The explanation of the origin of the infrequent perversion of fully developed masochism is most probably to be found in the assumption that it arises from the very frequent abnormality of “sexual bondage”; in that now and then _this abnormality is hereditarily transferred to a psychopathic individual in such a way that it becomes transformed into a perversion_. It has been previously shown how a slight displacement of the psychical element under consideration may effect this transition. This transformation of the abnormality into the perversion, through hereditary transference, would take place very easily where the psychopathic constitution of the descendant presented the other factor of masochism,—_i.e._, what has been previously called its main root,—the tendency of sexually hyperæsthetic natures to assimilate all impressions coming from the beloved person with the sexual impression. From these two elements,—from “sexual bondage” on the one hand, and from the above-mentioned disposition to sexual ecstasy, which apperceives even maltreatment with lustful emotion, on the other,—the roots of which may be traced back to the field of physiological facts, masochism arises on the basis of psychopathic predisposition; in that its sexual hyperæsthesia intensifies first all the physiological accessories of the vita sexualis and, finally, only its abnormal accompaniments, to the pathological degree of perversion.[84] At any rate, masochism, as a congenital sexual perversion, constitutes a functional sign of degeneration in (almost exclusively) hereditary taint; and this clinical deduction is confirmed in my cases of masochism and sadism. It is easy to demonstrate that the peculiar, psychically-anomalous direction of the vita sexualis which masochism represents, is an original abnormality, and not, so to speak, cultivated in a predisposed individual by passive flagellation, through association of ideas, as Rousseau and Binet suppose. This is shown by the numerous cases of masochism—in fact, the majority—in which flagellation never appears; in which the perverse impulse is directed exclusively to purely symbolic acts expressing subjection without any actual infliction of pain. This is demonstrated by the whole series of cases, from Case 53, given here. The same result—namely, that passive flagellation is not the nucleus around which all the rest is gathered—is reached when closer study is given to the cases in which passive flagellation plays a _rôle_, as in Case 44 and Case 50. Case 51 is particularly instructive in relation to this; for in this instance there can be no thought of a sexually-stimulating effect of punishment received in youth. Moreover, in this case, connection with an early experience is not possible; for the situation constituting the object of principal sexual interest is absolutely incapable of being carried out by a child.