The question arises whether the three homosexual groups significantly differ in the proportions who had extensive experience. In an attempt to answer this question we have arbitrarily defined “extensive” homosexual experience as activity involving 21 or more male sexual partners. Some 47 per cent of the homosexual offenders vs. children meet this definition, markedly fewer than the other homosexual offenders. This corroborates our statement that of the three groups the homosexual offenders vs. children are the least homosexually oriented.

One third of the homosexual offenders vs. children with extensive experience found over 80 per cent of their partners in “pickups,” i.e., persons previously unknown to them. This is a smaller proportion than obtains among the homosexual offenders vs. adults, possibly because of the age preference factor: adult “pickups” are a relatively simple matter since adult males are constantly in association, but there are fewer situations in which adults and children mingle. Moreover, a sexual approach to a child usually requires, to be successful, a degree of prior acquaintance that is unnecessary between adults.

Disregarding numerous cases where our data are incomplete, the homosexual offenders vs. children appear to take the initiative in making sexual approaches much more than other homosexual offenders or the prison group. Seventy-six per cent (the highest percentage) were prone to take the initiative as against 14 per cent (the smallest proportion of any of the groups mentioned) who let the other persons make die first moves. Ten per cent were evenly balanced. This emphasis upon taking the initiative is not necessarily an expression of aggression or of unusual interest—an adult seeking a much younger partner must ordinarily take the first step.

Commercial homosexual relationships were less frequent among the homosexual offenders vs. children than among the other homosexual offenders, the prison group, and the control group; only half of the homosexual offenders vs. children with exclusively homosexual histories had ever paid or been paid for sexual acts with other males. The term “paid,” in the sense we use it, means payment in currency; nonmonetary gifts are not considered payment, although they may accomplish the same purpose. One fifth of this group had paid but had never accepted money; not one had been paid but had never paid. This brings to mind the axiom that, in sex, those who are most interested are the purchasers, those less interested are the sellers. This axiom is emphasized by a comparison of the homosexual offenders with the prison group. Of those with extensive homosexual experience in the latter group, many more received money than paid money, and the proportion who were actual (rather than incidental) homosexual prostitutes is much greater than among the homosexual offenders. While in comparison to the other homosexual offenders fewer of the homosexual offenders vs. children had been exclusively paid or had exclusively paid, a larger number had both paid and been paid (28 per cent to 18-20 per cent for the other homosexual offenders). Among the homosexual offenders vs. minors and adults the proportion who exclusively paid exceeds considerably those who both paid and received pay, yet among the homosexual offenders vs. children the reverse is true. In considering this peculiarity we can dismiss professional prostitution—all three homosexual-offender groups contained about the same proportion of homosexual prostitutes—but this avails us little and the problem remains unsolved.

While we have found it impossible to define adequately the word “love,” the term is commonly used to denote a powerful emotional fixation upon, and sexual desire for, another person. Two thirds of our sample of homosexual offenders vs. children with extensive homosexual histories reported having loved one or more males. This proportion lies in between the other homosexual offenders and also the prison- and control-group individuals with extensive homosexual experience. Similarly intermediate is the proportion (44 per cent) who had more than one love affair.

Because of the popular misconception that a man with a considerable amount of homosexual experience reveals this in his behavior or dress, we frequently both questioned and privately evaluated our interviewees on this point. Relatively few (29 per cent) of the homosexual offenders vs. children reported having had such homosexual stigmata. To some degree this absence of telltale mannerisms may be due to their interest in children or young postpubertal males, to whom such mannerisms would be either meaningless or merely confusing. Note that the homosexual offenders vs. minors are similarly fairly free of outward signs.

Lastly (excluding cases where data were not obtained), the homosexual offenders vs. children were more inclined to regret their homosexuality than any group besides the homosexual offenders vs. minors. Some 56 per cent expressed regret. Furthermore, as many (41 per cent) expressed marked regret as expressed no regret at all; this equivalence is unique. In attempting to ascertain the existence and degree of regret, we tried to have the interviewee disregard the immediate consequence—incarceration—of his homosexuality. We would, in essence, say, “Sure, you regret getting locked up, but outside of that do you regret having had homosexual experience?” Most, but not all, of the men were able to make this distinction. Nevertheless, the fact that so much more regret was expressed by those whose homosexuality had led to conviction than by those whose homosexual activity had not been legally punished, makes us suspect that it was impossible for most homosexual offenders wholly to ignore their experience with the courts and prisons.

*176\161\2*

Perhaps one in every ten of the incest offenders vs. children can be classified as of the drunken variety—a variety that seemingly exists in all sex-offender types. These are men whose offense (usually one offense only) occurred only when they were extremely intoxicated.

Another variety we have seen before is the amoral delinquent: about 10 per cent of the incest offenders vs. children might be so labeled. These men differ from the other incest offenders in having more criminal records and in being more aggressive. The amoral delinquent tends to domineer in the home, and the wife and children fear him. His incestuous activity is based not so much upon an inability to obtain gratification from adults as it is upon propinquity and ease of access.

Three other varieties exist but appear to be rare: pedophiles whose sexual interest in children leads to incest with their own children, mental defectives, and psychotics. The latter two varieties are more apt to be found in mental institutions than in jails and prisons, and since our interviewing was primarily with persons “sane” enough to be subject to legal conviction (including the charge of sexual psychopathy which for all practical purposes is a conviction), our sample is somewhat biased. An example of the psychotic variety is a man aged thirty-two at the time of the offense. His intelligence measured high average and he had supported himself by clerical and skilled work. His future difficulties were forecast by his discharge from the military for psycho-neurosis. Subsequently he took to spending much of his leisure time practicing singing in nearby uninhabited foothill areas, clad in swimming trunks. When any females approached or came into view he drove them away by either exposing his genitalia or throwing stones. An attempted rape finally grew out of this hostility. On his return home after his imprisonment for this offense, his wife refused coitus and told him she contemplated divorce; this led him to seek solace in alcohol. The combination of emotional upset, deprivation, and alcohol imposed-upon a psychotic base led to his incest offense.

By far the most common variety, accounting for about three quarters of the incest offenders vs. children, is what we have termed the dependent variety. These men are generally ineffectual in their social relationships, quite dependent upon their wives for emotional and often financial support, shy, rather easily upset, and usually in the throes of marital discord. Their employment record is often poor with frequent job changes and periods of unemployment. They are not criminal: many have no criminal record and those with records generally reveal only minor offenses such as drunken driving, vagrancy, disorderly conduct, petty theft, and so forth. When depressed they tend to drink, and their few aggressive outbursts and also their initial incestuous behavior tend to be associated with such escapist drinking. The range of intelligence is wide, running from dull up to IQs of 130. Intelligence is no panacea: even those offenders with IQs well above average display a remarkable lack of insight concerning themselves, their marital situations, and their offenses. Indeed, the only contribution a superior intelligence seems to make is to facilitate the development of rationalizations, some of which are pathetically illogical. The dependent variety of offender nearly always begins his incestuous activity during a period of marital stress: about two thirds or somewhat more rated their marriages as unhappy or at least more unhappy than happy at the time the incestuous behavior began. Once the double taboo (age and relationship) has been broken, the offender almost without exception continues the activity until arrest. Guilt feelings, which are often intense at first, are later assuaged by attributing a more active role to the child, by pointing out that force was not used, and by avoiding certain techniques—chiefly vaginal coitus. Since vaginal coitus with a child is difficult and painful to the child, abstention is more often due to these facts than to any claimed moral reservation. A not uncommon guilt-relieving rationalization is the sex education excuse. This ranges from an embryonic version (“she came in when I was urinating and was curious about my penis”) to elaborate programs involving teaching sexual techniques complete with male orgasm.

In some cases (the number cannot be determined since our questions and those of the prison system psychologists were not designed to elicit specific information) there appears to have developed a pathological obsession with sex. This expresses itself in much time spent in sexual fantasy, in talking too much about sexual matters, in increasing or attempting to increase marital coitus markedly, in seeking increased visual stimuli, in unnecessary nudity bordering on exhibition, and in preoccupation with mouth-genital contact. One often gains the impression that these men, frustrated in many areas of life, seek happiness by sexual overcompensation.

The “normal,” or at least the “nonincestuous” male, when fed up with his life and unhappy marital state, seeks and usually obtains relief from stress in a number of ways that society deplores yet tolerates: he gets drunk; he discharges his aggression in barroom or party brawls; he finds heterosexual gratification either from prostitutes, pickups, or a more stable affair or with a mistress. The incest offender seems unable to utilize these time-honored methods effectively. He drinks, to be sure, but it does not seem to provide an escape or catharsis. His hostile feelings, if physically expressed at all, are expressed toward his children or wife rather than toward other adult females or males. Lastly, and most importantly, the dependent variety of incest offender does not obtain, or often even seek, coitus with adult females other than his wife. At least two thirds were not engaging in extramarital sexual activity at the time of their offense, and the remaining one third or less generally sought it with low frequencies better measured in terms of per year than per month.

A fairly typical case of the dependent variety is seen in a thirty-seven-year-old truck driver whose wife also worked to help support the family. The marriage encountered various difficulties: he suspected his wife of infidelity and frequently alluded to this, there were arguments over the children, he began drinking more, and at one point the wife filed for divorce. Sexual troubles were also involved: the husband strongly desired mouth-genital contact (both cunnilingus and fellation), the wife refused, and finally the frequency of coitus was reduced to one quarter of what it had been. The man did not seek extramarital coitus, but turned toward his son and daughter from whom he obtained the mouth-genital contact he desired, using threats, spankings, and bribery to achieve this goal. He later confessed to the officials that he had always felt inferior and insecure in life.

A somewhat more extreme case in which financial dependency and obsession with sex played an important part is that of a man, thirty-three at the time, who worked only sporadically at semiskilled labor. Relatives and his wife had to assist the family financially. He and his wife became emotionally estranged and while he had formerly desired coitus daily or more often he gradually lost interest in her and the coital frequency dropped to once or twice per month. He did not compensate by extramarital affairs (although he tried to capitalize on the opportunities afforded him as a bus driver), but became involved with his daughter when she was about eight years old. This continued for nearly four years. The wife told of how her husband complained of illness to avoid work and lay around the house reading comic books and watching television with his daughter. After the wife not only complained of what was even to her eyes an incestuous situation, but had a minister speak to her husband, he promised to behave. Soon, however, he was often to be found in a darkened room before the television set with his daughter on his lap, hugging and kissing. On other occasions they watched television while lying together on a couch under a blanket. Actual coitus was reserved for those occasions when the wife was away shopping or visiting friends and relatives. By the time the girl was eleven she was physically nearly mature and Was functioning fully as a wife—not only sexually, but in assuming household and farm chores. Indeed, the man openly stated, “My daughter was a wife to me.” The pathological obsession with sex was also seen in his desire, when having mouth-genital contact with his daughter, to observe it in a mirror, and in his attempt to arrange coitus between his daughter and the family dog.

In addition to the extreme egocentricity and dependency of this man as shown by the psychologists, some other curious and probably significant facts are to be seen in this mans history. At about the age of puberty he was deeply impressed by a local scandal involving incest and pregnancy. Fear of premarital pregnancy and scandal was the major factor in his postponing premarital coitus until age nineteen and essentially limiting it to his one girl who did become pregnant and force the marriage. This fear may also account for his turning early to animals for coitus and confining his activities with human females to petting. He was troubled before marriage by erectile impotence when attempting coitus with humans, and was successful only with the young (fifteen-year-old) crippled girl whom he impregnated and married. In fact, he seemed to be potent only with creatures whom he could consider inferior because of their species (the animals) or age (his wife, daughter, and two sixteen-year-old girls).

*134\161\2*

Like the aggressors vs. children, all the heterosexual aggressors vs. minors had premarital petting experience. They gained this experience with remarkable rapidity; in accumulative incidence they head the rank-orders by any age: 73 per cent had petted by age fourteen, 89 per cent by sixteen, 96 per cent by eighteen, and 100 per cent by age twenty. The median individual began at age 14.3 years. This is the youngest age recorded, which may be the result of the aggressors vs. minors’ early puberty. Again, like the other aggressors, they display a high age-specific incidence: 88 per cent (the largest percentage of any group) petted between puberty and age fifteen, and 96 per cent (the fourth largest percentage) did so between ages sixteen and twenty inclusive. The corresponding percentages for the control group are 59 and 91. The aggressors vs. minors petted with an above-average number of females, as did the aggressors vs. adults. In brief, we have a picture of a group in which large numbers began petting at an early age. This was foreshadowed by the group’s relatively rich prepubertal sexual activity with girls.

In terms of the number of individuals who reached orgasm in petting in a given age-period, the age-specific incidence, the aggressors vs. minors rank first between puberty and age fifteen with 29 per cent of them with such experience. In the following age-period, 16–20, they drop to an intermediate rank. The sample is too small to carry the incidence calculation further.

In accumulative incidence of petting to orgasm the aggressors vs. minors compete with the control group for first rank. In early life the aggressors lead easily, but by age eighteen about 38 per cent of both groups had achieved orgasm by petting. By age twenty about two fifths of the aggressors and slightly more of the control group were experienced, and by twenty-three (the last age for which comparison can be made) the aggressors resume first rank with over half having reached orgasm in petting.

Since our sample of aggressors vs. minors is small, and since only a few had ever reached orgasm in petting, it was not worth calculating the precise frequency. We can, however, say that it is low, both relatively and absolutely.

Like all aggressors, the aggressors vs. minors were particularly interested in mouth-genital contact. Nearly half had performed cunnilingus at some time in life, and one third (the largest proportion of any group) had done so before marriage; the equivalent figures for the control group are 22 and 7 per cent. In this respect they are very similar to the aggressors vs. adults. Five per cent (a figure similar to the aggressors vs. adults) had placed their mouths upon the genitalia of prostitutes; this is a high figure for this strongly taboo behavior. The aggressors vs. minors are one of the three groups more of whose members were experienced in premarital cunnilingus with female friends than in premarital fellation.

Again like other aggressors, a relatively large number of the aggressors vs. minors (nearly 60 per cent) had been fellated by females. Nearly one third had been fellated before marriage; the aggressors rank first, second, and third in this respect. The aggressors vs. minors are also like other aggressors in that a comparatively large number (58 per cent) had been fellated by prostitutes; in this the aggressors rank first, second, and fourth. All these figures are in excess of those reported by the control group (44 per cent).

One minor, but interesting, item concerning petting techniques is the fact that 48 per cent (the largest percentage recorded) of the aggressors vs. minors had nibbled or bitten their sexual partners. Moreover, 26 per cent had done so frequently—far more than had the members of the other groups. This biting is in keeping with their high incidence of sadomasochistic masturbatory fantasy. The aggressors vs. adults also rate rather high in frequent biting.

*92\161\2*

In terms of premarital coitus the offenders vs. minors rank third with 95 per cent of their members having had coitus prior to marriage; only 77 per cent of the control-group individuals were similarly experienced. In accumulative incidence of premarital coitus the offenders vs. minors rank third by age fourteen, but fall to fifth or sixth rank by ages sixteen, eighteen, and twenty, again outstripping the control but not the prison group. It is interesting to note that at each age the three heterosexual-offender groups tend to maintain a fixed relation to one another: the offenders vs. adults have the largest percentages, the offenders vs. minors the next largest, and the offenders vs. children have least.

In age-specific incidence of premarital coitus with companions the offenders vs. minors rank rather high. Between puberty and age fifteen they are in fifth place with nearly half of their number having had coitus in that span of time. During the years from 16-20 and 21-25 they rank third with 87 to 88 per cent thus experienced, and this same percentage earns them third rank in age-period 31-35.

The age-specific incidence of premarital coitus with prostitutes is moderate (in the neighborhood of 50 per cent between ages sixteen and thirty) until age-period 31-35 when the proportion rises to 69 per cent, earning these men third place in the rank-order.

They also rate high in the frequency of premarital coitus with companions, the average (median) individual ranking second or third during the years from puberty to twenty-five, fourth between the ages of twenty-six and thirty, and second again between thirty-one to thirty-five—the frequencies hover around once a week, well above those of the control group. In mean frequency they rated high up to age twenty-five, but were intermediate thereafter.

In frequency of premarital coitus with prostitutes the average (median) offender vs. minors held a moderate position up to age twenty, but thereafter had relatively high frequencies, earning him second or third place in the rank-orders. Indeed, the frequency increased from age-period to age-period. This trend toward prostitution at older ages is not evident in the calculations of mean frequencies, which are lower than those of the control group.

In premarital life the average offender vs. minors with premarital coitus had coitus with 16 companions, the third largest number reported by any group, and with 14 prostitutes, a moderate number.

The relatively high frequencies of premarital coitus are reflected in the large proportion of total outlet derived in this way. From puberty to thirty-five, with but two exceptions, the offenders vs. minors display the second largest proportions of total outlet provided by premarital coitus with companions; they are exceeded in this regard only by the offenders vs. adults. Even from puberty to fifteen the offenders vs. minors had 38 per cent of their orgasms from coitus with companions, a percentage larger than that of the adult members of many groups, and in the following age-period (16-20) they become one of the three groups ever to derive half or more of their outlet from this particular source. The proportion of premarital orgasms with prostitutes is always moderate, never exceeding 17 per cent.

With this premarital record, it is no surprise to find that the offenders vs. minors are not notable for the number who reported that moral and social factors restrained their activity. Only an average or somewhat below average number said that they had been inhibited by such considerations.

*50\161\2*

In measuring the incidence of a given behavior, one immediately finds a dichotomy: those with the behavior and those without it. Together they form what we call a “total” sample; those with the behavior we call an “active” sample. The great majority of the frequencies used in this study are based upon the; active sample. Frequencies based upon total sample are likely to be misleading because they are strongly influenced by the proportion of individuals in each group who have that particular behavior. For example, average masturbation frequencies for a total group may be low only because a minority of the group masturbate, whereas those few who do masturbate (the active sample) may do so with high frequencies.

This total vs. active division is merely another form of holding one variable constant. In the same way we differentiate the; never married and the ever married. In brief, there are many occasions when analysis must be focused upon the eligible rather than upon the ineligible, or upon the total of both. There is no profit in including in a comparison of masturbation fantasies of individuals who never masturbated. For analytical purposes we have in a few cases constructed special categories, such as habitual (patterned) offenders for comparison with the nonhabitual (incidental) offenders.

*7\161\2*