The change in the shock-theory already referred to, namely, that in general the shock is not even real, but is essentially a phantasy, did not make things better. On the contrary, still worse, since we are forced to the conclusion that we find in the infantile phantasy at least one positive sexual manifestation. It is no longer some brutal accidental impression from the outside, but a positive sexual manifestation created by the child itself, and this very often with unmistakable clearness. Even real traumatic events of an outspoken sexual type do not always happen to a child quite _without its coöperation_, but are not infrequently apparently _prepared and brought about by the child itself_. Abraham stated this, proving his statement with evidence of the greatest interest, and this, in connection with many other experiences of the same kind, makes it very probable that even really sexual scenes are frequently called forth and supported by the peculiar psychological state of the child’s mind. Perfectly independently from psychoanalytic investigation, medical criminology has discovered striking parallels to this psychoanalytic statement. Footnote 1: “Selected Papers on Hysteria and Other Psychoneuroses,” by Prof. Sigmund Freud. Nervous and Mental Disease Monograph Series, No. 4. Footnote 2: Monograph No. 4, p. 14. Footnote 3: _Ibid._ CHAPTER II The Infantile Sexuality The precocious manifestations of sexual phantasy as cause of the shock now seemed to be the source of neurosis. This, logically, attributed to children a far more developed sexuality than had been hitherto admitted. Many cases of precocious sexuality had been recorded in literature long before the time of psychoanalysis. For instance, a girl of two years old with normal menstruation, or cases of boys of three and four and five years of age having normal erections, and so far ready for cohabitation. These were, however, curiosities. Great astonishment was caused when Freud began to attribute to the child, not only ordinary sexuality, but even polymorphic perverse sexuality; all this based upon the most exhaustive investigation. People inclined much too lightly to the superficial view, that all this was merely suggested to the patients, and was a highly disputable artificial product. Hence Freud’s[4] “Three Contributions to the Sexual Theory” not only provoked opposition, but even violent indignation. It is surely unnecessary to insist upon the fact that science is not furthered by indignation, and that arguments of moral resentment may perhaps please the moralist—that is his business—but not a scientific man, for whom truth must be the guide, and not moral indignation. If matters are really as Freud describes them, all indignation is absurd; if they are not so, again indignation will avail nothing. The conclusion as to what is the truth can only be