Only a third of the homosexual offenders vs. minors had married prior to being interviewed; only the homosexual offenders vs. adults had fewer married individuals. Accumulative incidence calculations lead us to suggest that only slightly more than half of these homosexual offenders vs. minors would ever marry. The average age at marriage was twenty-five years—the oldest age of any of our comparative groups and almost identical with that of the homosexual offenders vs. children.
Thanks to late marriages and the breakup of marriages, the homosexual offenders vs. minors spent more of their postpubertal lives as single (42 per cent) and divorced or widowed (30 per cent) than as married (28 per cent). This statement is true of only two other groups: the homosexual offenders vs. adults and the aggressors vs. minors.
Being more homosexually oriented than most, the homosexual offenders vs. minors were not very ready to marry a second time: two thirds of those who married did so only once. This same trend is seen more clearly among the homosexual offenders vs. adults. A rather large number, 37 per cent, had one short marriage—again a circumstance that appears more strongly among the homosexual offenders vs. adults.
In length of acquaintance before marriage and incidence of premarital coitus with their fianc?es, these offenders are in no way distinctive. The percentage of pregnant brides is somewhat low, as might be expected in a group in which frequencies of premarital coitus were also low.
Of all groups, the homosexual offenders vs. minors and adults were the least fertile; more than half fathered no children in marriage. For every ten offenders there were only nine offspring. This is amazing in the case of the homosexual offenders vs. minors, since their coital frequencies are rather high. Of the 20 (out of 46) men who had one or more children of their own, eight had two children, six had one, and three had three.
Few homosexual offenders vs. minors devoted a great deal of time to coital preliminaries with their wives, but neither are they notable for the brevity of foreplay. A somewhat small proportion, one third, had had mouth-genital contact with their wives, and about half as many had had both cunnilingus and fellation. Interestingly, more homosexual offenders vs. minors than any other group (13 per cent) had experienced only fellation. In a rank-order of those who had been fellated by their wives but who had never placed their mouths on their wives’ genitalia, the homosexual offenders rank first, third, and fifth. One wonders if this represents a technique preference carried over from homosexual experience, though this supposition is weakened by the fact that anal coitus, another technique that is employed in some homosexual relationships, is rather uncommon in the marriages of the homosexual offenders vs. minors and children.
Separation of the married from the unmarried homosexual offenders vs. minors results in a powerful selective effect that is best seen in a comparison of premarital and marital coitus. In premarital coitus these offenders revealed uniformly low frequencies; for the average (median) male it was about once in three weeks, which earns them a place near the bottom of the rank-orders. In marital coitus, however, they display unexpectedly high frequencies, the average individual ranking second or third from age twenty on with frequencies of 2 to 3 times a week. In the calculations of mean frequencies they rank second in age-periods 26-30 and 31-35. It is obvious that the married homosexual offenders vs. minors were, despite their offenses, primarily not only a heterosexual group but an active one. In this connection it should be noted that the great majority of these married offenders were not having homosexual activity: for example, in age-period 21-25 only four of the 22 married men had homosexual contacts; in age-period 26-30, four of 29; in age-period 31-35, six of 23; and in age-period 36-40, two of 13.
While one can point out the greater heterosexual and lesser homosexual orientation of the married men, this does not help explain why the frequencies of marital coitus are so high. The proportion of total sexual outlet constituted by such coitus is, however, best described as moderate, ranging from 82 to 89 per cent.
In their orgasmic response, the wives of the homosexual offenders vs. minors were more fortunate than most, if one can believe their husbands: in very few (4 per cent) of their marital years did they have low rates of orgasm and in a fair number (60 per cent) they achieved orgasm in at least nine out of ten coital acts.
The homosexual offenders vs. minors, like the other homosexual offenders, had marriages that are intermediate in a rank-order of marital happiness: about two thirds of their years of marriage were very happy to moderately happy.
*188\161\2*
Related Posts:
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.