they are deliberately
adopted by natures tired of normal sexual pleasure. They may even become
fashionable and epidemic. Lastly, it is probable that curiosity and
imitation communicate them to otherwise normal individuals at a
susceptible moment of development. Therefore society has the right to
say: Those who are the unfortunate subjects of inborn sexual inversion
shall not be allowed to indulge their passions, lest the mischief should
spread, and a vicious habit should contaminate our youth. From the
utilitarian point of view, society is justified in protecting itself
against a minority of exceptional beings whom it regards as pernicious
to the general welfare. From any point of view, the majority is strong
enough to coerce to inborn instincts and to trample on the anguish of a
few unfortunates. But, asks Ulrichs, is this consistent with humanity,
is it consistent with the august ideal of impartial equity? Are people,
sound in body, vigorous in mind, wholesome in habit, capable of generous
affections, good servants of the state, trustworthy in all the ordinary
relations of life, to be condemned at law as criminals because they
cannot feel sexually as the majority feel, because they find some
satisfaction for their inborn want in ways which the majority dislike?

Seeking a solution of the difficulty stated in the foregoing paragraph,
Ulrichs finds it in fact and history. His answer is that if society
leaves nature to take her course, with the abnormal as well as with the
normal subjects of sexual inclination, society will not suffer. In
countries where legal penalties have been removed from inverted
sexuality, where this is placed upon the same footing as the normal--in
France, Bavaria (?), the Netherlands (?)--no inconvenience has hitherto
arisen.[61] There has ensued no sudden and flagrant outburst of a
depraved habit, no dissemination of a spreading moral poison. On the
other hand, in countries where these penalties exist and are
enforced--in England, for example, and in the metropolis of England,
London--inverted sexuality runs riot, despite of legal prohibitions,
despite of threats of prison, dread of exposure, and the intolerable
pest of organised _chantage_. In the eyes of Ulrichs, society is engaged
in sitting on a safety-valve, which if nature were allowed to operate
unhindered would do society no harm, but rather good. The majority, he
thinks, are not going to become Urnings, for the simple reason that they
h