DR. T. K. PETERS, listed in Who's Who in America, has during fifty years of research into the lives and emotions of people, recorded the most intimate of details regarding sexual behavior. His notable career covers marriage counseling, in which he aided the troubled in solving their sexual obsessions, and as an educator to students of biology, education, and psychology in New York and at Oglethorpe University in Atlanta, Georgia.
CHAPTER ONE - UNUSUAL SEX
It seems to be an inherent part of human nature that there is always a behavioral "underground" striving for social acceptance. In the realm of sex, this underground used to be any kind of behavior other than "missionary" intercourse "for procreative purposes only." By this criterion, variant sexual positions-such as rear-entry or woman-on-top- were considered deviant and "sinful." Sex for the sake of fun and fun alone-was strictly verboten.
More recently, however-since the advent of the Sexual Revolution-certain underground sexual behaviors have surreptitiously moved "above" ground, while still others have become downright acceptable. For instance, it is not at all uncommon for psychologists, sexologists and marriage counselors to recommend a degree of variation (note that it is no longer called deviation) in the sexual repertoires of those couples suffering from marital difficulties. New positions, new techniques and new places for sexual intercourse are candidly suggested. Some of the even more intrepid sexologists have recommended oral-genital sex as a useful catalyst for cementing damaged relationships.
All of this would have been considered blasphemy of the first order in the days of our puritanical forefathers. But no more. The age of sexual paranoia is rapidly languishing. The Western world is finding that sex has uses other than procreation. They have found that sex is fun, and they are experimenting with that fun.
However, in this manual we are concerned with that shadowy world of sex which some people still prefer to call perverted or deviant, some call paraphilias and others call simply unusual. "Unusual" certainly seems to be the most fitting title for the subjects to be discussed in this book for the simple reason that so many sex studies have shown that anal sex or interracial sex, discussed later in the book, are far from perverted forms of love-making. They are, if you will, "abnormal" in that they are not acts in which the majority of the population engage-but we have chosen not to use the word "abnormal" for the simple reason that it has come to be synonymous, in the minds of many people, to "perverted," and we do not wish to convey this idea.
Doubtless, there is a very nebulous, fine line of distinction between that behavior which a society calls normal sexual expression, and that which it calls abnormal. The line overlaps in places, disappears in others, and constantly fluctuates with the passing of time. What was considered perverted in the time of our puritan ancestors, might now be considered normal. Oral-genital sex is a prime example. Although most people today still do not broadcast their latest oralistic exploits, they also no longer find it necessary to furiously deny their indulgence if asked.
But, as popular as oralism is today, it is still against the law in most states. Because the law still considers it a deviant form of sex, there is a short chapter devoted to the subject of oral-genital sex in this book.
Some of the other subjects discussed in the following pages, however, are more clearly "unusual" in character. Voyeurism, transvestitism, fetishism and sadomasochism are good examples of sexual behavior which both the law and the public at large would agree are "unusual." The law, of course, would consider the word "unusual" highly euphemistic in describing such behaviors-preferring no doubt words like "sexual aberrations,"
"perversions,"
"abominable acts," etc.-but for the purposes of this book these attitudes merely fit within our loosely-defined category called "unusual sex."
This does not mean that the author of this manual has taken such an ultra-liberal stand on abnormal sex that he refuses to recognize any sex act as perverse, and therefore refuses to use the stronger words. Certainly, this manual recognizes that true perversions-such as paedophilia, necrophilia, rape and incest-do exist, and that the word "perverse" is perfectly applicable when referring to these acts. But this manual also recognizes the fact that it is high time some distinctions are made between acts of this severe, often brutal nature, and those acts which are less severe and brutal.
In short, this book is devoted to that limbo of sexual attitudes that exists between two extremes, that shadowy world between normal sex and perverse sex.
The label chosen for this shadowy world is, simply, unusual sex. Deviant sex, of course, makes up a large part of that which is here termed "unusual," but so does sex that is not so deviant-such as integrated sex, or, as we have already mentioned, oral-genital sex.
Before embarking upon our question-answer study of this twilight world, it is first necessary to know exactly where our modern society and its law stands with regard to these "unusual" sexual attitudes. That is the subject of Chapter One: a brief familiarization with certain peculiar paraphilias, and a discussion of the socio-legal implications surrounding them.
The second chapter consists of a broader foundation for understanding paraphilia in general, which, hopefully, the reader will find useful when he gets into the more specific chapters later on in the book.
CHAPTER TWO - UNUSUAL SEX AND THE LAW
How does the law respond to deviant sex?
Badly. Traditionally, the legal system in most countries is a very slow-moving, almost lethargic monster. Consequently, it is always about a century or two behind the contemporary thinking of a society, and is always imbued with a very thick strain of conservative blood. Small wonder, then, that the legal outlook on sex and sexual attitudes is as narrow-minded as it is today. And, it takes no great stretch of the imagination at all, to realize where the law stands on abnormal or unusual sexual behavior. Human beings are capable of a wide variety of sexual activities, but, unfortunately, the law still reflects the worn-out notion that sexuality is only moral if done with the purpose of procreation. Pleasure itself, it seems, is not considered worthy of protection.
Generally speaking, modern opinion is in line with the attitude that whatever people want to do sexually, as long as no one is hurt or is forced to participate against his or her will, should be permitted to do so. That opinion is being applied to a growing extent concerning consenting adult couples, and the same reasoning which condones such activities can be applied to many other variations and sexual oddities.
"Sadism" is derived from the French writer of Les Crimes de l'Amour, the Marquis de Sade, and refers to sexual excitement derived from active acts of cruelty, causing the other person physical or mental pain. Masochism derives from the writer of Venus in Furs, von Sacher Masoch, and refers to a sexual deviation characterized by an erotic need to suffer pain or humiliation. Many sadists have strong masochistic tendencies and vice versa.
Sadists receive sexual stimulation by inflicting pain or suffering on others, but they rarely achieve orgasm in that way. Freud thought of sadism as one of the most significant of all deviations because "the history of human civilization shows beyond any doubt that there is an intimate connection between cruelty and the sexual instinct."
Sadism can be expressed in a variety of ways, such as the behavior of a drunken husband who returns home and beats his wife, and by the actions of a wife who enjoys humiliating her husband whenever she can. Naturally, the line dividing the normal from the abnormal is rather hazy. But this is true of all deviations. It must be emphasized that Freud pointed out that all tendencies which we consider perversions are present in all of us. We all have homosexual, sadistic, masochistic, etc., tendencies. It is the degree to which one has them and expresses them that differentiates him from one who is "abnormal."
To some extent,. then, we all have sadistic tendencies, just as we have other "deviate" tendencies. There was certainly an element of mass sadism in the German people who watched the torture and extermination of millions of people. There is also some sadism present in the spectator who goes to a boxing match hoping that there will be a knockout. Wars, gladiatorial combats, manhunts, beast-baiting, bullfights, public executions, inquisitions, and witch-hunting have all pandered to the latent and not-so-latent sadistic yearning in man's instinct. Corporal punishment, especially flogging, appears to be a clear expression of this instinct. Some psychologists hold to the view that there is an association between the shedding of blood and sexual enjoyment.
How do sadism and masochism relate to each other?
In spite of their obvious differences, there are similarities between sadism and masochism. Freud thought that masochism was a type of sadism turned against oneself, while sadism is a masochism turned against others. Such tendencies, as mentioned, can co-exist in the same person.
Although some think of masochism as basically a feminine tendency and sadism a masculine one, this does not present an accurate picture. First, there is some question as to what "feminine" and "masculine" mean. Second, what is meant is passive and aggressive, respectively? There is no evidence that they are individually always associated with the same tendencies. There are "masculine" masochists and "feminine" sadists. That is, there are passive individuals who are sadistic in their sexual expression and aggressive persons who are masochistic.
Sadists and masochists are generally impotent, the explanation often given is that persons of this type are sexually "deficient" and therefore require much more stimulation than the "normal" person. Although sexual excitement is caused by the violent acts, the actual consummation of sexuality takes place, usually, by masturbation or sometimes by normal intercourse.
Flogging and whipping, or being flogged or whipped, are the most common means for such people to attain sexual excitement. Female sadists have been known to make fierce attacks upon the genitals of their male lovers. On the other hand, male sadists rarely attack the genitals of their sex partners, but some of them do attack the breasts.
Masochism appears to be more common than sadism. There is a definite aspect of regression in it in that it appears in men who wish to be dominated by strong women. As Rousseau wrote, 'To be at the knees of an imperious mistress, to obey her orders, to have to ask her pardon, were for me very sweet pleasures, and the more my lively imagination inflamed my blood, the more I resembled a lover in his transports."
How does the law punish sadists?
Sadism is punishable under a number of statutes which include simple assault, child beating, and even murder. Masochism itself is not mentioned in statutes, but such acts can be prosecuted as disorderly conduct and indecent exposure (if, in fact, such exposure did coincide with the act).
Should sadism and masochism be legally prohibited?
The answer to this question revolves around the issue of whether one should be allowed to hurt himself. It is similar to the question presented by the laws against suicide. Shouldn't a person be allowed to commit suicide if he so chooses? Who can better assess the pain one must live with than the person actually experiencing it? Isn't this essentially a private matter? Who is to say that the masochist's life would be better if his need to be hurt were curtailed? Of course, when a sadist attacks one who has not given permission, the law is clearly justified in protecting the innocent party. But the question becomes much more difficult when the passive party has given permission. With the change in attitude toward sex which is sweeping our society, these questions will be recurring with greater force. Sadomasochism will be discussed further in the last chapter of this book.
What is a transvestite?
The transvestite is a person who derives erotic pleasure by wearing the clothing of the opposite sex. Transvestite behavior varies in that some men wish to wear women's make-up as well as their clothing, while other transvestites are content to wear a single article of feminine clothing. The transvestite has a psychological identification with the opposite sex. For instance, a female may imagine that she has a penis. But it is more difficult to identify a female transvestite since it is not unusual for a woman to wear men's clothing.
There is a common belief that transvestites are homosexuals. This is not necessarily the case. According to Magnus Hirschfeld, it is a separate, distinct deviation since most transvestites are attracted to the opposite sex.
As in many other perversions there is an attempt at reassurance against the castration complex. This arises from the infantile belief that the woman has "lost" her penis as a result of castration. The subject, too, might become a victim of castration. By wearing female clothing and by continuing to receive sensations from the penis, the transvestite unconsciously identifies with a phallic woman whose penis is hidden by her clothing. But this identification with the phallic woman does not extend to imitating her object-choice; as already mentioned, most often his choice is directed toward persons of the opposite sex. The phallic woman, besides being his identification figure, represents also the transvestite's love-object. In relation to the Oedipus complex, whence the castration anxiety of the transvestite is derived, there are two different aspects in this representation. On one level the love-object represents the mother, but on a deeper level it represents also the father, and is thus homosexual in nature.
Is transvestitism a crime?
Just as homosexuality in itself is not a crime, transvestitism is not a specific crime. However, the transvestite may be punished if he calls attention to himself in public while wearing the clothing of the opposite sex. He may also be arrested for making an indecent exposure while wearing the clothes of the other sex.
Transvestites are not harmful other than in the sense that they may shock people by calling attention to themselves. But it would seem that the degree of harm caused by the sight of a person dressed as someone of the opposite sex is minimal compared to the harm done to our freedom in prohibiting such behavior. Where is the line to be drawn? Are men with long hair to be classified as transvestites and punished? What happens when styles change? These too are questions which must be dealt with to bring the law more into line with modern thinking and taste.
What is frottage, and how does the law regard it?
Frottage is another relatively harmless deviation, but it, too, is illegal. It is characterized by the compulsive desire of a person to rub himself against some part of the body of another person, generally the opposite sex. This is commonly practiced in public-e.g., crowded elevators or subways. Often, the "victim" doesn't even know what has happened, and it is easy for the frotteurs to claim it was an accident.
While such behavior can obviously be a public annoyance, treating it with any great seriousness as a crime would be an absurdity. There are no specific laws against it, but it can be prosecuted as a simple matter.
What is paedophilia?
A sexual deviation which causes great anxiety to society is paedophilia, which is the sexual or erotic love of children. Many sex offenders seek sexual pleasure by enticing children to take part in such sex acts as fellatio, pederasty, cunnilingus, or mutual masturbation.
The offender usually associates himself with the child, and the excitement is often derived from knowing that the child is innocent and is being aroused. It can represent to the paedophiliac the return to his childhood sexuality. An important factor is that paedophiliacs tend to feel inferior in their relations with the opposite sex. Because less is expected of them in their relations with children, they feel more comfortable with that age level. Not all paedophiliacs are dangerous; however, there are cases in which children are murdered either during or following the attack. Therefore, it is considered a serious medico-legal problem. They require segregation from children and incarceration over an indefinite period of time.
It is reported that many paedophiliacs can be helped greatly by psychotherapy, but there are others, past sixty years of age, who suffer from pie-senility, senility, or cerebral arteriosclerosis. For them, the prognosis is not as favorable. Those suffering from schizophrenia, mental deficiency or chronic alcoholism also have an uncertain prognosis.
What is a fetishist?
The fetishist is a deviant whose libido becomes fixated upon something constituting a symbol of the love-object. The object of his sexual desire can be a part of the human body, such as hair or a foot or an article of clothing, such as a shoe, associated with a person of the opposite sex. It occurs much more often among men than women.
Fetishism is not always a matter of pathology. The line between "normal" and "abnormal" is not easy to find, as is true in most sexual tendencies. Most people can be aroused by a glimpse at, or photograph of, certain portions of the anatomy. Advertisements depend to a great extent upon such normal fetishism. It becomes pathological only when it replaces the actual sex-object itself. That is, if a man can derive complete sexual satisfaction, including orgasm, by simply viewing or touching a certain portion of another's body, or by seeing or touching a garment, his fetishism has gone beyond the limits of the "average." One of the most common of fetishes involves hair. At one time, hair cutting was quite common. The fetishist would cut hair from an unwary person and then use it for masturbation or other sexual practices. Even the cutting itself provided a distinct thrill in that it involved sadistic elements. Generally, such hair fetishists are incapable of normal coitus.
Fetishism is somewhat similar to exhibitionism in that it is characterized by compulsive behavior which the individual cannot control only because of his lack of understanding of the psychological factors involved.
The most common fetish is the shoe fetish. Since the shoe represents servitude in the sense of being walked upon or cleaning or kissing the other's foot, it is closely related to masochism. Fetishism will be further discussed in Chapter Nine.
What is bestiality?
It is a sexual variation which is often considered quite shocking, but which is more common than most people would imagine. It is the sexual contact between a human being and an animal. There are records of its existence in the Old Testament and the Talmud. These codes prescribed death as a punishment for one convicted of bestiality.
It occurs among all races, and is more prevalent among those raised closest to animals. Kinsey found that between forty and fifty per cent of all farm boys who have some sort of animal contact either with or without orgasm in their pre-adolescent, adolescent or later histories. Kinsey also found that for those who do have animal sexual contacts, such contacts number, at most, only a few.
In this country, such animal contacts occur primarily in certain rural areas. The contacts consist of masturbating the male animal, having a calf perform fellatio, having a household pet such as a dog or cat perform cunnilingus, vaginal coitus with a female animal, or some other masturbatory practice with a variety of domesticated animals.
How are bestialists punished?
Those who engage in animal sexual contacts are subject to punishment under the sodomy statutes. Those convicted often are given unusually severe sentences and are looked upon with great disdain by other inmates. Severe anxiety can be produced by feelings of guilt associated with sexual intercourse with animals. Part of the therapy consists of explaining to the patient that such contacts are not uncommon and that perfectly "normal" and "healthy" persons can, at different times in their Many unusual positions require practice before they can be used to best advantage. lives, experiment with various forms of sexual expression without thereby becoming "abnormal" or morally debauched.
Equally shocking to some, but certainly less prevalent, are urolagnia and koprophilia. Urolagnia refers to a deviation in which sexual excitement is associated with urinating. Sometimes it involves the desire to drink the urine of the sexual partner. Some urolagnists receive pleasure by urinating on a member of the opposite sex.
What is koprophilia?
Koprophilia is a sexual deviation in which sexual pleasure is associated with the act of defecation, or of the feces themselves. The person can enjoy both having someone defecate on him or his own defecation upon others. He might also enjoy oral contact with the feces of another. Both koprophilia and urolagnia are symptoms of an arrestment of sexual development at infantile sexuality. Here, too, the sodomy laws are broad enough to sustain prosecutions.
Many sex offenders, therefore, do not conform to the stereotyped picture of fiends who have lost control of their most base cravings. Many are simply normal, every-day people who enjoy variety, and realize that it does not take very much variety to break the law. There are, of course, some sex offenders who are, in fact, pathological. But of those, very few are dangerous or harmful to society. The New Jersey Commission on the Habitual Sex Offender found that the vast majority of deviates are only minor offenders. Most of them never come to official attention. Dr. Kinsey estimated that not more than five per cent of the convicted sex offenders are dangerous. They do not exercise force or injury upon their victims. Killing associated with sex crimes is quite unusual. Edwin H. Sutherland, a criminologist, states that the "danger of murder by a relative or other intimate associate is very much greater than the danger of murder by an unknown sex fiend."
Sex criminals have an extremely low rate of recidivism. They usually get into trouble only once. Of the serious crimes, only homicide has a lower repeat rate. Those sex offenders who do repeat are generally minor offenders such as peepers, exhibitionists, and homosexuals, but not dangerous criminals. Only occasionally does the sex offender move on to more serious actions. The evidence indicates that they tend to persist in one or two kinds of behavior, and that the seriousness of their actions does not always increase.
Naturally there are dangerous sex criminals, but they are not characteristic of the "average" sex offender. "Sexual psychopathy" laws have been passed in several states to deal with such persons, but, such laws often give rise to many problems, both medical and legal.
CHAPTER THREE - PARAPHILIA
What causes a person to become addicted to a deviant attitude?
Sexual deviations are more often due to faulty differentiation and development in the long and complex process of maturing and learning one's place in society. Adult heterosexuality is the result of a long process of development and differentiation, and the ultimate sexual patterns may vary greatly, depending upon the training and experience of the child. For example, male and female homosexuality may be primarily the result of early seduction or a severe Oedipus or Electra Complex; or frigidity in the female-the end result of home training, repression and misinformation about sexual matters. There is nothing inherent in the undifferentiated sexual potentialities of the infant which guarantees beforehand whether he will develop a normal heterosexual pattern or... a deviant one. In theory, under various educational conditions, almost any pattern could be produced-from complete abstinence, to rape or incest.
One of the difficulties involved in understanding sexual abnormality, either within or without marriage, is the confusion over terms. Perversions are not "degeneracies," but illnesses in the fullest sense of the word. Psychiatrists and sexologists prefer to use the term paraphilia.
What is paraphilia?
The term paraphilia is chosen in place of "perversion" to designate a form of sex life that differs from the norm.
More confusion arises from the confusion over "perversions" (paraphilia) and what constitutes a "sexual offense," most people thinking that they are one and the same. By law they always are! But that doesn't mean much, considering that most people could be classed as both a "pervert" and a "sexual offender!" If you are normal and, say, ever performed cunnilingus on your wife, this act makes you guilty of "sodomy!" Therefore, the law would consider you both a "pervert" and a "sex offender!"
Yet some true paraphilias are sexual offenses and the offenders are perverts. All minerals are not metals! But all metals are minerals! All paraphilias are legal sex offenses, but not all legal sex offenses are "perversions " Confusing to say the least.
American legal codes characterize all pre-marital, extra-marital and post-marital intercourse as rape, statutory rape, fornication, adultery, prostitution, association with a prostitute, incest, sexual delinquency, a contribution to sexual delinquency, assault and battery, or public indecency. In addition to all these restrictions against heterosexual intercourse, the Big Brother of Legal Intercourse also specifically limits the techniques of marital intercourse.
The true paraphilias are legal sexual offenses, and no one denies that they shouldn't be considered as such, within the framework of sex crimes that do interfere with the public good. Forcible rape, criminal exhibitionism ("public exposure"), pedophilia (sex crimes involving children), incest- these are paraphilias and are rightfully punished by the law.
There are really two degrees of gravity regarding sex crimes: sex felonies which include forcible and statutory rape, seduction, abduction, incest and carnal abuse; misdemeanors consist of impairing the morals of a minor and indecent exposure.
There is "Disorderly Conduct"-voyeurism, fetishism (hair snipping and stealing women's clothing), molesting women, transvestitism, male and female prostitution.
Some of these are paraphilias, and some are not "Statutory rape" is a legal piece of idiocy completely without logic. This means that if a seventeen-year-old girl talks a fourteen-year-old boy into having intercourse with her, the boy is guilty of having intercourse with a "minor!"
The sexual offender is an individual who engages in any sexual practice that falls outside the socially and legally acceptable scope of normal sexuality. And since "normal" is a relative term, and since we live under legal codes that are basically Anti-Intercourse, it might be said that nine out of ten men and women, married and single, are "sex perverts!"
We do not refer to the sexual psychopath-who is sick-that person, man or woman, who is not psychotic or a mental defective, but in a state of mental aberration so that he or she cannot control his impulses toward the commission of sex crimes. A sexual psychopath suffers from such conditions of emotional instability as impulsiveness of behavior, lack of customary standards of good judgment, failure to appreciate the consequences of his (or her) acts, or a combination of any such conditions as to render him irresponsible in respect to sexual matters.
General impressions are worthless, because the subject of sexual perversity is not one that concerns only the minority, and/or those social outcasts (such as known homosexuals) whom Mr. and Mrs. Average-Marrieds (a silly term!) would classify as "perverts." Sexual abnormality concerns everyone, at least from a legal standpoint. And quite a few people from the psychiatric point of view.
There are a few one hundred per cent "rights" and "wrongs" in this area, but not many. We all know that forcible rape is wrong-legally and psychosexually. No one will deny that sex acts with children are against the common good of the society. Yet in other "gray" areas of sexuality, a good deal depends upon what we regard as "perverse" and what we think should be classified as "abnormal"-and much of it is colored by Judeo-Christian ethic!
Freud and other pioneers, such as Havelock Ellis and Krafft-Ebing, contributed greatly to our knowledge of perverse sexuality; yet we cannot depend on them too much. They used the term "perversity" in a very narrow sense, in a manner which cannot be applied to the general state of sex within marriage, or even out of marriage. For example, Krafft-Ebing considered fellatio and cunnilingus a "perversion," and so did Havelock Ellis. We know that oral/genital acts are not perversions, unless carried to extremes, not unless they dominate the entire sexual picture.
Many sexologists beg the question and say that any sexual act between a couple is permissible, provided both man and wife enjoy it. One can accept this as true, but with a modification. One must constantly keep in mind the public good and... the individual good. Suppose that man and wife are completely psychotic, both suffering from a severe sexual neurosis. Suppose the husband is an extreme sadist and the wife is an extreme masochist! Could we permit him to whip her to death? Clearly, such justification would be absurd. A firm line must be drawn... somewhere.
Where? How?
Obviously there is no clear cut answer, so much depending upon the individuals concerned and the circumstances. There is a dividing line, but it is extremely wispy and thin, and we find that practically every single phase of normal sexual activity may be blown up with it and is completely out of proportion, until a single act will dominate. Within this framework, we have that person who may "love" a foot, or focus ALL of his attention on his wife's breasts or buttocks, the person substitutes an act for intercourse. But is this "abnormal?" Yes, because the majority of married people are not fetishistically inclined. And no, because the husband who is so inclined enjoys and derives sexual satisfaction from the act. And if his wife also enjoys it... who is to say that what they do is "abnormal?"
A man with sight would be considered "abnormal" in a society of blind people!
We have already stressed that variety should be used in sexual intercourse in order to add spice and flavor to the broth of generalized intercourse. Some psychologists now INSIST on such variety, knowing fully well that they are incurring the wrath of those who rave about "perversion,"
"sodomy," etc.
Never must we lose track of one fact: no matter how much we deplore the sexual abnormalities, we must realize they are not so much criminal acts but illnesses that subconsciously scream for treatment. Still another fallacy in the public mind is that such paraesthesiacs are very content and never want to be cured. This is false, for many of them are extremely worried about their strange sexual desires, enduring torments of the mind that are every bit as vibrant as a broken leg! And just as painful! For a good many of these sick people there is constant remorse, suffering... emotional pain from the realization that they are... "different"... from the realization they are... "perverts"...
What constitutes a perversion?
There is a difference between Perversion and Perversity; they are not one and the same. One can exist without the other!
A perversity is a single abnormal act. It may happen only once or repeat itself within the framework of what is normal, and it's always in "second position" to other acts, while a perversion is a condition of abnormal sexual instinct and preferences that dominate all forms of normal sexuality. So if one chooses to experiment... one can run the risk of becoming a pervert. On the other hand-and it is unfortunate-but some men and women find their cravings in the sexual direction perverted through no fault of their own... by their own ignorance... foolishly they experiment, because in the bedroom they are bored... not realizing that within the area of normal intercourse lies not only ample opportunity for variety of experience, but that the very ultimate in pleasure can be enjoyed within those normal bonds.
Erroneous education and/or training, particularly by Christian-motivated parents, is very frequently the cause of sexual abnormality; yet in other cases the casual nexus proves to be some disorder of the central nervous system, and the psychopathy can then, therefore, only be regarded as more or less casual manifestations of functional morbidity.
Men and women, husbands and wives, can be married, but perverted ONLY outside the marriage framework. A man might be perfectly normal with his wife, and yet try to entice little girls into his car; and in spite of what the public believes, there are male and female homosexuals married to the opposite sex. There are married bisexuals, the "switch-hitters" who can walk on either side of the street, who can enjoy sex with EITHER sex. To explain further, we must explain the difference between deviation of aim and deviations of object.
Deviation of aim includes all those psychological states that are characterized by the fact that the man or woman, while seeking a normal love object (a man seeking a woman, or a woman seeking a man) has only repugnance and/or indifference for coitus. Such a person seeks to replace intercourse by some constituent act or acts.
In deviations of object we find the man or woman seeking the normal sexual aim, i.e., coitus, but in conjunction with an object which, to a normal person, would not produce sexual excitement. Examples: homosexuality and bestiality. Or pedophilia erotica. On the other hand, "Peeping Tomism," a very common sex "crime" is a deviation of aim.
Are men and women who indulge in forms other than vaginal intercourse perverted?
No, not if these acts are used as a part of the love play, are enjoyed by husband and wife (at least, neither one should be repelled) and does not completely replace intercourse.
We say this because we do not feel that any kind of act and/or love play must, invariably, each time, lead up to intercourse. Many sexologists would paste the label of "pervert" on every man and woman who does not terminate a session of love-making with penis-in-vagina intercourse. This is nonsense, as there is not a single logical reason- psychosexually or otherwise-why every bout of love-making must end with coitus. There is not a single logical reason why a man and his wife should not indulge in other acts, other than intercourse, and to full orgasm! As long as these acts do not obsess the couple and, finally, dominate their sexual lives.
Paraphilia-or unusual sex-can best be understood by knowing that words like perversion, aberration, deviation, sex fiend, abominable act, etc. are all highly subjective words and are therefore open to much error in their usage. In other words, these words are never the symbols they stand for. Also, it is well to keep in mind-in older to maintain an unbiased point-of-view in this discussion- the old adage, "One man's poison may be another man's meat."
CHAPTER FOUR - ORAL-GENITAL SEX
How is oral-genital sex regarded today?
On the subject of oral-genital sex, there has been, since the advent of Sexual Revolution, an ever-widening dissent regarding moral acceptability. In all but three of our fifty states, oral sex falls under the sodomy laws and is punishable by fines and/or imprisonment. This is a surprisingly ironic state of affairs when one realizes that perhaps as much as fifty percent of the adult population must have broken the law by age thirty.
This law, however, besides being unrealistic to a large degree, is the most unenforced and unenforceable on the statute books today. If, for instance, we had a Sex Police Force, or a Vice Squad, whose sole purpose it was to enforce this one law, the courts would be overflowing with millions of cases, and, no doubt, there would be a great reluctance to prosecute due to the sheer embarrassing hypocrisy involved: sending individuals to prison for offenses they themselves were guilty of.
But the attitude of many modern psychiatrists and sexologists is in direct opposition to the existing laws of the United States. Meanwhile oral practice continues as always, and the dissention between the law and rational-thinking people, is creating much guilt and anxiety in the populace. Many illiterate and uneducated people practice oralism while secretly thinking that they may be perverted. Many modern men and women are strongly repressed regarding such acts and have been advised by their counselors to consider marital relations in a much broader sense; that is, no act, which is mutually agreed upon should be considered perverted or abnormal. Even literate, intelligent people still seem to have the same sexual hang-ups regarding oral sex, unless they have managed to break the bonds of repression incurred in childhood.
However, the attitudes concerning oral sex is not simply a contest between normality and abnormality. Many men feel that they are relinquishing some of their virility by lingual stimulation and caressing a woman's vulva and/or clitoris. Many women feel a revulsion at taking a man's penis into the mouth and sucking it to the point of ejaculation. The love language between such repressed couples is laced with euphemisms: "kiss me there,"
"put it in your mouth," etc.
This is an odd and ironic attitude to take when one considers that oralism is so culturally ingrained, so pandemic, so devotedly practiced among all peoples that it is very rare indeed not to find some reference to it in all cultures. But there are other aspects of oralism which place the practice in the realm of abnormal sex. For instance, a man or woman who develops a fixation on oralism to the point of excluding all other forms of sex is considered abnormal. An orally-oriented adult or child may have other mental problems in which oralism is only a signal.
Most liberal-minded authorities agree that oral stimulation of the genitalia is desirable between sex partners, but usually only as part of the foreplay. In those cases where senility is present, however, one finds older men almost exclusively urged to practice oral sex, usually with a very young woman or girl.
A man may feel fortunate if he achieves a balance in his sex life which allows him to practice oralism only as a means of foreplay, as a means of exciting his partner so that intercourse is more enjoyable and rewarding. This does not mean, however, that another man may curse the fact that he can only achieve orgasms by feeling a clitoris harden under the manipulations of his tongue, however. A woman may become more excited and satisfied by having a tongue in her vagina, rather than a penis, and feel a sense of power and sensuality by bringing a man to ejaculation by fellating him.
In years past, the mouth was very seldom considered a sex organ, and when its function was finally acknowledged, it was only considered a secondary sex organ. In reality, however, it is as vital and as primary as any of the genitalia.
In other words, the mouth is as erotically functional as the penis, vagina or anus.
The mouth is an organ of intake, as is the vagina, and it may be so regarded by the fellator, male or female. As an organ analogous to the vagina, it is not surprising to find that it is used in the sex act as much as the genitalia. The moist, inner surfaces of the mouth and lips are capable of providing more intense sensations than the vagina, and the variety of feelings engendered can be infinite when fellatio or cunnilingus is carried out skillfully.
Is there any such thing as oral perversion?
Perversion in the oral sex drive does exist, certainly, but the "abnormality" lies not so much in the acts performed as in the meaning the acts assume for the partners. Therefore, if a man and woman choose mutual oral sex, or alternate fellatio and cunnilingus as their method of expressing love for each other, and as their method of providing each other with pleasure, then their acts cannot be considered perverse As long as they are not beset with guilt and anxiety following their activities, as long as they can keep oral sex in its proper perspective- that of providing pleasure while recognizing that it is not the primary aim of sex itself-then they are no more "perverted" than their friends and neighbors who crave the same pleasure but are prevented the expression of their desires by a tradition that condemns oralism without understanding it.
One might even be able to present a plausible case against the anti-oralists by claiming it is less normal to repress a natural, oralistic urge, than it is to allow it free expression.
Our mouths, after all, are our first source of pleasure. The infant suckling at his mother's breast forms a strong attachment to her because he has found a handy replacement for the warmth and security of the womb. He gets his warmth, his sustenance, security and the only love he can understand from a single source-his mother's breast. And he obtains this by sucking. The child begins life outside the womb so dependent on his mouth for food and love that he never entirely outgrows this association of pleasure with that organ. Eating is said to be a sublimation of the desire for love. The alcoholic with his bottle is sucking again at his mother's breast, the homosexual, man or woman, is driven very strongly to practice sex with his mouth, and the connection with infantilism is clear and distinct.
The matter of weaning a child is not an easy undertaking. The child is being deprived of something wonderful, something satisfying, something which fulfills both his need to survive and his eroticism. It is many years before a child comes to place his sexuality where it belongs, in his genitalia. During that time the mouth is still remembered and utilized as a source of pleasure. Rather than view oralism as an aberration, then, it seems that a large amount of a person's life is taken up with the matter of oral pleasure. It thus becomes more understandable that many people approach sex for the first time with dread and embarrassment.
Is the kiss a sexual act?
The kiss is to many only the prelude to sensual pleasure. But to millions of others, it is the most satisfying of sexual acts when it comes into genital contact with another human being. Since Freud, many have realized what a strong part the mouth plays in the matter of human sexual pleasure. French kissing, wherein the mouths of two people come together and the tongue enters one or both orifices, is many times a reenactment of coitus itself. It would be difficult to ignore the meaning intended when a man kisses a woman in such a way, his tongue darting in and out of his partner's mouth, past the sensitive lips. There are a great many people who consider such a form of kissing obscene and vulgar.
Women especially consider French kissing a deviant form of pre-coital lovemaking. Men are not exempt from such attitudes either, but in this day and age of sexual freedom, these men and women comprise a very, very small number. Most people indulge in French kissing without any pangs of guilt or repulsion.
If one partner desires oral sex in one form or another, and the other sees such acts as perverse, the sexual environment is certainly not beneficial to a satisfying relationship. A woman may shock a puritanical husband by wishing to perform fellatio on him. If he makes a big issue of it, no doubt the relationship becomes undermined immediately. On the other hand, a woman may be revolted by her husband's insistence that she allow him to cunnilingue her. The breach is widened and an otherwise happy relationship leads to distrust and frustration between the partners, resulting, in many cases, in divorce or separation, or, at times, the straying of one or both partners to extra-marital sex.
Often one will hear the lament from one of the sex partners that the other is "good," but is always insisting upon doing "vulgar" things. On the other hand, there is the equally common argument that goes, if she (he) loved me she would not mind doing the things I asked.
Conversely, there are some men and women who are so conditioned by oral sex that they can achieve orgasm in no other way. They have developed an almost fetishistic addiction to oralism. This, too, can lead to problems. Although the evidence for this is slender, many couples find gratification only through oral sex and seldom practice intercourse. At the root of all sexuality is the kiss, in some form or another, but it is possible to carry a good thing too far.
Oralism is, without doubt, the most important part of any homosexual relationship, male or female. Whereas male homosexuals, perforce, have to limit themselves to one form of oral gratification- fellatio-lesbians have a more variable selection, including cunnilingus, analingus, breast sucking and biting, and kissing various parts of the body.
That the mouth plays an important part in all human relations cannot be rationally denied. If anything is aberrant or deviant about oralism, it can only be our attitudes regarding it. These attitudes vary greatly. One may believe that the mouth may be used to kiss one part of another's body, but not another; the infant sucking its mother's breast for nourishment is not considered shocking, but a man sucking his wife's breast may be considered obscene. A kiss between lovers does not shock as long as it is mouth-to-mouth, but a mouth-genital kiss creates all kinds of neuroses and psychological havoc.
We naturally harbor mixed feelings about oralism. It is more than a dichotomy. The senses play such an important part in sexuality that at times sex itself is not to our liking, not to mention variations of it. In constructing laws against sodomy, for instance, there is a tendency to maintain that sexual desire is constant, that certain acts are good and others are evil. This is a bogus, meaningless way of trying to limit the human personality. All the labels and words in the world cannot create something that simply does not exist.
And oral sex-the use of the erotic mouth-will be with man for as long as he possesses a sexual urge, despite all the words wasted in condemning it or praising it.
CHAPTER FIVE - ANAL SEX
Is analism as common among heterosexuals as it is among homosexuals?
No. The presence of anal intercourse among heterosexuals has very different implications than when present in homosexuality, the main reason being that analism is rarely employed by husband and wife unless both find pleasure in the act; desire here is definitely a must, as the key emotion of revulsion, on the part of the wife, will constrict her anal sphincter muscles in such a way to make rectal penetration, by the husband, impossible.
Desire is just as important on the part of the husband; he too will find the act impossible if it is against his erotic wishes. Vaginal coitus can be affected with a half-erect penis; but such is not the case with anal intercourse, which requires a very hard penis. Smaller than her vaginal opening in size and having certain muscular characteristics, the female anus requires a male organ that is erected as much as possible, if rectal intromission is to be achieved. Thus we can see that a good deal of cooperation is required between husband and wife, cooperation that makes for a more meaningful act, finding the couple engaging in this form of sexplay with a mutual "pounding" and enthusiasm seldom found in normal intercourse. And anal intercourse still retains many of the psychic implications of vaginal coitus (between husband and wife). The dominant-submissive aspect is present, being even more intensified because of the physical nature which must be assumed during the act.
Studies also indicate that very few husbands and wives indulge in any form of anal intercourse unless the physical attraction to the act is quite strong. It was Freud who first showed that the capacity to spark sexual messages to the brain-signals that the bowels should be moved-is especially strong in children. There are those times, within the growing child, that erotic messages are also transmitted from the anal area, and the two signals, one sexual and the other sanitary, are often confused, the amount of confusion between the two types of response greatly contributing to the eventual harboring of sexual feelings toward the rectal area.
Freud also discovered that the anus and genital region are linked together by a sexually-responsive part of the human anatomy-the perineum. The male does share anal muscles and the perineum and his genital apparatus, particularly the scrotum, and only a thin wall separates the digestive and reproductive tracts in the female. The perineum is also very responsive to erotic touch, in both male and female, and can be used exclusively to bring about an orgasm.
During the "heat" of coital sex play, many people will experience a rhythmic opening and closing of the anal muscles during orgasm. Their attention will be diverted to this part of the anatomy and erotic associations will be created within the rectum. Erotic arousal will cause constriction of the anus, muscular contractions that are psychologically erotic to many people because sexually conscious individuals think that the orgasm probably affects the genital anatomy-particularly in the case of the female-the same way. Since the orgasm cannot actually be "seen," only felt, many couples like to visualize the climax by viewing the rectal contraction taking place in the sexual partner.
Are there physiological reasons for people enjoying anal intercourse?
The active partner, derives erotic pleasure from the narrow diameter of the anus of the passive partner. It cannot be said that the passive partner enjoys the same sensations that he would enjoy in vaginal intercourse-obviously. Yet many males have stated that the passive role is very pleasurable. No doubt this is because of the intimate relationship existing between the nerves distributed by the intestinal and rectal tract and those which run to the genitals. For instance, in some men, an erection can be obtained only by introducing an object into the rectum-finger, penis, or what-have-you. Many women, realizing the importance of the anus, take advantage of the rectal sensitivity to produce more exciting climaxes for their husbands and lovers, by inserting a finger into the rectum at the moment of orgasm. These practices are very ancient in the world of sex, dating back to the Far East, to prostitutes who insert silk scarves into the male rectum, yanking the scarf free at the moment of orgasm, thereby intensifying the man's orgasm. By the same token, there are many women whose orgasms can be intensified if the male partner inserts a finger into their rectums at the supreme moment of climaxing.
Sadomasochism also plays a leading role in anal intercourse, with the active partner often being the sadist and the passive partner assuming the role of the masochist- and the act may also be painful for the active partner under certain circumstances. Chief among these sadomasochistic circumstances is the behavior of the active partner, who may neglect to use a lubricant in entering the narrow anus opening of the love partner, be the partner male or female. Again, he may enter with undue force, or may fail to permit time for the relaxation of anal sphincter muscles.
Of vast importance is also the fact that anal intercourse does produce prostatic massage in the male, particularly if certain positions are used. This massage not only produces sexual stimulation but results in an overflow of secretion from the penis (not to be confused with a true ejaculation). In addition to prostatic massage, anal intercourse may stimulate the nerves and muscles of the pelvic sling.
In spite of all the pros and cons, in spite of what many people think of anal intercourse, it is cold fact that many men find a good deal of pleasure in either inserting their penises into other people's anuses, being the recipient of the anal intercourse, or in other forms of anality, which will soon be discussed. This is particularly true of some bisexual males. Nor does the man always have to play the active role. This can be accomplished by the man taking an on-his-stomach position and by letting the woman mount his buttocks. After parting the cheeks of his rump, she can thrust her crotch deep between them so that her pelvic bone presses hard against the rectal opening; and if a man has a very responsive anus, then such contact is all that is needed. Or-the woman might use a small dildo; this is often very effective, both for the man and the woman, provided the artificial penis has a "knob" that can rub the woman's clitoris as she "works" the man.
Moving her hips back and forth, the woman can not only stimulate the man's anal ring with her pubic bone, but she can also give pleasure to her own clitoris by rubbing it up and down against the man's hard tailbone. Actually, this takes practice; however, men and women who actually work at this sophisticated position can, in time imitate the act of ejaculation. Here is how it is accomplished: when the two partners are about to climax, the woman on top simply places her urethral opening right above the man's rectum and urinates inside of it, the sensation of the warm liquid seeping into the anal canal giving him the same effect that he might obtain from a male who would be ejaculating inside his rectum at the moment of orgasm.
Anal masturbation is another form of anality, one that is practiced by any number of people, men and women, married and single. There are no hard core statistics because while people will admit many things, all sorts of sex acts, to medical persons, the association of "filth" with the anus prevents their speaking frankly about this subject. Yet in some studies of anality, any number of men and women have admitted the practice. All sorts of objects were used, the most common being a vaselined finger. Yet there are those who perform solitary anal masturbation using pencils and other objects of proper length.
This kind of anal masturbation is not to be confused with a wife or husband's inserting a finger into the anus of the love partner at the moment of orgasm. By anal masturbation, whether performed in-solo or by the sexual partner, we mean a literal masturbation of the anus until genital orgasm is reached.
Is the anus considered an erogenous zone?
Yes. The anus is a highly sensitive erogenous zone in most people. And yet, either because of its biological function, or because of its inconspicuous anatomical locale, it is widely overlooked as an erotically significant organ. Many sex-wise people are amazed when they are told of the erotic potential of the anus, either in direct or indirect contact.
With most people, discovery of the sexual significance of the anus appears late in their sexual development, long after the discovery of oral-genital pleasures, and different kinds of experimentation. Many people are in their late twenties or early thirties, and have begun to experience a sexual ennui to their relationships. Anal sex thus enters their lives as a refreshing novelty, providing they are not repulsed by the very idea of it.
As a result many normal sex partners develop an obsession for anal intercourse and anal orality. In many cases it completely supplants their regular sexual routine. This new form of sexual expression may last for months and even years-until the novelty of it wears off. But, it is important to note, that even at the peak of this sexual expression through anal eroticism, the obsession is not truly fetishistic in nature.
The analist is usually aware of the erotic significance of the rectum at a very early age. In some people the anus is much more sensitive than in others. According to Kinsey, "as many as half or more of the population may find some degree of erotic satisfaction in anal stimulation, but good incidence data are not available. There are some females and males who may be as aroused erotically by anal stimulation as they are by stimulation of the genitalia, or who may be more intensely aroused."
It is commonly believed by most psychologists that extreme analists lean strongly toward masochism. However, it is not pain that they seek; rather it is a form of defilement and/or humiliation.
There is generally a great deal of frustration attached to this behavior in its first stages of development, before the analist understands his sexual inclinations. Usually, at first, he has somewhat of an antifetishistic attitude toward the anus and its biological function of discharging fecal waste from the body. This inherent repulsion eventually comes to grip with his growing masochistic nature, and the two characteristics somehow manage to work out a solution, subconsciously.
Erotic interest in the anus is conceived at this moment. A method has been tacitly designed wherein the potential fetishist's desire for defilement and humiliation can be fulfilled.
The analist's interest in the anus differs from that of the average person's in several ways. For one thing, the analist is generally not interested in being the active partner in an act of intercourse. He is rarely interested in any kind of anal intercourse, but if he indulges at all, he generally prefers to be the passive recipient, since this is the position his psychosexual nature most readily identifies with.
However, defilement is his obsession, and since there is none, per se, for either sex partner in anal intercourse (there is only the possibility of anal pain), the fetishist is liable to be a rather unenthusiastic lover. His only goal as the passive partner in anal intercourse, his only excitement would be considered anti-climatic to the normal person. That is to say, the only erotic enjoyment the analist would receive out of this act would be in fellating or licking the penis that was previously in his rectum. Only this act would satisfy his lustful need for defilement.
The anal fetishist is, primarily, an oralist. This is the manner in which he is most commonly the aggressor, is able to assume the role of the active partner and thus satisfy his erotic craving for humiliation. This obsession to bestow some oral tribute to another's anus varies from one fetishist to another. It may express itself in the mere licking of the anus, or in extreme cases, in inducing the sex partner to defecate upon him (koprolagnia). No matter what the extreme, it is important to note that here too the behavioral distinction between the fetishist and the person with normal sex drives is not so much in the manner of expression as it is in the psychological motivations that created the expression. For the true anal fetishist, this is his only manner of sexual gratification, whereas for the person of normal sex drives it may be only an experiment, a temporary, flash-in-the-pan obsession, or a number of other normal motivations, none of which would greatly affect his overall sexuality.
The anal fetish has been responsible for bringing about a whole new lexicon of scatological words. Associated terms are scatophagy, mysophilia, scatology, et al. They all refer to the love of filth in a sexual sense.
What is a koprolagniac?
A koprolagniac is one who obtains sexual gratification from acts involving waste products from the human body. This does not necessarily mean one who eats human feces, although that act is included in the definition, but more commonly one who enjoys the feel, sight, smell and touch of the waste. Most koprolagniacs achieve orgasm at the very moment the fecal matter begins emerging from the anus of their sex partners. The ones who do not orgasm at this point generally gratify themselves by spreading the feces over their bodies and by tasting it.
There is another division of koprolagnia. This is ozolagnia (or osphresiolagnia), which is a sexual condition wherein the smelling of four odors serves a lustful purpose in the fetishist, particularly the odor of the love partner's intestinal gas and/or excretory matter.
Within this division of analism there is also active and passive koprolagnia. For example, the person (usually of a sadistic nature) who enjoys urinating and/or defecating on another person is an active koprolagniac, in contrast to the passive participant, the one who enjoys receiving the waste matter.
There is latent koprolagnia, meaning a person who is fascinated by watching another defecate or micturate-even himself!
No doubt the average reader of this manual will wonder why any sensible person would want to be urinated or defecated upon, or worse, why would anyone want to eat such human waste! Part of the answer lies in the complexities of the human Id, of which the sex drive (the libido) is a very important part. In attempting to understand the Id of the anal fetishist, it is important to remember that just as "one man's poison is another man's meat," so one man's sex pleasure is another man's perversion.
Psychoanalytically speaking, analism stems from one main source, the impulse of which can be either direct or indirect. This source is a form of infantilism, a regression to the infant stage of development. The anal fetishist has never progressed beyond the anal stage, to use a Freudian term. The anal impulse is direct when the individual indulges in such acts for the sheer undisguised pleasure of the taste, smell, sight and touch, which he derives when such acts stand alone and are not accompanied by, nor part of, other sex acts. The impulse is indirect when such acts are only a part of another paraesthesia which invariably is sadomasochistic in character, when acts of koprolagnia are used as part of the process of humiliation, defilement and servility. In such cases the masochist may even feel disgust at the odor and/or touch of the feces; yet, at the same time he feels supremely elated in that he is being abused.
It is not always the case that the anal fetishist desires to eat or taste the excrement. He feels that he is in the ideal sexual situation if he has a sadistic partner who forces him to do so. An ideal sex partner for an anal fetishist will work the latter's mind overtime devising new ways to humiliate him. And what can be more satisfying for a sadist than to see someone eat his excretory matter? There are very few other acts that could give the sadist the same sense of superiority. Quite obviously active acts of koprolagnia are the ultimate proof to the sadist that he is the supreme Lord and Master, a virtual god compared to the person eating his dung.
But it is ironic that both participants, the sadist and the anal masochist, live in a dark world whose origin has its roots in emotional insecurity, live in a world of constant subconscious struggle, attempting to replace or stimulate their deficient sexual vigor.
CHAPTER SIX - GROUP SEX
What makes people turn to group sex?
Group sex answers a need in some individuals who are discontent with their sex lives because of monotony, the need for variety, the urge for multiple partners through group response, and continuation of the sex act itself.
Perhaps orgiastic activity would not be as prevalent now if more men and women were happier with their sex lives as they are. But they aren't. Of course, not everyone satisfies this need by taking part in an orgy. One wouldn't dare to claim such a thing. But of the individuals who do, most do so for the reasons mentioned above: monotony, the need for variety, the urge for multiple partners through group response, and the continuation of the sex act itself.
There is another reason also to be considered, and that is couched in the phrase group response. The urge to be part of a group is one of man's most ancient drives, probably equal only to his drive for food and self-preservation.
Studies of the paleolithic era point out the typical scene in which a small band of men, perhaps two or three, are huddled around a fire. And one by one they are joined by other men, all sitting around the fire, and finally a tribe is formed.
Naturally, it was the brightness and warmth of the fire that initially attracted them, but the presence of the group provided the final stimulus. It is from such a scene that we have today the image of the warmth of the family around the fireplace, the friendly woodsmen joined around a campfire, etc.
It is perfectly reasonable to assume, as the early philosophers assumed, that man sought comfort and satisfaction among others in order to answer the need that burned inside him for comfort and companionship. Many could offer what one could not.
And this is what offers the prime reason for the participation in plural sex activity. Monotony is probably overcome because of the variety of the partners involved, as well as the variety of the acts themselves. A wife, for example who complains because her husband doesn't favor her with cunnilingus probably has her needs satisfied when she becomes involved with several partners. The same is true of the man who desires fellatio.
Anal intercourse is another aspect of human sexuality that is favored by some and not by others. Once again multiple partners are very likely to produce one or more who desire the same form of sex. It seems to be a case of demand being answered by supply.
Where there is a will there is a way, and if the statistics are true and women are finding it so difficult to achieve sexual fulfillment through normal relations, and if the sex life that a man has with one partner fails to provide him with the ideal that he has conceived, then it would not be surprising that men and women are rejecting the concept of one partner and taking on two or more.
What kind of people indulge in group sex?
One of the first things to accept is the fact that participants fall into no single particular age category. Sex, be it normal or excessive, is not the exclusive property of either the young or the old. We consider ourselves to be in an enlightened age today, and as such we are beginning to recognize that sexual activity begins in infancy and continues through senility.
Freud was one of the first to recognize infant sexuality. It was then, and still is for that matter, a popular belief that the sexual instinct is absent in childhood, and that it first appears around the time of puberty. Such is not the case, as Freud found.
Contemporary psychologists have been able to isolate an important fact that accounts for this disbelief, and essentially it is the fact that as adults we grow up with the notion that sex is somehow dirty -that there is something "unclean" about the whole business.
There are many aspects of sexuality which are directly related to this concept, and some fall within the province of our discussion. One such aspect concerns the performance of sex. Some individuals hold that sex is something which should be confined to the bedroom, behind closed doors, and at night. But there are too many individuals who find that sex as an expression of the self is a little too beautiful to be given the "basement treatment."
The desire to become involved sexually starts in infancy. Freud found that infantile amnesia, the curious phenomenon that prevents us from remembering very much about our formative years, is a conscious repressive mechanism designed to prevent us from remembering impressions and reconstructions of life in the womb and the resulting delivery.
One of the obvious forms most accessible to observation is during group play, when it becomes very common for the child to roll among other children, pawing them and petting them, with none of the regard for gender which characterizes the adult world. The child is, at this point, becoming very much aware of group response-the very basis for plural sex activities!
Numerous studies have indicated that the childish sex explorations that are conducted by the four-, five- and six-year-old are the very basis for his attitude for sexual encounters later on.
They explore each other's bodies, discover masturbation, and all in all have a very innocent, pleasant time of finding out a little about sex. But it is the common reaction for parents to chastise the child when he is discovered during these explorations, and this is a mistake.
The child begins to get the wrong attitude about sex, thinking that whatever it was he was doing was "wrong," and perhaps even "dirty." As a consequence, the child grows into adulthood with a warped concept of sex.
But there are other children-children whose impulses flourished in quite a different, more wholesome, kind of environment.
In addition to this relevant point, Margaret Mead noticed that the Samoan adult is not weighted down with the excess baggage of sexual neuroses that is so characteristic of our adult society.
In Samoa, the child is a part of the sexual scene almost from the time it can perceive and observe what is going on around it. All concepts of sexuality, including parental intercourse, pregnancy, etc., surround the child and he grows up not a stranger to sex but a partner, as it were.
"The pathology of life processes," Mead says, "is known to them, as well as the normal. No child has to conceal its knowledge for fear of punishment or ponder painfully over little understood occurrences. Secrecy, ignorance, guilty knowledge, faulty speculations resulting in grotesque conceptions which may have far-reaching results; a knowledge of the bare physical facts of sex without a knowledge of the accompanying excitement, of the fact of birth without the pain of labor, the fact of death without the fact of corruption-the chief flaws of our fatal philosophy of sparing children a knowledge of the dreadful truth-are absent in Samoa.": There is always the path of acceptance which is followed by the majority of sufferers of the sexual taboos stemming from childhood. But there is another path, and in accordance with our investigation into the realm of group sex, it is this path that provides us with some material for study.
We come to the path of rejection. It is the path which those who cannot bring themselves to follow the lead determined ahead of time for them, whether it be in matters of sex, dress or life style, follow to its own end.
Today's hippies are a prime example. The hippie movement is founded, essentially, on the rejection of the so-called establishment and all that it represents. It is a rejection of the stuffiness, of the inhibitions, of the repressions of the old way, and a forceful acceptance and ushering in of the new way.
But the hippies, living in their communes, are not the only ones following the path of rejection. The hippies have adopted as a standard way of life a kind of dress and a pattern of living that encourages complete and unrestrained giving of the self to the group. There is fierce group loyalty, and in a variation of the safety in numbers theme, there is almost total reliance on and interaction with the group. This brings us to the question of group sex, and the hippies' answer is a loud and unqualified yes!
One very important aspect that appeals to the hippie is the orgiastic ability to engage and enjoy many diverse forms of sexual expression. A culture that rejects, for example, the morality and the stiff-backed self-styled primness of "the establishment," including its behind-the-bedroom door sex attitude, would have no difficulty in rejecting the bedroom altogether, particularly since the large portion of hippies are decidedly transient. Even more important, hippie culture would be perfectly in tune with accepting those forms of sexuality classically rejected by the establishment. These forms include analism, oralism, general frottage, voyeurism, various forms of partialism and other sexual expressions which are inherent in a group sex scene with everybody "doing their own thing!"
But as we said, the hippies aren't the only ones following the path of rejection. College students, as we know from today's headlines, are furiously embroiled in a general pattern of rebellion. The battle fought on campus today is only the offshoot of the growing dissatisfaction-a festering resentment that has been underway for years.
In addition to the rebellious spirit, there is also the spirit let loose as a result of being free of the parent's supervision-out from under the wind of home, as it were. This in itself becomes something of a Pandora's Box as soon as the young boy or girl becomes involved with roommates and classmates who are all willing and eager to show the better way of life-the greener grass of sex.
Are you saying that only young people are involved in group sex?
Not any more today, there is a similar increase in the role of middle-age mate-swapping. Once considered the realm of the single swinger, swapping has now moved into the closest husband-wife circles, providing the answer for those individuals asking for the so-called bigger and better thrills.
Regardless of their present age, and some reports show participants in their fifties, in most cases there is evidence of such cheerful acceptance of the new that there cannot help but be a rejection of the old. In other words, representatives of the staid adult community are finding in group sex response the answer to something lacking in their marriages of many years.
And when we turn to the facts-facts dug up by years of expensive and extensive research-the facts show that more human beings are dissatisfied with their private sex lives than perhaps the general public, authorities and the like would care to believe.
In effect, the individual who is participating in the plural sex scene, the practicing orgiast, need not be of any one type. He or she would certainly not be an orgiast simply because of hair color, religious preference, age, race or any other such criteria.
They are simply people with a need to be answered. If there wasn't such a need, the individual would be content with normal two-partner sex: intercourse in the missionary position.
There has been too much sexual upheaval to show that such is not the case. Whether it is the hippies' basic rejection of "the establishment" and the enlistment of the group, whether it is the college student's response to a new way of life or free-thinking "new thought," whether it is the teenager who is so close in years to his uninhibited sexual infancy, or whether it is the adult who has tired of living the life he was told to live and tired of wanting the things he was told to want, there is reason enough to seek through multiple sex expression the answer to the need.
CHAPTER SEVEN - INTERRACIAL SEX
Why do some people maintain that integrated sex is deviant?
Partly because such individuals are still thickly imbued with a cultural prejudice that has been handed down for several centuries. Another reason is that many people still firmly believe in some pretty wild stories. Otherwise they wouldn't persist in asking questions like these: do Negro males really possess twelve-inch penises?; are Negro females really more avid, proficient lovers than white females?; do white men generally prefer a male-subordinate position during intercourse?; is there any difference at all between white and black sexual ability and capability? and so on.
Questions like these have plagued mankind probably since the first paleolithic man noticed a difference in skin pigmentation in his companion. But the present-day conflict and fear between the races really erupted with the advent of the slave-import business in early America.
Does interracial sex present the same problems for other countries as it does for the U.S.?
In most lands, the coming together of man and woman, no matter what colors they were, has usually been accepted as a perfectly natural occurrence. But there is simply no doubt that America has always made a "big thing" of the sexual integration of man and woman.
The reason for this lies in the status roles set up for blacks and whites. Since blacks came to this land as slaves, a racial caste system was immediately set up in the minds of most citizens, which caste system placed whites in the position of being "superior" to blacks. After all, how else could the white man expect to maintain control over his slaves but by establishing a hierarchy among the races? And how else could masters rationalize treating black human beings as property but to tell themselves that blacks were not first-class human beings?
One result of the racial caste system in America has been that blacks, even after they no longer bore the title "slave," were still expected to remember that they were not as good as white men. They were expected to "know their place" even after the legality of slavery was swept out of the American culture.
The history of bigotry, and the various pressures put upon the black man since the end of the Civil War are subjects too large to go into here. It is sufficient for us to note that even prominent black scientists, doctors, and politicians are still referred to as "niggers" in some quarters of the white population... proving that the white man still resists the idea of blacks being first-class Americans, no matter how much the blacks accomplish.
Blacks, however, are generally conceded the right to succeed in the arts, in the business world, and in the political arena without drawing too much fire. But there is one area in which even the most liberal white men still would like to see equality. That area is the sexual arena.
The effect of the puritanical sex standard in America-as everyone knows-has never been to really encourage morality. Instead, it has been to set up a fierce standard of sexual competition for men. The idea of "succeeding" sexually in America, for a man, has always meant seducing a lot of women other men couldn't seduce. American men have never really wanted women to be virgins. They have wanted them to be virgins for everyone else, and whores for them.
Why does such competition exist?
Sex is a cause of such fierce competition among men that most men don't even want it talked about. Our "defenders of the American morality" kick and scream each time the word "sex" is mentioned in public. Is this because they seek to promote celibacy among the unmarried population? No! It is because a general loosening of inhibitions will make their own illicit affairs a lesser source of pride to them. Many of our strict moralists are simply hypocrites fighting to preserve their own perverted senses of masculinity. They can't stand the idea that someone else may start getting what they have not gotten... cooperation from a greater number of women.
These "moralists" are really the ones who started the myth of black sexuality. In a strange way, the myth enhances a white man's feeling of sexuality. He can immediately dismiss a black woman's surrender to a black man as a sign that "blacks are loose when it comes to standards of morality." And he can tell himself, "If that black woman balled for a black man, she certainly would have balled for me, too."
On the other hand, in heralding the morality of white women, he is saying, "When I have a white girl, it really means something, because her surrender to me means I've overcome every impulse in her nature!" And, of course, the moralist imagines the corollary that no black man could have had the same girl.
We can only guess the anger of our "moralist" at discovering that his white conquest might, indeed, enjoy a black man. Or, worse yet, that a white woman might reject a white man in favor of a black man.
The fear of the white "moralist" that such an eventuality may ever come to pass has, historically, been a major factor in the white man's battle to keep the black man "in his place." As we have said, the white man does not mind so much competing equally with the black man in the arts, in business, or in the political arena, because the idea that the black man may come out on top in these fields is not necessarily crushing to the white man. But the idea that the black may come out on top in competition for white women most certainly is.
Hasn't the new generation of youth changed some of these ideas?
Yes, and perhaps we could change the word "is" to "was," for things are changing in the white community. Just as a "new" black man is emerging in the black culture, so is a "new" white man emerging in the white community. The new white man- the youth of twenty-one and under-has succeeded in adopting the very liberality the older "moralist" hoped he never would adopt toward sex. The new white man believes that his own women should be free and loose, should recognize her sexuality and satisfy it whenever the chance comes along. What counts to him is not a false sense of masculinity, but a sense that people can live the lives they really want to live. The new white man does not feel very strongly about sexual competition, or any other kind of competition, for that matter.
But, getting back to the older white... he does feel the need to compete successfully in sex, and has always done his best to make sure the black man has been a loser in sex. And one idea that has been most essential to the white in his battle for sexual superiority has been the idea that he can sleep with any black woman while no black man can sleep with a white woman.
In order to prove to himself that he can sleep with black women, the white man has often resorted to rape. Criminologists say they can only guess the number of unreported rapes of black women in both the North and South during the past hundred years. The number certainly isn't small.
How does interracial sex affect the people involved?
It would really appear that every little facet of interracial sex has a large and hidden meaning for the parties concerned. This, of course, makes contacts with members of different races seem more poignant than they would be if race wasn't such a big problem in our culture. But, unfortunately, it has been, and we cannot expect people who sleep with members of other races to accept their sex as a natural product of the man-woman encounter.
It will always seem to have a different psychological function to a black woman because her partner is white, and vice versa.
It could well be, then, that a large part of the myth of black sexuality has been reinforced by interracial contacts. The mechanics of the reinforcement would work this way: Let us take a white male sleeping with a black female as an example. For his part, the male would find the situation to be more interesting than sex with a white girl because of the racial differences involved. Therefore, he would pay attention to every detail of the encounter. For her part, the black woman would probably also find the experience slightly more interesting than one with a member of her own race. In addition, since the stigma of surrendering to a white man would make her feel degraded, she might completely abandon herself to the intrigue of the situation... wallowing in the muck, as it were. The result would be a sexual performance the black woman is not usually capable of, and that performance would be magnified in the widened eyes of her attentive white partner. So, the impression he would get after it was all over was that black women are wild, uninhibited, and fantastic in bed.
Chances are, the black woman would draw the same conclusion about her white partner. Similarly, in a white woman-black man episode, both participants would draw the same conclusions about each other again.
So, the general result is that persons having had interracial sex often attribute more passion to the other race than they would to their own. White men will insist that black women are better lovers, black women will choose white men, and white women will choose black men.
Why, then, is there no "white sexual myth" being propagated by blacks in America?
There is! Within the black community, the white man is feared for his rampant sexuality. But since whites are in the majority in this country, more is heard of the white man's tales of passionate whites. If the blacks were in the majority in America, there would probably be a more widespread "white sexual myth."
There is a growing feeling among younger blacks that the rewards which will come to the race when they abstain from relationships with white men are far greater than the personal rewards they may get from engaging in such relationships. This represents a point of view almost exclusively held by black girls under the age of twenty-one. They are far different from their grandmothers, mothers, and older sisters in their view of the mixing of the races. Older blacks felt they had to strive for every possible contact with the white world to better their social and economic standings. Younger blacks, including black girls, feel that conditions can best improve when the blacks do everything themselves, without the intrusion of whites into their personal lives.
How do black men and white women hit it off?
Much of what has been said about black woman-white man relationships can also be said about the other side of the coin: the black man-white woman match-up.
There is little doubt that this relationship seems delicious to many participants for the racial intrigue involved. Many a black man has expressed pleasure at having intercourse with a white woman simply because she was-in his mind-a white man's daughter. Others have derived a thrill from the danger involved in flirting with the white man's wrath. Still others have enjoyed the status implicit in sex with a white woman. In most cases, it has simply been impossible for the black man to completely divorce himself from the concept of racial competition, and enjoy the sex itself. Likewise, the white woman is far from color blind while she is engaged in sexual intercourse with a black man.
Is skin color then the determining factor in bringing about such sexual encounters?
Quite often, yes. Altruistically, it would be nice to say that the young revolutionaries, social and sexual, are oblivious to skin color when it comes to sexually fulfilling their attraction to members of another race-but this is simply not true. Whereas many liberal-minded young people may have conditioned themselves to accept people of different skin colors as peers on a social and economic level, this does not mean that the same is true on a sexual level. But it also does not mean that they are venting latent prejudice by engaging in integrated sex. Not at all. What it really amounts to-this white attraction to black, and this black attraction to white-is a natural and personal penchant for a particular feature in another person. And this has certainly got to be considered a wholesome turn of events for a country that has been steeped in puritanical guilt and ugliness for so long. One has surely got to see a ray of sunshine for our multicolored human race when he feels sexual attraction for a member of another race because of the racial and skin-color differences, just as someone else may feel attracted to another person because of a certain eye color, hair color, demeanor, physical shape, etc.
So, the beauty of this new attitude toward integrated sex lies in the inherent honesty with which two different-colored people approach each other, candidly attracted, like opposite poles of a magnet, by the very contrasts of their cultural backgrounds and their skin pigmentation. And the supreme beauty of this "new morality" lies in the fact that prejudice plays no part at all.
CHAPTER EIGHT - VOYEURISM
Is voyeurism considered a blatant sexual deviation?
Peepers have never been as roundly condemned in our society as certain other people who engage in a deviant form of sexual behavior, such as homosexuality, sadism, pederasty, fetishisms, etc.
The explanation for this is quite logical. It is very difficult for one person to reconcile condemning another, when he himself is guilty of the same violation. The one who is in the position to prosecute the peeper might also acknowledge the fact that virtually everyone over five years of age is guilty of peeping, as long as the faculties of sight are intact.
According to the Kinsey Report, there are very few heterosexual men who would not take the opportunity, if circumstance offered it, to look at a girl in the nude, or to observe a heterosexual encounter, especially if they were in such a position so as not to be discovered. True, there is a degree of social disgrace related to the surreptitious watching of sexual activity, but for most males, the desire not to be discovered in the act of watching is more closely linked with the erotic significance of having the "show" all to themselves. Which is to say that most men, given the alternative of being alone and watching the girl across the street take her clothes off, or being with a companion and watching the same thing, would, invariably, choose the former.
The degree of our voyeuristic instincts has a lot to do with the social stigma attached to peeping. For instance, many men are much more erotically aroused by observing a female in the act of stripping than they are by a totally nude female. And some of these men are not above looking down their noses at those men who prefer watching totally naked women. As a result, there are peepers who get into trouble with the law in one state for observing a woman disrobe from a certain vantage point, while in another state, a peeper who commits a duplicate act is not even charged with a violation.
It is a known fact that the sexual significance of what the peeper sees depends totally on his capacity to be stimulated psychologically. That there have never been very many female voyeurs might be attributed to the fact that females are less inclined toward abstracting a given situation psychologically. In other words, for the same reason that there are fewer female voyeurs, one might also argue that this is the reason there are fewer female fetishists, sadists, masochists, rapists, etc. But psychological abstraction has its virtue also. There are less female scientists, artist, inventors, leaders and geniuses.
Is movie viewing a form of voyeurism?
Definitely. The advent of motion pictures and television has given rise to the most blatant expression of world-wide voyeurism imaginable. Vicarious thrills of incredible scope are available nowadays. Films depicting wholesale slaughter, pandering to our more barbaric natures, are playing to standing room only; while films of maudlin sentimentality cater to throngs of sobbing viewers. Trips to the moon and beyond are at the theaters. Degenerates hobble across the celluloid, and people who never once would think of themselves in similar visual terms identify with the mental and physical plight of such cripples.
People under thirty years of age are the most sexually exposed generation in motion picture history. After the First World War, a similar decadence filled the streets, but only as a result of postwar hysteria and response to the liquor prohibition. What is happening this time around is also because of emotional stresses and inhibitions. A seemingly never-ending war, an outraged youth, a period of major political and social confrontation, has also produced a vicarious method of psychological escape unprecedented in the history of the human race: the movie. Here, on the silver screen, is depicted all of life's struggles, its tragedy, its comedy, its suffering, its love and sex, while the observer sits relaxed and comfortable in an air-conditioned theater eating popcorn and drinking cola. It's a voyeur's paradise!
Just how many movie-goers are using films as surrogate realities is anyone's guess. A time ago, films functioned primarily to entertain, to amuse and to amaze. The costume spectacles, the tap-dancing flicks, the inane situation comedies, the saccharine romances-motion pictures used to be pathetic, but fun. Since the Second World War, however, there has been an increasing trend to portraying life as it really is, on and off the screen. It is a valid contention of many critics that some motion picture moguls are providing quasi-real cinematic worlds to lure the voyeur in all of us to the surface.
And, in many parts of the world, this voyeuristic instinct has indeed become very overt and candid. The people who have succumbed to it, as chance will have it, have turned out not to be such bad sorts after all. In fact, there are many young sexual revolutionists who have invented various ways of experimenting with this former "perversion."
Some young people, for instance, have consciously plotted out episodes wherein one of them will go into a stripping routine, while the other looks on through the bedroom window. Those who experiment with this peculiar approach to sex claim that it is both arousing and sexually stimulating.
Despite the burgeoning "new morality" of our times, most people still consider sexual relations to be a private matter. That is, those couples who stay essentially together over extended periods of time do not invite all the neighbors when they feel the mutual urge to have sexual intercourse. Once in a while, good friends may couple up for a foursome of adult fun and games, but, short of a New Year's orgy, it is safe to assume that most sex partners prefer to keep their coital encounters to themselves. However, with certain liberal-minded people-many of whom are suburbanites who belong to group sex clubs or organizations-peeking in on the neighbors during intimate moments has become a favorite sport, which is, apparently, enjoyed by all parties involved, including the two "caught in the act." Generally, these episodes are planned to some degree, so that the unsuspecting couple at least realize that sometime during the week they are going to be observed, and it is tacitly implied that they should leave their shades slightly open for the occasion.
The desire to be seen nude and/or engaged in a sex act is not at all uncommon in many people. The subject of exhibitionism brings up an entirely new justification for the existence of the voyeuristic syndrome. Although space does not allow a thorough discussion of this tendency here, let it suffice to say that the voyeuristic urge would not be as strong as it is in some people, if the exhibitionistic was not as strong as it is in other people.
How does exhibitionism relate to the voyeuristic urge?
Exhibitionism is as much a logical counterpart to voyeurism as masochism to sadism. They go hand-in-hand, and, between sexually compatible people, they function very well together. The only difference is that it is possible for voyeurism to function independently of exhibitionism, whereas the converse is not true. The true voyeur is sexually aroused by his own nocturnal stealth, by his observation; and because his is such an introverted form of gratification he is more or less guaranteed an illimitable field of sexual satisfaction as long as there are human beings to watch. His is an independent deviation. But the very opposite is true of the exhibitionist. He is totally dependent upon someone to watch him. Without the eyes of the observer, the voyeur, he is impotent, helpless.
In the past the fear of social disgrace surrounding these two deviations made it extremely dangerous for liberal-minded people to pair up these peculiar characteristics of human nature. But today, under the aegis of a sexual renaissance, young people are experimenting with the voyeur-exhibitionist syndrome, and finding the results uniquely gratifying, to say the least.
The simple condition of being human makes everyone eligible for varying degrees of all kinds of deviations from the so-called "norm," and in many cases, for openly neurotic behavior. In matters concerning sex, this means that everyone is endowed with at least a degree of voyeurism in his psychological make-up, not to mention varying degrees of exhibitionism, masochism, sadism, narcissism, etc.
Degree, however, is the key word in determining to what extent a particular neurosis has developed in an individual. One must remember that the sexual revolution in America has brought about a great overlapping of sexual attitudes and an altogether new outlook on so-called deviations. As a result, in this day and age of sensual experimentation, no one sexual behavior stands as a separate entity from the rest. Voyeurism is no more isolated in a category of its own than is lesbianism or sadomasochism. No doubt this is a more complicated concept to understand, but the fact remains that there is an intermingling of attitudes in every kind of sexual expression. It is therefore possible for a voyeur to possess instincts of a homosexual, a fetishist, a masochist, and so on.
One might reasonably ask, then, how it is possible to accurately label a particular behavior in an individual when it is so imbued with other, overlapping attitudes. The answer is simply this: what distinguishes a prevalent attitude from others is simply the frequency with which it is employed in sexual encounters, as a means of sexual gratification, and the libidinous necessity an individual feels, psychologically, to use it.
There are also different types within a particularly predominant behavioral pattern. For instance, with voyeurs, although a majority of them enjoy watching other people engage in a sexual encounter while they themselves masturbate, there are a few, more narcissistically inclined peepers, who only enjoy watching and/or imagining themselves in a sexual situation.
Of course, this presents a problem that is not easily solved. After all, the most dominant psychological characteristic of a voyeur is the fact that he does not want his subjects to know he is watching them, and, if the voyeur himself is one of the subjects, how is he going to watch himself while not knowing he is watching?
The home movie camera is the solution to this dilemma for most narcissistic voyeurs. Many of them become quite professional photographers, stationing several cameras, activated by remote switches, in inconspicuous places in their rooms. In this manner they are able to photograph their own sexual encounter while their sex partners remain ignorant of their ulterior motives. Afterwards, while viewing the film, the narcissistic voyeur usually enjoys himself more in the privacy of his own room, watching himself on a silver screen, than he did while actually engaging in the sex act.
There are many, many types of voyeuristic attitudes, just as there are degrees within each of those attitudes. It is no longer rational, in this age of sexual enlightenment, to recklessly label certain behaviors, and then stick them in file drawers marked either "socially acceptable" or "socially unacceptable." Life has become too complicated to employ this simplistic approach, and because most people are now aware of this complexity, it is grossly unfair to do so.
CHAPTER NINE - TRANSVESTITISM
What is a transvestite?
For lack of a better definition, a transvestite is an individual, either male or female, who dresses in the clothes of the opposite sex. In today's society, men predominate with the affliction. Since there is no penalty against women for wearing men's clothing, there is no way of knowing just how many women wear these clothes, not because they feel they are being stylish but rather because they are transvestites.
There has been a lot of misinformation printed, and thus believed, about male transvestites. Foremost is the belief that all transvestites are homosexuals. Nothing could be further from the truth.-Statistics reveal that only a fraction exhibit homosexual tendencies or have had homosexual experiences. This figure duplicates those regarding the American male population as a whole-one-third of all men exhibit homosexual traits and/or have had homosexual experiences. Thus, in this area at least, the male transvestite is no different from any other male.
Another belief regarding the male transvestites is that the affliction is due to a mind-shattering event in their childhood. For instance, a couple greatly desired a baby girl but the birth was that of a boy. Without realizing what they were doing, and to cover up their great disappointment, they brought the child up as a girl... dressing him in girl's clothes, giving him a feminine name, leaving his curls long, and attempting in every way to interest the growing infant in things female-dolls, and the avoidance of things masculine-sports. Under this type of environment, sexologists firmly believe that the transvestite is born.
Yet, statistics among transvestites show the opposite to be true-that very few of them were brought up in a feminine environment and, on the contrary, most transvestites remember their father as being the dominant parent and not the mother.
Another fallacy regarding transvestites is that which says they are effeminate in stature and in attitudes. This, too, is false. In the study of a group of male transvestites there were no distinguishing characteristics-they ranged in height from 5'5" to 6'4" and their occupations varied from that of professional football player to accountant. In short, they were as average in their diversities as any typical group of American males.
It has long been believed that it is an incident during the infant years that causes an individual to turn to transvestitism-especially something that occurs prior to the age of ten. Such an incident, it is supposed, would be the young boy dressing up like a girl and finding that it is appealing to him. And yet research among transvestites turns up the significant fact that more than half report their first important incident regarding a transvestite trait occurred after the age of ten and not before. It must therefore be assumed that such a trait is not latent but rather is acquired.
Another fallacy regarding transvestites is that which says such a characteristic would be repulsive to a partner. Yet, among married couples in which the husband has admitted to being a transvestite, almost two-thirds of all wives went along with their spouses' strange affliction. All admitted, however, that it would be advisable that the man tell the woman of his problem before the marriage.
Still another erroneous belief regarding transvestites is that all are masochistic, have a need to suffer. Yet this trait is definitely not a part of the transvestite's emotional make-up according to investigators.
If so many common myths regarding transvestites have been exploded, then exactly what is a man who prefers to dress as a woman?
After many studies, it has been determined that there are three basic types: First there is the psychogenic transvestite. This is the individual who though he appears physically to be a normal male, actually lacks masculinity. His desires for sexual contact are low, and are heterosexual rather than homosexual. Being more feminine than masculine, he assumes a feminine first name and wants to be referred to as "she." He is introverted, non-aggressive and his conflicts arise from social pressure and legal restrictions.
Then there is the intermediate transvestite. He has the same symptoms and problems as the first type but they are decidedly more pronounced. He wavers between heterosexual and homosexual desires and in his self-gratification (masturbation) acts he fancies himself as a woman. His sex glands tend to be underdeveloped, and his physical characteristics lean toward the feminine: wide hips, breast development, female hair distribution, etc.
Third, the somato-psychic transsexual is the most common in terms of the average individual's image of a transvestite. This type is well represented by the Christine Jorgensen case. Feminine appearance and orientation is striking in this type of individual. Most of them are convinced they are female with faulty sex organs. Their sex life is mainly fantasy and non-genital, satisfaction being obtained from their paraphilia rather than from self-gratification. Many solve their dilemma by undergoing an operation which then permits them to be oriented as a female within society. And though their sexual activities are still limited, at least they find a degree of acceptance that hitherto was denied.
That there are many men masquerading as women is obvious. Equally as obvious is the public's attitude toward these individuals. It is one of disgrace, shame and avoidance. And yet it is this very attitude that, in a sense, denies the transvestite a path he can follow. For, like most of man's ills, it is man who causes them, and not the environment.
CHAPTER TEN - FETISHISM
Where did the word fetish come from?
The word is derived from the Romantic root facticius, which meant literally "amulet." It came to. Ancient Rome by way of Portugal, after the use of the word feitico by Portuguese adventurers, who allegedly first encountered it during their voyages along the west coast of Africa.
The sexual connotation of the word, however, is said to have first appeared in a book in Paris, entitled Du Culte des Dieux-fetishi, dealing with an assortment of fetishistic behaviors. This book was published in 1769. Philologists and semanticists have suggested several other terms to be used in the place of fetishism, such as "sexual idolatry" or "sexual partiality," but these terms have proven to be less specific than the word fetishism.
Just as there was a need to coin a word alluding to a person's penchant for, or devotion to, a particular object or part of the human anatomy, there was also a necessity for a word alluding to the dislike of or disaffection for these same objects and anatomical zones. Hence, the word "anti-fetishism."
According to Magnus Hirschfeld in his Sexual Pathology, fetishism is related to antifetishism as something positive is to something negative. A person's dislike of a particular object, bodily part or mode of sexual expression in the opposite sex can be frequently just as ardent and as violent as mindless devotion. But the two concepts-fetishism and antifetishism-are inextricably related. For instance, a man who is roundly repulsed by heavily-veined, pendulous female breasts is usually fetishistically attracted to women with unblemished, firm breasts. A woman who is repulsed by men with heavy beards is attracted to men with smooth, clean-shaven faces.
Both feelings are totally subjective, and both are concerned with secondary sexual characteristics.
How does a fetish develop in an individual?
The seeds of an individual's particular fetish are usually sown very early in life. How or why a child will pick up on a particular fascination with a certain portion of the human body, or a certain object, is open to much conjecture; but most psychologists agree that a pre-pubescent fetish does not lean toward a pathological expression until the individual is old enough to consciously associate pleasure and/or shame with his fetish. From the age of puberty on, the young man or young girl is imbued with an ever-strengthening shame over the pleasure he feels at the sight, or mention of, his object of worship-a pretty foot, a certain kind of shoe, a certain color of hair, etc.
The development of a fetish is unique, as a rule, in each individual, but there is no graphic distinction in fetish-development between the sexes. What is of primary importance is whether the fetishist desires the thing on his own body or on some other person. It is interesting to note that most fetishists, clothing fetishists in particular, do not wear on their own bodies the clothes or objects that attract them most. It is, in fact, on the other person that the fetishist wishes to see his fetish. Thus, it would not be uncommon for a man with a strong attraction to women with short hair, to wear his own hair long. Nor would it be unusual for a woman who is attracted to men of a particularly feminine attitude and dress, to dress and conduct herself in a distinctly masculine way. It is possible, however, that the fetish may fall into a form of transvestitism or zisvestism if the fetishist decides to put on the object or article of clothing which he so admires. Many fetishists have admitted doing this in private, but shame and the fear of ridicule generally restrain them from openly displaying their addiction. But even if the fetishist does indeed openly display his object of sexual desire by wearing it, this does not mean that he (or she) is a complete transvestite or zisvestite. Clothes and objects, to these individuals, represent an extension of their personalities, whereas, to a fetishist, the clothes and objects he wears merely represent an effort on his part to bring the objects of his worship into closer contact with his body.
Fetishes, as a rule, are of a very isolated and particular character. Which is to say that a shoe fetishist, for example, does not become sexually aroused by all shoes, but rather by shoes of a particular style, color, shape and contour. Depending upon how long an individual has harbored and cultivated his fetish, his senses may become so well-conditioned that they turn instinctively toward his object of lust upon sight.
Knowing this, and knowing that many fetishists are frequently oblivious to the personality behind the wearer of the fetish, some prostitutes have been known to purposely dress in attire they consider popular among fetishists. All too often it is this unconscionable but close-minded lust for an object, this inability to evaluate the wearer of the object, that makes the fetishist a very gullible and highly vulnerable "mark."
"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder," the poet said. But with the fetishist it is not only his sense of sight that plays an integral role in shaping his idea of beauty; all five senses are equally attuned to worshiping the objects of his love. And the more refined his senses become toward his fetish, the more selective, sophisticated and pathological the fetishist himself becomes. As his fetish becomes more mature, more objectified, the fetishist becomes more particular about what he will adore. A hair fetishist, for example, may have developed his vagary initially via one or two senses. He may have been visually attracted by long, golden tresses, and this attraction may have been psychologically reinforced by a decidedly fragrant odor. But as his fetish matures, as he becomes more consciously aware of his own sexual arousal over it, he becomes inclined to employ his other senses, to surrender himself totally, sensually, to his object of worship. He wants to see, smell and touch hair. He wants to taste it! And ultimately, he finds himself vicariously stimulated just at the mention of the word- hair.
When does a fetish become pathological?
Once the object of worship becomes this isolated, this closed-off from total sexuality, the fetish has taken on a pathological aspect. The fetishist has now reached the point that, if his fetish were taken away, so would his own chance for sexual gratification be removed. He is no longer in a position of sexual control. He is in the same vulnerable position as a primitive tribesman who worships a certain talisman or amulet. Just as the tribesman has objectified his religion, the fetishist has objectified his sexuality. And whenever a human drive is directed at an object, the human himself becomes vulnerable.
Just as the complete fetishist (i.e., the individual whose object-worship has matured to total isolation and total dependence upon the object) becomes oblivious to total sexuality, so does he become oblivious to other forms of beauty. If he is a hair fetishist he is indifferent to a well-turned ankle or a handsomely proportioned derriere. Conversely, the complete fetishist becomes oblivious to physical defects and ugliness. Indeed, there are many fetishists who have a very exacting yen for just such defects and deformities-men and women who are sexually aroused by artificial legs and arms, scars, warts, etc. Fetishes run the gamut of human behavior, dress, appearance and predicament. Each fetishist is as unique unto himself as the object he adores. It almost defies the well-ordered, analytical mind to classify these unique fetishes into related categories. It further boggles the mind to attempt to explain and illustrate the function of these fetishes.
However, most sexologists have roughly categorized fetishes into two basic groups-the inanimate and the animate. Under the first group fall all the objects of worship-furs, fabrics, jewelry, leather, etc. Under animate fetishes come everything from attitudes of wrath and docility to finger-licking and nose-biting. The genital fetishes are also covered in this category.
Isn't everyone a fetishist to a degree?
Yes. The sexual desires of many people are focussed upon very specific parts of the human body or upon objects. Obviously, to some extent, this is true of all of us. We all prefer one portion of the body to some other. That's why there are so-called "leg-men,"
"breast-men," and so on. People readily admit to being "turned on" by most of the physical or animate fetishes, whereas they are very secretive about the inanimate fetishes.
But the situation is not always as simple as that. There are cases in which the preference becomes an obsessive sexual preoccupation. Just as one can become sexually addicted to an object, one can become addicted to a part of the human anatomy or to a human attitude, and to such an extent that he cannot achieve sexual satisfaction in any other way.
In these cases, too, then, we can justifiably apply the word fetish.
How does repression of a fetish affect the individual?
Badly. Repression of one's fetish often results in frigidity in women and impotence in men. Not being allowed-or not allowing oneself-to express a strongly-felt fetishistic drive, can be analogous to a normal person's being restrained from simply enjoying sexual intercourse; for this is what denying the fetishist his idiosyncrasy amounts to; it is a denial of sexual release.
A true fetishist cannot truly derive any sexual satisfaction from conventional sexual activity, as we know it. If it does not include his vagary, he is merely going through the motions to please his sex partner.
There are very few married fetishists, as a rule, and even fewer happily married fetishists. Two forces are working contrary to each other in such a relationship. First, the fetishist himself, by virtue of his obsession to worship an isolated part of his spouse's body, or his obsession for collecting inanimate objects to worship in an onanistic manner, tends to impersonalize his relationship with another person. Secondly, the woman (as it is usually the fairer sex who is the non-fetishist) is usually very uncooperative and sometimes violently repulsed by her husband's idiosyncrasy.
However, those few fetishists who are happily married tell of liberal-minded spouses with whom they have nurtured and cultivated a very unique sexual rapport, founded on, and built around, the fetish, whatever it may be. And they claim to be all the happier for it.
A fetish develops in most individuals with a very dark and ugly cloud around it. Perforce, it is hidden in the subconscious where it begins to fester and, eventually, manages to infect the entire libido. The fetishist begins to seek release, expression. Like a dam holding back too much water, the fetishist seeks an outlet. This outlet sometimes results in tragedy, sometimes not.
Many fetishists have resolved to live a lonely life of celibacy, rather than take a chance on allowing another person to discover their vagary, and thus leave themselves open to ridicule. Still others force their fetishistic passions on unwilling recipients, and the results of these incidents are often bloody and violent.
Sexual fetishism has a history so rich that it staggers the imagination. It has an inherent complexity that defies description Libraries could devote all their shelf-space to this subject, and there would still be countless fetishes on which no information is available. Sexual fetishes have been roundly condemned, roundly applauded, laughed at, scorned, ridiculed, extolled, praised. They have taken on a nationalistic fervor, have become faddish and fashionable (e.g., today's leather fetish, yesterday's fur fetish); and they have become demanding and ludicrous (today's breast fetishism).
To a large degree the real fetishist is having his territory usurped by the population at large. As we just mentioned, leather is very much in fashion these days. A few years ago, the only people who would wear leather clothing were obviously peculiar folk with equally peculiar fetishes. Now it is not at all uncommon to see mini-skirted maidens clad in leather, unaware of the surreptitious glances they are getting from the men and women who are really sexually excited by leather. Bosom fanciers have got to have flipped out when the topless craze started. Private fetishes have suddenly become big, popular business. Eventually, all the clothing fetishes, all the scent fetishes, all the fetishes man can think of will become part and parcel of America's attempt to exploit each and every social deviation.
Sexually, we in America are just beginning to come of age as a people. If a man or woman has a preference for a particular part of the anatomy, and the caressing of that part brings orgasmic satisfaction, who's to suggest such behavior is wrong?
So many people are sexually confused, having heard so many conflicting reports about this or that form of intercourse, about what is right and what is wrong that there seems to be no end to the bewilderment. Our contention is that the popularizing of fetishes and former sexual taboos will cause them to disappear, only to be replaced by normal behavior which will in time be considered deviant. That is to say, the growing number of young people who are sexually sophisticated at early ages will lead to a situation in which virginity will be uncommon and hence psychologists and sexologists a generation from now will try to figure out how and why women who kept their virginity got that way. What weird fetish would have caused them to refrain from what everyone else was doing?
Indeed, a normal sexual life, whatever that might be, may be just and reasonable cause for one's incarceration by future authorities of the state. Until that time, it's best to do as the Romans do. And it would seem a good idea that, if one doesn't have a fashionable fetish, one had better keep it to oneself. Or at least wait until next year's social register has announced their plans and made their fetishistic desires clear.
CHAPTER ELEVEN - SADOMASOCHISM
Is sadomasochism strictly an abnormal sexual behavior?
Under the right conditions, both sadism and masochism may occur along with a normal sexual life. In both, the acts in which they express themselves are either preparatory to coitus or substitutes for it.
But there is an analogy between sadism and masochism that goes beyond mere external manifestations. Such an analogy deals with the intrinsic character of the abnormalities. It breaks down into two basic elements, related to both active and passive algolagnia.
In masochism, these elements are as follows: (1) during sexual excitation, every impression produced by the sex partner, regardless of the manner of its production, is a cause of sexual pleasure, a pleasure that may be so intense that it blots out any attendant pain, and (2) "sexual bondage" that is not at all abnormal in itself may rise to the level of abnormality when it becomes more desired in itself than even the sexual pleasures such "bondage" is supposed to gain for the person submitting to the wishes of someone else.
In sadism, the corresponding elements are as follows: (1) during sexual excitation, there may be a keen desire to influence the sex partner in any way possible and to the greatest possible extent. This normal factor of sexual relationships may degenerate into abnormality-especially in highly sexed persons-when the frequent inflicting of pain becomes so closely associated with sexual pleasure that inflicting such pain in time becomes an end in itself, and (2) the normal masculine role of winning the mate may develop into an abnormal desire to subjugate the love partner.
Sadism is a psychological abnormality in which a person receives sexual gratification by hurting or humiliating another person, or by imagining himself to do so. It may be a prelude to normal coitus or it may become an end in itself, guaranteeing orgasm. In its most extreme form, it is manifested by crimes of sexual violence and even murder.
The term is derived from Count Donatien de Sade, the French novelist, who exhibited the abnormality in his novels and-to a lesser extent-in his own life.
Sadism exists in both males and females. The sadist may suffer from deep doubts concerning his masculinity. He needs to prove his superior strength by mastering the object of his sexual cravings in order to prove to himself that he is unafraid. Female sadists cannot accept the fact that they lack a man's power. They may act out scenes in which a dominant role is assumed-for example, that of a strong father.
Taking the male sadist first, one is apt to accept this description. Numerous cases support the conclusion as to doubts concerning lack of masculinity. The sadist, it has often been noted, is frequently a man of small stature. Contrary to the image popularly held, he is rarely a tall, strong man with bulging muscles and a terrifying countenance. More likely than not, he will be mild-appearing in all aspects.
As such, there is reason to believe that his concern over his status as a man may underlie his peculiar nature. Rarely will the sadist exhibit his abnormality outside of the bedroom. Once again, contrary to popular notions, he is usually meek in his dealings with people. His "cruelty" comes to the fore when his need for sex arises.
Typically, the male sadist cannot have an erection unless he acts cruelly toward his mate, or imagines himself doing so. Once in the bedroom, the sadist must humiliate or harm his sex partner. For example, he may require her to strip before him, say certain words of submission, assume various postures indicative of submission or allow him to actually beat or otherwise torment her.
During this period, the sadist will often experience erection. Frequently, he will not disrobe until such times as he has become tumescent.
In the usual cases, the sadist will have normal sexual intercourse with his partner at this time, and his sadism will cease to manifest itself. There are, however, instances in which the sadistic male must continue to torment his partner during coitus.
How does such a sadist abuse his partner?
The sadist may hug his woman so tightly that he hurts her, he may bite her lips or ears, or he may actually strangle or beat her. For some sadists, this is absolutely necessary in order for the sex act to be successfully completed.
In cases that approach the extreme, the cruelty may continue after the sex act. In the extreme, the sadist-who may be a rapist-will do severe bodily injury to the victim and may even resort to murder.
At the other end of the scale is the mild sadist who merely imagines that he is hurting a woman during the time that he is having sex. His fantasy may enable him to have, and then maintain, an erection, and his partner may never even be aware of the fact that her lover is sadistic.
Psychologists refer to the sadist as the active algolagniac, and call actual hurting of the partner a manifestation of physical sadism. Mere humiliation manifests mental sadism, and when the injuring is wholly in the imagination, the abnormality is called ideal sadism.
Both sadism and masochism often manifest themselves in homosexual relationships. However, that is part of a vast and difficult topic in its own right. Although we shall mention some cases in which primarily heterosexual individuals with either sadistic or masochistic proclivities also manifested some tendency toward homosexuality or lesbianism, we shall limit our discussion chiefly to heterosexual manifestations of sadism and masochism.
Both men and women may be sadists, and the abnormality may require physical infliction of pain or merely the humiliation of the partner. As well, it may be no further advanced than such that the sadist is satisfied to merely imagine that he is inflicting pain or it may be so far advanced that he must severely injure or even kill the victim.
What is masochism?
Masochism is a psychological abnormality in which a person receives sexual gratification by being hurt or humiliated by another person, or by imagining himself to be so treated. It may be a prelude to normal coitus or it may become an end in guaranteeing orgasm. In extreme forms, it manifests itself in severe bodily harm to the individual, and may precipitate a downward personality spiral that ends with suicide.
The term is derived from Baron Leopold von Sacher-Masoch, a German novelist who exhibited the abnormality in both his novels and his life.
The causes of masochism, like the causes of sadism, are very much in doubt.
Like sadism, masochism appears in both the male and the female. Arguments exist as to whether or not masochism is merely an extension into the abnormal of the basic female need to be submissive. In that case, masochism in males would differ from that in females in that it would be a far more severe anomaly in the male. Most researchers now maintain, however, that masochism in male and female are one and the same phenomenon and are unrelated to female tendencies in the male and excessive female submissiveness in the female. The weight of clinical findings supports this view.
Whether in the male or the female, masochism (called passive algolagnia by the psychologists) can be either of the physical or mental variety. That is, the masochist may desire-or need for the sake of tumescence-either actual pain or mere humiliation. As in sadism, there is an ideal form of masochism in which the individual merely requires himself or herself to think about being tormented in order to actively take part in sex.
Male masochists are often hearty, apparently healthy physical types.
What is meant by the "masochistic personality?"
A number of psychiatrists use the expression "masochistic personality" out of the sexual context, to designate those persons who for various reasons want to assure themselves of constant hostility. But this should not be confused with psychical masochism, which presupposes an ability to achieve sexual satisfaction through self-abasement or submission to another person's will. Nobody knows whether a positive correlation exists between psychical masochism and masochistic personality.
It is true that both males and females can be sadists. A study of masochism, however, will reveal the great prevalence of men. Two explanations seem to present themselves. It is generally regarded as normal that women-to a certain degree-will sexually subjugate themselves to men, even though this may be the primary stage of an actual masochism. Secondly, women play a passive role in sex in many cases. It is therefore not necessary that they arouse themselves; masochism, if it is effectual, may be brought into play.
Masochism can be seen to be the exact counterpart of sadism. What was seen to be true about the sadist is now seen to be true in reverse about the masochist. They are ordinary people, not demons, who possess a sexual abnormality and should be thought of as such.
What can be done to help those sadomasochists who have really flipped out?
Because an understanding of causes is frequently required before cures can be affected, there seems to be no single, ready answer for an alleviation of the problems we have seen. Numerous answers have been given to the question of what causes sadism and masochism, and the issue is still very much in doubt.
If it is a fact that congenital deficiencies account for the abnormalities, hope for cures must be greatly diminished. If sadism or masochism is bound to occur in a certain individual, there is no hope for alleviation of the problem, but if congenital factors merely account for a predisposition toward one of the anomalies, then it is possible that preventive action of a psycho-therapeutic nature can be of help.
The possibility that the urges that lead to algolagnia reflect our inheritances from the lower animals suggests, as well, that there is little reason to be optimistic about a cure. If that speculation is correct, then the fundamental seeds of the abnormalities lie dormant in each of us, threatening to grow when the conditions are right. Such dark considerations usually lead to the conclusion that- unpredictably-our atavistic needs may suddenly assert themselves.
Two other theories about the cause of algolagnia give more hope for the future. If guilt feelings about the pleasures of sex are mainly responsible for sadomasochism, then a more enlightened upbringing may be a simple and effective answer. Likewise, corporal punishment may well turn out to be the necessary tonic.
More likely than any of these, however, is the answer based upon the Oedipus complex, first put forward by Freud and elaborated upon by Stekel in his Sadism and Masochism. This suggestion as to the cause of algolagnia is related to both essential factors about the psychological makeup of man and environmental factors.
The Freudian explanation of sadism and masochism is complex. It varies in exact nature according to each case, and the possibilities of cure lie in the possibilities of psychoanalysis, a long and difficult process. From the basic problems of the Oedipal relationship between children and their parents is suggested a change in our whole culture for the purpose of alleviating the neuroses that our present family arrangements create. Such proposals, however, involve overwhelmingly major cultural changes, the scope of which is not only beyond this study, but probably beyond the times in which we live.
The Freudian explanation suggests that cures will be slow, sporadic, possibly temporary, and gives more hope for specific cases in the short run than for the overall problem in the long one.
Complicating these other solutions is the consideration that sadism and masochism are basic aphrodisiacal factors that come into play in the case of some persons with relatively feeble sexual reactions that do not involve catering to the need for arousal through sadism and masochism.
When abnormal activities of any kind are required before coitus is possible, or as in more drastic cases, when such abnormal activities necessarily become a substitute for coitus, a situation exists in which a person becomes an outsider, an outcast from the society of other men.
For that reason, research into the causes and cures of algolagnia must proceed. The problem, as we have seen, is both complex and difficult. However, there is hope for the future.
