The incest offender vs. adults was rarely the youngest or oldest child, and rarely an only child. In fact, he was reared with more siblings (an average of 5.1) than any other type of offender. He was well supplied with sisters: 80 per cent had sisters, and the average incest offender vs.
adults had 2.67 of them—the second largest number recorded. In addition, an astonishing 40 per cent had two or more older sisters—a proportion far beyond that of any other group. This group was even better supplied with brothers: 84 per cent had male siblings and had, on the average, 2.75 of them—again the largest number recorded. The sex ratio was 107.4 brothers for every 100 sisters, which comes close to that of the prison group (106.5) and is not too far removed from that of the control group (101.5).
The incest offenders vs. adults had, at ages fourteen to seventeen, the best relationships with their fathers. In this respect they did slightly better than the heterosexual offenders vs. adults who, incidentally, are the only other group whose offenses consisted mainly of mutually voluntary sexual contact with adult females. It is no accident that as far as getting along well with their fathers is concerned, the groups closest to the incest offenders vs. adults are the heterosexual offenders vs. adults and minors, and that they are followed by the control group.
The incest offenders vs. adults got along extremely well with their mothers, being second only to the offenders vs. minors. Significantly the next “best” groups are again the heterosexual offenders vs. adults, with the control group once more following in fourth place. If one devises a rating system measuring relationship with both parents, the incest offenders vs. adults and the heterosexual offenders vs. adults share first place in excellence, the heterosexual offenders vs. minors are in second place, and the control group is third.
Most of the incest offenders vs. adults said that they got along equally well with both parents (50 per cent), fewer were partial to the mother (36 per cent) than any group except the heterosexual offenders vs. adults, and fewest favored the father (14 per cent). This is the “normal” ratio that characterizes four groups: the control, prison, and heterosexual offenders vs. minors and adults. At this point it is worth recalling that this favorable ratio did not obtain for the other incest offenders, although the incest offenders vs. minors approximate it. One can say that the normalcy of parental preference correlates, in the incest offenders, with the age of the daughter.
While relatively few of the incest offenders vs. minors came from broken homes, some 60 per cent of the incest offenders vs. adults did, a figure close to that for the incest offenders vs. children. The average, offender vs. adults was almost seven years old when his first home broke up, a not uncommon average age. All incest offenders are within the upper half of a rank-order of average age at the breakup of the original home.
Slightly over half of the incest offenders vs. adults said that when they were between fourteen and seventeen years old their parents got along together well; this percentage is somewhat low. On the other hand, few (18 per cent, a figure below that of the control group) said that their parents got along poorly or badly. To put it briefly, the parents of the incest offenders vs. adults got along better than the parents of the other sex offenders, although not so well as the parents of the men in the control and prison groups.
Despite the rather high incidence of broken homes, the incest offenders vs. adults are second only to the control group in a rank-order of those who had lived 15 or more years in a home in which there were both a husband and wife. This agrees with the fact that none of them had been sent to institutions such as orphanages.
While the incest offenders vs. adults got along exceptionally well with their parents, they seem to have been unable to socialize effectively with their contemporaries at ages ten to eleven. Whereas one fifth to one fourth of most groups said they had had many boy and girl playmates, only 12 per cent of the incest offenders vs. adults could make the same claim. As far as female companions are concerned, they make the worst showing of all: slightly over half had no girl playmates. This is an early intimation of the later limited sociosexual life characteristic of this type of offender. Since we have seen some groups with poor parental relationships having compensatory good relationships with their peers, one wonders if the excellence of the relationship of the future incest offender vs. adults with his parents may represent some sort of withdrawal from life outside the family, a tendency to be a stay-at-home mama’s (and papa’s) boy, obedient to his parents and later to the moral dictates of society.
This picture of poor socialization with females of their own age in childhood becomes even worse when one recalls that the incest offender vs. adults was unusually well supplied with sisters. What with all his sisters and their friends, he was in a singularly advantageous position to learn about females, to learn to socialize effectively with them, and to have prepubertal sex play. The fact that he failed to utilize his opportunities seems in retrospect a bad sign.
This initial impression of restraint is fortified by an examination of the prepubertal sex life of the incest offender vs. adults. Forty-eight per cent (the highest number of any group) had no sex play; only 36 per cent had heterosexual play, the second lowest percentage of any; and 28 per cent (the smallest percentage of any group) had prepubescent homosexual play. Also, they were strongly inclined to be exclusive in their type of sex play: only 12 per cent had both heterosexual and homosexual experience. This low percentage plus the small amount of prepubertal sex play combines to give a picture of restraint and sexual psychological rigidity which we shall see carried into adult life.
As one would anticipate, the duration of sex play was correspondingly brief, and there is nothing distinctive about the techniques involved. The number who had prepubertal sexual experience with adults is too small to permit analysis, but this in itself is significant. No case was found of physical contact with an adult female, and only one case of physical contact with an adult male. This latter case is worth noting only because the other two incest groups also had extremely little contact with adult males.
Like the incest offenders vs. minors, the incest offenders vs. adults were reasonably healthy during childhood, so their social deficiencies and sexual restraint in preadolescence cannot be attributed to ill health.
Their early reticence is evident from the fact that by age ten only 10 per cent had seen the genitalia of an adult female; this is the lowest percentage of any group, and indicative of moral restraint, lack of interest, or an especially conservative environment. Even by age nineteen one quarter of them had never seen adult female genitalia.
Another sign of excessive sexual inhibition is that despite having had a large number of sisters, and the fact that 40 per cent had two or more older sisters, not one of the incest offenders vs. adults reported that his first sight of postpubescent female genitalia was sight of a sister’s genitalia. One can only envision a large but prudish family or a boy so inhibited that he actively avoided opportunities that some other boy would exploit or at least passively accept.
Still another evidence of minimal sexual activity is seen in the record of prepubertal masturbation: only 32 per cent of the incest offenders vs. adults had this experience and thereby share with the incest offenders vs. minors the distinction of having had the smallest percentage of their members with prepubertal masturbation. This in conjunction with their record of having had the lowest percentage of constituent members with sex play makes the incest offenders vs. adults the least active sexually (in preadolescence) of any group.
The incest offenders vs. adults had, at ages fourteen to seventeen, the best relationships with their fathers. In this respect they did slightly better than the heterosexual offenders vs. adults who, incidentally, are the only other group whose offenses consisted mainly of mutually voluntary sexual contact with adult females. It is no accident that as far as getting along well with their fathers is concerned, the groups closest to the incest offenders vs. adults are the heterosexual offenders vs. adults and minors, and that they are followed by the control group.
The incest offenders vs. adults got along extremely well with their mothers, being second only to the offenders vs. minors. Significantly the next “best” groups are again the heterosexual offenders vs. adults, with the control group once more following in fourth place. If one devises a rating system measuring relationship with both parents, the incest offenders vs. adults and the heterosexual offenders vs. adults share first place in excellence, the heterosexual offenders vs. minors are in second place, and the control group is third.
Most of the incest offenders vs. adults said that they got along equally well with both parents (50 per cent), fewer were partial to the mother (36 per cent) than any group except the heterosexual offenders vs. adults, and fewest favored the father (14 per cent). This is the “normal” ratio that characterizes four groups: the control, prison, and heterosexual offenders vs. minors and adults. At this point it is worth recalling that this favorable ratio did not obtain for the other incest offenders, although the incest offenders vs. minors approximate it. One can say that the normalcy of parental preference correlates, in the incest offenders, with the age of the daughter.
While relatively few of the incest offenders vs. minors came from broken homes, some 60 per cent of the incest offenders vs. adults did, a figure close to that for the incest offenders vs. children. The average, offender vs. adults was almost seven years old when his first home broke up, a not uncommon average age. All incest offenders are within the upper half of a rank-order of average age at the breakup of the original home.
Slightly over half of the incest offenders vs. adults said that when they were between fourteen and seventeen years old their parents got along together well; this percentage is somewhat low. On the other hand, few (18 per cent, a figure below that of the control group) said that their parents got along poorly or badly. To put it briefly, the parents of the incest offenders vs. adults got along better than the parents of the other sex offenders, although not so well as the parents of the men in the control and prison groups.
Despite the rather high incidence of broken homes, the incest offenders vs. adults are second only to the control group in a rank-order of those who had lived 15 or more years in a home in which there were both a husband and wife. This agrees with the fact that none of them had been sent to institutions such as orphanages.
While the incest offenders vs. adults got along exceptionally well with their parents, they seem to have been unable to socialize effectively with their contemporaries at ages ten to eleven. Whereas one fifth to one fourth of most groups said they had had many boy and girl playmates, only 12 per cent of the incest offenders vs. adults could make the same claim. As far as female companions are concerned, they make the worst showing of all: slightly over half had no girl playmates. This is an early intimation of the later limited sociosexual life characteristic of this type of offender. Since we have seen some groups with poor parental relationships having compensatory good relationships with their peers, one wonders if the excellence of the relationship of the future incest offender vs. adults with his parents may represent some sort of withdrawal from life outside the family, a tendency to be a stay-at-home mama’s (and papa’s) boy, obedient to his parents and later to the moral dictates of society.
This picture of poor socialization with females of their own age in childhood becomes even worse when one recalls that the incest offender vs. adults was unusually well supplied with sisters. What with all his sisters and their friends, he was in a singularly advantageous position to learn about females, to learn to socialize effectively with them, and to have prepubertal sex play. The fact that he failed to utilize his opportunities seems in retrospect a bad sign.
This initial impression of restraint is fortified by an examination of the prepubertal sex life of the incest offender vs. adults. Forty-eight per cent (the highest number of any group) had no sex play; only 36 per cent had heterosexual play, the second lowest percentage of any; and 28 per cent (the smallest percentage of any group) had prepubescent homosexual play. Also, they were strongly inclined to be exclusive in their type of sex play: only 12 per cent had both heterosexual and homosexual experience. This low percentage plus the small amount of prepubertal sex play combines to give a picture of restraint and sexual psychological rigidity which we shall see carried into adult life.
As one would anticipate, the duration of sex play was correspondingly brief, and there is nothing distinctive about the techniques involved. The number who had prepubertal sexual experience with adults is too small to permit analysis, but this in itself is significant. No case was found of physical contact with an adult female, and only one case of physical contact with an adult male. This latter case is worth noting only because the other two incest groups also had extremely little contact with adult males.
Like the incest offenders vs. minors, the incest offenders vs. adults were reasonably healthy during childhood, so their social deficiencies and sexual restraint in preadolescence cannot be attributed to ill health.
Their early reticence is evident from the fact that by age ten only 10 per cent had seen the genitalia of an adult female; this is the lowest percentage of any group, and indicative of moral restraint, lack of interest, or an especially conservative environment. Even by age nineteen one quarter of them had never seen adult female genitalia.
Another sign of excessive sexual inhibition is that despite having had a large number of sisters, and the fact that 40 per cent had two or more older sisters, not one of the incest offenders vs. adults reported that his first sight of postpubescent female genitalia was sight of a sister’s genitalia. One can only envision a large but prudish family or a boy so inhibited that he actively avoided opportunities that some other boy would exploit or at least passively accept.
Still another evidence of minimal sexual activity is seen in the record of prepubertal masturbation: only 32 per cent of the incest offenders vs. adults had this experience and thereby share with the incest offenders vs. minors the distinction of having had the smallest percentage of their members with prepubertal masturbation. This in conjunction with their record of having had the lowest percentage of constituent members with sex play makes the incest offenders vs. adults the least active sexually (in preadolescence) of any group.
No comments:
Post a Comment