Herbal Health – information on herbal medicine

In an over-all view of the extensive data presented here on the circumstances of the sex offense, certain salient factors emerge. There is a clear-cut trend for the findings on the more aberrant offenses to stand out in contrast to the “garden variety.” The aberrant offenses are typically the pedophilic ones and those involving force. They reveal in general a greater age disparity between the offender and his object and a higher degree of repetitive sex-offense behavior. The offenders show somewhat more psychotic indications prior to offense behavior, greater use of drugs and alcohol at offense time, and more impulsive behavior and consequently less premeditation. There is an absence of copartners, a greater difficulty in admitting guilt, and a larger tendency to rationalize the offense behavior through projection of the offender’s feelings to the object of the offense. On the other hand, the more “normal” heterosexual offenses, those vs. minors and adults, are characterized by less recidivism, more accurate reporting of the response of the object, and by a higher degree of acquaintanceship. Other general conclusions are evident. Aggression offenses are more apt to be committed by younger males. A high proportion of sex offenders are single or have experienced a broken marriage. Residences are the most usual location for offenses, while automobiles play a significant role chiefly in aggression offenses. Risk-taking is fairly high, especially if the uncertainty of secrecy on the part of children and minors is taken into account. The circumstances of homosexual offenses show certain characteristic trends. Typical of these are a greater age disparity between the offender and his object, lack of force in the offense, low use of alcohol and drugs, low incidence of married males who were offenders, use of toilets as an offense location, and the presence of police entrapment.

*386\161\2*

Human behavior in any of its aspects is not a tractable beast. The behavioral scientist tries to fit his data into neat and exact categories from which reasonable similarities and differences may be observed. Unfortunately for neatness and the scientist’s desires, the world is always more complex than his best laid plans. The sex offender is no different from other objects of study. He refuses to commit only one type of sex offense and may indeed persistently commit a number of different types. Fortunately this is not common, and the crossover of offenders from one type of offense to another is different for the various offender groups. These differences in the degree of focus on specific offenses are part of the picture of sex-offense behavior in general.

In some cases offenders commit specifically one type of offense against persons in one age group. In others they stick to the general type, e.g., homosexual offenses, but the ages of the objects may vary. In another case the offender group may commit many different types of offenses with persons of varying ages. These differences are worth exploring for the light they cast upon the sex offender.

First we must define our terms, and the simplest way to do so is by example. For a homosexual offender vs. adults, the specific offense would be a homosexual offense with an adult; homosexual offenses with minors or children would be within his general-offense category, but would be nonspecific; all nonhomosexual offenses would be nonspecific and also outside his general category.

The groups displaying the greatest specificity are the homosexual offenders vs. adults and all three incest groups. Only 17 per cent of the offenses of the former were nonspecific. For the incest offenders the percentage ranges from 19 to 22. At the opposite extreme, the least specific groups are the aggressors vs. children and minors (with 46 and 51 per cent of their offenses nonspecific) and the homosexual offenders vs. children and minors (41 and 38 per cent). These homosexual offenders tend to cross over into other homosexual categories; the aggressors seem simply more polysexual in their offenses. The only other noteworthy finding is a tendency for the offenders or aggressors vs. children and minors of either sex to be less specific in their offenses than those who offend or aggress against adults.

Let us now examine the percentages of offenses that are not only nonspecific but outside the general category—for example, the non-homosexual offenses of the three homosexual-offender groups, and the offenses of the aggressors that lacked the element of threat or force. The least specific groups are the aggressors, next are the three heterosexual-offender groups, and following them is a mixture of homosexual and incest offenders. Those whose objects were adults were the most specific in their behavior. In fact, no incest offender vs. adults had any sex-offense conviction other than incest, and only 4 per cent of the convictions of the homosexual offenders vs. adults were for nonhomosexual offenses.

All of this sums up to the fact that homosexual and incest offenders are rather rigidly departmentalized in their sex-offense behavior (as measured by convictions) while the aggressors are quite prone to commit a variety of offenses. The greater specificity of the homosexual offenders is further illustrated by the fact that among all other offenders (except for the incest offenders vs. adults) the percentages of nonspecific offenses outside the general-offense category always strongly exceed the percentages of nonspecific offenses within the general-offense category. Among the homosexual offenders this situation is reversed: nonspecific homosexual offenses outnumber the nonhomosexual offenses.

Some comments about general-offense categories can be profitably made. Offenses against willing or acquiescent females constitute a large proportion—from 27 to 39 per cent—of what one can call the “outside-the-general-category offenses” of all sex offenders except the homosexual and incest offenders (who committed few or none), whereas offenses involving the use of force or threat represent a small proportion of this category. Aside from the incest and homosexual offenders, who committed very few or no such aggressions, from 11 to 28 per cent of the outside-the-general-category sex offenses were heterosexual aggressions.

Incest offenses were rare. A range of 0 to 6 per cent includes all but the offenders vs. adults (12 per cent of whose offenses were incest) and the aggressors vs. adults (8 per cent).

Homosexual offenses were uncommon; no group other than the homosexual offenders had more than 17 per cent of its offenses of this sort.

Peeping was, in general, rare. Seven groups had no peeping offenses; among the remaining groups peeping accounted for 1 to 19 per cent of the outside-the-general-category offenses. Of these groups only three (the offenders and aggressors vs. adults and the exhibitionists) had percentages exceeding 6 per cent.

Exhibition was variable but often constituted a substantial proportion of outside-the-general-category offenses—from 0 to 43 per cent. Aside from this 43 per cent figure for the peepers, exhibition ranged up to 34 per cent. The homosexual offenders, as one might expect, and the incest offenders were low in exhibition offenses.

*348\161\2*

While variations of coital positions are not as subject to taboo as is mouth-genital contact (note there are laws against the latter), there is nevertheless a mild to moderate feeling that there is a “right way” and that all other positions are to varying degrees abnormal and freakish. This concern with coital posture is not confined to the lower socioeconomic level, but appears in scientific guise in occasional psychiatric or psychoanalytic writings. Not too much can be gleaned from a tabulation of the percentages who employ positions other than the customary male-prone female-supine. The incest offenders vs. children and the aggressors vs. minors, both noted for their interest in elaborate sexual play, head the rank-order with over 90 per cent having used various coital positions. Near the bottom of the rank-order (with 71 per cent) are the homosexual offenders vs. adults—our most strongly homosexual group, some of whose members were sufficiently disinterested in heterosexual activity as to omit any experimentation.7 Near or at the bottom are the aggressors vs. children and the incest offenders vs. adults; both groups were notable for the brevity of their foreplay and their avoidance of mouth-genital contact in marriage. These groups appear to be sexually quite inhibited.

Last in a discussion of techniques is the matter of anal coitus. Here again we find that two groups typified by varied and protracted foreplay head the rank-order: the incest offenders vs. children and the aggressors vs. adults. About one quarter of each group had used this form of coitus. The aggressors vs. minors are not far behind, occupying fifth (prison is fourth). We feel that anal coitus, even more than mouth-genital contact, is likely to be used as a sadistic technique since initially it involves pain. To exploit all of a sexual partner’s large body apertures enhances the exploiter’s dominance and aggressive masculinity. This hypothesis fits well with the high incidence of anal coitus among the aggressors and prison group. Near the bottom of the rank-order, with less than 6 per cent involved, are the aggressors vs. children (as expected), two of the homosexual-offender groups, the control group, and the offenders vs. minors. The low ranking of these homosexual offenders is interesting in that it shows there is no carry-over of homosexual anal coitus into heterosexual life.

*310\161\2*

The age at which males first saw the genitalia of a female with pubic hair provides some insight into the cultural conditions, especially in terms of permissiveness or repressiveness, in which they spent their early lives. Among those who first had this experience before age eleven, the three heterosexual-aggressor groups occupy the first three ranks with from 30 to 44 per cent. This suggests an early interest. The control group and the incest offenders vs. adults, two sexually restrained groups, occupy the bottom of the rank-order with 15 and 11 per cent respectively, and the heterosexual offenders vs. adults (19 per cent) are near the bottom.

Turning to the other extreme, and examining a rank-order of those who had never seen postpubertal female genitalia, one finds that the three homosexual-offender groups lead with from 8 to 11 per cent. One may speculate as to whether this represents disinterest or the repression of memory. The peepers occupy fourth rank with 7 per cent; these must be the unsuccessful peepers.

In a ranking of those who first saw adult female genitalia at a late date, at age nineteen or later, the top four ranks are occupied by incest offenders and homosexual offenders—i.e., the inhibited and the disinterested.

The age-period during which the initial sight of postpubertal female genitalia occurs most commonly is 15-18 inclusive: the ages when heterosexual activity is blossoming into more advanced petting techniques and coitus.

In addition to the matter of age, the question of how these males gained their first sight is of interest. Again we are plagued with many instances where the data were not gathered, but nevertheless certain trends may be seen.

The major situation, which held true in from 32 to 65 per cent of the cases, is that of nonmarital coitus. A study of rank-order provides little meaningful information. The two highest ranking groups, heterosexual offenders vs. minors and adults, one will recall, also ranked very high in incidence of premarital coitus; the lowest ranking groups, peepers and homosexual offenders vs. adults, had low incidence of premarital coitus.

The next most common source of first sight of genitalia is a situation involving accidental circumstances—the source for from 0 to 23 per cent of the males. Again a comparison of percentages yields little.

Other sources are of minor importance, and only two phenomena merit attention. First, marital coitus as a source of first sight of postpubertal female genitalia is significant only for our most restrained group, the incest offenders vs. adults (17 per cent). Second, peeping was a substantial source (29 per cent) only among peepers; no other group exceeds 11 per cent.

The female seen was usually not a relative of the male. From 3 to 19 per cent reported their first sight was of their mothers, up to 11 per cent (excluding one group because of the small sample size) mentioned their sisters, and up to 13 per cent other female relatives. No particular trends or clusterings are evident except for a definite tendency for the peepers, and a lesser tendency for the aggressors, to have seen the genitalia of related females: mothers, sisters, and other relatives.

*272\161\2*

There is nothing distinctive about the single exhibitionists in the incidence of their postpubertal masturbation or the age at which it began. One might assume that since the exhibitionist often masturbates while exposing himself, this fact would be evident in the age-specific incidence figures, but it is not. However, the age-specific incidence figures for the married exhibitionists reveal that an unusually large proportion of them masturbated in each of the five-year age-periods up to age forty. In this they are second only to the married homosexual offenders vs. adults, and exceed the control group by 18 to 25 percentage points. The exhibitionists rank fifth (14 per cent) in the rank-order of those who had ever masturbated more than a dozen times in any one week, but this rather high rank may be largely due to the masturbation associated with exposure. The average maximum was 5.7 per week, also the fifth highest maximum recorded.

The exhibitionists are above-average in terms of masturbation frequency before marriage;, the average (median) exhibitionist having a frequency of from about once a week to 6 a month between puberty and age forty, exceeding the control group by a substantial margin until after age thirty-five.

The importance of self-masturbation is seen more clearly among the married. While for most men the accessibility of coitus markedly reduces masturbation incidences and frequencies, those exhibitionists who masturbated during marriage did so with frequencies that often surpass those of even the homosexual offenders vs. adults. Coitus apparently failed to satisfy these men, and while all did not continue to exhibit during marriage (though a substantial number did so) masturbation represents an outlet of considerable significance both as an alternative to coitus and as an accompaniment to exhibition. The average (median) exhibitionist who masturbated did so with frequencies ranging from about once a week to once in two weeks. The average (mean) frequencies are much higher, thanks to a minority of extreme cases ranging from nearly once a week to about 2.5 per week.

The unmarried exhibitionists derived a relatively large proportion of their total outlet from masturbation from their late teens to their mid-twenties, ranking fourth and second, with 59 per cent of their orgasms achieved by self-stimulation. Later in life the proportions are moderate, though always larger than those of the control group. An outstanding trait, and one shared with the peepers, is that the masturbatory proportion of total outlet remains unchanged in age-periods 16-20 and 21-25.

The married exhibitionists obtained more of their outlet from masturbation than did the members of any other group. They rank first in age-period 16—20, second from twenty to thirty, and first until age forty, after which they are once again second. Contrary to the customary aging picture, they increased the proportions derived through masturbation from 17 per cent in their late teens up to 29 per cent in age-period 31—35, and more or less maintained this extraordinarily large figure through the following age-period. Only then did masturbation lose its significance, falling suddenly to but 5 per cent of the total outlet as the frequency was rather abruptly reduced.

The proportions in postmarital life are also large—between 30 to 40 per cent up to age forty.

The unusual importance of masturbation to the exhibitionist whether single or married, divorced or widowed, clearly indicates serious difficulties in heterosexual adjustment.

The only salient feature of the exhibitionists’ masturbatory fantasies is that more of them (26 per cent) than any other group had bizarre fantasies. Most of these were fantasies of exposing themselves to females—a logical sort of fantasy for these offenders to have when masturbating in solitude.

Like the peepers, the exhibitionists were concerned about their masturbation.3 In 51 per cent (third in rank-order) of the years during which masturbation occurred there was accompanying worry. In some instances the masturbation may have been a source of especial worry because of its link with genital exposure—a guilt-by-association phenomenon.

The exhibitionists do not differ from other groups in the ways they learned of masturbation. As in most groups, the majority learned from a combination of talking or reading and observation.

*233\161\2*