Health News and Information

A study of the age of the first coital companions of these homosexual offenders vs. minors reveals that almost 5 per cent (the largest number recorded) had partners under age twelve; a moderate number (11 per cent) had partners aged twelve to thirteen; a large number (30 per cent) had their first coitus with girls of fourteen to fifteen; relatively few (16 per cent) with girls sixteen to seventeen; and moderate numbers with females of eighteen or over. This abrupt shifting in rank-order, which we also saw in the homosexual offenders vs. children, is something of a puzzle. The considerable number who had their first coitus with girls under twelve may be explained by the fact that at ages ten to eleven these future offenders had an excellent socialization with girls which resulted in abundant prepubertal sex play, and a carry-over of this situation into early postpubertal life would account for the relatively high percentage of youthful coital partners. The sudden drop from second place in rank-order with respect to initial coital partners aged fourteen to fifteen to next to last place with respect to partners aged sixteen to seventeen agrees with what we saw in the homosexual offender’s vs. minors history of socialization with females; an excellent socialization at ten to eleven and a poor socialization at ages sixteen to seventeen. Something disastrous to their heterosexual ability must have taken place between their twelfth and fifteenth years of life; this is the puzzle that only an examination of their homosexual activity can explain. It is noteworthy that the homosexual offenders vs. children and adults also socialized well with girls at ages ten to eleven, but by ages sixteen to seventeen had a mediocre social life with females.

When asked how old a female they would prefer for coitus, only a moderate number (about 4 per cent) of the homosexual offenders vs.

minors said twelve to fifteen, but about one quarter chose girls of sixteen to seventeen. Except for the heterosexual aggressors vs. minors, who exceed this figure, this is by far the largest percentage of any group who specified this particular age. The choice of age sixteen to seventeen is most curious, for when the offenders were at that age they had a poor socialization with females and, moreover, very few of them had their first coitus with girls of that age. It is almost as though one quarter of the homosexual offenders vs. minors looked back with regret at the rather dismal picture of their heterosexual lives in their mid- and late teens and wished to remedy it by a post-factum preference for females of that particular age.

*190\161\2*

These incest offenders vs. minors, like the incest offenders vs. adults, appear to be singularly unresponsive to psychological sexual stimuli. While the majority of both groups (three quarters) responded to the sight or thought of females, very few (about one seventh) responded strongly or frequently. The equivalent control-group figures are 90 per cent and 37 per cent. None responded to males. None reported any sexual arousal from sadomasochistic pictures or stories, and the response to pornography was weak or infrequent. Some of their unresponsiveness to visual and fantasy stimuli is due to their age.

These incest offenders had the third largest proportion of alcoholics: 20 per cent. It will be recalled that the incest offenders vs. children ranked second in this respect. When the alcoholics committed their incest offenses they were drunk in nine out of ten instances. Aside from the large number of alcoholics, the remainder of the proportion of frequent drinkers among the incest offenders vs. minors is modest and quite a few did not drink at all.

The incest offenders vs. minors were, as a group, not gamblers: some 53 per cent, the third largest proportion recorded, had never gambled and very few (8 per cent) had ever gambled seriously.

*148\161\2*

There are three salient points concerning the nocturnal emissions and dreams of the heterosexual aggressors vs. adults: first, a relatively large percentage had heterosexual dreams (a trait of aggressors), and second, the highest percentage of any group (4 per cent) had sadomasochistic dreams. This latter phenomenon, as we have said, coincides with the relatively large percentage of aggressors vs. adults who had sadistic fantasies during masturbation, and is in keeping with the overt behavior that resulted in their conviction. No such coincidence was observed in the other aggressors. The third notable feature is that the proportion of total outlet (total orgasms) constituted by emissions is always very small for both the single and married aggressors vs. adults.

The quantitative unimportance of nocturnal emissions to these aggressors is also visible in the age-specific incidence figures. Among the single males they have the smallest proportion of men with nocturnal emissions in age-periods 26-30 (43 per cent) and 31-35 ( 40 per cent). Among the married men, they show a low percentage in age-period 16-20 and the lowest percentages of all in age-periods 26-30 (33 per cent) and 31-35 (17 per cent).

*106\161\2*

All our sample of heterosexual offenders vs. adults had petted before marriage. By age twelve a considerable proportion (46 per cent, third in rank-order) had petted; by age fourteen they are sixth; by age sixteen they are again sixth; but by age eighteen they are second with 95 per cent.

The median individual began petting shortly after his fifteenth birthday (as also did the median control-group individual), and in the span of time from puberty to just before the sixteenth birthday some 69 per cent had petted—a moderately high percentage. Between sixteen and twenty, 95 per cent (the fifth largest percentage among all groups) petted. The petting proclivity of the offenders vs. adults is best seen in the number of their partners (including coital partners): relatively few had only a small number; large numbers were the rule. The average offender had petted with 36 partners before marriage. In the category of over 100 partners the offenders vs. adults rank second with 29 per cent, surpassed only by the prison group. This “record,” so to speak, was foreshadowed by the unusually good social adjustment that the offenders vs. adults had between ages sixteen to seventeen with their female contemporaries in which they ranked fourth, 11 per cent above the control group.

The situation as described above does not seem mirrored in the frequency with which the offenders vs. adults reached orgasm in petting: whether median or mean is used, they ordinarily reveal neither a high nor low frequency, the median frequency among those who had orgasms being 3 to 4 a year. Their moderation in petting to orgasm is not the result of any restraint—it is simply the result of their going ahead and reaching their orgasms in coitus rather than in petting. Aside from the period of juvenile experimentation (where, it should be noted, the offenders vs. adults do rank third), and aside from some orgasms resulting from mouth-genital contact, petting to orgasm is chiefly a substitute for coitus. Such a substitute will naturally be employed more frequently by those who are somewhat sexually restrained or who for various reasons have difficulty in obtaining coitus. Those who are definitely restrained sexually avoid even petting to orgasm.

The age-specific incidence of petting to orgasm is moderate up to age twenty-five, a bit low (14 per cent) between twenty-six to thirty, and lowest of all (7 per cent) between thirty-one and thirty-five. In brief, these older males were strongly inclined to have either coitus or nothing in their sexual relationships with women.

Nearly all (96 per cent, the second highest percentage among the groups) included genital manipulation as a part of their petting, but, like the offenders vs. minors, they nevertheless were averse to mouth-genital contact. Eighty-eight per cent, the largest percentage among the comparative groups and one shared with the offenders vs. minors, never placed their mouths on female genitalia. Sixty-seven per cent, again the largest percentage, never had a female place her mouth on their genitalia. The minority who had experienced fellation had experienced it primarily with prostitutes, and very few of the ever-married males had been fellated by their wives. This is in keeping with the fact that males who desire some taboo sexual activity but who are, nevertheless, quite inhibited about it, seek it with prostitutes rather than with friends or wives.

The avoidance of mouth-genital contact is particularly interesting in that the offenders vs. adults also avoided another oral activity: nibbling or biting the sexual partner’s body. Such biting is commonplace in mammalian sexual behavior and among various human societies. Thirty-two per cent of the control group had engaged in biting. Nevertheless, 86 per cent of the offenders vs. adults had never so much as nibbled an ear lobe. This is the largest percentage of “nonbiters” in any group, and it is significant that the offenders vs. minors rank second with 79 per cent. In our culture biting is always construed as an aggressive act, and biting others is so taboo that even in barroom brawls it is regarded as being not quite ethical. Consequently, many individuals find it difficult to reconcile what they have always regarded as a hostile oral act with sexual activity between two people reasonably well-disposed toward one another.

*64\161\2*

At the time they were interviewed, about two fifths of the control group had never married, half were married, and the remainder were separated, widowed, or divorced. The prison group and the sex offenders taken as a whole were similar to one another but quite different from the control group: only one fifth to one quarter were currently married, and slightly more than one third were separated, widowed, or divorced. This high latter figure reflects both a style of life and the consequence of imprisonment. Of the various sex-offender groups, not one can match the control group in marital stability: the percentage separated, divorced, or widowed ranges from 17 to 60 per cent. In terms of currently married, only the incest offenders (all of whom by definition must have married) equal or surpass the control group; most other sex-offender groups had but a sixth to one third of their members married at the time of interview.

Marital status is partly related to age; note that our youngest groups —the peepers and the aggressors vs. minors—have the highest proportions of never-married individuals except for the homosexual offenders. Among the latter, the homosexual offenders vs. minors and vs. adults, two thirds and three quarters of their members, respectively, never married. However, while marital status is obviously influenced strongly by one’s age and degree of heterosexuality, we shall subsequently see that there are other important operant factors.

In a study of sexual behavior that includes persons confined in institutions, one must take such social isolation into account. Consequently, to put it simply, we took all the men who had ever been married, omitted prison time, and calculated the percentage of years since puberty that a man was a bachelor, a husband, and an ex-husband. The variation, as one can see from Table 6, is considerable. Again, some of this variation is based upon age—note that the youthful peepers have the largest proportion of their adult nonprison years spent as bachelors or divorced, and next to the smallest proportion spent as married men. With this sort of demographic information, proper allowance can be made for the amount of time spent behind bars.

*21\161\2*