch the quı
tion at issue. We have long known that these identical
complexes and conflicts are to be encountered in healthy and
normal persons. We are, indeed, accustomed to expect in
every civilized human being a certain amount of repression
of perverse impulses—a certain amount of annleroticism,
homosexuality. etc.; a certain amount of father complex or
mother complex and so on. Just as. in the chemical analysis
of an organic compound, we can confidently expect to demon-
strate the presence of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen and
a little sulphur. What distinguishes erganic compounds one
from another is the quantitative proportions of these element.
in conjunction with the structure of tlıe combinations which
they enter into one with another. 'Thus when we classifv
persons as normal or as neurotie respectively, the question
at isste is not the presence or absence of these complexes and
confliets, but whether they have become pathogenic, and, if
so, what mechanism is involved.

The most important constituent of my original doc!rine of
the actual neuroses, of the dactrine I deiend today. is 1o be
found in the contention based upon experiment that their
symptoms are not susceptible of analytical decomposition like
those of the psychoneuroses. I mean that constipation, head-
ache, and fatigue, as they occur in the so-calle: neurasthenic,
cannot be historically or symbolically referred to real expe-
riences, cannot be interpreted as vicarious sexual gratifica-
tions, or as compromises beiween confhieting impulses—after
the manner in which psychonenrotie symptoms may be re-
ferreil or interpreted, even when apparently homogeneous. I
do not believe that psychoanalysis will be competent to shake
tlie truth of this assertion. On the other hand, I almit today
that which at one time I was unable to believe, namely that
analytical treatment may prove indirectly curative even in the
case of the actual neuroses. It may indireetly conduce to the
better toleration of the noxious influences: or it may put the
patient in a position which will enable him, by a modification
of his sexual regime, to withdraw himself from the working
of these noxious inlluences. Obviuusly these are desigable
prospeets for the therapeutist.

f, however, I am in the last resort to be convicted of

ORIGINAL ARTICLES 331

error as regards this theoretical question of the actual neu-
ruses, | shall be able to console myself with ihe progress of
our science, a progress which cannot fail to minimise the
importance of any individual’s outlook. You will ask why,
since I have so praiseworthy an insight into the inevitable
restric.iions of my personal infallibility, I do not immedi-
ately accept the newer trends; and why I should preier to
a:lopt Ihe lamiliar role of the old man who obstinately adheres
to whatever opinions he has first expressed. The reason is
that I have not yet encountered evidence which seems to me
convincing. In earlier years my views underwent numerous
mollifications, and I made no secret of these changes. I have
been censured for fickleness, just as today I am censured
for obstinacy. Neither one reproach nor the other can irighten
me. I know that [ have a destiny to fulfill. I cannot evade
it, nor need I go out to meet it. I shall await its coming,
and in the interim shall comport myself towards our science
Jus: as I have learned 10 do in the past.

I am loath to take up a position as regards the question
to which you have devotiei so much attention, the question
of the harmfulness of masturbation, for this is not a proper
way of approaching the problems with which we are con-
cerned. But it isa question which we all have to face. Mas-
turbation seems to be the only thing in which the world ıs
really interested. You will remember that on the first evening
when we were discussing this topic, a distinguished Viennese
specialis: in the diseases of children was present as guest
What was it which he asked again and again? Nothing but
this. How far is masturbation harmful, and why does it harm
one individual, tho not another? Obviously, then, our en-
quiry must be directed towards satisfying this practical need.

I confess that in this matter I cannot share Stekel’s views,
notwithstanding the fact that he has contributed many ex-
cellent and accurate observations to our study of the problem.
He considers that the belief in the harmfulness of masturba-
tion is based upon foolish prejudice; and he contends that
nothing but narrowness of mind can prevent anyone from
utterly abjuring such an error. In my opinion, however, if,
as far as may be, we consider the problem sine ira et studio,
we must rather say that such partisanship confliets with our
basic views concerning the etivlogy of the neuroses. In es-
sence, masturbation represents an infantile form of sexual
activity which has lasted on into riper years. We consider
that ihe neuroses are due to a conflict between the individual’s
sexual impulses and his other (cgo) trends.

Now it might be asserted: the pathogenie factor of this
etiological relationship is to be found solely in the reaction of
tie eo against its sexuality. This assertion implies the con-
teniion (hat everyone could preserve immunity Irom neurosis
ib only he or she coull gratiiy the sexual impulses without
But it ıs maniiestly arbitrary and improper to

332 Critic AND GruibE depternber, 1921

come to such a decision, and to exclude the possibility that
the sexual impulses themselves may play a part among the
pathogenic factors. Ti, however, you concele that the sexual
impulses may have a pathogenic eifect, yon are no longer in
a position to deny the pathogenic influence of masturbation.
seeing that masturbation consists of nothing else than the
carrying out of such sexual impulses. Doubtless, in every
case wherein masturbation seems to have a pathogenie influ-
ence, you can carry the causation a stage farther back. You
can carry it back to the impulses which manifest themselves
in the form of masturbation, and to the resistances which coun-
terpose these impulses. Neither somatically nor yet psycho-
logically is masturbation an ultimate, a real cause: it is merelv
a name for certain activities. Nevertheless. tho you may
carry the investigation farthier back, your judgment concern-
ing the causation of the illness is rightly associated wiih
these activities, Nor must you forget that masturbation is
not equivalent to sexual activity in general, seeing that it is
sexual activity, subject to cerlain Iimiting eomlitions. We
must, therefore, remember the possibility that the pathogenie
influence adlıeres in these peculiarities of masturbatory
activity.

We have, then, to turn once more from argument to
clinical observation; and clinical ubservation warns us not
to overstress the notion that masturbatiun is harmiul. Yet
unquestionably, in the case of neuroses, we encounter in-
stances in which masturbation has done harn.

Such harm would seem to be effeeted in three different
ways:

1. As an organic injury brought about by an unknown
mechanism, In this connection, you must take into consitlera-
tion the two matters to which reference has irequently been
macdle in your «discussions, namely, immoderate frequency and
inadequate gratihication,

2. By way of psyehical symbolisin. in so far as for the sat-
istaction of a great need it is not indispensable to aim at the
modification ot the outer world. But where an adequate reac-
tion ensues upon this symbolism the most valuable qualities
of character may be created,

3. By rendering possible the fixation of infantile sexual
aims, and a persistence of physical infantilism. This arouses
a disposition to a lapse into neurosis. As psychoanalysts we
must perlorce devote close attention to such a result of mas-
turbation—1 refer, of course, to puberal mastirbation and to
masturbation continued after the age of puberty. We must
bear in mind the importance which masturbation acduires as
the carrying of imagination into effect, as the realisation of
that intermediate rcalın which lies between lie in accoreance
with the pleasure principle and life in accordanee with the
reality prineiple: we must bear in mind how masturbation
ible to fulhl in imagination sexual develop-

ORIGINAL ÄRTICLES 333

ments and sublimations which do not represent progress but
are merely noxious compromise formations. It is true, ac-
cording to Stekel’s important observation, that such compro-
mise formations may render gravely perverse trends harm-
less, and may avert the worse consequences of abstinence.

In my own medical experience I find it impossible to
exclude a permanent diminution of sexual potency irom
among the consequences of masturbation, although I am
willing to concede to Stekel that in many instances this loss
of potency is apparent merely. Moreover, we are not justi-
fied off-hand in reckoning such a consequence of masturba-
tion as among the evil results. From the outlook of civilisa-
tion a certain reduction in virile potency and in the associated
brutal initiative of the male may be regarded as eminently
desirable. Such a reduction facilitates for civilised man the
maintenance of sexual .moderation and trustworthiness, vir-
tues which society demands of him. In most cases it proves
very difficult, for a man who is fully potent, to practise the
virtue of continence.

If this view should appear cynical, let me assure you that
I have no intention to be cynical. I merely aim at a dry de-
scription of fact, by one who, when he describes facts, cares
not whether he pleases or displeases. Masturbation, like so
many other things, has les defauts de ses vertus and con-
versely les vertus de ses defauts. Anyone who has to deal
with complicated matters while looking to the simple, prac-
tical interest of whether they are harmful or useful, will
have to put up with a certain number of disagreeable dis-
coveries.

Moreover, I am of opinion that we can usefully distin-
guish between what we may term the direct ill consequences
of masturbation, and those which arise indirectly out of the
resistance of the ego and the rebellion of the ego against
this form of sexual activity. I am not here concerned with
effects of the last-named order.

I am compelled to ad a few words in answer to the sec-
ond of the two crucial questions that have been addressed to
us. Presupposing that masturbation may be harmful, under
what conditions and in what individuals does this prove to
be the case?

I share the disinclination most of yuu feel to give a
general answer to this question. In part it coincides with
another and more comprehensive question, namely, when sex-
ual activity becomes in general pathogenic for the individual.
If we exclude that matter from consideration, what remains
is a question of detail which bears upon the characteristics of
masturbation in so far as it represents a peculiar method of
sexual gratification. In this connection we have to repeat
what is well known and what has already been considered in
another connection; we have to give due weight to the influ-
ence of the quantitative factor and the co-operation of a num-

334 ÜRITIC AND (sUIDE September, 1921

ber of pathogenic influences; and above all we haye to assign
a great role to the so-called constitutional dispositions of the
individual. But we must frankly admit that we are on dan-
gerous ground here. It is customary to infer the individual
disposition after the event. But when someone has already
fallen ill, we ascribe the misfortune to this disposition or that.
We have no available means of discovering the disposition
before the event. We behave like the King of Scotland in
one of Victor Hugo’s novels. This monarch had an infallible
method for the detection of witcheraft. He caused the ac-
cused to be boiled down into soup, and then tasted the soup.
By the taste he decided, Yes, she was a witch;; or No, she was
not a witch.

I may refer in conclusion to a matter which has received
too little attention in our discussions. I mean the so-called
unconscious masturbation. I am thinking of masturbation
during sleep, during abnormal conditions, during paroxysms.
You will remember how often during hysterical paroxysms
the masturbatory act is reproduced in a masked or irrecog-
nizable form, after the individual has renounced this method
of gratification; and you will remember how many symptoms
of compulsion neurosis represent an endeavor to replace and
reproduce this forbidden form of sexual activity. We may
also speak of a therapeutic recurrence of masturbation. Many
of you will have experienced in your practice how a great
improvement may occur in the patient’s condition when, dur-
ing the treatment, he ventures to resume masturbation, even
tho he has no intention of stopping at this infantile stage. In
this connection I may remind you that many patients suffer-
ing from grave neuroses avoid all mention of masturbation
when reporting on their own clinical history, altho we can
discover from psychoanalysis that in early days which they
have now forgotten this method of sexual gratification was
by no means unfamiliar to them.

It is time to conclude. Upon one point at least we
are all agreed: that the topic of masturbation is quite in-
exhaustible.

For The Critic and Guide
OBSESSIONS IN EATING

By Dr, Jamzs $. Van TesLaar

Our dietary habits are dictated only in part by physio-
logical considerations. We prefer to eat what we like rather
than what is best for us. Our meals conform to our particular
notions, rather than to our needs. So long as this is done
freely, without sense of inward coercion, our dietary notions
pass unnoticed. But the peculiarities of diet upon which we
insist unreasonably partake of the character of obsessions
shading all the way from slight deviations to serious abnor-
malities. Our peculiar ideas may involve the articles of diet,