MARRIAGE: COITAL POSITIONS
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*
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.