Health News. Lots of resources and information

Homosexual offenders vs. minors are adult males who made homosexual overtures to, or had sexual contact with, boys aged twelve to fifteen inclusive. As with the homosexual offenders vs. children, the number of incestuous or forced cases is so small that it has not been deemed worthwhile to establish these as separate categories of offense.

The homosexual offender vs. minors is in many respects analogous to the heterosexual offender vs. minors in that his partner is almost old enough to be considered eligible for sociosexual activity in the eyes of society. The incessant emphasis on youth and beauty, the extolment of the unwrinkled skin, the absence of adult adiposity, the vigor and enthusiasm that are dominant (and perhaps unfortunate) themes in the heterosexual sphere are also to be found in the homosexual sphere. Consequently it is not surprising to find adults with homosexual interests casting an eye upon twelve- to fifteen-year-old boys, an age group not unpopular in ancient Greece. While the heterosexual male who finds equally young girls attractive may restrain himself because of social and legal circumstances, the homosexual male is somewhat less restrained; to reverse an old saying, he feels that since he risks hanging anyway he might as well be hanged for a lamb as for a sheep. Furthermore, while the average twelve- to fifteen-year-old girl may be physically attractive and perhaps even preoccupied with vague romantic impulses, she is relatively devoid of erotic response. By age fifteen only about half of the females have recognized any sexual arousal in themselves and only about one quarter have experienced orgasm. In brief, these young girls do not ordinarly make interested and cooperative sexual partners. The adult heterosexual male suspects or knows this, and his suspicion or knowledge acts as a deterrent. The homosexual adult labors under no such handicap: by age fifteen the average boy is definitely interested in sex and is keenly aware of the pleasure to be derived from it. To be sure, this hypothetical average boy is heterosexually oriented, but he is still experimentally inclined and his prejudices and preferences have not become hardened. If such a boy can be persuaded to engage in sexual activity, he exhibits an intensity of response matching or frequently surpassing that of an adult. This fact is well known to many homosexual adults who are thereby subjected to temptation that die heterosexual adult is largely spared. If twelve- to fifteen-year-old girls had as developed libidos as boys of the same age, our penal institutions would burst at the seams.

Another element must be mentioned in connection with the homosexual offenders vs. minors. Some homosexually inclined males desire young boys not only as sexual objects but as son-surrogates; they need to find some boy to help and tutor, upon whom to lavish affection. One is again reminded of ancient Greece. In view of the wretched relationship that so many homosexual offenders had with their fathers, this humanitarianism may stem from the desire to give a boy the paternal love and guidance that they missed. To such an altruistically motivated male a boy twelve to fifteen is perfectly suited; he is not old enough to exhibit undesirable independence and yet not so young that one would have to resort to childish activities and language in order to maintain an intimate relationship. One sometimes encounters males in whom this altruism preceded any conscious homosexual desire, and who were startled to realize that their affection and interest had assumed sexual overtones. Among the most tragic cases in our records are those of men who had unstintingly devoted themselves to working with boys as teachers, camp leaders, and scout masters, and who subsequently became sexually involved with their charges and ended in our category of homosexual offenders.

*182\161\2*

All the incest offenders vs. minors had had premarital petting experience. The median individual began petting at sixteen; only the incest offenders vs. adults began later; this belated start seems characteristic of those whose offense is against a postpubescent daughter. While the delay of the incest offenders vs. adults is largely a result of their reaching puberty at a late date, no such explanation exists for the incest offenders vs. minors, who reached puberty at a usual age. Despite their late start, the accumulative incidence (the proportions with petting experience by a given age) is in no way remarkable.

Between puberty and fifteen (inclusive) slightly over half of the incest offenders vs. minors petted: this is a low figure. Yet in the next age-period, 16-20, a large percentage (97 per cent) petted. As yet we have no explanation for the unusual abruptness of this increase. The age-specific incidence of petting to orgasm, while increasing as anticipated, shows no such abrupt rise. The figures are moderate to low in comparison with those of other groups, rising from 10 per cent in the first age-period to double that in age-period 16-20, and then falling to nearly the original figure in age-period 21-25.

These incest offenders vs. minors, like the other incest groups, did not have many petting partners; the average (median) offender had 11—the second smallest number recorded. While they had fewer petting partners than the control group, the prison group, and all but one of the other sex-offender groups, the incest offenders vs. minors cannot be said to have been seriously deprived. The same may be said of their general social relations with females at ages sixteen and seventeen, though they had somewhat fewer female friends and companions than most other groups.

In reaching orgasm through petting, the incest offenders vs. minors display the lowest frequencies (mean and median both) of any group. Sample size permits calculation only for age-period 16-20, but during these years their average frequency was only 2 to 3 times per year. There is nothing unusual about the accumulative incidence of petting to orgasm: ultimately a fifth of these incest offenders had this experience.

Their petting techniques are not particularly distinctive except that they are one of the three groups more of whose members had premarital cunnilingus with female friends (12 per cent) than were fellated (9 per cent). This latter figure is quite small; only the incest offenders vs. adults had a smaller one. The absence of any incest offender vs. minors who had had cunnilingus with a prostitute may be a matter of small sample vagary; other incest offenders display percentages that are small absolutely, but large relatively.

*140\161\2*

The aggressors vs. minors had much the largest number of juvenile delinquents—some 56 per cent had juvenile records, and a full third (again by far the largest proportion recorded) had been committed to some juvenile institution for at least six months. This is a precocious criminal development, especially when one notes that the equivalent figures for the prison group are 24 per cent and 16 per cent—i.e., about half as large as those for the aggressors vs. minors. Their future was foretold by the fact that almost one fifth committed juvenile sex offenses, again the largest percentage to be found in all our comparative groups.

The aggressors vs. minors became involved with the law extremely rapidly. Close to one third had been convicted by age sixteen, four fifths by age twenty, and 93 per cent by age thirty; in this respect they outstripped all others including the prison group. The offenses were for the most part serious, as is evidenced by the fact that by age thirty over three quarters of the men had had one or more convictions resulting in incarceration for a year or more.

The average aggressor vs. minors was first convicted of any offense when he was seventeen; his first conviction for sexual aggressions against a minor female came later, when he was twenty-three, which is young compared to the average age of others at the time of their first sex offense.

All of the aggressors display a high number of convictions per capita, the aggressors vs. minors ranking sixth (below the other aggressors) with 3.9 convictions per man. The prison group had, it should be noted, 3.5 convictions. Over half of the convictions were for sex offenses—a proportion not unlike that of many other groups. However, relatively few (27 per cent) were “pure” sex offenders in the sense that they were convicted only for sex offenses; in this respect they are again like the other aggressors.

Examining the nonsex offenses, one sees that the aggressors vs. minors had the largest proportion of offenses against property (45 per cent) of any group except the prison group, which boasts 48 per cent. In offenses against person, these aggressors are undisputedly in first place with 18 per cent; the other aggressors are three to four percentage points less. In other sorts of offense they are either nondescript or low.

Their sex offenses were not always ones of aggression. Sometimes their sexual partners were willing—actually 28 per cent of their sex offenses involved voluntary heterosexual contact. Such offenses were committed by about 19 per cent of the men. In 24 per cent of the cases, involving about 26 per cent of the men, their aggressive offenses were not against minors but against adults. Thus far the “crossing over” from one type of offense to another appears logical and predictable. However, slightly over one third of the offenses were exhibition, which is surprising, though these were committed by only three men (i.e., 11 per cent of the aggressors vs. minors). On reflection, a certain amount of exhibition and aggression can be expected to be associated, since some exhibition constitutes a hostile act directed against females. This was recognized by a few exhibitionists themselves even before the therapists suggested such an interpretation.

The aggressors vs. minors were strongly recidivistic. Only 11 per cent, a small proportion, had one criminal conviction, whereas 26 per cent had three—the largest proportion of any group. The youthfulness of the group at the time we interviewed them explains in part why they did not have more numerous convictions, but even so some 15 per cent had been convicted seven or more times, a percentage surpassed by only three other groups.

*98\161\2*

While more “criminal” than the offenders vs. children and adults, the offenders vs. minors in general exhibit moderate figures. By age twenty nearly half had been convicted of some offense, sexual or nonsexual, and this proportion rises to 77 by age thirty and 88 by age forty. The accumulative incidence of first offense vs. a female minor is naturally less: by age twenty, one third had such a conviction, by thirty, two thirds, and by forty, some 85 per cent. The first figure—one third—is a large one at age twenty, but the other figures are unexceptional. One may say that these offenders got off to a fast start but were overtaken later.

When the offender vs. minors committed some other sex offense he was most apt to choose exhibition; offenses against children were his next choice. The average number of sex offenses per offender vs. minors is 1.7.

In terms of sexual arousal resulting from visual stimulus, the offenders vs. minors are—like the offenders vs. adults—quite unresponsive. Only 31 per cent, the third smallest proportion, reported sexual arousal from seeing or thinking of females. Similarly, this group had the third smallest proportion of men (slightly under half) who responded to pornography. This general unresponsiveness to psychological stimuli, as opposed to physical contact, seems a product of a combination of above-average sociosexual activity, an unimaginative, simple, direct outlook on sex, and a relatively large proportion of men of below-average intelligence. Note their minimal dream content and masturbatory fantasy.

Very few offenders vs. minors were alcoholics and only a relatively small proportion of their offenses were committed while drunk. Their sobriety reflects the fact that their behavior bears little or no taboo requiring dissolution by alcohol, and in this respect they are like the offenders vs. adults. There was nothing unusual about their use of drugs. They are, however, quite distinctive in gambling; while half of them (the same proportion as among the control group) did not gamble, those who did tended to do so seriously. Some 22 per cent, a figure second only to that of the prison group, derived a substantial part of their income from gambling.

*56\161\2*

This study is based chiefly upon the sexual case histories obtained by interviewing 1,356 white males who had been convicted for one or more sex offenses (our total sex-offender group); 888 white males who had never been convicted for a sex offense, but who had been convicted for some other misdemeanor or felony (our prison group); and 477 white males who had never been convicted for anything beyond traffic violations (our control group).

The interviews were not done at a uniform rate throughout die history of our research, and there were periods when interviewing was not only emphasized, but was directed toward specific groups. There were two major periods when we interviewed sex offenders: between 1941 and 1945 we gathered some 38 per cent of our sex-offender sample, chiefly in Indiana; and between 1953 and 1955, in California prisons, we gathered 45 per cent. The prison group also has an “Indiana phase” of 1940-1941 during which we obtained 37 per cent of our sample, and a “California phase” of 1953-1955 from which came 32 per cent of the sample. The growth of the control group was more; evenly spread: one fifth or nearly one fifth of the sample was gathered in each of the following two-year periods, 1940-1941, 1944-1945, 1948-1949, and 1959-1960. During the last period we made a special effort to enlarge and improve the sample for use in the present study.

*13\161\2*