Health related information and news from around the world.

Attempting to do a taxonomic division of homosexual offenders vs. adults is at our present state of knowledge rather futile, since it involves the whole problem of the etiology of homosexuality. However, we do know that certain types of homosexual behavior often lead to arrest and it is possible to categorize persons on this basis. Thus the following divisions are not so much personality categories as they are traits of behavior.

First we must set aside the large group of males who try to be reasonably circumspect, but who through events largely beyond their control (such as a raid on a “gay” bar) have fallen into the toils of the law.

One variety whose members are almost certain of arrest are those who flaunt their homosexuality. A small minority of exclusively or nearly exclusively homosexual males, generally young, adopt grotesquely exaggerated female mannerisms and may sometimes wear female clothing and cosmetics. Such behavior gains them the attention they desire, but also attracts the unwanted attention of the police.

Another variety whose members are less obviously homosexual but equally certain of arrest are the promiscuous “cruisers” who spend much time circulating in public places where males congregate, soliciting those whom they judge open to homosexual overtures. Sooner or later they are noticed by plainclothes men or make the error of soliciting a plainclothes man. A substantial number are caught in sexual activity with other males in public toilets.

Lastly are the men who either prefer or accept as sexual partners young males aged sixteen to twenty. Any male in his middle twenties or older who seems to be currying favor with teen-age males is viewed with acute suspicion by the police, and unless his interest is justified by some connection with an organization (e.g., social work, religious groups, scouting, etc.) he is likely to be watched and investigated. Also, when teen-age males are arrested in cases where homosexuality may possibly be involved they are frequently interrogated closely about their contacts with older adults. Then too, the adult who picks up strange teenagers may find himself the victim of robbery or extortion, which directly or indirectly leads to police action.

*215\161\2*

Being less homosexually oriented than other homosexual offenders, more of the homosexual offenders vs. children married—47 per cent, a small proportion compared with the sex offenders against females. On the basis of the accumulative incidence data one can predict, however, that ultimately nearly two thirds would marry, but this is still a comparatively small number. The average (median) homosexual offender vs. children married at age twenty-five, the oldest age of all except for the homosexual offender vs. minors.

A somewhat small number (56 per cent) had married only once while a relatively large (36 per cent) proportion had married twice. The homosexual offender vs. children, if his first marriage failed, was more inclined to try again than were the other homosexual offenders. However, all homosexual offenders have a common tendency toward at least one brief marriage: the homosexual offenders vs. children rank third in this regard, with 40 per cent of them having had one marriage that broke up in two years or less; the homosexual offenders vs. adults rank second (41 per cent), and the homosexual offenders vs. minors fifth (37 per cent).

The average (median) homosexual offender vs. children had known his future wife slightly over nine months before he married her—the second longest acquaintance reported by any, but still far less than the control group’s more than 16 months.

Some 58 per cent had coitus with their future wives, a moderate proportion, and the number of resultant pregnant brides was likewise moderate. However, relatively few children were born within marriage —only about 14 children per ten couples, yet this feeble showing is lush fecundity compared with the other homosexual offenders.

There is nothing noteworthy about the foreplay and coital techniques employed by the homosexual offenders vs. children. They show a tendency toward brief foreplay (41 per cent averaged three minutes or less). While some clinicians and laymen have regarded mouth-genital contact and anal coitus as being somehow inherently homosexual techniques, the homosexual offenders vs. children show no undue emphasis on these activities in their marriages. In fact, a certain restraint is evident, and these offenders are frequently very similar to the control group in terms of percentages.

In taking a group known to have a strong homosexual component and selecting only those who married, one thereby tends to divide the group into: (1) the never married and more homosexual, and (2) the married and less homosexual. This dichotomy can produce some conflicting data, as we shall see in the case of the homosexual offenders vs. minors and adults. Since of the three homosexual-offender groups the offenders vs. children were the least homosexually oriented, one would expect their frequencies of marital coitus to exceed those of other homosexual offenders. Actually, however, the average (median) homosexual offender vs. children has the lowest frequencies of any group: he occupies either the bottom or next to the bottommost position in five of die six rank-orders extending from age sixteen to age forty-five. Moreover, he is the only individual whose frequencies never exceed 2.12 per week.

The mean frequencies are erratic but generally higher: the homosexual offenders vs. children rise to intermediate rank by age thirty, and inexplicably to second place at age-period 36-40 with a marked absolute as well as relative increase in coital frequency. Obviously these offenders include a minority of heterosexually quite active persons, as age-period 36-40 dramatically illustrates, the median being the lowest (1.42 per week) and the mean the second highest (3.40 per week).

Marital coitus accounted for a moderate proportion (84—88 per cent) of the total sexual outlet of these offenders at ages prior to forty-one. In age-period 41-45, however, the proportion shrivels to 58 per cent—the smallest recorded. This unexpected decrease seems not so much due to any blossoming of nonmarital activity as to a reduction in the frequency of marital coitus: before age forty-one one finds several men with more than daily coitus with their wives, but in age-period 41-45 only one such male exists and the average frequencies, both mean and median, correspondingly decrease.

The married men reported that nearly one fifth of their years of marriage were marked by low orgasm rates (orgasm only once or even less in ten acts of coitus) on the part of their wives; only one other group spent more of married life with such low rates. On the other hand, about 58 per cent (a moderate figure compared to the others) of the married years were accompanied by high orgasm rates—orgasm 9 or more times out of 10.

Analysis of the marital happiness ratings reported by the homosexual offenders vs. children indicates that they fall chiefly in two categories: very happy (43 per cent of the years of marriage, a high-intermediate figure) and rather unhappy (25 per cent, a high figure); only 15-17 per cent are found in the other two categories. All in all, like other homosexual offenders, they have marriages of average happiness compared to other sex offenders.

*173\161\2*

The incest offenders vs. children have the fewest constituents with juvenile criminal records—a mere 7 per cent, a figure less than a third that of the prison group. About half of these juvenile delinquents had been convicted of offenses serious enough to warrant their being incarcerated for six months or more. This one-to-one ratio is unusually favorable: in most groups there is a larger proportion of serious juvenile acts. Some 2 per cent of the incest offenders vs. children had juvenile sex offenses on their records, a moderate number compared to other groups.

The average age of first conviction as an adult was 29 years—the third oldest age recorded, the other two incest groups ranking first and second. Nearly all other group averages fall in an age-span 20-25. Their average age at the first conviction resulting in a sentence of a year or more (i.e., the first conviction for a serious crime) was 33 years, again surpassed only by the other incest offenders.

Their involvement in antisocial behavior as revealed by their convictions (only a partial revelation at best) was rather belated: one fifth had been convicted by age twenty and three fifths by age thirty. This is, however, earlier than the other incest offenders. The total per capita convictions, about three, are moderate. However, the per capita sex-offense convictions are fairly small—1.6.

This small per capita sex-offense conviction figure accords with the fact that only 45 per cent of these offenders were convicted solely for sex offenses; this is a relatively small percentage, but not far removed from those of other groups. Their criminal record, aside from sex offenses, is not remarkable except for a large number (26 per cent) who were convicted of crimes vs. order—chiefly acts of foolish malice that could not be termed crimes against persons or property in the usual sense nor classed as disorderly conduct and vagrancy. Crimes vs. order are typical of all sex offenders.

The incest offenders vs. children had, of course, additional sex offenses. Most (32 per cent) involved willing females. Next in popularity were homosexual offenses, aggression offenses, and incest offenses against minors and adults—all, strangely enough, being equally common, each constituting 16 per cent of the sex offenses. There was little exhibition and no peeping. One is left with a feeling that those who committed other sex offenses were action oriented in the sense of seeking physical contact (hence the status of exhibition and peeping), and polymorphic in their quest, taking advantage of opportunities that came to hand. Daughters were convenient, willing unrelated females were next easiest to obtain, and in a pinch one could always force a female or turn to another male.

In terms of total criminal recidivism the incest offenders vs. children present a puzzling picture. What one could term a low-moderate number had one conviction (21 per cent), a relatively very large number had two convictions (29 per cent), a large number (nearly 20 per cent) had three, and another large number (29 per cent) had four to six. Obviously, extremely few had more. About all that one can say is that they were rather recidivistic in that many had more than one conviction, but not markedly recidivistic in that few had over six convictions.

*131\161\2*

The aggressor vs. minors is apt to be an only child (or reared alone apart from his siblings). If he has siblings, he tends more than other sex offenders to be the eldest child. A full third of the aggressors vs. minors were eldest children, whereas this was true of only about one quarter to one fifth of the other sex offenders. This propensity is not seen in the other heterosexual-aggressor groups, though they do share with the aggressors vs. minors a tendency to be only children or reared as only children. Some 22 per cent of the aggressors vs. minors were reared with no siblings at home; this is the largest percentage recorded. In addition, they reveal the smallest median number of siblings: 3.5. This deficiency was especially true with regard to sisters; some 44 per cent had none (the largest percentage recorded) and one third had no brothers (the second largest percentage). The average aggressor vs. minors had only 1.5 sisters, the smallest number in our tabulation, and had also the fewest brothers (1.4). This resulted in their being one of the four groups in which the sibling sex ratio favored the sisters, the ratio being 76.5 brothers per 100 sisters.

Like the aggressors vs. children, the aggressors vs. minors did not get along well with their fathers: they had one of the poorest paternal relationships of any heterosexual offenders, whereas in most groups the percentage who got along well with the father exceeds (usually substantially ) the percentage who got along poorly. Again like the aggressors vs. children, they had a poor relationship with the mother, almost one third reporting that they got along badly with her, which gives them first place in a rank-order of bad adjustment.

At this point it is of interest to recall that the offenders vs. minors got along extraordinarily well with both parents. There is some reason to believe that a poor adjustment to one’s parents presages a use of violence or threat in adult life, a belief that is not discordant with current psychiatric thinking.

In answer to the question, “With which parent did you get along better?” the aggressors vs. minors showed themselves the most partisan of any group. Whereas in the majority of groups most of the members got along with both parents equally well (fewer got along better with the mother, and very few got along better with the father), the aggressors vs. minors present a totally different picture: more than half got along better with the mother (only two groups exceed this), about a quarter got along better with the father (no group exceeds this), and roughly only a fifth got along with both parents equally well. This is a unique order and there is justification for looking upon it as a pathological one as well, for it is quite unlike the order displayed by the control and prison groups. In short, a preference for the mother seems to characterize the heterosexual offenders who use force or threat.

About 56 per cent of the aggressors vs. minors came from broken homes. The breakup occurred quite early when the average (median) boy was only five years old, the second youngest age recorded. The subsequent marriages of the parents do not seem to have been much happier than the marriages that broke up, for the aggressors vs. minors had one of the poorest interparental adjustments: only 41 per cent reported that when they were fourteen to seventeen their parents got along well with one another (the control-group figure was 59 per cent).

The number of years they spent in a home in which a husband and wife were present, and the number of years they spent in a household that lacked a father figure do not show anything distinctive. However, the aggressors vs. minors are distinctive in some respects: not only had a third of them been sent to institutions following the breakup of the family, but in general they had the most unstable postbreakup environment of all the groups. Whereas the average number of post-breakup arrangements (the placing of the child with one parent, with foster parents, in an orphanage, etc.) was 1.42 for the control group, it was 1.93 for these aggressors. No other group exceeded 1.73.

While the heterosexual aggressor vs. children was typified by having numerous companions, both boys and girls, at ages ten to eleven, the aggressors vs. minors were rather lacking in friends at that age. Of all the groups available for comparison, this one had the lowest percentage of persons who reported having had numerous companions: 11 per cent to the control group’s 23 per cent. It is not that they wholly lacked companions; they had them, but they did not have many; for example.

fewer reported having had no female companions than in the control group. The aggressors vs. adults present a very similar picture; of the heterosexual aggressors it is the aggressor vs. children alone who had excellent prepubertal social relations. Note that the aggressors vs. children had, on the average, five siblings, and were especially well supplied with sisters; the aggressors vs. minors and adults were reared with considerably fewer siblings and had a less than average number of sisters.

Whatever hindered the general social adjustment in the early life of the aggressor vs. minors was inoperative when it came to prepubertal sex play: he indulged in a great deal of it, and, as with the aggressor vs. children, it was strongly oriented toward heterosexuality. Indeed no less than 81 per cent of them had heterosexual play, by far the highest percentage of any group. Some 52 per cent had homosexual play, a figure that gives the aggressors vs. minors fourth place in that rank-order.

As is typical of all heterosexual aggressors, a relatively high number (30 per cent) confined their prepubertal sex play to girls. This heterosexual bent is emphasized by the fact that in our sample of aggressors vs. minors not one had had sex play solely with boys. The aggressors vs. adults likewise had very few individuals with exclusively homosexual prepubertal play.

Nearly half of the aggressors vs. minors confined their heterosexual play to one year of prepubescent life, and about two fifths continued their play for three or more years.

A unity is to be seen in the techniques of heterosexual play, for the heterosexual aggressors rank in second, fourth, and fifth place among those who had coitus. Of the aggressors vs. minors who had prepubertal heterosexual play, 73 per cent had coitus with prepubescent girls. This high figure is exceeded only by the offenders vs. adults.

Since we have already discussed the prepubertal heterosexual orientation of the aggressors vs. minors, it is no surprise to find that their homosexual activity was quite limited. The number of aggressors vs. minors with homosexual behavior is so small that an analysis of duration and techniques is not worthwhile.

While the aggressors vs. minors had a relatively rich prepubertal sex life with their female contemporaries, very few had experience with adult females, and none of it led to any specifically sexual physical contact. In connection with this it is interesting that about four times as many aggressors vs. minors reported that their first sight (generally before or near puberty) of adult female genitalia came as a result of deliberate exhibition as reported that it came from accidental exposure

(17 per cent vs. 4 per cent). This is a reversal of the usual pattern: nearly all other groups reported accidental sight outweighing exhibition by a ratio of three or four to one. The amount of exhibition reported by these aggressors assumes especial importance later when we find they are very prone to wishful thinking and to imputing to females sexual responses that the latter did not have. In the homosexual sphere, because of the aggressiveness of adult males, about 30 per cent of the future aggressors vs. minors had received overtures from adults, but in only 9 per cent of the cases did the overtures lead to sexual physical contact.

The heterosexual aggressors vs. minors were, as children, one of the healthiest groups, being surpassed only by the heterosexual offenders and aggressors vs. adults. Only a few reported poor health, whereas over three fourths stated that they had had good health during childhood.

A somewhat below-average number of aggressors vs. minors masturbated before puberty; this is in keeping with the general picture for all heterosexual offenders against females aged twelve or more. Of those with masturbatory experience, 73 per cent began before they were ten. This is by far the highest percentage shown by any group, but its significance is as yet unknown. The early advent of masturbation does not seem to correlate with the use of force or with the age of the sexual object.

*89\161\2*

There is nothing characteristic of the heterosexual offenders vs. minors in regard to the accumulative incidence of masturbation. However, they began at a median age of 14.5 years whereas all other groups (except for one) began between 13.3 and 14.3 years. Again this simply reflects the fact that they tended to reach puberty later than average, and consequently began their postpubertal masturbation later.

In age-specific incidence—the number of individuals who masturbated in any given age-period from puberty on to old age—the single heterosexual offenders vs. minors show definitely low figures, usually being second or third from the bottom of the rank-orders. Their low ranking in this respect is shared by the other two heterosexual offender groups, and may be the result of the fact that these particular offenders had a greater than average amount of heterosexual activity and hence a lesser need for masturbation. On the other hand, among the married segment of our sample, whose heterosexual activity is more nearly uniform, the offenders vs. minors have the lowest age-specific incidence, which is in keeping with a low frequency to be mentioned later. In this connection it should be noted that only a few of the offenders vs. minors at any time in their lives ever masturbated nearly every day or more than daily, and most of them never exceeded twice a week.

The premarital masturbatory frequencies of those who did masturbate tend to be somewhat low, ordinarily less than those of the control group, the median frequency being about once a week before age fifteen and 2 to 3 times a month thereafter. This is in keeping with the low age-specific incidence mentioned above. The married offenders vs. minors who masturbated had a very low frequency, lower than any other group, if one makes an over-all appraisal. For the average (median) married man it amounted to only 4 to 5 times a year.

As one would expect from the low incidence and frequency, the offenders vs. minors derived a relatively small proportion of their orgasms from masturbation. With few exceptions they are found at or near the bottom of the rank-orders, and this is true irrespective of marital status. Among the single the proportions range from about half (in their early teens) to one quarter (in later life). Among the married the figures are 2 per cent or less up to age forty-five. From age twenty-one on, the separated, divorced, or widowed males are also to be found in the lower half of the rank-orders. In brief, these offenders are similar to the prison group, and masturbation was for both a rather insignificant phenomenon.

The heterosexual offenders vs. minors were not given to much fantasying in their masturbation, usually ranking in the lower half or lower third of the scale; 12 per cent (the third largest figure) never fantasied at all.

One has the impression that as a group the offenders vs. minors sought and achieved sociosexual activity, chiefly coitus, and had little incentive to masturbate or develop much of a fantasy life. In connection with this it is worth noting that they were not very responsive to nontactile sexual stimuli: nearly one third reported no sexual arousal from thinking of or seeing females. Despite their comparative lack of masturbatory activity, they did an average amount of worrying over the possible adverse physical or mental consequences; in this they were on a par with the control group.

The offenders vs. minors had the largest proportion of individuals who first learned of self-masturbation by observing others. They likewise had a high percentage who learned by word of mouth or from printed sources. More of these offenders than members of any group except the heterosexual offenders vs. adults learned of masturbation from these combined sources of talking, reading, and observation. Few learned by being masturbated by another person, and fewest of all discovered masturbation independently. The fact that observation and verbal or printed sources were so important to the offenders vs. minors may be the result of their having had little prepubertal sexual activity and of having reached puberty at a relatively late age. Consequently they were less likely to have been masturbated by another person and less likely to have independently discovered it; there is a general tendency for self-masturbation to coincide with or foreshadow puberty, and hence delayed puberty would enhance the chances of an individual’s seeing or hearing of masturbation before his late-developing “sex drive” resulted in independent discovery.

*47\161\2*

The perfume/fragrance industry has grown rapidly. Women used concentrate perfumes for very special occasions 30 years ago. Today eau de parfum and eau de toilette varieties, as well as concentrates, are splashed on every day by many women. The smell of flowers or exotic and heady fragrances is one way some women project sexiness and confidence. This is clever marketing from the perfume houses, and has unfortunate consequences for those allergic to strong fragrances. Remember that no-one needs a lot of perfume during the day. In the evening, when the mood is more conducive to romance you may use the fragrances more. Scent signalling will occur naturally anyway, perfume or no perfume.

As is the case with their primate cousins, women have a different vaginal smell when they are ovulating than when they are not. Some women worry they don’t smell clean, sweet or feminine enough at all times and have succumbed to the use of vaginal sprays. This is confusing for males and confusing for the body. Men instinctively like, and are aroused by, the variety of genital smells. So keep clean and let that be sufficient perfume in the genital area.

Men, please consider the aroma of your body too. Be clean. Use aftershave lotions and colognes if you want but keep in mind that less is more. Don’t splash on aftershave. It is as much a turn-off as women overdoing the perfume spray. And please use deodorant, and make sure you change your shirt and underwear every day.

When a survey of sex appeal was carried out in 200 different cultures, it was discovered that clean skin was the single most important feature. It is a powerful erotic signal for our species. Scent signalling is powerful, erotic, inexplicable and positive.

*43\74\8*

Yellow is an intense colour and suggests fun, happiness, pleasure and some intellectual stimulation. A bedroom decorated with a large amount of yellow indicates a relationship based on a more mental form of communication, rather than being based on a purely physical or emotional relationship.

With yellow predominant, especially a bold yellow, you are likely to be a perfectionist who is very critical of yourself as well as others. The inner you loves a challenge is always welcome, otherwise you feel easily bored.

When you earn for yellow you |are broad-minded and rarely have any inhibitions, although there may be more talk than action in the bedroom.

You may actually spend more time analysing and talking about your sex life than actually participating in it. You are an inquisitive person who asks a lot of questions.

Bright yellow or intense yellow is best not used in large amounts in a bedroom as it can create anxiety and keep the mind too active, both of which are not conducive to restful sleep. It’s best to choose a very pastel version such as cream, buttercup, pale lemon, or pale golden yellow, or use it in a very small quantity. Alternatively, complement strong yellow with deep blue, deep green or deep purple to reduce its stimulating impact.

Bright yellow is often combined with other primary colours in a Contemporary style bedroom and usually only chosen by young adults or children who seem better able to handle the energy of this colour.

*60\74\8*

The female Town and Country bedroom may have the natural, casual, textured look or it may have the country cottage look of cotton fabrics with small floral prints such as the Laura Ashley prints, the French provincial look or the natural look. Comfort is of prime importance. She likes natural, light-to medium-coloured, stained or painted timber furniture and a mix of textures. Bedroom colours will range from neutrals to pastels to mid colours. Cane and wicker often appear in the bedroom. Several comfortable cushions on the bed complete an inviting picture. However the cushions will not be absolutely perfectly placed the way a Classic would neatly arrange bed accessories. Several comfortable cushions on the bed complete an inviting picture.

A male Town and Country bedroom will have lots of texture in the fabrics with an emphasis on natural colours of cream, white, beige or brown. There will be a lot of natural, light coloured timber furniture. It will be a welcoming and comfortable room inviting you to enfold yourself in the security and cosiness of its soft and comfortable style. The bed will be made but to a Classic it looks messy and untidy. Visual perfection is not a priority to them.

*80\74\8*

In discussing the Fantasy bedroom we are referring to an adult’s bedroom, not a child’s room. This style will be a little ‘out of this world’, an escape from reality. The form of the escape depends on the type of fantasy involved. The person with this style of bedroom is obsessive, creative and individual, who uses their bedroom and their intimate life to escape from the practical and everyday issues of life. They have very high and unrealistic ideals and are disenchanted with their own reality so the intimate world of their bedroom gives them a chance to pretend for a while. For a brief moment the romance of another time or another whether it be in the past or the past or the future, becomes their reality.

With each type of Fantasy style, there is an underlying base of one of the other styles. The ethereal type is often a Romantic or a Creative, while the futuristic type is often based on Contemporary or Dramatic. The impossible ideal type may be any one of the other styles. With maturity or a change in their circumstances such as marriage, the Fantasy person reverts to their basic style.

As each type of fantasy is quite different, it is not possible to give general guidelines to identify this style, except to say the bedroom decor reflects the fantasy and is totally recognisable when you see it.

*100\74\8*

For the female Practical, the best way to a successful evening of seduction begins earlier in the day when you help with the housework. Help her with the dishes or the cooking, vacuum for her, assist her with the practical duties she must complete before she can relax and receive pleasure. With your help, she will not be so tired at the end of the day and more willing to participate in a sexual adventure. A potted flowering plant rather than fresh flowers is a good way to show her you care. Her practical nature may think flowers a waste of money. An appropriate gift of her favourite chocolates from time to time will also be well received. Don’t expect her to wear romantic lacy underwear and lingerie. It will be simple, comfortable, practical and clean, in basic colours of neutrals such as white, beige or grey, or in blues or greens. Turn down the lights to create a soft subtle atmosphere. loving to her, get her in the mood for pleasure. Perhaps a gentle massage, to remove the stresses of her day. Keep foreplay simple, but don’t rush it. Once she is relaxed, she will enjoy whatever you have in mind for her.

Responsibilities weigh heavy for the Practical man. Lighten his load if you can. Of course he enjoys sex (what man doesn’t) but can become set in his ways. Get him out of his pyjamas and break his normal going to bed routine. Comfort and security are the basis of his existence. Sometimes stir the pot. The Practical man might not know how to get out of the usual routine, so

You’ll have to be the one to vary it. Use your imagination and creative abilities to inspire changes in foreplay and seduction with him. Show him there are other ways – he will enjoy it. Begin his seduction by encouraging him to stop working a little earlier than normal for one day. The world won’t fall apart just this once. Prepare his favourite meal at home and remember his favourite dessert. That’s sure to put him in the right mood. Spontaneity is uncomfortable for him, so preparation is the key to success. Tell him what you have planned so he can get used to the idea first. Make it special, but not too far out of his comfort zone.

Good news: share the tasks, plan the seduction and you are in for a good time.

*119\74\8*