The marked homosexual orientation of the homosexual offenders vs. adults is well illustrated by their responses to the sight or thought of members of the same or opposite sex. By far the largest proportion of any group responded to males (85 per cent) and also the largest proportion responded strongly (69 per cent). Conversely, relatively few responded to females: slightly over one third, the second largest percentage recorded, said they felt little or no response, and only 15 per cent (the third smallest proportion) reported strong or frequent Arousal. Only one in ten said they reacted more to females than to males.

These offenders are distinctive in yet another way: more of them— approximately three quarters—were sexually aroused by pornography than were the members of any other group except the aggressors vs. minors who equaled them. Moreover, about two fifths reported strong or frequent arousal, which puts them within two percentage points of die first ranking aggressors vs. minors. Their unusual responsiveness to noncontact stimuli is certainly associated with their socioeconomic and educational status which is higher than that of any other group. Higher status is generally associated with greater imaginativeness, ability to project, and empathy. Persons from the poorly educated segments of our population we have ordinarily found to be lacking in these attributes and consequently less responsive to noncontact stimuli. Another but seemingly less important variable is what can best be called “sex drive.” The homosexual offenders vs. adults have orgasm With greater frequency than other groups, but since this apparently does not result in a satiation which reduces responsiveness (as in the case of the heterosexual offenders vs. adults) we can postulate a strong motivational force, a strong “sex drive,” which could be expected to render them more responsive to sexual stimuli of all sorts.

While there was nothing unusual about their use of drugs or alcohol their gambling behavior deserves comment. Slightly over three fifths of them had never gambled, which is the largest proportion of non-gamblers recorded. Also they had one of the smallest proportions (under 7 per cent) of individuals who gambled for income rather than for purely social reasons. We suspect that this relative abstention from gambling is specifically related to homosexuality in some as yet unclear fashion. While a strongly homosexual man does seek the company of other men, he is interested primarily in the males rather than in the activity that may have brought them together. Thus, he may frequent bars habitually but drink little, or haunt the beaches where body builders congregate, but never indulge in exercises himself. Similarly, he may seek out groups of gamblers, but merely mingle with them rather than become involved. Furthermore, when men gamble, even in a primarily social way, they are apt to fix their attention on the game and to resent interruptions and distractions. Thus, the gambling situation does not make a good milieu for sexual seduction.

*213\161\2*

Ninety-two per cent of the homosexual offenders vs. children had heterosexual petting experience; of all the comparative groups only the homosexual offenders and the peepers have fewer than 95 per cent of their members with such experience. The median homosexual offender vs. children had his first postpubertal petting activity at 15.1 years of age, a few months before the median control-group individual.

After the age-period puberty-15, the homosexual offenders vs. children, as well as the other homosexual offenders, always display a comparatively small percentage of their members having premarital heterosexual petting activity within any five-year age-period; the homosexual offenders occupy the lowest three positions in rank-order for the age-periods from sixteen to forty. This trend toward minimal heterosexual activity is not seen in age-period puberty-15 when many members of other sex-offender groups were still inexperienced.

In accumulative incidence, the percentage who had petted by a specified age, the picture is similar. By twelve the future homosexual offenders vs. children occupy a low-middle position in the rank-order; by fourteen they are in a middle position; and by age sixteen and thereafter they are in the lower third, below the control group.

Eight per cent had never petted at all, which puts them third in the “no petting partners” category wherein the other homosexual offenders rank second and fourth. Oddly enough, only 6 per cent, the lowest percentage of any group, had from two to five partners, yet in the next category (six to ten partners) the homosexual offenders vs. children top the list with 22 per cent. In numerically larger categories they rank in a low to low-middle position. The average (median) individual petted with slightly over 16 partners, the fifth smallest number recorded.

The incidences of petting and of petting to orgasm are quite different. The age-specific incidence figures of petting to orgasm are naturally much less than those of petting in general. In relation to other groups the age-specific incidence of petting to orgasm is moderate to low-moderate among these homosexual offenders. The maximum, 21 per cent, was attained in age-period 16-20, after which the proportion declined to 10 per cent in age-period 31-35. The accumulative incidence figures of petting to orgasm are similarly moderate.

The frequencies with which these men reached orgasm in premarital petting are low. The mean frequency is either lowest or next lowest, ranging from 4 to 5 times a year, and the median frequency amounts to no more than 3 or 4 times a year.

Their petting techniques are also somewhat less sophisticated than those of most sex offenders. Eighty per cent, the third lowest percentage, had included genital manipulation in their premarital petting. They had a moderate amount of mouth-genital contact, usually both cunnilingus and fellation, in which respect they exceed the other homosexual offenders.

*171\161\2*

More of the incest offenders vs. children had had homosexual experience than did the members of the other two incest groups. Fifty-two per cent had had such contacts in or out of prison; this percentage is intermediate in comparison to those of other groups. However, all incest-offender groups are alike in having very few of their members with more than incidental homosexual experience; the incest offenders vs. children have 12 per cent while the other two incest groups have substantially less. The incest offenders vs. children are unique in having a moderate number of individuals with homosexual experience but few with extensive experience. As a rule there is a rather close agreement between the number with experience and the number with extensive experience, and a given type of sex offender occupies about the same rank-order position in the two scales. The incest offenders vs. children breach this rule.

In their conscious psychologic response, the incest offenders vs. children are, like all incest offenders, strongly heterosexual: only a tiny 4 per cent reported sexual arousal from thinking of or seeing members of the same sex, and none reported a strong sexual response to these stimuli.

In accumulative incidence, the percentage of individuals with experience by a given age, the incest offenders vs. children always are intermediate: about 24 per cent were experienced by age fourteen and ultimately 45 per. cent by age twenty-six. The percentages are far in excess (often more than double, actually) of those of the other incest offenders. The incest offenders vs. children also had their first post-pubertal homosexual contacts at an earlier average age (16.8 years old) than did the other incest offenders, though a bit later than most other offenders.

In age-specific incidence, the number having homosexual contacts within a given age-period, the single incest offenders vs. children, unlike the other incest offenders, occupy intermediate positions in the rank-orders up to age twenty, with from 18 to 23 per cent being involved. In the following periods, 21-25 and 26-30, they rank second lowest with only 11 per cent. Such minimal involvement seems typical of the other incest offenders as well; in fact none of them had any homosexual contacts between twenty-one and twenty-five. The married offenders present a pattern similar to that of the single men: moderate numbers (6-7 per cent) engaged in homosexual acts in earlier life and then suddenly ceased. In age-period 36-40 all three incest offender groups agree in having none of their constituents with homosexual activity.

The frequency of homosexual contacts per year outside prison makes a similar pattern, the three incest-offender groups having fewer than any others. In fact, they are the only groups with frequencies of less than once a year; of the three, the offenders vs. children had the highest frequency—0.6 per year. This minute quantity is the more striking when one realizes that the control group averaged 3.4 a year and the homosexual groups range from about 30 to 85 a year.

As in the case of the other incest offenders, the proportion of total sexual outlet obtained through homosexual behavior is small, ranging from 1 to 2 per cent, and always less than that of the control group. It is possible to calculate the frequencies of premarital homosexual activity for age-periods puberty-15 and 16-20; small sample size prevents calculating further. In these calculations, whether mean or median, the incest offenders vs. children reveal the lowest frequencies of any group whose frequencies could be calculated: about 3 (median) to 6 (mean) times per year among those with such activity.

Again like the other incest offenders, the incest offenders vs. children had few male sexual partners. Of those with homosexual experience, 42 per cent had only one partner and 50 per cent had two to five partners. Only the three incest-offender groups had no one with over 20 homosexual partners.

The incest offenders vs. children were rather tolerant of male homosexuality and definitely more so than the other incest offenders. This follows the general rule that the more individuals in a group with a given type of behavior, the greater the tolerance expressed by the group concerning that behavior; people naturally do not like to condemn themselves. Forty-nine per cent, a relatively moderate proportion, disapproved and 14 per cent, a slightly larger proportion, appoved. In addition 36 percent were neutral—the third largest proportion recorded.

*129\161\2*

The aggressors vs. children suffered from several serious handicaps in early life, the most important being intellectual dullness and a background of parental friction and broken homes. By their later teens they were having the comparatively poor relationship with adult females which typified their entire lives; they had few female companions and relied heavily upon prostitutes. Their unconcern over the possible consequences of their premarital sexual activity foreshadowed their inability to function according to the rules of society. Their marriages were numerous and generally ended in separation or divorce, and their sexual activity with their wives during and even before marriage was rather constrained. In many respects these aggressors had a Victorian sexual attitude: the double standard, the division of females into good girls and bad girls, the strong desire for a virgin bride, minimal fore-play in coitus, and a reliance on prostitutes.

While other dull individuals with disorganized lives and inadequate social relationships manage to stumble through life without serious conflict with society, and some can avoid conflict even though they may have become alcoholics, the aggressors vs. children combined dullness, alcoholism, and an asocial attitude into a life style that brought them the distinction of being the most criminal and recidivistic of all the groups under consideration.

*87\161\2*

The heterosexual offenders vs. children appear to be chiefly a group of older men who were unable to defer the gratification of their impulses until a socially more suitable situation could be arranged. This inability was in some cases a personality defect in an otherwise mentally normal man, but in other cases it seems the result of a varying degree of mental deficiency. The inability to defer gratification and to endure frustration is clearly indicated in numerous ways: rushing into marriage with brief previous acquaintance; devoting little time to precoital play; turning to children as sexual partners rather than waiting to work out the adult relationships they preferred; high masturbation frequencies by married men; a relatively heavy reliance on prostitutes; and a large ratio of child victims who were strangers rather than acquaintances or friends.

While some sex offenders are happily amoral, like certain carefree characters from Steinbeck’s Cannery Row, the offenders vs. children were usually caught in a conflict between their morals and their behavior. In general they were moralistic and conservative (note how they rate in restraints on premarital coitus and how few had premarital coitus with their future wives) yet most maintained a sexual life normal for their socioeconomic status. This conflict was partly solved by their adopting the double standard and the “good girl vs. prostitute” concept. Many were extremely guilt-ridden as a result of their sexual activity with children (often the offenses required prior consumption of alcohol) and were more prone than most to deny their guilt. Others who could admit their offenses could not face reality wholly, and professed that the children encouraged the behavior. The combination of morality, sometimes intensified by a religious resurgence in prison, and their difficulty in facing unpleasant realities made the offenders vs. children hard to interview. The clinicians also found this same defense an impediment to psychotherapy.

The great majority of the offenders vs. children are not physically dangerous since they did not use force and since they seldom attempted coitus. Moreover, when their record included some other sex offense it was generally one vs. minors, or exhibition. Their nonsexual criminality lacked signs of aggression, usually consisting of breaches of peace, drunkenness, and other minor troubles more indicative of disorganization than hostility.

*44\161\2*