PREPUBERTAL SEX PLAY: TECHNIQUES
Turning to the question of sexual techniques, simple exhibition and manual touching of genitalia were too omnipresent among those who had heterosexual play to lend themselves to comparative analysis. Conversely, vaginal and anal insertion, with objects other than the penis or finger, were too infrequent. This leaves mouth-genital contact and coitus. The latter is difficult to define among prepubescents: one cannot sharply differentiate apposition of nude genitalia from the varying degrees of vaginal penetration. Therefore, we have considered as prepubertal coitus any penetration or apposition of the genitalia.
Among those with heterosexual play, no group had more than 15 per cent of its members experienced in mouth-genital contact prior to puberty. The control group had the fewest (4 per cent), and the homosexual offenders the next fewest. At the other end of the scale, two of the three heterosexual-aggressor groups occupy first and third ranks (15 and 12 per cent)—a possible indication of their demonstrated interest in heterosexuality and of an inclination to exploit all possibilities. The aggressors show the same interest in coitus, ranking second, fourth, and fifth with percentages ranging from 69 to 73.4 In brief, when a future aggressor had heterosexual play he pursued it to the physical ultimate in from two thirds to three quarters of the cases. The heterosexual offenders vs. adults, typified in later life by their success in obtaining coitus, rank first (78 per cent) in prepubertal coitus, and the heterosexual offenders vs. minors lag not far behind. At the bottom of the rank-order are two of the three homosexual-offender groups and the control group, the latter again occupying the last rank (38 per cent).
With regard to techniques among those with homosexual play, masturbation is not so common as to prevent comparisons (see Table 25). It was most used by the homosexual offenders (78—90 per cent), followed fairly closely by the peepers.5 A number of our numerically smaller groups were unavailable for comparison, since too few of them had engaged in homosexual practices. From 7 to 42 per cent of various groups had had mouth-genital contact. The homosexual offenders vs. adults, the most homosexually oriented of all, had the 42 per cent—a figure far greater than the peepers, who ranked second with 30 per cent. The other two homosexual-offender groups are in the upper half of the rank-order, the homosexual offenders vs. minors ranking third and the homosexual offenders vs. children sixth. The heterosexual offenders, the prison group, and the control group all rank in the lower part of the scale, below the 20 per cent level. Interestingly, the prison and control groups are rather alike as far as homosexual techniques are concerned, whereas they were dissimilar in their heterosexual techniques. In 12 of our comparative groups, the proportions of those with homosexual mouth-genital contact exceed by a ratio of two-to-one or more the proportion with heterosexual mouth-genital contact. In the remaining four groups the proportions are essentially equal.
Of those with prepubertal homosexual experience, some 37 to 38 per cent of all three homosexual-offender groups had had anal coitus. The next highest group (with 29 per cent) is the heterosexual aggressors vs. adults.0 This high position may be significant, since the calculations for’ the numerically small groups of aggressors vs. minors and children suggest that an equally great or greater percentage of their members had also experienced anal coitus. Indeed among the aggressors vs. children and minors the percentage reporting anal coitus exceeds the percentage reporting mouth-genital contact.
In the rank-order of anal coitus the control and prison groups are more or less central, while the lower ranks are occupied by the heterosexual offenders vs. adults and minors who were so successful in obtaining coitus as adults. Relatively few of them had homosexual experience as children, and of these few only a small percentage used oral or anal techniques.
Even in prepubertal homosexual play the persons ultimately convicted of forced heterosexual relations show a higher percentage of individuals who had only active anal coitus than any other group. Moreover, two thirds of those convicted of aggressive heterosexual acts had a combination of active and passive anal coitus, the second largest percentage recorded. The most homosexual of the three homosexual-offender groups (those convicted of contacts with males sixteen years and older) show only 6 per cent who had solely active prepubertal anal intercourse, whereas 31 per cent reported passive anal coitus and 62 per cent reported both. On the basis of our limited data (unfortunately in over a third of the cases it is not known whether the anal coitus was active, passive, or both) it appears that active anal coitus before puberty is positively correlated with subsequent aggressive heterosexual acts. Interestingly enough, none of the control group reported active prepubertal anal intercourse, whereas 22 per cent of the prison group with anal coitus before puberty reported it was active rather than passive Some interesting differences in the degree to which various techniques were employed may be seen when prepubertal heterosexuality and homosexuality are compared. Manual stimulation of genitalia was commoner to the heterosexual, being used by from 72 to 100 per cent of those who took part in heterosexual play, whereas in the homosexual sphere this technique was employed by from 43 to 90 per cent. Mouth-genital stimulation was experienced by from 7 to 42 per cent in a homosexual situation, but by only 4 to 15 per cent in a heterosexual setting. Anal coitus was a substantial homosexual phenomenon (10 to 38 per cent), but extremely rare in the heterosexual. Vaginal coitus, for which there is no homosexual analogue, was experienced by from 38 to 78 per cent of the members of the various groups.
*265\161\2*
